Educational Science as “offenes System” in Sukeichi Shinohara: The Paradoxical Path toward Autonomous Science

<p> This paper aims to reveal how Sukeichi Shinohara developed his arguments on educational science in 1930, focusing on his reference to an “offenes System (open system)”. Educational science has continued to struggle with the issue of its nature as an autonomous academic discipline distinct from contiguous academic fields such as psychology, ethics, and sociology. Shinohara Sukeichi, who established his stance on educational science in 1930, has been frequently cited in this context. However; previous literature tends to focus only on his efforts to develop a complete and closed system of educational science, failing to address the unclear and contradicting points in his educational science. The idea of an “offenes System (open system)” has not been taken into account by previous works, but it played a crucial role in his method of discussion.</p><p> To reveal Shinohara's unique insights, this paper first examines trends in academic discourse in the 1930s, when the pursuit of autonomy in educational science was a common ideal for theorists and practitioners. The paper points out how this inquiry became a major trend through the 1930s, from the perspectives of social, systematic, and academic backgrounds: at this time, educational practices required reflection after the full bloom of the Taisho educational movement, a shift supported by the faculties of education and academic associations established around 1930. Academicians in this period relied on the philosophy of education of Germany.</p><p> Shinohara developed his system of educational science while leading this academic trend. In his book The Essence of Education and Pedagogy (1930) he aimed to establish the autonomy of education through constructing an independent closed structure that could reason out all statements within itself. However, his attempt was not reflected in his arguments: examination of his descriptions of the Neo-Kantians reveals that he mixed several branches into one structure. However, he did not reflect on this contradiction, but rather came to emphasize openness to other disciplines, claiming that this openness does not necessarily sacrifice independence but rather promotes the advancement of the discipline. Openness is understood in three ways: the entire reasoning of the structure of discipline can be altered (open to the future), the structure can contain contradicting principles within itself (open to different logic), and the structure should have strong connections to contiguous disciplines (open to other fields). In his view, the autonomy of the academic discipline would be maintained, enabling the adoption of any objectives and methodologies as long as it retained its unique “perspective.”</p><p> Through examining Shinohara's educational science, focusing on his explorations based on the “open system”, a paradoxical path was revealed through which the pursuit of the autonomy of educational science is established by opening its academic basis to other contiguous disciplines. This transformation was the very insight that Shinohara had already pioneered before the war. The entire discussion also indicates a counter-argument against the current discourse, which emphasizes interdisciplinary structures. From Shinohara's viewpoint, educational science should be placed in a dialectic relation between autonomy and interdisciplinarity.</p>