International Journal of Lifelong Education

ISSN: 0260-1370 (Print) 1464-519X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tled20

Disaster preparedness, adaptive politics and

lifelong learning: a case of Japan

Kaori Kitagawa

To cite this article: Kaori Kitagawa (2016) Disaster preparedness, adaptive politics and lifelong
learning: a case of Japan, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 35:6, 629-647, DOI:
10.1080/02601370.2016.1231230

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2016.1231230

Published online: 20 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 43

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tled20

Download by: [UCL Library Services] Date: 18 January 2017, At: 07:22
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 2016
VOL. 35, NO. 6, 629–647
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2016.1231230

Disaster preparedness, adaptive politics and lifelong learning:

a case of Japan
Kaori Kitagawa
Cass School of Education and Communities, University of East London, London, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Preparedness for disaster scenarios is progressively becoming an Disaster preparedness;
educational agenda for governments because of diversifying risks preparedness education;
and threats worldwide. In disaster-prone Japan, disaster preparedness the adaptiveness of neo-
has been a prioritised national agenda, and preparedness education liberalism; the hybrid politics;
lifelong learning in Japan
has been undertaken in both formal schooling and lifelong learning
settings. This article examines the politics behind one prevailing policy
discourse in the field of disaster preparedness referred to as ‘the four
forms of aid’ – ‘kojo [public aid]’, ‘jijo [self-help]’, ‘gojo/kyojo [mutual
aid]’. The study looks at the Japanese case, however, the significance
is global, given that neo-liberal governments are increasingly having
to deal with a range of disaster situations whether floods or terrorism,
while implementing austerity measures. Drawing on the theory of the
adaptiveness of neo-liberalism, the article sheds light on the hybridity
of the current Abe government’s politics: a ‘dominant’ neo-liberal
economic approach – public aid and self-help – and a ‘subordinate’
moral conservative agenda – mutual aid. It is argued that the four
forms of aid are an effective ‘balancing act’, and that kyojo in particular
is a powerful legitimator in the hybrid politics. The article concludes
that a lifelong and life-wide preparedness model could be developed
in Japan which has taken a social approach to lifelong learning.

1. Introduction
The number of both empirical and theoretical studies that connect ‘lifelong learning’
and ‘disaster’ are on a rise in recent years. Dahl and Millora (2016), for example, explore
university leaders’ reflective learning experiences after a super typhoon in the Philippines,
which facilitated transformative collective learning and resulted in the improvement
of universities’ disaster preparedness schemes. Preston, Chadderton, Kitagawa, and
Edmonds (2015) develop an ecological learning framework examining community
response in disasters. Drawing on international case studies, they identify navigation,
organisation and reframing as broad types of community learning in a disaster. These
studies focus on communities’ learning processes after disasters, while others discuss
‘pedagogies of preparedness’ in both formal and informal settings (Chadderto, 2015a;
Kitagawa, 2016; Preston, Avery, Chakrabarty, & Edmonds, 2011). What this article aims to

CONTACT Kaori Kitagawa [email protected]

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
630 K. Kitagawa

do is to delve into the politics of lifelong and life-wide disaster preparedness, drawing on
the case of Japan. Conceptually, the article treats preparedness broadly as ‘a pedagogical
strategy’ (Preston, 2008), which encompasses citizens’ efforts, as well as governments’ ini-
tiatives in preventing and reducing disaster impacts. ‘Preparedness’ is ‘rarely pedagogical
in a didactic sense’ (Preston, 2008, p. 469), like other synonyms such as ‘civil defence’,
‘homeland security’ and ‘civil contingency’. Consequently, these terms have allowed var-
ious ‘behavioural’,1 ‘emotional’2 and ‘cognitive’3 interpretations. Some examples of such
interpretations are introduced in the later sections.
In Japan which frequently experiences natural disasters, disaster preparedness has been
a prioritised national agenda (Cabinet Office, 2011; Kitagawa, 2015b). Preparedness edu-
cation – ‘bosai kyoiku’ in Japanese – is taught at school as part of the national curriculum
and organised as lifelong learning programmes in communities (Kitagawa, 2015b). Citizens’
awareness and interest in the community (re)building through disaster volunteering rose
dramatically after the Hanshin/Awaji Earthquake of 1995. The expansion of voluntary activ-
ities contributed to the development of Japan’s social or cultural model of lifelong learning
(Ogawa, 2015; Okumoto (Kitagawa), 2010; Okumoto (Kitagawa), 2008). An emphasis on
social considerations has been regarded as a specific feature of lifelong learning in Japan
(Maruyama, 2009; Ogawa, 2005, 2015; Ogden, 2010; Okumoto (Kitagawa), 2008, 2010).
There is a policy framework that has been widely utilised as preparedness strategies
in Japan, particularly since the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of 2011, and
that is, the four forms of aid: ‘kojo [public aid]’, ‘jijo [self-help]’, ‘gojo [mutual aid in the
neighbourhood], ‘kyojo [mutual aid between strangers]’. This article offers a theoretical
and political understanding of this discourse, drawing on the theory of the adaptiveness
of neo-liberalism4 (Hall, 2005; Spours, 2015). Neo-liberal governments are facing new and
complex challenges (e.g. Ogawa, 2015; Spours, 2015). On one hand, they have responsibil-
ities to prepare for diversifying risks and threats within austerity budgets, and on the other
hand, their ideology must appeal to as wider populations as possible to stay in Office. As
Ogawa (2015, p. 18) states, neo-liberal governments innovatively distribute the ‘responsi-
bility between the state and the individual’, employing ‘risk’ in ‘various technologies’. The
promotion of lifelong learning being one of them. The governments hence operate adap-
tive strategies which allow them to spread responsibilities and mobilise resources. This
study aims to demonstrate how the current Abe Administration of Japan has adapted neo-
liberalism. The study looks at the Japanese case, however, the significance is global, given
that states are increasingly having to deal with a range of disaster situations.
Such ‘adaptive character’ (Spours, 2015, p. 15) of neo-liberalism is manifested as what Hall
(2005) refers to as ‘double shuffle’. Analysing the New Labour programme led by Tony Blair
who came to Office in 1997 in the UK, Hall (2005, p. 329) indicates that its double shuffle
comprised ‘the neo-liberal’ which held ‘the dominant position’ and ‘the social democratic’
that was ‘subordinate’. Following Hall, Spours (2015) demonstrates the ‘Conservative version’
of double shuffle in reference to ‘Conservative hegemony’ derived from their election victory
in May 2015. He argues that Prime Minister (PM) Cameron and Chancellor Osborne are
utilising the double shuffle of ‘a dominant neo-Thatcherite economic and political approach’
and ‘a subordinate social liberal agenda’ (Spours, 2015; p. 5). Building on Gramsci’s concept
of ‘transformism’, both Hall and Spours stress that such hybridity is not ‘a static formation
but the process’, and that ‘the latter social democratic party always remains subordinate
to and dependent on the former dominant one and is constantly being ‘transformed’ into
 International Journal of Lifelong Education 631

