The Continuity between Yoshinori Morita’s 1940s to 1950s Theories of Kaihou-Kyouiku（ Liberation Education） and Later Theories of Anti-discrimination Education

本稿の目的は，戦後日本における「解放教育」論（同和教育論）者の嚆矢だとされる盛田嘉徳が，いかなる「解放教育」思想を有していたのかを，彼のテクストに即して分析・考察することによって，戦後日本の反差別教育論の原点を確認するとともに，後の反差別教育論との思想的「連続性」を明らかにすることにある。 そこで本稿では，第一点目に，盛田と部落問題・「解放教育」が出会う経緯等と，彼が有していた融和主義への批判意識を見ていくことを通して，彼の思想的前提を探る。また，その前提から生み出された人権・部落問題学習構想を確認する。第二点目に，1949年段階における盛田の「解放教育」論の柱である，抵抗意識の形成，ならびに，「解放教育」の「一般化」に関わる構想を整理する。第三点目に，彼が考えていた，「解放教育」をめぐる外在的・内在的課題を，第四点目に，その課題等から1950年代に導き出された，彼の「解放教育」の「平易化」構想を明らかにする。最後に，1940～50年代における盛田の「解放教育」論と，後の反差別教育論との思想的「連続性」をまとめるとともに，彼の「解放教育」思想の限界を批判的に考察する。
The purpose of this study is to analyze and explore the theories of Yoshinori Morita, who was considered a pioneer of kaihou-kyouiku, or liberation education （Dowa Education）, in post-war Japan, by employing a textual analysis to clarify the conceptions he held regarding liberation education. I aim to confirm the origin of theories of anti-discrimination education in post-war Japan and elucidate the ideological “continuity” to subsequent theories of anti-discrimination education. This paper reveals the following: First, Morita’s ideological presuppositions are clarified through examinations of how he approached buraku （caste） discrimination issues and kaihou-kyouiku （liberation education） as well as his critical views toward Yuwa-shugi, or a conciliatory policy. In addition, his conceptions of education for human rights and buraku problems, which were induced from these presuppositions, are confirmed. Second, Morita’s ideas regarding both the establishment of a sense of resistance and the “generalization” of kaihou-kyouiku, which were the main concepts for Morita’s liberation education theory in 1949, are organized. Third, external and internal tasks regarding “liberation education” are confirmed. Fourth, his conception of the “simplification” of the “liberation education” of the 1950s, as was induced through these tasks and problems, is elucidated. Finally, Morita’s theories regarding “liberation education” from the 1940s to the 1950s as well as the ideological continuity with subsequent anti-discrimination education are examined. Furthermore, contradictions regarding Morita’s conception of “liberation education” are critically examined.