224 114 3MB
English Pages 277 [273] Year 2013
The GreaT enTerprise
AsiA-P Acific Culture, Politics, and Society Editors:ReyChow,MichaelDutton,H.D.Harootunian, andRosalindC.Morris
The
G r e at e n t e r p r i s e Sovereignty and Historiography in Modern Korea
Henry H. em
Duke universiTy press Durham anD LonDon 2013
© 2013 Duke universiTy press
All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper ♾ Designed by C. H. Westmoreland Typeset in Whitman with Franklin Gothic display by Tseng Information Systems, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Em, Henry. The great enterprise : sovereignty and historiography in modern Korea / Henry H. Em. p. cm.—(Asia-Pacific) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8223-5357-7 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-8223-5372-0 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Korea—Historiography. 2. Sovereignty. 3. International relations. I. Title. II. Series: Asia-Pacific. DS905.7.E44 2013 951.90072—dc23 2012033723 이 저서는2007년도 정부(교육과학기술부)의 재원으로 한국학중앙연구원의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(Aks-2007-c d-4001)
Thisworkwaspublishedwithapublicationsubsidyawardedbythe AcademyofKoreanStudiesGrant,whichisfundedbytheKorean government(MOEHRd,BasicResearchFund).
For Sue K. Em, Mike M. Em, Noh Ock-shin, and Oh Jae-shik
ConTenTs
Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1
PARti.Sovereignty
1.SovereigntyandImperialism 21 2.ImperialismandNationalism 53
PARtii.History Writing
3.NationalizingKorea’sPast 87 4.UniversalizingKorea’sPast 114 5.DividedSovereigntyandSouthKoreanHistoriography 138
Appendix 1. Names and Vital Dates 161 Appendix 2. Character List 165 Notes 171 Bibliography 229 Index 247
aCknowLeDGmenTs
Thisbookhastakenalongtimetowrite,andovertheyearsithasevolved indirectionsIdidnotforesee.AfteraninitialeffortathistoricizingKorean nationalismandnationalisthistoriography,itbecamecleartomethatmy studyofmodernKoreanhistoriographywouldhavetoprovideamorecomprehensiveaccountoftherelationshipbetweenimperialismandnationalism.Thatrealizationledmetofocusonsovereigntyandthesovereignsubject(chuch’e)asconceptsandassociatedpracticesthatweretransformed byEuro-Americanimperialism.Ittookalongtimetofigureouthowsovereignty,andtheassumedequalitythatonegainsbybecoming“sovereign,” becameasfoundationalastheconceptofnation(minjok)totheprojectof modernityandhistorywritinginKorea. Intheearly1980s,justoutofcollege,IspentninemonthsinthePhilippinesworkingonhumanrightsissues.ItwastherethatIreceivedmy educationinanti-imperialistrevolutionarymovements.Severalyearslater, fromanothereighteenmonthsworkingonhumanrightsandlaborissues at the Urban Industrial Mission in Inchŏn, South Korea, I learned how theexperienceofpartitionandtheKoreanWarcontinuetoreverberate powerfullyforsomany.Thoseexperiencesalsotaughtmethatthesenseof individualagencyemergesfromcommunitiesofsolidarity.Iamgratefulto PatriciaPattersonandMichaelHahmforthoselife-changingexperiences. Icouldnothaveimaginedabookprojectlikethiswithoutthetraining IreceivedfrommyteachersattheUniversityofChicago.Startingasan undergraduate,IlearnedfromTetsuoNajitaandHarryHarootunianhow historianscanandshouldposequestionsaboutideasthatseemnaturaland commonsensical.IamgratefultoTetsandHarryforturningmyinterests tohistoryandtocriticalmodesofhistorywriting.Agraduateseminaron nationalismtaughtbyPrasenjitDuarashapedmyearlyworkonnationalismandnationalisthistoriography.MygreatestdebtistoBruceCumings, myfriendandteacher,whosescholarshipandpoliticalstancehaveinspired myworkoverthesemanyyears.
x
aCknowLeDGmenTs
Ifirstpresentedmyworkonnationalismandnationalisthistoriography ataconferenceorganizedbyGi-WookShinandMichaelRobinson.That wasanimportantconferenceforme,andinthecourseofpreparingmy articlefortheireditedvolume,Colonial Modernity in Korea,Iwasforcedto grapplewithmyriadquestionsregardingthemodernityofthenationform. JohnDuncan,myfriend,colleague,andmentoratuclA,willinglyengaged meinmanyhoursofconversationaboutKoreanhistoryandhistoriography.Johnhelpedmetosharpenmyargument,andIremaindeeplygrateful forhisincomparablegenerosity. Intheearly1990s,ChoiJang-jipintroducedmetothedebatesoverhistoryfollowingliberationin1945.MydebtstoProfessorChoicontinued whenIreturnedtoKoreaasaFulbrightSeniorScholar,andagainin2007– 8,whenItaughtintheDepartmentofKoreanHistoryatKoreaUniversity.ItwaswithhissupportthatIwasabletoorganizeaninternational conferenceonthecolonialperiod,affordingmetheopportunitytolearn fromaremarkablegroupofscholarsworkingonthecolonialperiod,includingMicahAuerback,TakashiFujitani,ToddHenry,KenKawashima, HelenLee,JinheeLee,JohnLie,SerkbaeSuh,JunUchida,JanetPoole, andTheodoreJunYoo.IamgratefultothemanycolleaguesatKoreaUniversityfromwhomIlearnedagreatdeal,especiallyProfessorsChoKwang andKangMan-gil,whoallowedmetositinontheirlecturesandseminars onKoreanhistoriography. In1998KimDong-chooninvitedmetopresentmyworkonSinCh’ae-ho andpostnationalismatYŏksamunjeyŏn’guso.Thatprovidedtheoccasion forconversationsovertheyearswithKoreanhistoriansofmygeneration, especiallyParkChan-seung.In2000AlainDelisseninvitedmetoParis tospendamonthattheCentredeRecherchessurlaCorée,EHEss.Iam gratefultoAlainandKoendeCeusterfortheircommentsandquestions onthepapersIpresentedonSinCh’ae-hoandPaekNam-un.In2007,as partoftheOxfordHistoryofHistoricalWritingproject,AxelSchneider invitedmetoaconferenceatLeidenUniversityonthewritingofhistory intwentieth-centuryEastAsia.Thatprovidedtheoccasionformetomap outcertaintrajectoriesinhistorywritinginmodernKorea.In2009Jae- JungSuhinvitedmetosAis-JohnsHopkinsUniversityforaworkshopon mybookmanuscript.Astheinvitedrespondent,StefanTanakaprovided valuablecommentsandcounsel.In2010AndreSchmidinvitedmetothe UniversityofTorontoforanotherworkshop,andIreceivedveryhelpful
