Mari Sewaki

Reproduction of Gender in Japanese Kindergarten

One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychological, or economic fate determines the figure that the human female presents in society; it is civilization as a whole that produces this creature, intermediate between male and eunuch, which is described as feminine (Beauvoir, p. 267).

I.

For decades sociologists and psychologists have testified to the construction of identities. Shigeo Mori states that, “For human beings, the ‘society’ in which we were born and the ‘people’ we have met have constructed who we are now” (pp. 132-133). This paper argues that gender constructions in early ages, especially in kindergarten, have an effect on gender roles in contemporary Japan. All translations from Japanese sources are mine.

Sara Salih, author of a book on Judith Butler, states that, “both Butler and [Simone] de Beauvoir assert that gender is a process which has neither origin nor end, so that it is something we ‘do’ rather than we ‘are’” (p. 46). “Whether it takes place before birth through an ultrasound scan, or when the infant is born,” Salih writes, “the interpellation of sex and gender occurs as soon as a person’s sex is announced—‘It’s a girl / boy!’” (p. 77). Once we’re born, or even in our mother’s stomach, we are categorized and socialized either as a boy or a girl.

Salih criticizes the idea of freedom of choice by arguing that

since you are living within the law or within a given culture, there is no sense in which your choice is entirely “free,” and it is very likely that you “choose” your metaphorical clothes to suit the expectations or perhaps the demands of your peers or your work colleagues, even if you don’t realize that you are doing so (p. 50).

In any culture some regulation binds us in some way. Especially for Japanese, who live in a culture that particularly cares about sekentei (what other people think), we are like actors in a play. We perform what other people consider as “normal.”

The question here is, what is constructing gender? Mori argues that it is “agent” that constructs gender (p. 133). Although families are among the important agents in producing gender identities, in this paper I am going to focus on kindergarten and teachers as agents acting upon the children. I would like to focus the paper on Japanese kindergarten to describe the relation between uniform restraints and the intensity of the man-woman distinction for children.

Some people might ask, “Why is the distinction between man and woman a bad thing?” Article 14 of the Constitution of Japan says “All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin” (Nihonkoku kenpô). Even though there is such a constitution, living in Japan, this equality often is not practiced. The important thing here is that these ideas of gender have permeated our selves without our noticing. At different times and in different places, we view men as “manly” and women as “womanly.” For example, table 1 shows statistics that imply the penetration of gender roles in Japanese kindergartens. In 2000 the percentage of women in the Japanese kindergarten teacher system was 94.1%, and this high percentage has not changed significantly in 48 years. The ratio of women teachers in Japanese kindergarten within each position can be seen in table 2. The percentage of women directors (enchô) is 54.8, which is low compared to the high numbers from table 1. This data clearly show the stereotype within Japanese society that “men = leader.” Surprisingly, in the ratio for teachers and nurse-teachers, the percentage is high, reaching 99.5 percent for nurse-teachers. The Japanese stereotype of women as taking care of households and as mothers is rooted deeply.

Table 1: Ratio of female kindergarten teachers

Source: Kyôinsû: shokumeibetsu [Number of teachers, categorized by profession], statistics by MEXT.

Table 2: Ratio of women in particular kindergarten positions

Source: Kyôinsû: shokumeibetsu [Number of teachers, categorized by profession], statistics by MEXT.

In Japan, most children enter kindergarten at the age of 3 and graduate at 6. According to the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), “A kindergarten is the school a child first experiences” (“Yôchientte nâni?” MEXT homepage). Since MEXT calls kindergarten a “school,” I considered kindergarten as the place where children first lead a group life. Michael Apple, Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, believes that the “osmosis of ideology is more effective when done in childhood,” and that “in school, it is more effective when done in lower grades” (paraphrased by Sato and Tanaka, p. 54). I have chosen kindergarten for my research because this period of time for human beings has a significant effect on the basis of who we become in later life.

Given time constraints, I limited my research to kindergartens that have a web site and a mail address in the twenty-three wards of Tokyo. MEXT states, “A kindergarten is also the ‘school’ based on the School Education Law. The child from 3 years old to before elementary school entrance can receive education based on a common curriculum anywhere in the country. That common curriculum is set by MEXT” (“Yôchientte nâni?” MEXT homepage). In other words, every kindergarten in Japan is controlled by MEXT, which means that results should not differ dramatically whether samples are taken from Tokyo or Osaka.

