<論説>近代日本の文部省人事構造 : 明治中後期における「教育畠」の形成

Abstract

本稿では、文部省高等宮に関する制度的な枠組みや、採用の実態と構成員の異動を分析することで、文部省高等官に文教経歴者が登用される傾向が強かったことを明らかにし、既往の「内務省出向説」などの是非を問う。明治中後期における文部省高等官の人事動向をみると、他の省庁から横滑りで入省する者が少なく、文部大臣の影響力も限定されていた。文部省には文教経験者を高等官にする慣行が根強く、だからこそ、文教経験のない官僚の登用や、政党員の入省に際して、高等官自身が「教育畠」の経歴を強調し、自己規定しながら、「異分子」を排除しようとする動きも顕出したのであろう。これら「教育畠」に焦点をあてることで、近代日本の教育行政は「治安的な発想」によった、という従来の視角は再考を迫られることになる。

Very few researchers of the history of educational administration have viewed high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Education as having played an important role. This is due to the fact that previous studies have seen these high-ranking officials as subordinate, pawns to strong-willed ministers of education and personnel decisions of other ministries. However, the testimony of former vice-ministers and other sources provide facts that contradict the prevailing view. This study is an attempt to illustrate personnel shifts among high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Education from the Meiji 19 (1886) organization of the personnel system to the institution of the system of appointing bureau chiefs (kyokucho) from among those who passed civil service examinations in Meiji 45 (1912). This was accomplished by verifying concretely changes in organizational structure, and by investigating changes in composition of staff and actual hiring practices as well as the shifts at the vice-minister and bureau chief level from the point of view of the high-level officials themselves. In this process, I have been able to verify that the Ministry of Education was composed of people who defined themselves by the term kyoiku batake, "the education field." The mainstream of the higher-ranking officials in the Ministry of Education had experience in educational policy matters, unlike other officials there who were transferred in and out of the ministry from other bureaucracies for short periods of time. Therefore, the theory that holds that the mainstream officials of the ministry had come from the Ministry of the Interior does not correspond to the actual situation of the high-ranking officials in the Ministry of Education during the mid to late Meiji period. It is true that there were appointments of officials with no experience in educational policy and of political party members due to changes in political administrations. However, these changes spurred high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Education to develop a sense of self-identity and a movement to remove these "outsiders." As a result this brought about a heightened consciousness and desire to distinguish educational administration from other varieties of administration. By focusing on the "education field" in this manner, it becomes apparent that there is a pressing need to reassess the conventional view that modern Japanese educational administration was based on "concepts of public safety."