aCknowLeDGmenTs
commentsfromJanetPooleandKenKawashima.Andresharesmyinterest inKoreanhistoriography,andhiscarefulreadingandcritiqueofmymanuscriptwereimmenselyhelpful. I would like to thank the Academy of Korean Studies for providing a publicationsubsidy.Noneofthechaptersinthisbookisareprintofearlier publications,butmaterialsfromearlierpublicationshavebeenincorporated into various chapters. Those earlier publications include “‘Overcoming’Korea’sDivision:NarrativeStrategiesinRecentSouthKoreanHistoriography,”positions: east asia cultures critique1,no.2(1993);“Minjokas aModernandDemocraticConstruct:SinCh’ae-ho’sHistoriography,”Colonial Modernity in Korea,ed.Gi-WookShinandMichaelE.Robinson(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,1999);and“HistoriansandHistory WritinginModernKorea,”Oxford History of Historical Writing:vol.5,Historical Writing Since 1945,ed.AxelSchneiderandDanielWoolf(NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress,2011). IamhappyforthisopportunitytoacknowledgeotherfriendsandcolleaguesnotyetmentionedandwithwhomIhaveworked,whoencouraged andhelpedmeovertheyears:CharlesArmstrong,RobertBuswell,Cho Eun-su,ChoeMin,ChungmooChoi,MichaelChwe,AlexisDudden,Han Suk-Jung,YukikoHanawa,MartyHart-Landsberg,HeoEun,TheodoreQ. Hughes,ImChong-myong,RebeccaKarl,KwakJun-Hyeok,JoGye-Won, JungTaeHern,ElaineKim,Kyung-HyunKim,LeeBeom-jae,LeeJin-Han, LeeJung-Shin,TimothyS.Lee,LydiaLiu,AbéMarkNornes,Seung-Deuk Oak,Se-MiOh,LesliePincus,ElizabethShim,RyuSi-hyun,J.T.Takagi, Meredith Jung-En Woo, Lisa Yoneyama, Marilyn Young, and Jonathan Zwicker. Icouldnothavefinishedthisbookwithoutthesupportofatrulywonderfulgroupoffriendswhoreadpartsofthemanuscript,suggestedfurtherreadings,andprovidedcriticalcomments.ToChristineHong,Monica Kim,SuzyKim,NamheeLee,Jae-JungSuh,andYoungjuRyu,thankyou. MyeditorsatDukeUniversityPresswereadeptandunfailinglysupportive. Twoanonymousreadersprovidedextraordinarilypreciseandknowledgeablecritiques.Asformistakesandshortcomings,thoseremainmyresponsibility.ToGraceKyoungwonEm,andtoChangbinandAerie,whogrew upwaitingforthisbooktobepublished,Icanfinallysay:it’sdone.Thank youforyourloveandpatience.Withgratitude,Idedicatethisbooktoboth Kyoungwon’sparentsandmine.
xi
inTroDuCTion
InanessaypublishedinTongkwanginSeptember1932,KimKi-rimcalled on“MissKorea”tocutherhair.“Someoneoncedescribedthemodernas theeraofthe3S’s(sports,speed,sex),butIwillinsteadcallthefirstthirty years of our century the era of the short hair. As typified by ‘Nora,’ the ‘Bob’ (short haircut) is the ultimate symbol of liberation and of women venturingoutside....Cuttingyourhairannouncesyourdeparturefrom that‘harem’towhichyouhavebeenshackledforthousandsofyears;itis thesignthatyouhavecomeoutunderthebluesky.”1InKim’sdiscourse on modernity, he set aside the purportedly familiar characterization of modernityassports,speed,andsextofocusonbobbedhair,feministsas typifiedbyHenrikIbsen’sNora,andwomenofstatusventuringoutsidein daytimeunconstrainedbymarriageandmotherhood.Indeedbythe1930s onecouldhaveseenincolonialKoreabaseballgames,beautypageants, exhibitions,displaywindowsfrontingthenewdepartmentstores,streetcars,streetlights,andcafésthatenabledcrowdwatching.Startingabouta decadeearlier,Kim’sreaderswouldhaveseenandfeltnotjusttherapidity ofchangeinthephysical,spatial,andculturalorderingofcolonialSeoul, aconstantlyself-negatingtemporaldynamic,butalsotheincreasingrate ofchange itself. Asforsex,Kimbeganhisessaybyacknowledging that inKoreainthe1930sthebobhaircutwasstillassociatedwith(feminine) eroticism,alongwithbrightredlipstick,thesideglance(kyŏnnuntchil), andothervulgarpracticesthatbelongedtotheworldofcaféwaitressesand dancegirlsinThe Threepenny Opera.2Heimaginedthatifheweretosuggesttoacoed,“Goon,whydon’tyoucutyourhair?,”shemightturnredin theface,furious,asthoughhehaddamagedherdignity. InaddressingyoungKoreanwomen(“MissKorea”),Kimtriedtosubstitutethosestillprevalentassociationsbydrawingcontrastshedefinedin termsoftemporalityandcivilizationasmeasuredbythestatusofwomen: womenshackledforpastmillenniaincontrasttoliberatedwomenofthe twentieth century. He granted that their neatly braided hair was, well, neat.Buttiedtothatneatlybraidedhairhung“thedreamsofabackward
2
inTroDuCTion