Table 3 shows the popularity of private kindergartens in Japan. In 2000, 1,402,942 children attended private kindergartens, 79.1 percent of the total number. Although the average tuition fee for a private kindergarten is about 3 times the fee for a public kindergarten (“Shûgakumae ni kakaru hiyô arekore,” homepage babycom), parents choose private kindergarten because of the relatively low number of public schools. For example, in Yokohama city, there are no public kindergartens (“Kôritsu yôchien no umu to shiritsu yôchien nyûenryôhojyo no umu,” homepage). There might be another reason that parents choose private schools, however. Since private schools in Japan are seen as an escalator to good universities, parents want their children to enter private kindergarten so that they will be able to graduate from a top university. For these and other reasons I have decided to focus this paper on private kindergartens.

Table 3: Number of children attending kindergarten

Source: Yôjisû [Number of children], statistics by MEXT.

II.

To begin my research, I sent e-mail to every kindergarten in the twenty-three wards of Tokyo that had an e-mail address, requesting a pamphlet or anything published by the school that introduces the school. The poor number of responses may be seen in table 4. Of 100 e-mails, I received only 36 responses. One of the kindergarten’s responses said, “Since we don’t check the mail so often, I am sorry for taking so long in replying to your mail.” The reasons for the few responses might include that the kindergarten does not check e-mail often, or they might not have cared about the questions I asked, or they might not want information made public. There is a strange view in Japan towards “outsiders.” To the kindergarten, I am considered an “outsider,” because I am not a graduate of the kindergarten, or I have no relation to the people there or the school authorities. In one of the responses, I was even told that they do not show pamphlets to others. I would say that if I were MEXT doing research and had sent e-mail to all the schools, I would have received more responses.

Of the 36 responses I received, I asked 28 schools if I could visit them. I received responses from 15 schools that allowed me to visit. Due to schedule differences, I was only able to visit 12. I chose those 12 kindergartens as the sample for my research.

Table 4: Response from private kindergartens in Tokyo’s 23 wards

III.

According to Yoshinori Andô in the article, “Kindaigakkô no ‘shintai kiritsu’ ni kansuru shakaigakuteki kôsatsu,”

Clothing is not just a function of controlling temperature. Clothing is a complicated text in which the morals and norms of society are woven, and that produces the way we are. Since clothes in which these morals, norms and disciplines are woven are worn everyday, they settle within us without our noticing. Uniforms that students are forced to wear, especially, hold these strong meanings (p. 71).

Since uniforms hold meanings, I chose this as a measurement of gender distinction. As Brian McVeigh points out in Wearing Ideology, “Some preschool authorities say that uniforms are convenient because preschoolers come to school with clothes not suited to play or with expensive ordinary clothes (shifuku) that are not considered necessary and cause competition” (p. 53). This might be the case in kindergarten, but it is true that all the uniforms, with the exception of physical education clothes, differ between boys and girls, and having different uniforms strongly indicates a gender distinction.

Wearing a uniform is not a natural thing to do. McVeigh says, “students are agents, and uniforms are the agency through which the official idea-institutional forces construct subjectivities” (p. 48). Since in Japan we worry about what other people think of us (sekentei), appearance matters greatly, and in Japan uniforms are for parents among the important elements in deciding which kindergarten to choose for their children.

First, to analyze the relation between uniform regulations and teacher’s distinctions between genders, I had to determine whether particular schools require a uniform or not, and if they do, in which circumstances. Since there are different types of dress-code patterns, I classified these into seven categories of occasion so as to measure the degree between uniforms and casual clothes. These categories are: 1) clothes worn at entrance ceremonies or graduation, 2) clothes worn while attending kindergarten, 3) clothes worn when playing inside kindergarten, 4) clothes worn playing outside kindergarten, 5) clothes worn during pool activities, 6) clothes worn during physical education, and 7) clothes worn at picnics or excursions.

Table 5: Uniform regulations

O = uniform required; X = causal clothes; Y = uniform or causal clothes, partial uniform, or no uniform but color of clothes specified (including smocks)

Through the use of the twelve kindergarten’s homepages, pamphlets, and visits, I determined the patterns of clothing worn on those seven occasions. Table 5 shows the levels of strictness in Pearl and Dôkanyama, Ayame and Asama, Bunkyô daigaku gakuen and Sasazuka, Uenohara and Shibuya dôhô kindergarten are equivalent. Schools that require uniforms in attending kindergarten tend to require particular bags as well. In kindergarten, clothing called a “smock” is commonly worn when children play either inside or outside, to prevent the uniform or casual clothes from getting dirty (see figure 1). Some schools have different colors of smocks for boys and girls. Edogawa futaba, Tôyô eiwa, Uenohara and Shibuya dôhô kindergarten are all Christian kindergartens. The fact that these kindergartens are free from uniforms might be because they are associated with Christianity, which in Japan is considered a religion that respects individuality.

