Japanese society is subject to centrifugal forces that tend to promote diversification in structural arrangements, lifestyles, and value orientations, while a range of centripetal forces drives it towards homogeneity and uniformity. This chapter endeavors to recapitulate these two forces in the context of Japan’s civil society, focusing on five key areas.

The first four investigate various aspects of centrifugal forces: the fragmentation of social relations, a significant development affecting the foundations of Japanese society over the past few decades; the rise of social movements in the 2010s despite this trend; the quiet growth of volunteer activities and the role of NPOs and NGOs as a backdrop for dissenting protests, and the shifting landscape of interest groups overall; and the viability of an emic notion similar to citizenship in analyzing the Japanese context.

The final section aims to establish an analytical framework for various forms of centripetal control and to synthesize their diverse characteristics as ‘friendly authoritarianism’ permeating Japanese society.

Japanese society embraces a rich variety of cultural forms that reflect its tradition, stratification, and regional expanse. To examine the internal diversity of Japanese culture as thoroughly as possible, this chapter first looks at two manifestations of its duality and then analyzes mass culture, folk culture, and alternative culture as three major spheres of popular culture. After confirming the culture’s plurality, the end of the chapter turns to the Japanese cultural presence in the transnational context.

This chapter addresses the question of stereotype formation to inspect sampling issues and visibility problems and to examine why particular parts of the Japanese population tend to be highlighted to make generalizations about it. In doing so, it identifies four models: monocultural, multiethnic, multiclass and multicultural. It also highlights three areas in which the particular case of Japan has something to offer to social science issues in general: the convergence debate, cultural relativism, and the distinction between ideologies and lived realities in the description of a given society. Finally, it demonstrates why it is necessary to be sensitive to two types of relativism: intrasocietal and intersocietal.

The rise of feminism both outside and inside Japan has heightened awareness of gender stratification in Japanese society and directed attention to a broad range of questions. In what ways are Japanese women subjected to a Japan-specific system of gender control? What types of gender barriers are present in Japan’s labor market? How is female sexuality controlled in Japan? How are women disadvantaged within the Japanese family structure? These issues represent some of the most fundamental problems of stratification and inequality in contemporary Japan. Specifically, this chapter explores the patriarchal family registration system, which is ingrained in gender relations and the family system in Japan; women’s employment conditions in the labor market; issues surrounding sexuality and reproduction; marriage and divorce; various family structures; and, finally, gender diversity and sexual minorities.

Which groups and organizations govern Japan? How do they cooperate and compete with each other? To what extent is the Japanese establishment connected with voluntary associations at popular levels? What are the characteristics of Japanese democracy? This chapter attempts to address these and other questions with a focus on the top layers of Japanese society.

It is widely acknowledged that Japan’s establishment comprises three sectors – big business, parliament, and the public bureaucracy (ministries and agencies at the national level). The chapter examines this ‘three-way deadlock’ before moving on to discuss the emerging free-market political economy, community-level interest groups, the political culture nurtured by the LDP, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, relations with Korea and China, major media organisations, and the deep-seated rifts that have opened up within elite culture.

Inclusion is a term used frequently, but what does it really mean? Inclusion in its simplest term is ‘the action or state of including or of being included within a group or structure’ (Oxford Dictionary). This is a fundamental right of all people, but unfortunately when diversity exists, this is not a right afforded to everyone. The Oxford Dictionary has an alternate definition which elaborates on this initial one. Inclusion is also defined as ‘the practice or policy or providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those who have physical or intellectual disabilities and members of other minority groups’. As recognised in this definition, inclusion is about opportunities for all, including those with disability, developmental delay, neurodivergence, mental health difficulties, cultural diversity, variations in socio-economic status, LGBTQIA+ people, gender diversity, people experiencing trauma, unique family structures, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, just to name a few! While there are differences in what every individual needs to be included, the principles of inclusion and the foundation of everyone having the same rights, should not change.

When moving from one ECEC service to another, collaborations should include appropriate staff in the new ECEC service where possible. In instances where children are transitioning into preschool from another ECEC service or to a school setting, collaboration with future educators and other staff in the educational context will be critical to support the child and family throughout. Deciding on the school a child will attend can be notably difficult when there are disabilities, developmental delays or neurodivergence, so this chapter will also explore the family’s right to choose, and how ECEC services can both advocate for the child but also work to empower families to advocate for their child’s rights. In addition, this chapter will provide some practical strategies to support children to transition out of the ECEC service and into new settings in a more seamless and integrated way.

Transitions are essentially changes in relation to physical locations, routines and experiences. This explanation from 2012 still appropriately identifies some of the key transitions in early childhood. Transitions happen whenever children switch from parent to educator, move from place to place, or change from one activity to another. However, since 2012, we have become more aware of the significance of different transitions and the impact they can have on many other aspects of a child’s life. This chapter will start by defining what transitions are in early childhood and the different transitions that occur for most children into, within and beyond the ECEC service. Individual children respond differently to transitions so we will explore how both large and smaller transitions can impact and influence some children. This chapter will conclude with the importance of maintaining high expectations for all children, through embedding different strategies that can be used to support all children during transitions, whether they are large transitions in early childhood or smaller transitions during the day.

This chapter explores the rationale behind, and the importance of understanding, the unique profiles of each child being cared for, across early childhood settings. The purpose of this is to frame ways in which all children can be supported to achieve the best developmental, educational and wellbeing outcomes possible, now and in the future. Drawing on the principles and frameworks discussed in Chapter 1, this chapter will support further understanding of the importance of individualised care and education for every child.

There are numerous factors which influence how inclusive an early childhood service is. While you can address curriculum considerations and environmental adaptations, for example, one crucial component that is often overlooked is self-reflection. Considering our own lens ensures we can reflect on our own personal philosophy and the factors that have contributed to it. Attitudes of educators cannot be underestimated, as they lay a foundation for practice. A literature review conducted in 2020 revealed research which found that attitudes held by educators has an impact on inclusive practices. When individuals see challenges as opportunities to grow and learn, the outcome for everyone is very different to when challenges are perceived as barriers that are insurmountable.