Christopher Hood - Position Paper

When I wrote my first book (Japanese Education Reform: Nakasone's Legacy, London: Routledge, 2001), I was encouraged to write in the first person. This was something that I was a little uncomfortable in doing as I had been trained - as is often the way in Britain - not to use the first person in academic writing. As I pointed out in the book, not writing in the first person does not mean that the author's opinions are not included in a text. The author's choice not to include certain pieces of information, despite being fully aware of it, because it does not fit with their argument is another way in which an author can, at one level, ensure that their view point is central to a text, for example.

I felt it appropriate, therefore, in that book to give a brief summary of some of my ideologies and background, so that the reader could gain a better understanding of who the "I" in the book is, and, to use a popular term, "where I am coming from". I believe this is something that more authors should be encouraged to do. This may be particularly the case in Japanese Studies, which has, in some respects, remained relatively weak in the area of methodology to date. Yet to do this in every publication would be to take up valuable space and detract from the main thrust of that publication.

This position paper, therefore, is designed as a resource to backup what is written in my other publications. As not everyone has access to the internet, it will still be necessary to include some self-introduction in these publications, but I hope that this paper will allow those with access to it to gain a fuller understanding of my position on various issues.

Before going any further I would like to make the following points clear:

  • This position paper is a work in progress, and so is subject to change.
  • I - like everyone - have the right to change my opinion and position and so what is printed here may not be the same as my position when a particular book or article was originally published.
  • This position paper will only be updated from time to time so may not reflect my position at present.
  • These are my personal opinions and are not an attempt to persuade anyone to follow them. I am not a representative of any political party, religion or other organisation, and I am not seeking followers.
  • If you disagree with any of my views, I respect that. Similarly I expect you to respect my right to have different opinions to you, the reader. If you cannot do this, then please do not read any further.
  • If there are any particular issues which you think it would be beneficial or interesting for me to include in this paper, then please do contact me and I will consider adding them at a future date.
Issues are listed in alphabetical order

Death Penalty - I do not like the idea of the death penalty, but think it should be used for murder at least. I find the idea of murderers living, potentially at my expense, just as distasteful. When I hear of poor conditions in maximum security jails, I do not understand why this is a problem, it should be celebrated. These people should be surrounded by the images of the lives they ruined, unless they are so perverted that this would bring them pleasure. The death penalty is rarely a deterrent, but it is a means for society to rid itself finally of those who have no place in society. But taking the life will be potentially hurting the lives of others, for even murderers are often fathers, mothers, brothers or sisters for whom the familial bonds of love remain strong (and their evil nature may remain relatively, if not completely unknown). Surely somewhere the buck has to stop or the hatred and retribution can continue to grow. But who has the strength to do this and where is the line?

Democracy - I do not believe that democracy is the best political system. On the whole, it is the least worst system that has been devised so far. There are many forms of democracy, but generally speaking the "democratic" they are, the less I am convinced that they are a good system. Elections cost a lot of money. This money is largely a waste. More and more people are basing their vote on soundbites and images and not on issues. Even in elections which are based on issues, it is highly unlikely that most of the electorate have sufficient enough access to all the relevant information to make an informed and proper choice. This is even assuming that the electorate would be capable of fully understanding and analyzing the relevant information - and I doubt that this is often the case. Democracy has benefitted from the bad image gained from other forms of political systems - while many of those nations which promote democracy have done little to promote its real meaning or ensure that it works properly. At the same time, they have also tended to behave undemocratically while referring themselves as a democratic nation. Freedom of speech and democracy are not the same thing, although a democracy appears to be the least bad way an ensuring that people have some form of freedom of speech.

Evolution - I remained to be convinced by the theory of evolution. I do not believe that animals, for example, can develop a mechanism, such as a poison, as they have found that that will allow them to either better defend themselves or better catch pray. That those that have such a mechanism survive better seems logical - but I cannot find an explanation that I can agree with as to how that mechanism was first developed. The idea of the survival of the fittest also does not seem totally accurate. More often that not, due to one influence or another (including luck), a smaller opponent can defeat an apparently stronger one (this is, after all, one of the attractions of many spectator sports), for example. The ideas relating to evolution, although logical at one level, I do not believe are actually workable in many instances.

Human Rights - I do not believe in the universality of all human rights. Many are common (refer also to my views on morals). If one visits a country, one should be expected to behave according to the norms of that country. Failure to do so should lead to the punishment that is considered appropriate in that society and not one's own country. A country or society has the right to keep its own norms. It also has the right to change them. Change should come from internal evolution and not be forced upon by others. Others may attempt to inform a society of a difference in norms, but the society itself should decide what is suitable to its own situation. Those who need to be punished should expect that all their normal rights will no longer apply. It should be their responsibility to convince society - or its representatives - that they deserve to have their rights reinstated. This could be done through service to the society - such by doing labour (building and construction works, cleaning grafitti and other unsightly and illegal materials, maintaining public gardens, etc.).