feudalera.”Hewanted“MissKorea”tolookathersistersinChinawhohad kickedawaythebarbariccustomoffootbinding:Lookattheirstronglegs runningtotheanti-imperialistfront(“t’adoXXjuŭiroXsŏnŭltalryŏ”).3He urged“MissKorea”tolookattheirshorthair,andheendedhisessaywith thequestion,“Deepinyourheart,don’tyouwanttodefendtheBobcut thatissovilified?”Bytitlinghisessay“‘MissKorea’CutYourHair,”Kim wasabletoaddressyoungKoreanwomenasiftheystoodontheworld’s stage,onviewasinbeautypageantsthatareconsciouslyorganizedforboth nationalandinternationalaudiences.HisagitationforKoreanwomento liberatethemselvesandtoparticipatein(colonialKorea’s)socialandpoliticallife,offeredinapedagogictoneandwithoutreferencetopatriarchy, wasacommonrhetoricalstrategyformalewriterswhowereasked,frequently,towriteaboutwomenandwomen’sissuesincolonialKoreainthe late1920sandearly1930s. Publishedwithoutattribution,KimKi-rim’sessaywasthethirdofthree essays on Korean women and short hair, coming after an essay by Kim Hwal-lan,aprofessorandviceprincipalatEwha(Women’s)College,and asecondessayby“K.Y.,”astudentat“XWomen’sSchool”whohadcut herhair.Until1939EwhaCollegewastheonlywomen’scollegeincolonialKorea,andinheressayKimHwal-lannotedthatEwhaCollegehad twoorthreestudentswithshorthair.4Sheequatedshorthairwithconvenienceandpredictedthatthenumberofstudentswithshorthairwould “naturally”increaseovertime.KimHwal-lan,whohadreceivedherPh.D. ineducationfromColumbiaUniversityin1931,letitbeknownthatshe neither encouraged her students from cutting their hair nor prevented themfromdoingso.K.Y.hadmoretosayinheressay.Shebeganwith thedeclarationthatshehadgainedmanythingsaftershecutherhair.She noted,however,thatpeoplewhovoicedallkindsofopinionsaboutthebob haircutdidsoonlyfromathirdperson’sperspective.Shealsonotedthat shecouldnotshakeoffthefeelingthatmen,whethertheyarguedforor againstthebob,continuedtolookatwomenasvisualobjectsfortheirpleasureandenjoyment. ApointofdepartureforthisbookisKimKi-rim’sobservationthatthe twentiethcenturywastheeraoftheshorthaircut:thatthecuttingofhair signifiedthetriumphofreasonoverunreason,therealizationofindividual autonomy,andtheemergenceofthemodernpoliticalsubjectthatestablished the anti-imperialist front. Kim Ki-rim’s exhortation arose from a
inTroDuCTion
romanticinfatuationthatisthesubjectofthisbook,a“romanceofsovereignty,”accordingtoAchilleMbembe,thatarticulates“acertainideaof thepolitical,thecommunity,[and]thesubject.”Itwas(andis)aromance that“restsonthebeliefthatthesubjectisthemasterandthecontrolling authorofhisorherownmeaning...[andonthebeliefthat]theexercise ofsovereignty,inturn,consistsinsociety’scapacityforself-creation.”5As K.Y.observed,sovereigntyaspedagogyalsosoughttoreproducegender, racial,class,andcivilizationalhierarchiesandwascomplicitwithpower. Still,K.Y.madeitclearthatshelikedherhairshort:“Intruth,Ilikeit.It waswhenIcutmyhairthatIlearnedsomethingabout[thepowerof]socialconventions,andpeople’semotionsandrationality.”6Thegeneralaim ofthisbookistoexaminethistruthandthepleasuresthatderivefromthe ideaofbeingsovereign,possessingasubjectivewill(chuch’esŏng)capableof reconstitutinglife,language,andlabor.Thisbookexaminesthehistoricity ofsovereignty(chukwŏn),itscomplicitywithpower,anditscreative,productivecapacity,andalsotheconventions,rationalities,andsubjectivities thatsovereigntyelicited. PartIfocusesonthehistoricityofsovereignty:howsovereigntyfunctionedaspedagogyforimperialismandcolonialismandhowitbecamethe paramountsignifierforKorea’smodernera,productiveofdesireandsubjectivity.Chapter1examinessovereigntyasalegalconceptthatstructures themodernnation-stateandrelationsbetweenempiresandnation-states. SovereigntywasnotfullyarticulatedbythePeaceofWestphaliaandthen extendedtoEurope’speriphery.TheEuropeanconceptionofsovereignty— thatis,equalsovereignty—hasamorecomplicatedhistory.Sovereignty andinternationallawwereimprovisedoutofthecolonialencounterand givenvariousarticulationsbyEuropeancolonizersinconditionsofhegemoniccontestationwithothercolonialpowerstodeclarewhowassovereign,whowasnot,andwhy.7Thatistosay,colonialismwascentraltothe constitutionofsovereignty,andonespecificaimofthisbookistoexplore thehistoricityofsovereigntyinmodernKoreaanditsdeepcomplicitywith bothJapaneseandEuro-Americanempiresandcolonialprojects. AsahistoryofhistoricalwritinginmodernKorea,partIIexaminessovereignty’s creative, productive power, calling on Korean historians who wouldprivilegeanddeploy,fortheirownpurposes,theconceptofequal sovereigntyastheconditionforrewritingKorea’spast.Koreanhistorians didtheimagining,butitwassovereigntythatmadeitpossibletoimagine
3
4
inTroDuCTion
