The Problem of Contingency in Tanabe Hajime and Mori Akira: In Order to Relativize the Necessity Associated with Developmental Theory in Postwar Pedagogy

<p> The purpose of this paper is to present a perspective that relativizes the “necessity” associated with developmental theories in pedagogy by examining the contingency theory of Mori Akira (1915-1976) in his theory of human development from the perspective of the contingency theory of his teacher, the philosopher Tanabe Hajime (1885-1962).</p><p> The issue of contingency has been a subject of much debate since ancient Greek philosophy. Kuki Shuzo discussed contingency as the negation of necessity, an argument I believe to be also important in pedagogy: the developmental theory of “postwar pedagogy” links child development with social progress, taking for granted the necessity of both. It is contingency that goes unnoticed in this view. This paper examines the problem of necessity associated with developmental theory in postwar pedagogy by focusing on Mori Akira's theory of contingency and examining it from the perspective of his teacher Tanabe Hajime's theory of contingency. This study clarifies the genealogy of ideas between Tanabe and Mori, providing a new perspective on the subject of “Kyoto School Pedagogy” in recent studies of the history of educational thought.</p><p> Based on the above, the discussion in this paper proceeds as follows. First, Chapter 1 examines Tanabe's theory of contingency and purpose, focusing on his correspondence with Kuki and his subsequent theory of contingency. Chapter 2 then examines Mori's theory of contingency and purpose, focusing on his later work, Ningen Keisei Genron (The Principles of Human Formation). In this way, the paper clarifies that their common horizon of thought is “contingency and destiny.” Finally, Chapter 3 clarifies the similarities between Tanabe and Mori as well as Tanabe's uniqueness, and then discusses the pedagogical possibilities derived from their thinking. This is an attempt to discover the significance of the concept of contingency as opposed to the necessity associated with developmental theory, the problem posed by this paper.</p><p> The above discussion will ultimately lead to a perspective for relativizing the necessity associated with developmental theories in pedagogy from the perspective of contingency, enabling a reconsideration from this perspective. Based on the horizon of contingency clarified in this paper, it will be possible to expand the problem of contingency not only in the Kyoto School but also in philosophy and pedagogy. This paper is no more than the first step in the Kyoto School Pedagogy's transference into other academic fields.</p>