Market forces - I do not believe that market forces work effectively. Government intervention is sometimes needed. Similar to my views on democracy, I do not believe that there is enough information - or ability to understand and use that information by users - to allow the system to work as it should. For example, concerns about the environment tend to be overlooked in the desire to pursue profit. Governments need to act. This is particularly true in countries where efficiency and short-termism tends to be more highly prized (as it benefits personal interests of certain individuals in companies and the share price of that company) than long-termism and effectiveness.

Media - The media cannot be trusted. It hides behind the ideal of seeking the truth (see below), while in fact being generally only interested in profit. Most papers are resorting to titilation to boost sales. The modern media is a result of an ineffective political system (i.e. democracy) and is also the worst enemy of that system since it does little to inform the public of facts and information that are relevant to the operation that system. The result is that people end up having misinformed or underinformed opinions on many things (such is the way with democracy anyway), and most of those things are barely of relevance or importance at all.

Monarchy - It will come of little surprise, given my views on democracy (see above), that I believe that the UK should keep its monarchy. I believe that it is healthy for a country to have an insitution and an individual that can stand apart from the mess of elections and politics and is able to represent that country. Although the system of hereditary monarchy seems a little old-fashioned, it is, like democracy, the least bad system. It is a much better system, in my opinion, that having an elected President or Prime Minister trying to perform the role. Such people have other roles to perform and generally cannot always (if ever) perform the role that a monarch could. As much as there have been problems in the recent history of the British monarchy and Japanese imperial family, these are nothing compared to what has happened historically and so I find it strange that so much fuss is made now. They are still humans and so mistakes and behaviour that is found in others can only be expected from time to time. It is how mistakes are dealt with that is of greater importance in most cases.

Morals - In researching Japanese education, I have found that many have been interested in the issue of moral education taught there. My personal opinion is that moral education is not only a good thing in Japan, but is something that many countries could do with. The main religions in Japan do not have the same moral content that is found in many other religions in the world. On top of this, even if they did, religion is not allowed in Japan. With children spending less and less time with parents (whether it be due to increasing amounts of school work, or the greater acceptability of children staying out mixing with friends), it has apparently led to a situation where there is less opportunity, or desire, for moral education to be taught by the parents. This appears to be leading to a breakdown in many of the social responsibilities of individuals. As moral beliefs are closely related to religious beliefs in many countries, it may appear that the content of what is taught would be hard to define. However, some of the key issues - such as respecting others, contributing to society (even that it merely by not making a negative impact upon society rather than positively contributing to society), not easily resorting to violence - are themes that should cause little conflict and be something that we would want future generations to gain.

Political parties - If you have read my comments on democracy, you will already know that I do not have much faith in that system. It should be of little surprise, therefore, that I have even less faith in political parties. Indeed, I believe that at one level political parties are in themselves undemocratic. If every member of the electorate was to join a political party, there would be no need for elections as members of political parties, one would expect, will vote for the party of which they are a member. If this were the case, those members of the party or parties that were in a minority could not reasonably feel that there would be an opportunity for their opinions to be properly and fairly represented or acted upon. This is, of course, an extreme situation. However, it is related to another point. Issues are not always easily defined on a party basis. Although I may agree, based on the limited information presented and my limited abilities to analyze that information, with a party on one issue, there is no reason why I may not agree with another party on another issue. Indeed this is often the case. Ideally I would like what I have referred to as a 'pick and mix' form of voting, whereby I could vote for different parties on different points. Without many referenda, which are expensive and have many other inherent problems, it is unlikely that one could develop a system that can function in this way. So we are left with the least bad alternative - the political parties, which are increasingly appealing to the lowest common denominators (by using image and soundbites rather than substance) to win votes and maintain power (which appears often more about personal interests in most cases, than doing anything for the good of those they represent or the country as a whole).

Religion is a highly personal issue. It is also one that has led to many wars and conflicts throughout history. Despite my notes above, I fear that it would not be wise for me to express all of my opinions on religion - and particularly about specific religions - here. Suffice to say that despite my first name, I am not a Christian.

Truth - The search for the truth is a noble ideal. It is also a futile one. Especially so in the social sciences. There are too many vested interests and things at stake for people to comment on what really happened, or what they really thought, or about why they behaved in a particular way. That is even assuming they knew the reason in the first place or that they could remember.

If you want more information about any of my research or interests, then please see my homepage or contact me. You can also find a list of my publications here - with some of them available to read online.

Links to my main web pages:

(C) Christopher P. Hood, 2003-12.

You may use any of the pictures found on my pages so long as it is not used for commercial reasons and they are not altered in any way. Credit must also be given for any pictures or other information used. If you want to use a picture for commercial reasons or have any other questions regarding the use of pictures or information from my pages, then please contact me.

I am not responsible for the content of the external internet sites linked to any pages. But please contact me if you have problems with any of these links, or come across any other pages you think I should link to my pages.