theKoreanethnicnation(minjok)andtoimagineitasaself-sameunitythat evolved(ordeveloped)throughlineartime.Asnationalisthistoriansrenderedtheethnicnationasthesovereignsubject(chuch’e)ofKoreanhistory, theylocatedKoreainglobaltimeandhelpedcreateademocraticlogic,limitedbynationalboundaries,thatinvitedallKoreans—maleandfemale,old andyoung,high-bornandoflowstatus—tobecomesovereignsubjectsof nationalhistory. Torecognizesovereignty’scomplicitywithimperialismandcolonialism, itshouldberecalledthatJapaneseauthoritieshadforcedKingKojongto issuearoyaldecree(tanbalryŏng)thatorderedalladultmentocutofftheir topknots.8BeforetheroyaldecreewasissuedonDecember30,1895,Yu Kil-chun,thehomeminister,flankedbyJapanesetroops,hadpressured KingKojongandthecrownprincetohavetheirowntopknotscut.9For mostadultmeninlatenineteenth-centuryKoreaandChina,thecutting ofhairwasassociatedwithhumiliationandviolenceagainstthebody,severing one’s ties to parents, ancestors, and a civilizational order.10 In the decadesbeforeandaftertheturnofthetwentiethcentury,one’shairand clothesbecameintenselyvisiblesignsofpoliticalandculturalallegiance. Outragedbythetopknotdecree,fromJanuarytoApril1896localliterati ledRighteousArmiesinarmedinsurrectionagainstofficialswhoenforced thetopknotdecree.FortheJapanese,theavowedobjectivesbehindthe topknotorderhadtodowithhygieneandwithconveniencewhileworking. Intheroyaldecree,however,publishedbytheHomeOffice,KingKojong associatedtopknotcuttingwiththegoalofachievingequalstandinginthe nation-statesystem:“We,incuttingOurhair,aresettinganexampleto Oursubjects.Doyou,themultitude,identifyyourselveswithOurdesign, andcausetobeaccomplishedthegreatenterprise[taeŏp]ofestablishing equalitywiththenationsoftheearth.”11Cuttingthetopknotmademanifestone’sdecisiontorejectthe“cruelty”and“backwardness”thatdifferentiatedKoreafromthecivilizednationsoftheworld.Thediscardedtopknot signaledaseveringofthefuturefromthepast,becausethepastcouldno longerbeinstructiveforactioninthepresent.Thetopknotorderwasone amongmanyactsofundoinginlatenineteenth-centuryKorea,anditwas Euro-Americanimperialism,withsovereigntyfunctioningbothaspoliticalpowerandpolicepower,whichequatedsuchactsofdeterritorializationandreterritorializationwiththegreatenterpriseofembracingWesterncivilizationandattainingequalstandingwithothersovereignnations.
inTroDuCTion
Thegreatenterprise,tobecarriedoutbyKoreans,requiredthatkindof definitiveseveringsothatKoreacouldstandautonomousandfree,asan equal.12ThusthereisnoironyinthefactthatJapaneseauthoritieshadto forcesovereigntyonKingKojong.Sovereigntyandinternationallawwere morethanjustcomplicitinimperialistprojects.KingKojong’sdeclaration ofindependencefromChinaonJanuary7,1895,forcedonhimbyInoue Kaoru,laidthelegalbasisforincreasingJapan’scontroloverKorea.13As areminderofthatwhichexistedpriortosovereigntyandprecolonialhistory,chapter1explainswhythestate-nessofChosŏnKoreawasnotmarred intheeyesoftheChosŏnscholar-officialsbytheirmonarch’ssubordinate ritualstatustotheMingemperoror,bytheeighteenthcentury,evento theQing(Manchu)emperor.Tobesure,Ming-ChosŏnandQing-Chosŏn relationswereneitherpredeterminednorstatic,andthenotionofChosŏn Korea as a model tributary obscures periods of severe tension and conflict,forexample,duringearlyMing-Chosŏnrelations(especiallybetween 1408and1433),whentheChineseimperialcourtdemandedhumantribute(girlsfortheimperialharemandboystobeeunuchs),orduringearly Qing-ChosŏnrelationswhenManchuarmiestwiceinvadedKorea,in1627 and1636,toforcetheKoreancourttoacceptvassalstatus.14TheManchu invasionof1636wasespeciallydevastating,andsubmissiontotheQing washumiliating;formanyyearsafter1636Chosŏnofficialskeptusingthe Ming calendar in internal documents, and they never adopted Manchu clothingorhairstyle.Buttributeboughtnoninterference,andformuch ofitshistoryChosŏnKoreasuccessfullymaintaineditsautonomyaswell astraderelationsbywayofthisrituallysubordinaterelationshiptoChina. Moreover,whenrelationswiththeimperialcourtimproved,theChosŏn literaticouldarguethatitwasKorea’sinclusioninaChina-centeredworld, andtheirownfiercecommitmenttothebasiccategoriesthatdefinedthat worldintermsofinnerandouter,civilizationandbarbarism(hwaandyi) thatendowedChosŏnwithitsdistinctiveandcivilizedstate-ness.Thatisto say,itwasoftenthroughengagementwiththatChina-centeredworldthat Chosŏnscholar-officialsimaginedKoreancivilization(soChunghwa)realizingitsfullpotentiality,itscosmicmeaning. TheimportanceandvaluefortheChosŏncourtofreceivinginvestiture fromtheMingorQingimperialcourtrevolvedarounddomesticpolitics, andtheChosŏncourttimeandagaindisplayedamultifacetedpersonain itsrelationswithChina;formuchoftheChosŏnperiod,Koreanscholar-
5
6
inTroDuCTion
officialscouldreadilyacknowledgethatacentralfacetofthestate-nessof ChosŏnKoreaderivedfromitssubordinateinclusioninaChina-centered tributarysystem,andatthesametimeidentifyTan’gun,whostoodoutsidetheChinesegenealogy,astheprogenitoroftheKoreanstate.Korea’s China-centeredsovereigntywasnotabsolutesovereignty,andcertainlynot equalsovereignty.Itsritualsandprotocolswereverydifferentfromthe ritualsandprotocolsofpost-Westphaliansovereigntybasedonthenotion ofequal,separate,andindivisibleauthorityandidentity.Inthelatenineteenth century, King Kojong’s default strategy was to utilize to best advantagetheprotocolsoftheChina-centered tributarysystemaswellas theprotocolsofthesovereignty-basednation-statesystem.Itwashegemoniccontestation—specificallyJapan’svictoryoverChinaintheSino- JapaneseWar—thatprovidedtheoccasiontoeliminatethisambiguity,as wellasthespaceformaneuverthatithadafforded.WhileInoueKaoru mighthaveforcedKingKojong’s“declarationofindependence,”theking andthegreaterpartofreform-mindedofficialsshouldbeseenascoauthors oftheIndependenceOathtakenattheRoyalAncestralTemple.Chapter1 presentshistoricalsubstantiationofthisclaimandpreparestheground fordiscussionoftherelationshipbetweenimperialismandnationalismby