it’ (Hall, 2005, p. 329). Applying the notion of double shuffle, this study examines the two
seemingly divergent discourses in the politics of PM Abe: rebuilding ‘a strong nation’ based
on neo-liberal socio-economic reforms, and ‘beautiful Japan’ promoted through the resto-
ration of traditional and patriotic values.
Methodologically, data collection and analysis were arranged to examine the discourses
of the four forms of aid in the following way. ‘Discourse’ is used as a generic term to mean
‘text and talk’ as defined by Van Dijk (2002). First, existing academic literature and research
in the fields of disaster or crisis politics, disaster management and preparedness, neo-
liberalism and neo-conservatism and the four forms of aid were carefully interrogated to
gain an understanding of the key issues and debates relevant to the focus of this article. With
regards to laws, policies and practice of disaster management and preparedness, the Japanese
government’s educational approach being ‘overt’ (Preston, Chadderton, & Kitagawa, 2014),
information is made available to the public via official websites. This study made use of it.
To supplement the above data made available to the public, semi-structured interviews
were conducted with three experts: a policy-maker,5 an academic6 and a journalist.7 Their
identities are anonymised as ‘a policy maker’, ‘an academic’ and ‘a journalist’ in quoting them
in this article. In addition, conference papers (e.g. Chadderton, 2015b; Murosaki, 2013) and
general articles (e.g. Yamori, 2012b) were also used to fill any gaps. The collected data were
analysed to construct the core narratives of the five sections of the article.
The article is structured in the following way. After reviewing the development of the four
forms of aid, the first section looks at the current policy framework for disaster management
and preparedness education. This is followed by a discussion on the adaptive nature of
neo-liberalism, and how it is manifested in the current Abe Administration’s hybrid politics.
It is argued that a ‘double shuffle’ can be identified: a dominant neo-liberal economic agenda
and a subordinate moral conservative assertion. The article then turns to an examination
of each form of aid. The key examples of policies and initiatives as pedagogical strategies
are analysed with reference to the framework of the neo-liberal/neo-conservative hybrid
approach. The argument here is that in the area of disaster preparedness, the four forms
of aid utilised as pedagogical strategies legitimise the hybrid politics of the current gov-
ernment. Focusing on one of the forms, kyojo, the fifth section delves into the unique dual
role that it entails and its implications for lifelong learning. Kyojo in particular is the most
important ‘balancing act’ (Hall, 2005) that mediates the differences within the hybridity. In
disaster-prone countries like Japan, disaster preparedness is a major lifelong learning agenda,
and developing lifelong and life-wide approaches to disaster preparedness is a necessity.
The article concludes with an account of the relationship between the kyojo-preparedness
model and the building of a lifelong learning society.

2. The four forms of aid as a policy framework for preparedness education

Kojo, jijo, gojo and kyojo have a common word ‘jo’ at the end, which means ‘aid’. Kojo is the
public aid provided by the central, prefectural and municipal governments. Jijo is self-help,
which is closely connected with the notion of individual responsibility. Both gojo and kyojo
refer to mutual help, often being understood as synonyms. However, there is an important
difference between gojo and kyojo: the former is help between people you know, within
the community you live in and amongst friends, family and relatives; whereas the latter is
‘philanthropic’ or ‘humanistic’ aid towards someone whom you do not necessarily know,
632 K. Kitagawa

which can be in a form of volunteering and charitable activities (An academic, 2013). It
should be noted that the government and also a number of other stakeholders refer to the
framework of kojo, jijo and kyojo rather than the one which differentiate gojo and kyojo.
The significance of the difference between the two will be discussed later.
The four forms of aid are not new, but how they originated is not entirely clear. They were
already applied in the field of health and welfare policy, prior to entering into the disaster
policy domain, which was after the Hanshin/Awaji Earthquake of 1995. There were two
major drivers for this. The first is environmental. After the earthquake, a shared understand-
ing developed that the damage from a natural disaster can be reduced, even if the disaster
itself cannot be stopped. The goal was set by the Cabinet Office (2011) in 2003 to reduce
damage by 50% in the case of a large-scale earthquake. As evidenced by the Tohoku disaster
in 2011, the country has entered into a quake-active period, and the existing preparedness
schemes – both formal and informal – were challenged by it (Kitagawa, 2015b). Similar-scale
earthquakes are predicted to strike different parts of Japan in the coming 30 years,8 and
policy-makers and experts started to search for a more convincing paradigm. The focus here
is the preparedness for natural disaster, but the subsequent Fukushima nuclear plant disaster
also raised questions about the preparedness for man-made disaster. The aftermath of the
triple disaster has been well documented in, for example, Hasegawa (2015), Gill, Steger, and
Slater (2013), Kingston (2012) and Samuels (2013), which report victims’ and communities’
diverse responses to the earthquake and the tsunami, which are natural disasters, and the
nuclear disaster, which is man-made. One of the common themes amongst those studies
seems to be that Japanese leaders have chosen not to change despite a range of opportuni-
ties and choices after the disaster of such magnitude. This theme will be revisited later in
the article. Not only earthquakes, but other natural hazards such as volcano eruptions and
torrential rains have also been a serious concern in Japan (Kitagawa, 2015a).9 Thus, there
is urgency and necessity across Japan to improve preparedness for mega disasters which
are predicted (Preston et al., 2014). The reinforcement of the four forms of aid is perceived
to increase preparedness for future disasters.
The second driver is financial. Shrinking kojo [public aid] has had an impact on approaches
to disaster management. Since the Bubble Economy burst of 1991, the role of the govern-
ment has changed, and spending cuts have become a norm in public services (National
Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, n. d.). Both the central and local governments began
emphasising civic participation, as well as devolved governance. An understanding that the
way to maintain the same quality and quantity of the administration is by coproduction
[kyodo] between the government and the community has developed (Hashimoto, n. d.).
Such discourse led to the development of the ‘New Public Commons [atarashii kokyo]’
policy in the late 2000s (Ogawa, 2015), which refers to ‘mutual support’ amongst citizens,
not-for-profit organisations and businesses in providing public services, including ‘educa-
tion, childcare, community development, nursing care and welfare services’ (Cabinet Office,
2014b). The field of disaster management was no exception, joined-up working amongst
various stakeholders being promoted.
With this background, the four forms of aid are now stressed as the principle approach
to disaster management in the Basic Disaster Management Plan, which is the paramount
plan issued by the Central Disaster Management Council10:
A natural disaster can happen whenever and wherever … kojo provided by the public admin-
istration, jijo based on self-awareness and kyojo of local communities are all equally necessary.
 International Journal of Lifelong Education 633

This is a long-term national campaign for everyday disaster reduction, which is participated and
invested by various stakeholders in the society, including individuals, families, communities,
businesses and government bodies (Central Disaster Council, 2012, p. 7).
The basic system and policy framework for disaster management has remained unchanged
during the post-war period (Kitagawa, 2015b), but recent revisions have addressed the four
forms of aid, particularly kyojo, in promoting ‘coproduction’, ‘collaboration’, ‘co-operation’
and ‘network’.
The other documentation enforced by the Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act was the
White Paper on Disaster Management [bosai hakusho].11 Similarly in recent White Papers,
an emphasis on kyojo can be identified. For example, the 2014 version focused on the theme
of ‘how to strengthen local preparedness through kyojo [kyojo ni yoru chiikibosairyoku no
kyoka]’. Reflecting on the experience of the Tohoku disaster, the White Paper concluded that:
‘the limitation of kojo’ has become clear because it is impossible for the public administration
to offer immediate help to all victims … It is necessary to effectively utilise ‘soft power’ of local
communities through jijo and kyojo in order to reduce the damage predicted by forthcoming
large-scale disasters (Cabinet Office, 2014a, p. 11).
The White Paper goes on to indicate three strategies in developing such ‘soft power’. The
first is to integrate disaster preparedness activities into general community activities. This
approach has been increasingly emphasised in Japan. Another strategy is joined-up working
between community members and the municipal government. The role of local businesses
is emphasised as well in building networks and collaboration between the business sector
and community members.
In short, self-help and mutual aid in supplementing shrinking public aid has thus become
a new coping mechanism for disaster scenarios. A clear division has been built: kojo serves
critical mass, and kyojo responds to specific needs (Murosaki, 2013). As the above analysis
has identified, the preparedness policy framework of the four forms of aid entails both
neo-liberal principles – individual responsibility – and neo-conservative values – collabo-
ration and community. This hybridity is significant in the current Abe government’s politics,
which is the topic of the next section.

