Shijo-Tsushin/#2/FURUIYE-E

Shijo-Tsushin #2 August, 1995

The Definition of Kikokushijo

by Atsushi FURUIYE

translated from Japanese by Monica SKIDZUN

Even today there is no concrete definition of the term kikokushijo. For instance, a magazine journalist once asked me how many kikokushijo there were in Japan that are now adults. I was unable to answer. If I was asked how many school age kikokushijo there are in Japan I could at least quote the statistics released by Monbusho each year. In their investigations, Monbusho count the number of "children of overseas employees, and such, who have spent more than one year continuously overseas" and have been back in Japan within the specified period. In most reports this period is three years. Furthermore, the figures released are usually only concerned with children attending primary school through to high school. In other words, once kikokushijo graduate from high school or they have been back in Japan for more than three years, they are no longer counted in the statistics. Also, for some schools and education committees that participate in these investigations, the definition of an 'overseas employed' person is quite lax. I know of cases where regardless of their respondents' nationalities, as long as they came from overseas, they were included in the statistics. And what about the 'and such'? Is it meant to include the children of overseas employees who married a local during their sojourn?

From all this, however, I get the feeling that defining the term kikokushijo is not such a problem. Basically, it's a convenient word to describe children who are in a way different to children raised in Japan but are also not foreign. If that's the case, kikokushijo may be regarded as a complement to children who are born and raised in Japan by parents who are culturally and racially Japanese, the so-called 'normal Japanese'. In other words, kikokushijo can be interpreted as a term used to describe children who are not a 'normal Japanese'. However, how do you then define what is 'not normal'? Is it defined by cultural stigmas or how fashionable it is? Or is it defined by the person him or herself or others?

In the past the so-called special characteristics of kikokushijo have been given a lot of attention but it's just ridiculous. No matter how much you study the characteristics of a group that has been defined based on what they are not, you'll of course end up with numerous characteristics. If characteristics of a group are to be studied, the group must first be defined as people who are 'x' rather than defining them as 'not x'.

You could say that the pitfall of returnee student research in the past is the above tendency. Of course, it's difficult to define what is a 'normal Japanese' and attribute typical characteristics. Strictly speaking, there may be no other way to define a 'Japanese' other than by the passport nationality. What are the typical characteristics of a Japanese anyway?

Do definitions exist because of the need to categorize or did categorization arise from the need to define? Do characteristics exist through categorizing people? Or are people categorised so that characteristics can be defined? Finding the answers to these questions probably requires some study of anthropology and natural history.

However, keeping in mind that in questioning the definition and characteristics of a kikokushijo, one also questions the definition and characteristics of a 'normal Japanese'. It becomes quite obvious that it's really a pointless and thoughtless exercise in the end.