lookingattherelationshipbetweenauthorship(aclaimofsovereignty)and ritualaction. Inthesensethattheking’sritualperformanceonJanuary7,1895,was doubly prescribed (not just by ritual manuals dating back centuries but alsobyInoueKaoru),itcouldbesaidthatKingKojong—asChosŏnKorea’s supremesacerdotalauthority,itsmonarchandbearerofthedynasticmissionandHeaven’smandate(ch’ŏnmyŏng)—was,andwasnot,theauthor ofhisactions.ItwasunderstoodbyallthatonlyKingKojong’stakingthe OathbeforehisancestorscouldmakeKorea’sindependence(fromChina) inviolable.ItisinthatsenseofKingKojongascoauthorofhisownritual performancethatchapter2takesupthequestionofhowsovereigntyas anationformcouldbereplicatedacrosstheglobe,chieflyamongandby newlyemergingbourgeoisies,forBenedictAnderson“thefirstclassesto achievesolidaritiesonanessentiallyimaginedbasis.”15 Chapter2beginswiththeargumentthatbeforetheSino-JapaneseWar, andbeforeKingKojong’sdeclarationofKorea’s“independence,”material anddiscursiveconditionsalreadyexistedwithinKoreathatwouldallow forthedisseminationofnotjusttheideaofnationalsovereigntybutalso
inTroDuCTion
thepresumptionthatrecognitionofKorea’ssovereigntybytheWesternimperialpowerswasanecessaryconditionforavoidingcolonization.Toward thisend,intellectualslikeYunCh’i-hotookitforgrantedthatKoreahad todemonstratecommitmenttoEuropeancivilization,asmeasuredbyspecific“reforms”ofpolitical,economic,andculturalinstitutionsandpractices (such as sumptuary laws), and also to participate in international eventssuchastheColumbianExpositioninChicagoin1893.Theproblem, asYunsawit,wasthatKorea’scommitmenttothegreatenterprisewasas second-rateanddismalastheKoreaExhibit,somuchsothathefoundhimselfunabletowalkawayfromit. TotheextentthattheKoreaExhibitattheColumbianExpositionfunctionedforYunasasynecdocheofKorea’sabjection,itispossibletounderstandthesadnessaswellasgenocidalcontemptthatYunfeltatthesightof NativeAmericansintheAmericanWestcongregatingaroundrailroadstationsalongtheCentralPacificRailroad:“Indianswereseenatalmostevery station.Someofthempaintedtheirfacesredandmosthadredorblue blanketswrappedaroundtheirbodies.Asadandsomewhatcontemptible sight:sadbecauseoftheirpasthistory,butcontemptiblebecauseofthe inabilitytoimprovetheircondition.Aracethatfails,fromvoluntarylazinessandignorance,toavailitselfoftheadvantagesofcivilizationbrought soclosetoitsreachisn’tworthwhiletolive.”16Yun,aprogenitorofthe Korean (Christian) bourgeois class that would emerge under Japanese colonialrule,sawNativeAmericansintermsofavisualregimethatparalleledtheobjectifyinganddiscipliningoperationsofdiscourseson“civilization.” If Native Americans did not avail themselves of Euro-American civilization—iftheyvoluntarilychosetoliveinignoranceand“degraded humanity”—thentheydidnotdeservetolive.ForYun,thedecisiontoembraceEuro-Americancivilizationwas,initself,proofofapeople’scapacity forrationalityandautonomy.Hisprivilegingoffreedom,andruminations onwhycertainpopulationsdonotdeservetolive,pointtonotjustthe inclusionarypretensionsofliberaltheoryandtheexclusionaryeffectsof liberalpractices,butalsotoliberalism’sessentiallinktoimperialismand colonialism.17 His privileging of freedom also points to the centrality of violenceintheconstitutionof(Christian)liberal-bourgeoissubjectivityin earlytwentieth-centuryKoreaanditspermutationsthroughthecolonial perioddowntopostcolonialanticommunistSouthKorea.18 Itmustbesaidthattheviolenceofsovereigntywasveryproductive.In
7
8
inTroDuCTion
language,sovereigntyasaformofcommandpromptedKoreanintellectuals,aswriters,historians,andtranslators,toproducenewmeaningsand newnarrativesthroughsemanticinnovation.Inthetranslationofsovereigntyinitsnationform,chapter2focusesontheunavoidableaccommodationtoEuro-Americanmodernityandonsemanticinnovationthrough bothproductiveimaginationandthelegislativerationalityofcapitalistsovereignty.19AttentionpaidtothelegislativerationalityofcapitalistsovereigntygoesagainstthegrainofscholarshipthatwantstoportraymodernityandnationinKoreaasKorea’sowncreation,withKoreanintellectuals selecting,translating,andtherebycreatingtheirownmodernityfromthe Westernarchive.Ifthatwerethecase,themodernitythuscreatedwouldbe sovereigntoKorea,dynamic,andongoing:Korea’smodernityasanincompleteprojectthatisbothparticularanduniversal.Historianswouldthen haveafirmbasisforwritingthehistoryofKorea’smodernityuntaintedby imperialismandcolonialism;historiansneedonlytakedueaccountofthe historicalandpoliticalcontextand“thelimitationsofhistime.”Thiskind ofscholarship(also)emergesfromdesirecreatedbysovereigntyitself. Intermsoflanguage,itwasthetranslationofcapitalistsovereigntyinthe latenineteenthcenturythatproducedthediachronicidentityofnational language (kuk’ŏ), discernible in the poetry (hyangga) of the Silla period downtothelanguageofscholar-officialsinlatenineteenth-centurySeoul. “TheKoreanlanguage”cametobeimaginedassingular,aunityevenin itsgreatvariationsoverspaceandtime.Inanalyzingthisprocessoftranslation,intheliteralsense,chapter2drawsattentiontotheradicaltransformationsinlanguageandpoliticaleconomy,transformationsthatwere overdeterminedbythelegislativerationalityofcapitalistsovereignty.One keyexampleisthewordforeconomyusedtodayinChina,Japan,andKorea: 經濟 (C: jingji, J: keizai, K: kyŏngje). The lexical unit kyŏngje was a contractionofkyŏngse jemin(經世濟民):togoverntheworldandrelievethe people.Thatistosay,priortothenineteenthcentury,kyŏngjereferredtoa politicaleconomythatwasnecessarilyandovertlymoral,amoraleconomy structuredonobligationtothepeople’swelfare.WhenJapaneseintellectualstranslatedeconomyaskeizai,however,theyassociatedkeizaiwithproduction,consumption,andthewealthofnations,anintellectualapproach thatlinkedpublicinterestwithcompetitionandthepursuitofprivategain. Withkyŏngjerenderedaseconomy,theextractionofprofitwouldappear asaseriesofrelationsofexchangeratherthantributeextractedthrough