3. Adaptive neo-liberalism and the hybrid politics of PM Abe

This section suggests that capitalist governments appear to adopt neo-liberalism and adapt
it to fit into their purposes. The adaptiveness of neo-liberalism allows different forms, and
this is to be demonstrated by the case of Japan. It is also suggested that a similar ‘double
shuffle’ can be identified with the hybrid politics of PM Abe: a dominant neo-liberal eco-
nomic agenda and a subordinate moral conservative assertion. It should be stressed that
in comparison with neo-conservatism in Anglo-Saxon countries, the Japanese version has
been strongly associated with moral education in which ‘the spirit of Japanese’ is taught
(Rear & Jones, 2013; Okumoto (Kitagawa), 2010; Okamoto, 2001). This article therefore
refers to the Japanese version of neo-conservativism, ‘moral conservatism’, borrowing Rear
and Jones (2013) term.
In Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party embarked on implementing neo-liberal reforms
since the late 1980s, promoting deregulation and privatisation (Kingston, 2011). In fact, it
was when ‘lifelong learning’ was also first introduced into the educational policy domain
(Okumoto (Kitagawa), 2010). Under lifelong learning initiatives, ‘individuals are expected
634 K. Kitagawa

to be autonomous, self-responsible, prudent subjects who rationally weigh the pros and
cons of choices (Ogawa, 2015, p. 18)’. ‘Individuality’ and ‘ability [noryoku]’ were central
to the neo-liberal conception, with a strong pressure from the Japan Business Federation
[Keidanren] which has been influential in educational policy-making.12 ‘Individuality’
intends to foster self-governing and self-directed individuals who are able to take respon-
sibility for themselves. ‘Ability’, on the other hand, has a ‘skill connotation’ (Rear & Jones,
2013, p. 383), which is often associated with the term ‘creativity [sozosei]’. This can be
identified in, for example, one of the PM’s speeches: ‘As we look to the twenty-first century,
we will continue to pursue a policy stressing individuality and creativity (Hashimoto cited
in Rear & Jones, 2013, p. 383).’ The following is an extract from the 2002 education white
paper, which includes a number of neo-liberal terminologies:
One of the main pillars of the educational reforms is the ‘principle of respect for individual-
ity’ (kosei jushi) and … reforms to promote individualisation and diversification are being
implemented. However, since Japanese society is strongly oriented to homogeneity, lock-step
mentality, school education was apt to place too much emphasis on conformity. It is necessary
to provide well-tailored education so that each and every child can develop his or her indi-
viduality and ability, while flexibly and proactively responding to social changes (MEXT 2002
cited in Rear & Jones, 2013, p. 382).
Under PM Koizumi (2001–6), increased risks and disparities prevailed in society produc-
ing ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ (Fujita, 2006, 2014; Kingston, 2011; Otake & Ohara, 2009). Koizumi
pursued neo-liberal reforms without hesitation, which was often shown in his statements
such as, ‘widening [economic] disparity is not necessarily a bad thing … Japanese society
cannot develop unless the population refrain themselves from being jealous of successful
people or getting in the way of talented people’s way’ (Cited in Otake & Ohara, 2009, p. 256).
Although inequalities did not start in Koizumi’s period, they became more recognisable in
people’s livelihood being addressed by the media and opposition parties (Kingston, 2011;
Ogawa, 2015). This was also supported by research evidence. Otake and Ohara (2009), for
example, examined the shift in the Gini index since the 1980s and argued that the 2000s
experienced an increase of income disparity, particularly amongst young people largely
due to the decrease in the number of permanent fulltime employment. OECD’s economic
survey on Japan in 2006 concluded that one of the major challenges that the country was
facing was how to address ‘emerging concern about income distribution and poverty while
containing the growth of government spending’, and also ‘rising income inequality and the
increasing proportion of the population in relative poverty threaten to weaken the consensus
for further economic reforms’ (OECD, 2006, p. 11).
When Abe became PM for the first time in 2006, he continued Koizumi’s neo-liberal
reforms, but with a stronger emphasis on neo-conservative values to tackle the economic
inequality developed during the time of Koizumi. The solution to the problem for Abe was
to combine neo-liberal economic policies with patriotic and traditional values (Rear & Jones,
2013). Abe was proactive in campaigning for his vision through publications such as Towards
a Beautiful Nation [utsukushii kuni e] (Abe, 2006). One of the most controversial reforms
undertaken by Abe was the revision of the 1947 Fundamental Law of Education in 2006.
His argument was that Japan would require a shift from ‘the post-war regime’ and return to
patriotic and traditional values (Rear & Jones, 2013; p. 384). In the revised version of the law
(MEXT, 2006), both neo-liberal notions such as ‘ability’, ‘creativity’, ‘voluntary participation
in civic activities [kokyo no seishin]’13 and ‘self-discipline [jiritsu]’, and moral conservative
 International Journal of Lifelong Education 635

phrases including ‘moral standards [dotokushin]’, ‘respect towards tradition and culture
[dento to bunka o soncho]’ and ‘affection towards our nation and land [wagakuni to kyodo
o aisuru]’ were inserted. Thus, the ‘fundamental’ of education was amended to integrate the
two ‘seemingly contradictory’ perspectives. The hybrid approach has now become a law.
Traditional and moral values have been taught through ‘student guidance’ and ‘career
guidance’ (Yukawa, 2013), and in ‘moral education’ – a new subject introduced in the
national curriculum which is due to become compulsory from 2018/19 (MEXT, 2015).14
Moral conservative emphasis can also be identified in the concept, ‘kokoro [heart]’. It is
‘an example par excellence of the Japanese ethos’ (Befu, 2001 cited in Rear & Jones, 2013,
p. 384), which appears often in education policy, referring to ‘the spirit of Japanese’ that
stresses morality and ethics. ‘The Notebook for the Heart [kokoro no noto]’ (renamed to
‘Our Morals and Ethics [watashitachi no dotoku]’ in 2014) is a learning material created by
the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), which has
been distributed to elementary and junior high schools across Japan.
Rear and Jones (2013) research confirmed that the hybridity is more evident in edu-
cational policy materials after the 2006 revision of the Fundamental Law of Education.
Investigating major policy documents from MEXT, speeches given by prime ministers and
major reports issued by the Japan Business Federation in the period between 2001 and 2010,
the researchers identify both the language of ‘individual-centered neoliberalism’ represented
by ‘individuality [kosei]’, ‘creativity’ and ‘self-reliance’, and the language of ‘group-centered
moral conservatism’ emphasising ‘collectivism’, ‘tradition’ and ‘self-sacrifice’. The overall
finding is that neo-liberal language has been apparent in the materials throughout, while
moral conservative language has increasingly been visible since the second half of the 2000s.
When PM Abe returned to office in 2012 after the three-year rule of the Democratic
Party of Japan, he had clearer hybrid reform plans to revive ‘strong’ and ‘beautiful’ Japan,
positioning education reform entitled ‘Education Rebuilding [kyoiku saisei]’ as one of the
prioritised agendas. One of the first subjects discussed in the reform council was the imple-
mentation of compulsory moral education which PM Abe originally referred to as ‘patri-
otic education’. Along with such moral conservative measures, PM Abe has strengthened
neo-liberal initiatives, including a national academic ability test, merger and abolition of
schools, school evaluation and parental choice. Research has warned that the ‘seemingly
contradictory’ (Apple, 2004, 15) nature of such hybridisation could confuse the population
as to what the government’s educational visions and goals are (e.g. Mori 2008, cited in Rear
& Jones, 2013; Takeshima, 2011; Yukawa, 2013; ).
The above analysis has highlighted hybridisation represented in the recent educational
policies, and also, PM Abe’s increased emphasis on moral conservative values. His reform
programme has received a range of critiques, from which an argument can be drawn that
the hybridity involves ‘double shuffle’, as follows. One of the leading economists Tachibanaki
(2010) criticises PM Abe’s excessive focus on neo-liberal market competition and self-help,
which is likely to stratify educational provision and increase income disparity in society.
One of the leading political scientists Watanabe (2007) condemns PM Abe’s convenient
and ‘indecent’ approach to neo-conservatism installed as a facade for neo-liberal economic
reform. Kimata’s (2012) term is ‘recycled fascism’, which refers to the manipulative state
control undertaken on the basis of neo-liberal principles of marketisation and individualis-
ation, supported by moral conservative educational initiatives. These perspectives indicate
that the Japanese version of double shuffle comprises neo-liberal socio-economic reform as
636 K. Kitagawa

dominant, and moral conservative agenda as subordinate. Thus, the case of Japan reinforces
the adaptiveness of neo-liberalism.

4. The four forms of aid as hybrid preparedness strategies

Moving on to the field of disaster preparedness, the focus here is to discuss how the hybridity
of neo-liberal/moral conservative principles and the double shuffle of dominant/subordinate
positions are translated into the discourse of the four forms of aid. Each form contains many
examples of policies, initiatives and campaigns from formal schooling, public pedagogy
and informal learning, suggesting its use as a pedagogical strategy in disaster contexts to
promote particular ways of being a member of Japanese society.

