Divs-poole

PREFACE 

xiii 

(Coleman & Simpson 1999, 2001; Mills 2003, 2004; Shore & Wright 1999), very 

few anthropologists have actually tackled the bothersome project of analyzing their 

home institution—their own academic place of work—(see Bailey 1977; Williams 

2002). How often do we consider those we work with, those we know most 

intimately, as “anthropological actors” rather than simply “departmental 

colleagues”—the anthropology of anthropologists? I try to demonstrate how, when 

we place our working selves at the center of ourselves working (on research), 

much like the indigenous anthropologist writing for a local audience (Yamashita et 

al. 2004), we can attain yet another level of understanding in explaining actors’ 

social worlds within an institutional bureaucracy. 

By describing the competing discourses, the cultural debates, and the 

performance of roles that surround the key concepts in the work life of the 

professor—an actor who is at once “myself” and “the other”—I try to demonstrate 

again how knowledge can be derived not only from distant but also from close 

positions (Kondo 1986; Rosaldo 1993). In many anthropological studies the 

informants themselves are uninterested in the etic models of cultural translation 

derived by the anthropologist to describe their worldview—the Penan themselves 

would presumably not be overly concerned with “friendship-names” (Needham 

1971), nor the Na with “matrilignée” (Hua 1997), the Iatmul with 

“schismogenesis” (Bateson 1958), the Azande with “oracles” (Evans-Pritchard 

1937). However, the present climate of university restructuring in Japan means that 

professors are necessarily concerned with not only maintaining their own 

professional identity and traditions within the university, but also keeping a job at a 

university. They arguably have an ethnomethodological interest in their own 

performance of their social roles. 

As with all such projects, in writing this book I accumulated a tremendous 

amount of personal debt. I am especially thankful to my mentor, Roger Goodman. 

His timely and insightful suggestions and guidance gave me support and 

encouragement. Kim Schuefftan helped immensely to sharpen the argument and 

presentation of the book. One could not ask for a more thoughtful editor. This goes 

as well for my publisher, Peter de Liefde at Sense, who was always helpful and 

understanding. I must also thank Jerry Eades and David Parkin for their detailed 

and constructive suggestions and criticisms on a previous draft. Marcus Banks and 

Laura Rival were helpful and forthright with their comments at earlier stages of the 

project. I especially thank my partner, Kumiko Sawaguchi, for her patience and 

moral support. This book is largely a product of the inner strength that she has 

shared with me daily. Of course I could not have started or completed this project 

without the kind support of the entire faculty and staff at the “Edo University of 

Commerce.” All that being said, any shortcomings are my responsibility alone. 

 “Edo University of Commerce” (EUC) is a pseudonym, as are the names of all 

the individuals mentioned. Japanese names are written as in the vernacular, 

surname first followed by given name. 100 JPY (¥100) is equivalent to about  

1 USD ($1.00). 

---

PREFACE 

 

xiv 

I dedicate this book to my parents, Thomas and Cynthia Poole. Their 

progressive view of education undergirds my own core beliefs, idealism, and 

anthropological perspective.  

 

Gregory S. Poole   

November 2009 

Professor of Social Anthropology, Tsukuba, Japan 

Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences 

University of Tsukuba 

 

---

INTRODUCTION 

Anthropologists and sociologists of education in Japan have long considered the 

university to be an anomaly in an otherwise highly structured and generally 

effective educational system. Descriptions of the university as a “leisure land” 

(White 1994, p. 133) and higher education as “a myth” (McVeigh 2002b) reflect 

the prevailing view among observers that because of the undemanding academic 

requirements at Japanese higher educational institutions (HEIs), lessons to be 

learned from the study of universities have to do more with socialization and peer 

education than with teaching and learning and the role of the professoriate (Kelly 

1997, p. 178).  

The literature on education in Japan reflects the perception that the university 

experience is anticlimactic because the process of actually preparing for and being 

admitted to university is deemed more fascinating, the university, as compared to 

pre-, primary, and secondary schools, has been described as “an ethnographic black 

hole.”

1

 The accuracy of this description is debatable (McVeigh 1997; Befu 2000; 

Lee-Cunin 2004), yet certainly more attention has been placed on students, and 

very few studies of the professors have been conducted. Even beyond 

anthropology in the wider fields of education and Japanese studies, over the years 

the number of articles written on the professoriate are few indeed (Arimoto 1997; 

Befu 1977; Cummings et al. 1979; Ehara 1998; Nakano 1974; Ogose 1988; 

Shimbori 1981; White 1994; Yamamoto 1999). As well, the point has been made 

that in North America “no [institutional] history takes the professor as its central 

focus” (Wisniewski 2000).

2

 

In my view the most pressing reason for a study such as this is not merely the 

dearth of literature on the topic but also the timeliness of the matter. For the past 

five years Japanese higher education has been facing sweeping change at both the 

national and local levels (Eades et al 2005). Since they are among those most 

affected by these reforms, it seems pertinent that professors’ views on their own 

role as professors be explicated.  

CULTURAL DEBATES 

The shortcoming of an otherwise “top-down” approach to examining these reforms 

is that it leaves out the crucial first step of cultural translation. The research here 

takes a stab at this missing step. I describe the “culture” of a university by focusing 

first on the behaviors and values of professors and administrators as they interact 

with one another. Later, within this empirical framework of culture and its 

construction,

3

 the history, purpose and organization of higher education (HE) in 

Japan can be effectively debated. 

1

 

---