Figure 1: Kindergarten smocks.

According to Sato and Tanaka, two types of structure exist in the reproduction of gender within kindergartens, “surface structures” (hyôsôkôzô), which are easily observed, and “hidden structures” (shinsôkôzô), which are difficult to observe. Surface structure includes uniforms, teaching materials, and lockers. Among the “hidden structures” are teachers’ views towards education, and “invisible ideologies.” Sato and Tanaka state that hidden structure prescribes surface structure (p. 54). In order to discover the surface structure within kindergartens, I simply observed during my visits. In order to discover the hidden structures, I asked teachers to respond to a questionnaire concerning gender distinctions in their teaching.

First, I sought to find the relation between uniform regulations and hidden structures, using the questionnaire from teachers (see Figure 2 in the appendix). Numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 in the questionnaire are taken from a survey done by the Research Institution on School Education and Gender Construction in Schools, of Ochanomizu University (Gakkôkyôiku to gender keisei kenkyûkai, pp. 233-234). Questions numbers 1, 2 and 6 were put in to conceal the real intention of my questionnaire, and so I will not use this data for this purpose. My assumption was that the more the uniform is regulated, the more teachers show gender bias, which leads them to make gender distinctions.

Table 6 shows the relation between uniform regulations and teachers’ gender distinction using questions 4 and 5. As you can see, there is no strong relation. For example, Dôkanyama, thought to be strict in uniforms, has a low percentage in the distinction, whereas Sasazuka, which is thought more casual on clothing, has a high percentage in the distinction among teachers. Most teachers who answered “sometimes” for question 4, which was “Would you treat a girl in a special way?,” mentioned as reasons for their response mainly the language spoken and the attitude of girls. Some teachers, in other words, have the stereotype that girls are supposed to speak quietly and to be calm at all times. Among the comments about special treatment of boys were that “When the boys cry, we would say, ‘don’t cry because you are a boy.’ Also, since boys are energetic, I would include some activities that engage their bodies.”

Table 6: Relation of uniform regulations and teachers’ distinction in the
way they treat children using Q4, “Would you treat a girl in a special way because she is a girl?,” & Q5 , “Would you treat a boy in a special way “because he is a boy?”

Table 7 addresses any relation in uniform regulations and distinctions within teachers’ as to how they want boys and girls to grow up. As you can see, the ratio of teachers wanting boys and girls to grow up differently is dispersed. We can say the same thing as with table 6, that there was no strong relation between them. According to Sato and Tanaka, “Uniforms are regulations of the school, and so they have no relation to the teachers’ intention” (pp. 61-62). For the reasons Sato and Tanaka state, I had to come to the conclusion that my initial assumptions were wrong, and I had proved that at least in my sample study there is no strong relation between strictness in uniforms and teachers’ attitudes about gender, though this may be due to my small sample.

Table 7: Relation of uniform regulations and distinction within teachers about how they want the children to grow up, using Q3, “How would you want [girl and boy] kindergarteners to grow up?”

Note: "Same" for both indicates that teachers wanted both boy and girls to grow up the same. "Different" indicates that teachers want boys and girls to grow up differently.

Next, I analyzed the relation between uniform regulations and “surface constructions”: lockers, shoe cupboards, placement to work, and teaching materials. My assumption about this relation was that the more uniform is regulated, the more teachers show distinction in gender in surface construction. Figure 3 shows an example of the distinction within placement of work done by children. Notice that the colors of the names of children are written differently, girls in red and boys in blue. As is clear in table 8, there is a relation (considering Asama kindergarten as an exception). From Pearl to Bunkyô daigaku gakuen, there are some distinctions, whereas from Sasazuka to Shibuya dôhô, there is no distinction. It can be said that my assumption was to some degree right.

Figure 3: Girls’ names in red, boys’ in blue.

Table 8: Relation between uniform regulation and surface construction

Note: 1 indicates a distinction, 0 no distinction

Since there was some relation in surface construction and uniform regulations, I divided the kindergartens into two categories, those strict in uniform (Pearl to Sasazuka) and free from uniforms (Tôyô eiwa to Shibuya dôhô). Once again, after classifying kindergartens into these two broader categories, table 9 shows the relation among uniform regulations and teacher’s gender distinctions. To some degree, we can say that there is relation, because the percentage of distinction among teachers is higher in kindergartens with strict uniform regulations than in kindergartens that do not require uniforms. We can say that some teachers in uniform-strict schools demonstrate gender bias, which then might have an effect on children.