(1) Shrinking kojo [public aid]

Following the Basic Disaster Management Plan, prefectural and municipal councils are
required to design their Regional Disaster Management Plans taking their specific risks
and needs into consideration. The Basic Plan also designates 24 government15 organisations
and 56 public corporations16 to design their own Disaster Management Operation Plans for
emergency situations (Cabinet Office, 2011, p. 8). Those regional and organisational plans set
out protocols and arrangements as well as areas of responsibilities within the institution in
case of an emergency. In each plan, preparedness activities have to be defined and planned,
responding to the needs of the region and/or the organisation. The operation plan of MEXT,
for example, details information, advice and guidance (IAG) to individual schools for them
to develop their own manuals on disaster drills and operation as evacuation centres. MEXT
also provides IAG on the curricula of disaster education undertaken at school, which aims to
foster in pupils’ self-protection skills, the ethos of respect towards human life and voluntary
spirit. Disaster education is for school staff as well for them to gain scientific knowledge on
disasters, and the skills for First Aid and counselling.
In terms of school curricula, the Course of Study (national curriculum) regulates ‘Safety
Education [anzen kyoiku]’, which is a multi-hazard approach that addresses school’s pre-
paredness for various hazards ranging from traffic accidents to natural disasters (Kitagawa,
2015b; a policy-maker, 2013). In the 2011 New Course of Study, ‘enrichment of Safety
Education’ (MEXT, 2013a) was for the first time included as one of the foci. In addition
to disaster drills which have already been in place in schools, individual schools are now
obliged to implement suitable safety initiatives. MEXT has produced the latest edition of a
guideline in 2013, reflecting the lessons learned from the experiences of the 2011 earthquake
and tsunami (MEXT, 2013b). Safety Education in schools has been reinforced, aiming to
foster in pupils the ability to protect themselves – jijo – and to support each other to reduce
damage – kyojo (MEXT, 2012). In this way, the public aid by the ministry of education
promotes jijo and kyojo.
Outside of the school curriculum, more broadly, a range of IAG, including disaster-
related laws and policies, educational materials and event information are made available to
the public via government websites. In memory of the 1923 Kanto Earthquake which killed
more than 100,000 in Tokyo, 1 September is officially established as ‘Disaster Prevention
Day [bosai no hi]’, and the week commencing 30 August as ‘Disaster Prevention Week [bosai
 International Journal of Lifelong Education 637

shukan]’ (Statistics Bureau, 2010), during which awareness-raising events and practical
training drills are implemented at the national, prefectural and municipal levels.
Pedagogically, thus, the kojo approach to disaster preparedness has been overt (Preston
et al., 2014) and diverse. Neo-liberal governments’ austerity measures have exacerbated ‘the
limitation of kojo’, which has led to the stress on self-help and mutual help.

(2) Taken-for-granted jijo [self-help]

Self-taught coping strategies have been passed down from generation to generation in
Japan that has severe natural environments. A number of old sayings such as ‘if you are
prepared, you don’t have to worry [sonae areba urei nashi]’ and ‘a natural disaster strikes
you when you have forgotten about it [saigai wa wasureta koro ni yattekuru]’ are taught at
home and school to remind you of the importance of being prepared. Certain regions have
developed their own lessons in response to the specific disaster they are prone to. ‘Tsunami
tendenko’ in the Tohoku region is one of them, which has become familiar across Japan
after the 3.11 tsunami. The dialect is a practical survival strategy for tsunami meaning, ‘if
you see a tsunami approaching, run towards a higher ground on your own, do not rely on
anyone else, do not worry about others including your family and friends’.17 A tsunami
expert, Yamashita, originally spread the phrase to advocate self-protection (Murashima,
2011; Saito, 2011; Yamori, 2012a). In fact, ‘the miracle of Kamaishi [Kamaishi no kiseki]’
proved the effectiveness of tsunami tendenko after the tsunami of 2011. All pupils from
Kamaishi Elementary School, who had been taught tsunami tendenko and trained to protect
themselves in case of a tsunami, survived. Kamaishi has been compared with other schools
in the region that lost many pupils after the tsunami because they did not make their own
decision to escape (Yamori, 2012a). ‘The miracle of Kamaishi’ was reported widely through
the media and discussed amongst policy-makers and experts, and the effectiveness of self-
help has been re-evaluated and re-emphasised (a journalist, 2013).
The notion of ‘self ’ is often extended to mean individual families and institutions, as well
as individual citizens. The population is highly aware that each household or workplace
should have First Aid, ‘an emergency bag’ and a stock of water and food, and also that sta-
bilising the furniture and preventing glasses from scattering can save family and colleagues.
Organisations are increasingly addressing disaster preparedness agendas in their Business
Continuity Plans (Aota, Hokugo, & Murosaki, 2008). The culture of preparing – ‘sonae’ in
Japanese – is very much embedded in everyday life, although whether individuals actually
implement them or not is another matter. With an emphasis on individual responsibilities,
jijo is an explicitly ‘neo-liberal’ notion.

(3) Gojo [mutual aid in the neighbourhood] to be maintained

In tandem with jijo, the importance of helping each other in the local neighbourhood in
times of difficulty has been emphasised in Japan, as expressed in sayings such as ‘(have good
relationships with) your neighbours up to three doors away [muko sangen ryodonari]’. The
nature of the neighbourhood has changed during the post-war period, particularly in urban
cities, due to the declining birth rate, an ageing population and diversifying life styles. Despite
such change, there has been a shared understanding in the country that neighbourhood
638 K. Kitagawa

plays an integral part in disaster preparedness (Fire and Disaster Management Agency
(FDMA), 2013, p. 3).
Voluntary Disaster Prevention Organisations (VDPOs) [jishu bosai soshiki] which pro-
mote voluntary cooperation in the local neighbourhood in emergency situations is one of
the important components of gojo. VDPOs are stipulated in the Disaster Countermeasures
Basic Act (e-Gov, 2013a), and guided by the Disaster Management Basic Plan (Central
Disaster Council, 2012) and further elaborated in Regional Disaster Management Plans to
meet regional needs. But organisations and activities of VDPOs should be considered as
gojo as they are left to be decided by community members. VDPOs can therefore be seen as
a kojo-and-gojo setup. Most of the wards in Japanese cities and towns have a VDPO, which
tends to be led by retired firemen (Sugiura, 2010, pp. 74–76).18 It is the local fire brigade
that carries out initial measures, and VDPO members’ role is to assist them. If the disaster
is large-scale or happens in a small town, the role of the VDPO becomes critical in saving
the community.
Other forms of gojo groups include Neighbourhood Associations [chonaikai] (Paton,
Okada, & Sagala, 2013) and Fire Control Clubs [bosai kurabu]. The latter stemmed from
the fact that most of the fire incidents occurred at home, and FDMA called for forming
citizens’ groups for fire control in 1975. Most municipalities have such clubs, which in some
cases, have developed into multi-purpose community groups promoting neighbourhood
disaster preparedness (FDMA, 2013).
An academic (2013) indicates that mutual help used to be in the form of gojo – coopera-
tion between the people who know each other in the neighbourhood. ‘A sense of belonging’
matters in Japanese society, and people feel comfortable helping each other within own
community. Thus, gojo can be regarded as a moral conservative notion. Gojo is a support
mechanism developed amongst ‘insiders’, whereas kyojo is a cooperation in a wider context
which involves ‘outsiders’ whom you do not necessarily know.