inTroDuCTion
politicaldomination:thepeople,asworkersandproducers,becameautonomousand“free”intheirpovertyandpropertylessness.Likecapitalism, then,thetermkyŏngjecould(anddid)takeapurelyeconomicform. In the late nineteenth century, Japanese intellectuals also created a seriesofneologismsinthecourseoftranslatingfromEuropeanlanguages, includingthewordfornation,minzoku(K:minjok).Itisimportanttonote thatwordslikeminjok([ethnic]nation)wereincorporatedintoKoreanas itwasbeingnationalized.Inotherwords,thenationalizationoftheKorean languageoccurredwithinaprofoundlytransnational,translingualcontext. Christian missionaries, especially Protestant missionaries, helped transformtheKoreanalphabetintoaniconofKoreaandaniconfortheKorean nation.TheyinspiredandtrainedmanyprominentKoreanlinguistsand grammarians,includingthebrilliantlinguistChuSi-g yŏng.Missionaries soughtandobtainedinternationalrecognitionforthescientificvalueof theKoreanalphabet.Theypromotedrespectforandstandardizationofthe KoreanvernacularandfosteredaspiritofprotectingtheKoreanscript.20It waswithinthiscontextthatvernacularKoreanwrittenwithKingSejong’s alphabet (created in 1443) was elevated to the status of national script (kungmun),whileliterary(classical)ChinesewasdemotedtomereChinese writing.ButwhileinternationalrecognitiongiventoKoreanwritingmight seemtopayhomagetoKoreangenius,asReyChowhasargued,homageto theWesthaslongbeenpaidintheformofwhatseemstobeitsopposite21: inthiscase,theradicalinsistenceonkungmun(Koreanwrittenvernacularasthenationalscript).Inthatsense,itwascapitalistsovereigntythat promotedKorea’sdistinctionfromChinaandstandardizationoflanguage practicesandpopulations,withKoreanandKoreansconstitutedasdistinct unitsthatidentifyeachother. Although Japanese authorities saw King Kojong’s declaration of sovereigntyasanecessarysteptowardtheimpositionofaprotectorateand eventualannexation,tojustifycolonizationtheyalsohadtoexplainwhy Koreawasneverreallysovereignandneverreallycapableofmaintaining “thesovereigntyJapanhadobtainedforKorea.”Chapter3,whichbegins partIIofthisbook,showshow,outofancientruins,theJapanesecolonialstateconstructedanexplanationforwhycolonizationwasnecessary. SoonafterannexationtheJapanesecolonialstatepouredmoney,expertise, and concrete to restore Sŏkkuram, an astonishingly beautiful Buddhist statueseatedwithinaman-madestonegrotto“discovered”byaJapanese
9
10
inTroDuCTion
mailman.TheJapanesecolonialstatealsorestoredanumberofBuddhist templesnearKyŏngjuandbreathlesslyextolledSŏkkuramandtheBuddhist art and architecture of the Silla period as the “culmination of the religionandtheartoftheOrient.”22Thepedagogiclessonhadtodowith Japan’sself-designatedroleascuratorforAsia’sartandacoloniallessonon temporality.SŏkkuramandtheartandarchitectureoftheSillaperiodrepresentedtheapexofKoreanculturalhistory,brilliantartisticachievements whichstoodinstarkcontrasttothesqualorofKorea’spresent.Thestory ofSŏkkuram—itscreationandsubsequentslideintoobscurityandruin— wasthesadstoryofKorea:abeautifulandbrilliantculturalpastthatwas asmuchAsianasKorean,followedbyalongdownwardslide.Thecolonial authoritiesdidnotjustteachKoreansabouttheirpast;theyhadtorestore itforthem. Ultimatelycolonialruledependedoncoercivepower:thepowertosuppress protest and armed resistance. But Japanese colonialism could not havebeensustainedwithjustcoercivepower.Toestablishsufficienthegemony,Japanesecolonialismhadtobe,aboveall,apedagogicendeavorin whichthecolonizedwouldcometorecognizetherelativesuperiorityof thecolonizer.RestoringSŏkkuramtoitsformerglorywaspartofthatpedagogiceffort,teachingabouttheworldandKorea’splaceinitasdefinedby JapanandtheWest.Inthiscolonizingproject,theJapanesecolonialstate drewheavilyonEuro-Americancolonialpractices.LiketheBritishinIndia andAmericansinthePhilippines,theJapaneseallocatedmoneyandexpertisetocarryoutexcavationsandsurveys,tostudyKorea’spast,andtorestoresomeculturalsites(butnotothers)inordertoestablishthecategories andnarrativestrategiesbywhichKoreaandKoreanswouldbeunderstood. Thustherewasaproliferationof(competing)discoursesonKoreanidentity thatemanatedfromtheJapanesecolonialstateaswellasKoreannationalist intellectualsandorganizations.Inthiscompetition,theJapanesecolonial statewasmoresuccessfulintermsofproducingdetailedstudiesofKorean art, customs, language, religion, and history.23 For the Japanese colonial state,thegoaloftransformingcolonialKoreaforitsstrategicendswent handinhandwiththeworkoftransformingpeasantsintoChōsenjin(Koreans).ThelogicofitsracistcolonialpolicycompelledtheJapanesecolonial statetoreconstitute(disparate)KoreanidentitiesintoahomogeneousChōsenjinthatbecamebothabureaucraticandaderogatoryclassificationfor allKoreansregardlessofgender,regionalorigin,orclassbackground.