Table 9: Relation in uniform regulations and teacher’s gender distinction towards children

Note: For “Number of teachers who answered ‘sometimes’ on Q4 or Q5,” all who said “sometimes” for both boys and girls or for only boys or only girls are included.

In addition to these data, some anecdotal data from my research may be pertinent. When I visited Bunkyô daigaku gakuen, as the class was putting ink on cut pieces of sweet potatoes and stamping them on paper (see Figure 4), a teacher said, “Boys, come in the middle and do the work.” After some time the place was crowded, which made one of the girls ask me, “Can we go in the middle too?” I answered, “Yes, of course,” but another girl said, “No, you can’t. Only the boys can, because the teacher said so.” As you can see, the distinction the teacher made had an affect on the children through dividing them into boys and girls. Obviously, to children of ages 3 to 6, what the teacher said is the law. Although in the questionnaire, teachers from this school had answered that there was not much of a gender distinction, in reality there was. One of the problems with this kind of topic in doing a questionnaire is that teachers care about sekentei (what other people think of them), which may lead them not to provide true answers. Another example suggesting that the questionnaire might not have reflected the actual situation is that these teachers might not have noticed that they are treating children through gendered-eyes. The vicious part of gender distinctions is that people make them without noticing.

Figure 4. “Boys, come in the middle and do the work.”

IV

In Japan today, stereotypes about gender roles persist. Shown in graph 1 is the poor percentage of Japanese father’s commitment to households and childcare. For decades, the Japanese stereotype of women as caring for households and taking care of children has not significantly changed. According to graph 1, men’s commitment to households and childcare in Japan is only 6 percent. In other advanced nations the figure is about eight times higher. The numbers for Japan are shameful.

Graph 1:

Source: A. Ishiguro, “Jyoseino sankado kokusai hikaku”
[Degree of women’s participation compared internationally]

I believe that gender distinction among teachers in kindergarten has an effect on the Japanese discourse of sex roles. According to Sato and Tanaka, since most of the present teachers were taught in kindergartens in which they wore uniforms, they consider uniforms “normal” and accept them. This means that teachers are sometimes publicly making a distinction between “girls” and “boys,” and as a result are contributing to the reproduction of gender (p. 63). As Sato and Tanaka argue, this contribution of teachers to the reproduction of gender leads to stereotypes of gender roles that have not changed for decades. Teachers, then, are partly responsible for the reproduction of gender distinctions.

Will we ever live in a society in which gender distinction does not exist? The answer to this question is probably “no.” The education system obviously has a major effect on us, and unless the reproduction of gender roles through education is transformed, we will have our current gender distinction forever.

Appendix, Figure 2:

Questionnaire on free education (Jiyûkyôiku)

Q1. What is “free education?” (Jiyûkyôiku)
a. To play outside freely.
b. Montessori education.
c. Education that respects individuality.
d. Other:

Q2. What do you keep in your mind when you interact with children?
a. Listen carefully to what the child says.
b. Not to favor a certain child.
c. The tone of the voice.
d. Carefully observe the child’s condition.
e. Other:

Q3. How would you want kindergarteners to grow up? (Maximum of 2 for each)

Q4. Would you treat a girl in a special way “because she is a girl?”
a. Sometimes (When? Be specific)
b. No (Can you provide a reason?)

Q5. Would you treat a boy in a special way “because he is a boy?”
a. Sometimes (When? Be specific)
b. No (Can you provide a reason?)

Q6. How would you break up the fight between two children?
a. Scold both children.
b. Listen to what each of them has to say, separately.
c. Listen to what each of them has to say, together.
d. Leave them alone until their argument is settled.
e. Other:

Q7. What is your sex?
a. Male
b. Female

Q8. What is your age?
a. 20’s
b. 30’s
c. 40’s
d. 50’s
e. 60’s
f. 70’s

Q9. How many years have you been a teacher?
() years.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Bibliography

Books

Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and Curriculum. London: Routledge and Paul.

--------. (1986). Gakkôgensô to Curriculum [Ideology and Curriculum]. Translated by M. Kadokura, M. Miyazaki & T. Uemura. Tokyo: Tokyo Editor School Shuppanbu. (Original work published 1979).

Beauvoir, S. de. (1989). The Second Sex. Ttranslated by H. M. Parshley. New York: Vintage. (Original work published 1949).

Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Translated by K.Takemura. Tokyo: Seidosha. (Original work published 1990).

McVeigh, B. J. (2000). Wearing Ideology. Oxford: Berg.