(4) Kyojo [mutual aid between unfamiliar persons] to be developed further

Kyojo being a much more complex concept than ‘mutual aid’ has been addressed by some
researchers (e.g. Yamori, 2011; Yamori et al., 2011).19 Kyojo differs from gojo because of kyo-
jo’s ‘philanthropic and humanistic’ nature. Building on this view, this section further suggests
that kyojo on the one hand, has a meaning of coproduction, cooperation or joined-up work-
ing between unfamiliar persons and/or institutions, but on the other hand, kyojo implicitly
promotes individuals’ participation in volunteering activities. The former type of kyojo
is not necessarily associated with the philanthropic or humanistic nature of the aid. One
example is a range of preparedness workshops organised by government agencies, local
governments and disaster experts. The Japan Meteorological Agency (2016), for instance,
offers a workshop called ‘What to do if you experience torrential rain’ to communities
which are likely to be hit by heavy rain and typhoons. The workshop procedure as well as
the benefits of the workshop have been summarised as a guidance book, which has been
distributed to schools across the country for them to apply in their preparedness lessons.
Another example is in relation to the ‘Stranded Commuters Measures Ordinance’ intro-
duced after the Tohoku disaster when a large number of commuters were stuck in the City
of Tokyo not being able to go home due to transport disruption. Municipal governments
and various businesses are working together to plan ahead so as to minimise the impact
 International Journal of Lifelong Education 639

on commuters in case a similar disaster occurs again (Tokyo Metropolitan Government,

Bureau of General Affairs, 2016). Although it may not be an explicitly shared view amongst
policy-makers and academics, research and development could also be considered as this
form of kyojo, given that research centres – whether as a quango, a not-for-profit organi-
sation, or a university faculty – promote collaboration and partnerships.20 Joint research
teams undertake educational projects, aiming to help foster preparedness and resilience
in a target group of the population. Focusing on teamwork and partnerships, this type of
kyojo emphasises collective and group-centred principles.
The latter type of kyojo tends to be linked with the philanthropic or humanistic nature
of the aid. Historically, philanthropic aid in time of a disaster was provided by institutions
such as the Red Cross, religious groups and trade unions, and neighbourhood support was
provided by aforementioned VDPOs and Neighbourhood Associations. The trigger was
the Hanshin/Awaji Earthquake of 1995 when the population’s interest in philanthropic and
humanistic activities in disaster contexts emerged (Murosaki, 2013; Okumoto (Kitagawa),
2010). For this, 1995 has been referred to as ‘the start year of volunteering’ in Japan, vol-
unteering being treated as one of the major lifelong learning activities. As the participa-
tion number in volunteering grew in subsequent disasters, a not-for-profit independent
organisation called the Council of Social Welfare [shakai fukushi kyogikai] (2008) came to
organise training, develop guidelines to professionalise the role and promote a culture of vol-
unteering at national, prefectural and municipal levels. ‘Disaster volunteer [saigai borantia]/
disaster reduction volunteer [bosai borantia]’ became the titles to refer to the workers who
offer their time, skills and expertise in all phases of the disaster cycle. As a new pedagogy
widely promoted for disaster preparedness, volunteering contributed to the development
of lifelong learning in Japan (Okumoto (Kitagawa), 2010, 2008). Ogawa (2015) links this
movement with a ‘new’ neo-liberal notion of the New Public Commons, which promotes
becoming ‘good citizens’ through ‘voluntary participation’ for the improvement of society.
He argues that ‘against the backdrop of the deepening socioeconomic nationwide divide …
the Japanese neoliberal state has attempted to manage the risk of governing society by the
introduction of a strong lifelong learning initiative’ (Ogawa, 2015, p. 19), which is in fact,
the New Public Commons policy.
The 2011 Tohoku experience challenged such positive perception on the effectiveness of
volunteering. First, the scale of the damage – 450,000 evacuees, 2500 evacuation centres,
100,000 evacuated outside of the region – meant a far larger number of volunteers were
required compared with previous disasters. Second, a long-term aid was required because
many people lost houses, lands, jobs, literally everything. The recovery process started step
by step, ‘with volunteering and community learning of an incremental nature’ (Preston
et al., 2015, p. 745). Third, volunteers with diverse expertise were needed because a number
of government offices and public facilities were destroyed.21 A challenge was identified on the
recipient side as well. Some victims refused to receive help and support because of a sense
of a shame (an academic, 2013; a journalist, 2013). Such issues and challenges revealed that
the culture of philanthropy had not yet fully developed in Japan, even though the number
of participants in voluntary activities had dramatically increased. Experts such as Murosaki
(2013) and Kawato, Pekkanen, and Tsujinaka (2012) have since advocated that building
a culture of philanthropy that enhances disaster preparedness to develop civil society is
the way forward. This approach to preparedness is described as kyojo, which emphasises
individual responsibilities and civic participation.
640 K. Kitagawa

To sum up, kojo and jijo are a dominant neo-liberal notion, and gojo and kyojo are a
subordinate moral conservative approach. However, the Japanese version of ‘double shuffle’
is not simply two-sided because of the duality of the concept ‘kyojo’ described above. Kyojo
has been promoted without its duality being clarified in the field of disaster management.
It permits both neo-liberal and moral conservative interpretations. It also endorses lifelong
learning from New Public Commons perspectives which emphasises voluntary participa-
tion, community activities and social action – this argument is elaborated next.

5. The role of lifelong learning in building a kyojo-based civil society

Besides the environmental and socio-economic driving forces, the current Abe
Administration has a political motivation in promoting kyojo and positions it as the pillar
of PM’s ‘revitalisation strategy’s (Prime Minister’s Office & His Cabinet’s, 2013):
it is vital to develop policy which has a balance between jijo, kojo and kyojo. Jijo should be
taken for granted. Kojo is limited due to financial restriction … In order to develop a vibrant
society, citizens are required to proactively engage in civic activities with the spirit of kyojo
(Cabinet Office, 2013, p. 1).
Disaster preparedness is considered as one of the key areas of civic responsibilities,
and the importance of maximising the potential of ‘diverse actors’ – local governments,
non-governmental organisations, charities, businesses and citizens – is stressed. In com-
parison with the New Public Commons policy where ‘mutual support’ was promoted, what
the quote illustrates appears to be an increase in the tone of ‘participation by all’ in building
civil society.
The three forms of aid – not four – are applied to legitimise first, the significance of jijo
and kyojo to cover shrinking kojo, and second, neo-liberal principles of individual choice
and self-responsibilities through an emphasis on jijo – self-help, and moral conservative
values of collaboration, joined-up working and civic participation through kyojo – mutual
aid. These forms of aid suit the Abe Administration’s ideological stance which is the double
shuffle of dominant neo-liberalism and subordinate moral conservatism. Kyojo legitimises
the coexistence of neo-liberalism and moral conservatism within the Abe Administration’s
politics because the concept’s duality signifies both ideologies simultaneously. Playing the
role of the ‘balancing act’ (Hall, 2005, p. 329), kyojo is perceived to be the solution to
the contradiction within the hybridity of neo-liberal and moral conservative perspectives.
Kyojo thus mediates the dominant and the subordinate of the double shuffle, which leads
to suggest the Japanese double shuffle differs from that of the UK versions identified by
Hall and Spours.
The government claims that kyojo-based preparedness supports the building of civil
society. The role of lifelong learning in this is highly significant because Japan does not
have a choice but to build prepared and resilient communities to cope with frequent nat-
ural disasters. Looking back at the historical development of lifelong learning in Japan, it
was in the late 1980s when the government first introduced ‘lifelong learning’ as an edu-
cational policy, aiming to transform ‘the credential society’ to ‘a lifelong learning society’
(Okumoto (Kitagawa), 2010). Experiencing a range of upheavals in the 1990s, including the
1995 earthquake, Japan developed a social model of lifelong learning, volunteering being
one of the major learning activities. With this basis, three decades on, Japan seems to be
facing an opportunity to further a lifelong learning society in which disaster preparedness
 International Journal of Lifelong Education 641

is embedded. This is echoed by some disaster experts (Preston, 2012b; Shiroshita, 2010;
Yamori et al., 2011), who promote the notion of ‘everyday life preparedness [seikatsu bosai]’,
which indicates lifelong and life-wide preparedness activities that suit the individual’s and
the community’s needs. Empirical studies are required in testing whether everyday life
preparedness is a form of kyojo approaches, and whether it assists interconnectedness,
collaboration and cohesion through civic participation and preparedness activities.