inTroDuCTion
Contrary to conventional nationalist accounts which argue that Japanese colonial authorities pursued a consistent and systematic policy of eradicatingKoreanidentity,weshouldseethattheJapanesecolonialstate actuallyendeavoredtoproduceKoreansassubjects,subjectsinthesense ofbeingundertheauthorityoftheJapaneseemperorandinthesenseof havingaseparateandinferiorsubjectivity.Thisinturnledtoabifurcated discourse,becauseKoreannationalisthistorians,incompetitionwiththe Japanesecolonialstate,wereengagedintheprojectofrecoveringorproducinganautonomousandsovereignKoreansubjectivity.Nationalisthistorianswouldfindevidenceofthissubjectivityinhistory,butinnecessarily incompleteordisfiguredform;fornationalisthistorians,onlypoliticalindependencecouldrenderpossiblethefullrealizationoftrue(sovereign) Koreansubjectivity.Althoughthepoweroftherepressiveandideological apparatusesoftheJapanesecolonialstatefarsurpassedthatoftheKorean nationalistmovement,Koreanintellectualsweremorethancapableofensuringthatthediscourseonnationalandindividualsovereigntyremained acontestedfieldthroughoutthecolonialperiod. IdonotmeantopresentasimplebinarybetweenKoreannationalists andtheJapanesecolonialstate.Thehistoryoutlinedinthisbookhastodo withcompetingnationalisms,andreadersshouldbeawarethatJapanese settlersandtheirorganizations,althoughIdonotdiscussthem,werealso verymuchinvolvedinproducingknowledgeaboutKorea.Thisispointed outbyJunUchida,whocautionsagainstsimpleidentificationofJapanese settlerswiththeJapanesecolonialstate.Japanesesettlerswere“brokers of empire” in the sense that, as nonstate actors, they participated and intervened in the colonial project in complex ways that complemented butalsocomplicated thegovernment-general’s rule.24 Thus,andassuggestedbyK.Y.’sandKimKi-rim’sessaysonthebob,any“Korean”subjectivitycreatedundersuchconditionshadtoassume“aworldofsynchronic temporality”—thatis,baseballgames,beautypageants,exhibitions,displaywindowsinthenewdepartmentstores,aswellashistorywriting,all understoodinsynchronic“world”time,andsubjectivityitselfconstituted by“historicalidentificationandspatialproximity.”25 Colonial historians, for their part, represented Japan’s annexation of Koreaalsoasarestoration.Basedonhisreadingoftheeighth-centurytexts KojikiandNihon shoki,KumeKunitakesuggestedthatJapanbeforeJinmu (themythicalfirstemperor)wasathalassocracyencompassingKyūshū,the
11
12
inTroDuCTion
Koreanpeninsula,andsoutheasternChina.26SuchnarrativeswoulddepictcolonizationofKoreaastherestorationofJapaneserule,Japanhaving ruledsouthernKoreainancienttimes.Colonialhistoriansalsosuggested thatJapaneseandKoreansweredescendedfromcommonancestors.Such narratives,however,createdanxietyforcolonialistsaswellasanticolonial Koreannationalists,ananxietyoversamenessorlackofessentialdifference between colonizer and colonized. Colonialist historiography came intoitsfullnesswithnarrativestrategiesthatcouldaffirmsamenesswhile asserting colonial difference and colonial hierarchy, which were maintainedthroughnarrativesaboutabsence,lack,andtemporality.Colonialisthistoriographyarguedthatexternalforces—Chinese,Manchurian,and Japanese—haddeterminedKorea’shistoricaldevelopmentfromitsvery beginnings. Factionalism was deeply ingrained in the Korean political culture,asevidencedbysuccessivepurgesofliteratiandfactionalstrife duringtheChosŏnperiod,preventingtheemergenceofaunifiedpoliticalwill.Koreansocietypriortoannexationhadbeenutterlystagnant.In otherwords,Koreanswerenotandcouldnotbecomesovereignsubjects oftheirownhistory. Ofthese,stagnationtheorywasperhapsmosteffectiveinestablishing colonialdifferenceintermsoftemporality.Drawingontheauthorityof thesocialsciences,specificallyKarlBücher’stheoriesonnonmarketeconomics,FukudaTokuzōarguedthatfeudalismandprivateownershipof landhadfailedtoemergeinKorea,andthusthelevelofdevelopmentin late nineteenth-century Korea was comparable to that in tenth-century FujiwaraJapan.Basedonatwenty-daytriptoKoreain1902,Fukudawas abletoconcludethatKoreans“wholackthecourageouswarriorspiritthat ournation[minzoku]represents”mustlooktoJapan,whiletheJapanese havenochoicebutto“acknowledgetheweightofourappointedtask,a naturalfateanddutyofapowerfulandsuperiorculturetoassimilateKorea andKoreansbysweepingawaytheirutterlycorruptanddecayednational particularity.”27Itwasagainsttheassertionofsuperioritybasedontemporal difference—a thousand-year gap between Japan and Korea—that PaekNam-unwroteChōsen shakai keizaishi(1933)andChōsen hōken shakai keizaishi(1937).28Paek’saimwastoshowthatKoreansocietyandeconomy haddevelopedinaccordancewithuniversalstagesofdevelopmentandas aresultofsocioeconomicforcesinternaltoKorea,thatis,Koreansassovereignsubjectsoftheirownhistory,ahistorythatwasasuniversalinits developmentasthatofEuropeorJapan.