Mori, S. Yôji kyôiku to gender kôsei [Child education and gender construction]. (1995). Pp. 132-149 in Kyôiku genshô no shakaigaku [Sociology on Educational Phenomenon], edited by Y. Takeuchi & H. Tokuoka. Kyoto: Sekaishisôsha.

Salih, S. (2002). Judith Butler. London: Routledge.

Articles

Andô, Y. (1996, June). “Kindaigakkô no ‘shintai kiritsu’ ni kansuru shakaigakuteki kôsatsu” [Sociological study about ‘physical regulations’ in modern school]. Kodomo shakai kenkyû 2, 61-74.

Gakkôkyôiku to gender keisei kenkyûkai [Research Institute on School Education and Gender Construction]. (1999, March). “Gakkô kyôiku no nakano gender” [Gender in school education]. Gakkôkyôiku to gender keisei ni kansuru kenkyû, pp. 200-228, 233-234.

Sato, K., & Y., Tanaka. (2002, June). “En seikatsu ni okeru gender keisei no tajûkôzô” [Multiplex structure of gender construction in kindergarten life]. Kodomo shakai kenkyû 8, 53-64.

On-line sources

*Asama kindergarten. Retrieved on August 20, 2003.

Ayame kindergarten. Retrieved on August 26, 2003.

Bunkyodaigaku gakuen kindergarten. (2002). Retrieved on August 26, 2003.

Doukanyama kindergarten. Retrieved on August 30, 2003.

Edogawa futaba kindergarten. Retrieved on August 26, 2003.

Higashi ichinoe kindergarten. Retrieved on August 19,2003.

Ishiguro, A. Jyoseino sankado kokusai hikaku [The degree in women’s participation comparing internationally]. Retrieved on November 29, 2003.

Kamatahoiku senmongakkô fuzoku kindergarten. Retrieved on August 21, 2003.

Kôno, Y. Gakkôno nakano gender (pdf, 68 KB) [Gender in school]. Retrieved on September 2, 2003.

Kôritsu yôchien no umu to shiritsu yôchien nyûenryôhojyo no umu [Whether there are public kindergarten and whether there are subsidies in entrance fees for private kindergarten]. (Homepage of Yokohama City Board of Education). Retrieved on November 15, 2003.

*Kyôinsû: Shokumeibetsu [Number of teachers, categorized by profession]. Statistics by MEXT. Retrieved on October 2, 2003.

Monbukagakushô [The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology]. (2003). Retrieved on July 10, 2003.

Nagao, S. Osorubeshi gender free kyouiku [The fear of gender free education]. Retrieved on May 29, 2003.

Nihonkoku kempô [Constitution of Japan]. Retrieved on October 20, 2003.

Osborne, P., & L. Segal. (1993). Extracts from gender as performance: An interview with Judith Butler. Retrieved on November 20, 2003.

Pearl kindergarten. Retrieved on August 27, 2003.

Sasazuka kindergarten. Retrieved on August 25, 2003.

Shibuya dôhô kindergarten. Retrieved on August 25, 2003.

Shiritsu gakkô no goannai [Guidance on private schools]. Retrieved on August 5, 2003.

Shûgakumae ni kakaru hiyô arekore [Fees costs before elementary]. (Homepage of babycom). Retrieved November 25, 2003.

Tôkyôto Shiritsu Yôchien Rengôkai [Union Meeting for Tokyo Private Kindergarten]. (2001). Retrieved on July 21, 2003.

Tôyô eiwa kindergarten. Retrieved on August 20, 2003.

Uenohara kindergarten. Retrieved on August 26, 2003.

Yôchientte nâni? [What is kindergarten?]. (MEXT homepage). Retrieved on October 1, 2003.

*Yôjisû [Number of children]. (Statistics by MEXT). Retrieved on October 1, 2003.
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/toukei/002/002a/gif/44b.gif.

Zaidanhôjin Tôkyôto Shigaku Zaidan [Metropolitan Foundation for Private Schools]. (2000-2003). Retrieved on July 10, 2003.

*Not retrievable February 26, 2004.

Kindergarten pamphlets

Entrance guidance pamphlet for Asama kindergarten.

Entrance guidance pamphlet for Bunkyo university gakuen kindergarten.

Entrance guidance pamphlet for Dôkanyama kindergarten.

Entrance guidance pamphlet for Higashi ichinoe kindergarten.

Entrance guidance pamphlet for Kamata hoiku senmongakô fuzoku
kindergarten.

Entrance guidance pamphlet for Sasazuka kindergarten.

Entrance guidance pamphlet for Shibuya dôhô kindergarten.

Entrance guidance pamphlet for Uenohara kindergarten.