6. Conclusion
Capitalist governments employ a similar methodology called ‘neo-liberalism’, but by tweak-
ing it to suit different needs. Such adaptive strategies are particularly necessary in the area
of disaster preparedness which affects state’s continuity. In some states, risks are too high
or threats are too huge to rely on being ‘a small state’, maintaining neo-liberal austerity
measures, market principles and individual responsibilities. Japan is indeed one of them.
After experiencing the catastrophic damage brought about by the 2011 Tohoku disaster,
the Abe Administration has shifted its adaptive strategy to position kyojo at the centre of
building civil society based on disaster preparedness and lifelong learning.
There are some studies which indicate a failure of the Japanese government’s strategy,
although they do not necessarily refer to kyojo. Samuels (2013) for example, demonstrates
Japanese leaders’ choice to ‘stay the course’ rather than to ‘put it in gear’ after the Tohoku
disaster, despite its magnitude that provided them with ‘a greater range of choices’ for
rethinking about existing institutions and structures. Reviewing security, energy and local
governance policies for the two years after the disaster, he concludes that the opportunities
for societal-level transformation risen from ‘a good crisis’22 were wasted. Another example
is Hasegawa’s (2015) report on post-Fukushima social actions. Despite a high number of
public opposition against nuclear energy, the government retains its position to restart
nuclear power plants. There were civic demonstrations and activist movements, which were
interconnected and collaborative, but they were not influential enough to alter government
decisions. Hasegawa (2015) critiques that in theory, Japan can be a nuclear-free country,
but it is the government’s political and economic ambitions that have been prioritised. In
this light, it could be seen that kyojo approaches that the government proclaimed have not
worked, or did not even exist.
What these authors seem to be addressing is ‘path dependence’ of national systems. As
discussed by Preston et al. (2015) and Wilson (2012) cited in Preston et al., 2015), path
dependency has been identified in disaster contexts. Their focus is community learning in
disasters, but their argument that learning follows historical patterns and then becomes
an indicator for future practice can be extended to the national level. This suggests that
Japanese systems, which are managed by a small number of leaders, prefer to follow what
has been done in the past. National systems which are path-dependent are slow or resistant
to change, as illustrated by Hasegawa (2015) and Samuels (2013). It could be seen that the
successive governments have retained similar neo-liberal strategies, despite the variations
in policy discourses such as lifelong learning, the New Public Commons and kyojo.
Following on from the point about the path-dependent nature of state-led preparedness
programmes, Preston et al. (2015) speculate that disaster preparedness programmes may be
more effective when they are developed by communities which share similar disaster factors.
This idea resonates with everyday life preparedness. Communal approaches are based on
642 K. Kitagawa

the needs of the community and developed by the community. Given that communities in a
country tend to have different environmental and geographic conditions, developing com-
munity-based preparedness initiatives do seem to make sense. If so, returning to Preston’s
definition of ‘preparedness’, ‘communal’ could be added to the typology of ‘behavioural’,
‘emotional’ and ‘cognitive’ pedagogical strategies. In addition to behavioural strategies –
disaster drills and a tsunami simulator, emotional strategies – the old sayings such as ‘if you
are prepared, you don’t have to worry’ and cognitive strategies – the information websites
and ‘Disaster Prevention Day’, communal strategies will broaden the boundaries of lifelong
learning opportunities in and for disasters in disaster-prone countries.

Notes
1.  ‘Duck and Cover’ drills used in the US to instruct children to adopt the ‘atomic clutch position’
in the event of a nuclear attack and hide under their desks (Grossman, 2001 cited in Preston,
2008, p. 469).
2.  The 2005 DfES publication ‘Getting over 7/7’ deals with the emotional consequences of past
and future terrorist attacks (DfES, 2005 cited in Preston, 2008, p. 469).
3.  The short ‘Protect and Survive’ films emphasised knowing what to do in the event of hearing
an attack warning (Central Office of Information, 1976 cited in Preston, 2008, p. 469).
4.  According to Harvey (2005, p. 2), neo-liberalism is: ‘a theory of political economic practices that
proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial
freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property
rights, free markets and free trade. The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional
framework appropriate to such practices … State interventions in markets … must be kept to
a bare minimum because … the state cannot possibly possess enough information to second-
guess market signals (prices) and because powerful interest groups will inevitably distort and
bias state interventions … for their own benefit’.
5.  An official from the ministry of education, who has been involved in disaster education policy
development. Interviewed in March 2013.
6.  A professor in disaster management and preparedness, who has extensively written and
engaged in civic activities on the topic of the four forms of aid. Interviewed in February 2013.
7.  A journalist from a national broadsheet newspaper, who has covered the stories of the Great
East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of March 2011. Interviewed in March 2013.
8.  The largest possible damage is predicted to be 18,000 fatalities, 360,000 totally collapsed
buildings and 370 billion pounds [57 trillion yen] economic damage (Aota, Hokugo, &
Murosaki, 2008, pp. 177–178).
9.  According to Japan Meteorological Agency (2015), 47 out of the 110 active volcanoes require
particular attention for a large-scale eruption.
10. It is the Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act originally enacted in 1961 that established the
system for disaster management. The act stipulates the Central Disaster Management Council
situated within the Cabinet Office to be responsible for the overall disaster management at
the national level. The Basic Plan then lays out policies and measures for different disasters
and for each disaster cycle, and also clarifies the responsibilities of the central, prefectural
and municipal governments, and the general population.
11. The White Paper issued annually by the Cabinet Office serves two purposes: it records the
government measures undertaken against the disasters occurred during the fiscal year, and
it identifies foreseeable challenges in the area of disaster administration in the following year.
The White Paper is presented to the Diet and also made available to the public.
12. Keidanren (Japan Business Federation). (2015) mission includes summarising the requests
and proposals of businesses on the wide-ranging priority agendas faced by the economic
community and to have dialogues with the administration, trade unions and citizens.
Education and training is one of the priority agendas of Keidanren.
 International Journal of Lifelong Education 643

13. Rear and Jones’ original translation is ‘public service spirit’, but what ‘kokyo no seishin’ actually
means is ‘voluntary participation in civic activities’.
14. The implementation of compulsory citizenship education in the US and Europe is a clear
example of education playing a ‘stabilising’ role through inculcating traditional values of
family, religion and community in the population, and developing civic responsibilities
and mutual respect in order to enhance social cohesion and national identity in society
(Yukawa, 2013; Pykett, 2010). This has not been the case in Japan, although the introduction
of citizenship education is being discussed in MEXT at the moment.
15. They include Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Ministry of Justice, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Ministry
of Health, Labour and Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism,
Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Defense.
16. They include the Bank of Japan, Japanese Red Cross Society, NHK (national broadcasting
company) and electric and gas companies.
17. The saying is not promoting self-centred ways of thinking. The underlying principle is trust
has to be there to be able not to worry about family and friends.
18. A VDPO normally comprises an administration/communication team, a fire extinguishing
team, an evacuation instruction team and a first-aid team. The practice of the traditional form
of neighbourhood support is diverse, depending on urban or suburban, and the frequency and
scale of natural disasters experienced in the community. VDPOs which are from the areas that
have experienced large-scale disasters tend to be more developed in terms of the structure,
communication and motivation, and to have an established stake in the community (Saido
et al., 2004). They also tend to be stronger in suburbs that still preserve a community spirit
or the cities that have been damaged by disasters. For any community in Japan, working with
local organisations such as VDPOs and fire clubs in preparing for diverse disaster scenario
has been implemented.
19. For example, Sugiman (2010 cited in Yamori et al., 2011, pp. 37–42) – an expert on ‘group
dynamics’ – recognises the three trends of the contemporary society from how kyojo is used:
(1) a new trend amongst young volunteers who want to be part of ‘thick experiences’ through
getting involved in response/recovery; (2) traditional groupism represented in VDPOs or
fire companies; and (3) mutual commitments such as mutual-aid earthquake insurances
within which ‘real’ individual responsibilities can be identified. This variation is insightful,
however, for the purpose of delving into the politics of the four forms of aid of the current
government, this section draws on the differentiation between gojo and kyojo identified by
the academic interviewed (2013).
20. National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED) (2011) for
instance, was set up after the Isewan Typhoon in 1959 and became independent in 2001.
The institute has worked together with the Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and
Technology, the Building Research Institute, FDMA, public and private universities, for-profit
firms and not-for-profit organisations, and also the general public. Universities, including
Kyoto, Tohoku, Tokyo and Meiji and many others, also have an established centre for research
and innovation for natural disasters, positioning ‘coproduction’ or ‘collaboration’ as their
important mission.
21. The quality of activities was also questioned – some of them focused too much on what the
volunteers wish to achieve, neglecting victims’ needs, and others ran out of capacity quickly
not being prepared for long-term operations (Murosaki, 2013).
22. Samuels draws on a quote by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, ‘never allow a good
crisis to go to waste’.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
644 K. Kitagawa

Funding
This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council in the UK under [grant
number ES/K000233].

