Society Japan’s language contradiction: inclusion on paper, exclusion in practice

Japan says it wants a more inclusive society, yet many foreign residents still face an unspoken expectation: speak Japanese "like a native" or remain an outsider. This editorial by Inagaki Midori, an associate professor at Juntendo University, looks at the contradiction between Japan's new language education framework, which promotes diversity and practical communication, and immigration policies and social attitudes that continue to treat native-level fluency as the benchmark for belonging. Mrs Inagaki asks whether Japan is prepared to accept that the future of the Japanese language will be shaped not only by native speakers, but also by the millions who use it differently.

This assumption [that hat there is a single correct form of Japanese and that deviations from it signal deficiency] is tied to a 20th-century ideology that equates one language with one nation. Japan has no legally designated official language, yet Japanese functions as a national symbol by convention. The very idea of "the Japanese language" and "the Japanese people" resembles what political scientist Benedict Anderson described as an imagined community — a collective identity sustained through shared narratives, including language. Language, however, does more than bind people together. It also draws boundaries. In Japan, this often hardens into an implicit equation — to speak Japanese is to be Japanese. Scholar Hazuki Segawa refers to this dynamic as "Japanese-language nationalism." Segawa's research on Japanese-language education under colonial rule in Taiwan, Korea and parts of China shows how language functioned as a tool of assimilation and governance, shaping political identity and regulating belonging.

Click to expand...

Ms Inagaki argues that speaking Japanese fluently should not be confused with becoming Japanese. In her view, language proficiency should mean being able to connect with people, participate in society, disagree openly, and claim a place in public life, while remaining oneself. She says that if Japan is serious about the inclusive society described in its own Reference Framework, it needs to move away from the idea that native speakers sit at the top of the linguistic hierarchy. Instead, the country should accept a future in which different voices, accents and ways of speaking also shape the Japanese language.

It's taken enough time for English to start to lose its hierarchical nature, with English from the UK/US/Canada/Australia/NZ regarded as the gold standard and each of them having their own hierarchies (King's English, etc.), and there's a long way to go. Japan loves hierarchy, is accepting immigrants with the greatest of reluctance, is imposing stringent language requirements on visas to exclude rather than because it wants foreign people with a grasp of the language having a voice in the country, and is not serious about becoming an inclusive society. The author is right but she's at least 50 years ahead of her time.