Notes on contributor
Kaori Kitagawa, Phd, is a research fellow with the Cass School of Education and Communities at
the University of East London. She is also a lecturer at the UCL Institute of Education. Her research
interests include policies and practice of lifelong learning, disaster education, public pedagogy, com-
munity learning, volunteering and comparative education.

References
Abe, S. (2006). Towards a beautiful nation [utsukushii kuni e]. Tokyo: Bunshun shinsho.
Abe, S. (2007). Policy speech to the 166th session of the Diet [online]. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/abespeech/2007/01/26speech_e.html
Aota, R., Hokugo, A., & Murosaki, Y. (2008). Urban disaster reduction in the private sector: based on
the lessons from past disasters. Research Report of the Urban Safety Research Center, Kobe University,
12, 177–183. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/repository/81001286.pdf
Apple, M. W. (2004). Creating difference: neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of
educational reform. Educational Policy, 18, 12–44.
Cabinet Office. (n. d). Crisis management in our country: Materials presented at the second expert
meeting for the consultation of the establishment of the council for national security. Retrieved
July 20, 2015, from http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ka_yusiki/dai2/siryou2.pdf
Cabinet Office. (2011). Disaster Management in Japan. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.
bosai.go.jp/1info/pdf/saigaipanf_e.pdf
Cabinet Office. (2013). The Promotion of creating a mutually collaborative society – arguments and
the way forward [kyojo shakai zukuri no suishin ni mukete – ronten no seiri to kongo no giron no
susumekata ni tsuite], Summary of the Discussion Group on Creation of a Mutually Collaborative
Society. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from https://www.npo-homepage.go.jp/pdf/report33_matome.pdf
Cabinet Office. (2014a). The 2014 White Paper on disaster management [Heisei 26 nendo ban bosai
hakusho]. Retrieved July 10, 2015, from http://www.bousai.go.jp/kaigirep/hakusho/.
Cabinet Office. (2014b). New public commons. Retrieved August 19, 2016, from http://www5.cao.
go.jp/npc/index-e/index-e.html
Cabinet Office. (2015). Structure of basic disaster management plan. Cabinet secretariat. Retrieved July
20, 2015,from http://www.bousai.go.jp/taisaku/keikaku/english/disaster_management_plan.html
Central Disaster Council. (2012). Basic disaster management plan [bosai kihon keikaku]. Retrieved
July 3, 2015, from http://www.bousai.go.jp/taisaku/keikaku/kihon.html
Chadderton, C. (2015a). Civil defence pedagogies and narratives of democracy: Disaster education
in germany. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 34, 589–606. doi:10.1080/02601370.2015.
1073186
Chadderton, C. (2015b). Pedagogies of community resilience and the implications for social justice:
Contradictions from New Zealand. A conference paper presented at the European Conference on
Educational Research in Budapest, September 11, 2015.
Dahl, K. K. B., & Millora, C. M. (2016). Lifelong learning from natural disasters: Transformative
group-based learning at philippine universities. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
doi:10.1080/02601370.2016.1209587
Disaster Prevention System Institute. (2013). Mission and activities of voluntary disaster prevention
organisations. Retrieved July 3, 2015, from http://www.bo-sai.co.jp/jisyubosai.html
e-Gov. (2013a). The disaster countermeasures basic act. Retrieved July 3, 2015, from http://law.e-gov.
go.jp/htmldata/S36/S36HO223.html
 International Journal of Lifelong Education 645

Fire and Disaster Management Agency (FDMA). (2013). Guidebook for voluntary disaster prevention
organisations – safe and secure community building within the community. Retrieved July 3, 2015,
from http://www.fdma.go.jp/html/life/bosai/bosai_2304-all.pdf
Fujita, H. (2006). The direction of education reform: Unequal society or coexistence society [kyoiku
kaikaku no yukue: kakusa shakai ka kyosei shakai ka]. Tokyo: Iwanami.
Fujita, H. (2014). Why Abe’s ‘Education Reform’ is problematic [Abe ‘kyoiku kaikaku’ wa naze mondai
ka]. Tokyo: Iwanami.
Gill, T., Steger, B., & Slater, D. H. (2013). Japan copes with calamity: Ethnographies of the earthquake,
tsunami and nuclear disasters of March 2011. Bern: Peter Lang.
Hall, S. (2005). New labour’s double-shuffle. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies.,
27, 319–335. doi:10.1080/10714410500338907
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hasegawa, K. (2015). Beyond fukushima: Toward a Post-nuclear society. Melbourne: Trans Pacific
Press.
Hashimoto, K. (n. d.) Role of administrative organization, and community as its partner for
co-production, Journal of Contemporary Society Research, Kyoto Women’s University. 53–68.
Retrieved July 3, 2015, from http://ponto.cs.kyoto-wu.ac.jp/grad-bulletin/3/hasimoto.pdf
Japan Meteorological Agency. (2015). About active volcanos [katsukazan ni tsuite]. Retrieved July
10, 2015, from http://www.data.jma.go.jp/svd/vois/data/tokyo/STOCK/kaisetsu/katsukazan_toha/
katsukazan_toha.html
Japan Meteorological Agency. (2016). Meteorological agency workshop ‘What to Do If You Experience
Torrential Rain’ [kishocho wa-kushoppu ‘keikenshita kotono nai ooame, sonotoki dosuru?]. Retrieved
June 6, 2016, from http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/kishou/know/jma-ws/
Kawato, Y., Pekkanen, R., & Tsujinaka, Y. (2012). Civil society and the triple disasters: Revealed
strengths and weaknesses. In J. Kingston (Eds.),Natural disaster and nuclear crisis in Japan: Response
and recovery after Japan’s 3/11 (pp. 78–93). Abingdon: Routledge
Keidanren (Japan Business Federation). (2015). What is keidanren? [Keidanren to wa]. Retrieved July
20, 2015, from http://www.keidanren.or.jp/profile/pro001.html
Kimata, K. (2012). “The Omission of the term ‘Social Solidarity’ in the 2011 revision of ‘the Disability
Basic Act’ [2011 nen kaisei ‘shogaisha kihonho’ ni okeru ‘shakairentai no rinen’ no sakujo nit suite]”.
Journal of Social Welfare. Nihon Fukushi University [Nihonfukushidaigaku shakaifukushironshu],
126, 49–89.
Kingston, J. (2011). Contemporary Japan: History, politics, and social change since the 1980s. Chichester:
Willey-Blackwell.
Kingston, J. (Ed.). (2012). Natural disaster and nuclear crisis in Japan: Response and recovery after
Japan’s 3/11. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kitagawa, K. (2015a). Living with an active volcano: Informal and community learning for
preparedness in south of japan. In C. J. Fearnley, et al. (Eds.), Observing the Volcano World: Volcano
Crisis Communication. New York, NY: Springer.
Kitagawa, K. (2015b). Continuity and change in disaster education in Japan. History of education, 44,
371–390. doi:10.1080/0046760X.2014.979255
Kitagawa, K. (2016). Situating preparedness education within public pedagogy. Pedagogy, culture and
society.,. doi:10.1080/14681366.2016.1200660.
Maruyama, H. (2009). Lifelong learning for sustainable community development in a japanese case.
Educational policy analysis and strategic research, 4, 5–18.
MEXT. 2006. Comparison of before/after the revision of the Fundamental Education Act [kaisei zengo
no Kyoiku kihonho no hikaku]. Retrieved July 3, 2015, from www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/kihon/
about/06121913/002.pdf
MEXT. (2012). Enrichment of safety education at school – outline [gakko ni okeru anzen kyoiku no
Jujitsu ni tsuite (shingi no matome) gaiyo]. Retrieved July 3, 2015, from http://www.mext.go.jp/
component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/11/19/1353563_01_1_1.pdf
MEXT. (2013a). The key points of the revision of the courses of study [gakushu shido yoryo kaitei
gaiyo]. Retrieved July 3, 2015, from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_
detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/03/30/1234773_001.pdf
646 K. Kitagawa

MEXT. (2013b). On ‘guideline for the creation of a school disaster management manual (for Earthquakes
and Tsumanis)’ [‘gakko bosai manuaru sakusei no tebiki (jishin to tsunami yo)’ ni tsuite]. Retrieved
July 3, 2015, from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kenko/anzen/1323513.htm
MEXT. (2015). Moral education [dotoku kyoiku]. Retrieved September 17, 2015, from http://www.
mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/doutoku/
Murashima, Sachiyo Y. (2011). Thinking about the great east Japan earthquake, prefatory note.
Japanese Journal of Health and Human Ecology, 77, 83–84. Retrieved July 10, 2015, from https://
www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jshhe/77/3/77_3_83/_pdf
Murosaki, M. (2013). The current situation of disaster prevention, volunteering and kyojo, and future
expectations [bosai, borantia, kyojo no genjo to shorai no kadai]. Keynote lecture, disaster prevention
by all in Kobe – Expanding the network of Kyojo Meeting, organised by the Cabinet Office, 27
January 2013. Retrieved July 3, 2015, from http://www.bosai-vol.go.jp/kyojo/murosaki.pdf
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. (n. d.) The bubble burst and recession: 1990s – [Baburu
hokai to fukyo: 1990 nendai–]. Retrieved July 3, 2015, from http://www.grips.ac.jp/teacher/oono/
hp/lecture_J/lec13.htm
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED). (2011). About NIED.
http://www.bosai.go.jp/introduction/message.html
OECD. (2006). Assessment and Recommendations. In OECD economic surveys: Japan 2006. by OECD.
Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved September 24, 2015. DOI: 10.1787/eco_surveys-jpn-2006-2-en
Ogawa, S. (2005). Lifelong learning and demographics: A Japanese perspective. International Journal
of Lifelong Education, 24, 351–368.
Ogawa, A. (2015). Lifelong Learning in neoliberal Japan: Risk community and knowledge. Albany:
Suny Press.
Ogden, A. (2010). A Brief overview of lifelong learning in japan. The Language Teacher, 34, 5–13.
Okada, T. (2013). Community revitalisation from the tohoku disaster and the challenges for recovery
[shinsai kara no chiiki saisei to fukkojigyo no kadai]. Gakujutsu no doko. October: 9–13.
Okamoto, K. (2001). Education of the rising sun 21: An Introduction to education in Japan. Tokyo:
National Federation of Social Education-Japan.
Okumoto (Kitagawa), K. (2008). Lifelong learning in England and Japan: Three translations. Compare,
38, 173–188.
Okumoto (Kitagawa), K. (2010). Lifelong learning in England and Japan: A comparative analysis.
Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Otake, F., & Ohara, M. (2009). Income disparity [shotoku kakusa]. In Y. Higuchi The Japanese Economy
and Economic Policy in the Bubble/Deflation Period: Labour Income and Income Distribution
[baburu/defure ki no nihon keizai to keizai seisaku] edited by Tokyo: Keiogijukudaigaku Shuppankai:
253–285.
Paton, D., Okada, N., & Sagala, S. (2013). Understanding preparedness for natural hazards: Cross
cultural comparison. Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management, 3, 18–35.
Preston, J. (2008). Protect and Survive: ‘whiteness’ and the middle‐class family in civil defence
pedagogies. Journal of Education Policy, 23, 469–482. doi:
Preston, J. (2012). Disaster education. Rotterdam: Sense.
Preston, J., Avery, B., Chakrabarty, N., & Edmonds, C. (2011). Emergency preparedness as public
pedagogy: The absent–presence of race in ‘preparing for emergencies’. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 30, 749–762. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2011.625518
Preston, J., Chadderton, C., & Kitagawa, K. (2014). The ‘state of exception’ and disaster education:
A Multi-level conceptual framework with implications for social justice. Globalisation, Societies
and Education, 12, 437–456.
Preston, J., Chadderton, C., Kitagawa, K., & Edmonds, C. (2015). Community response in disasters:
An ecological learning framework. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 34, 727–753. doi:
10.1080/02601370.2015.1116116
Pykett, J. (2010). Citizenship education and narratives of pedagogy. Citizenship Studies, 14, 621–635.
doi:10.1080/13621025.2010.522345
 International Journal of Lifelong Education 647

Rear, D., & Jones, A. (2013). Discursive struggle and contested signifiers in the arenas of education
policy and work skills in japan. Critical Policy Studies, 7, 375–394. doi:10.1080/19460171.2013.8
43469
Saido, M., Shimizu, Y., Tanaka, M., Fukuoka, Y., Hori, H., Matsui, Y., & Mizuta, K. (2004). Regulatory
factors for local disaster prevention system with an autonomous disaster prevention organization:
Characteristics of disaster-preventive welfare community in kobe. Journal of Poole Gakuin
University, 44, 77–90.
Samuels, R. (2013). 3.11: Disaster and change in Japan. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Shiroshita, H. (2010). Towards the actualisation of collaborative learning for disaster prevention
[bosaikyoiku no jitsugen ni mukete]. In Faculty of Safety Science, Kansai University (Eds.), Safety
science for disaster prevention and reduction – A proposal in building a safe and secure society [bosai/
gensai no tameno shakaianzengaku – anzen/anshin na shakai no kochiku eno teigen] (pp. 98–114).
Kyoto: Mineruva shobo.
Spours, K. (2015). The osbourne supremacy: why progressives have to develop a hegemonic politics
for the 21st century. Compass., October 2015 1–22.
Statistics Bureau. (2010). Disaster prevention day [bosai no hi]. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://
www.stat.go.jp/naruhodo/c3d0901.htm
Sugimon, T. (2010). Three trends about ‘groupism – individualism’ and the contemporary japanese
society [shudanshugi – kojinshugi o meguru mittsu no torendo to gendainihonshakai]. Group
Dynamics, 27, 17–32.
Sugiura, K. (2010). The population who fight against water and disasters: Learning from the history
of disaster prevention to build a safe town to live in, report of field research. Shizuoka University
Repository, 71–84.
Tachibanaki, T. (2010). Disparity of education in Japan [Nihon no kyoiku kakusa]. Tokyo: Iwanami
Shinsho.
Takeshima, H. (2011). Neo-liberalism and patriotic education: The education reform of the abe
administratio [shinjiyushugi to aikokushinkyoiku: abe seiken no kyoikukaikaku o chuushin ni].
Toyohogaku, 55, 42–79.
Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of General Affairs.( 2016). Disaster prevention information.
Retrieved June 6, 2016, from http://www.bousai.metro.tokyo.jp/kitaku_portal/1000050/1000536.
html
Van Dijk, T. A. (2002). Political discourse and ideology. In C. U. Lorda and M. Ribas (Eds.), Analysis
of political discourse [Anàlisi del Discurs Polític] (pp. 15–34).Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra:
Watanabe, O. (2007). The debate on the abe administration – From neo-liberalism to neo-conservatism
[Abe seikenron – shinjiyuushugi kara shinhoshushugi e]. Tokyo: Junposho.
Wilson, G. (2012). Community resilience and environmental transitions. London: Routledge.
Yamori, K. (2011). Promoting ‘everyday-life preparedness’ [‘seikatsu bosai’ no susume]. Kyoto:
Nakanishiya.
Yamori, K. (2012a). Revisiting the concept of ‘tsunami tendenko. Journal of Japanese Natural Disaster
Science 31, 35–46. Retrieved July 3, 2015, from http://www.jsnds.org/contents/shizen_saigai_back_
number/ssk_31_1_35.pdf
Yamori, K. (2012b). The great east Japan earthquake and ‘everyday preparedness’ [higashinihondaishinsai
to `seikatsu bosai']. building maintenance, and management center, Journal Re 175: n. p.
Yamori, K., Atsumi, T., Kondo, S., & Miyamoto, T. (2011). The Human science of disaster preparedness/
disaster reduction: protecting life, supporting the field [bosai/gensai no ningen kagaku: inochi o
sasaeru, genba ni yorisou]. Tokyo: Shinyosha.
Yukawa, K. (2013). A new design for moral education theory. Bulletin of the gradssuate school of
education of the University of Hokkaido, 119, 27–50.