inTroDuCTion
FocusingonPaekNam-un,chapter4examineshistorywritingasitbecameanacademicdisciplineincolonialKorea.AmongKoreanhistorians trainedatJapaneseuniversities,especiallyWasedaandlaterKeijōImperial University in colonial Seoul, many adopted the narrative framework of colonialisthistoriography,specificallyMansenshi,aManchuria-KoreaspatialconceptionthatnegatedKorea’shistoricalsovereigntybypresenting historyasamovement,inwaves,intoKorea,andmoregenerallythatof Orientalhistory(tōyōshi),whichpresentedJapanasuniquelycapable,in contrasttomoribundplaceslikeKoreaandChinathatweresaddledwith debilitatingcustomsandalongtroubledpast.AsStefanTanakahasshown, tōyōshiprovidedjustificationforJapan’simperialexpansion,29andhistorianslikeYiPyŏng-do,thecentralfigureinpositivistandcritical-textual historiography,concededagreatdealtotōyōshi,toitsstatusasobjective, academic,anduniquelylegitimatinghistoricalscholarship.Thus,contemporaneouswithPaekNam-un’swork,the1930ssawKoreanhistorianscoalescingaroundthreecompetingschools:nationalisthistoriographyasit emergedinthefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcentury,itsclaims,central themes,andnarrativestrategyoutlinedbySinCh’ae-ho;socioeconomic (Marxist)historiography,withPaekNam-unsituatingKoreanhistoryin worldhistory,andKoreanhistoryunfoldinginaccordancewithhistorical laws(andthusahistoriography“thatdoesnotknowdespair”);andpositivisthistoriography,asrepresentedbyYiPyŏng-doandtheChindanSociety, thataimedforanobjective,academicapproachtohistorywriting. Thereareanumberofproblemswithatypologysuchasthis.Muchof modernKoreanhistoriographydoesnotfitneatlyintothese categories, andthecategoriesthemselvesdistortasmuchastheyexplain.Butthistypologydoesofferausefulstartingpointforunderstandinghowamajority ofSouthKoreanhistorians,untilquiterecently,thoughtabouttheirintellectual genealogy, their relationship tocertain modes ofhistorical writing,andtheirpoliticalandideologicalstance.OncetheJapaneseEmpire collapsedin1945,thecommitmenttoobjectivityonthepartofpositivist historiansappearedaslittlemorethancomplicitywithcolonialism.Many ofthehistorianswhohadprivilegedobjectivityhadparticipatedactively ininstitutionsestablishedbytheJapanesecolonialstateandhadhelped produce colonial narratives under the banner of academic rigor. In the monthsfollowingliberation(August15,1945),itwasMarxistintellectuals likePaekNam-unwhowereenergized,andtheybeganlayingthefoundationsforpostcolonialKorea’shigheracademicinstitutions.Thedayafter
13
14
inTroDuCTion
Japan’ssurrender,PaekbeganorganizingtheChosŏnhaksulwŏn(Korean AcademyofSciences),welcomingleadingprogressivescholarsacrossthe disciplines,fromengineeringtoliterature,science,andart.ButthepartitionofKoreaandU.S.militaryoccupationbelowthe38thparallelstopped thisprocess.InAugust1946,whentheU.S.ArmyMilitaryGovernmentin Korea(usAMgik)announceditsplantomergeKeijōImperialUniversity withnineexistingprofessionalschoolstoformSeoulNationalUniversity, Paekwasvocalinhiscriticismoftheplan:universityfacultywouldhave littleautonomyfromtheusAMgik’sDepartmentofEducation,andacademicswhohadactivelycollaboratedinsupportoftheJapaneseEmpire wouldbeincludedinthefaculty.WithconservativesincontroloftheDepartmentofEducation,however,theKoreanhistoriansappointedtothe facultyofSeoulNationalUniversityweremostlyChindanSocietymembers,includingYiPyŏng-do.AsU.S.occupationforcespreparedtocreatea separateanticommuniststateinsouthernKorea,manyMarxistintellectuals,includingPaek,wentnorth,pushedbyanticommunistrepressionand pulledbyoffersofemploymentandopportunitytotakeimportantrolesin thenationaldemocraticrevolutionunderwayontheothersideofthe38th parallel. Chapter5presentsabriefoutlineofhowpositivisthistoriographycame tobereconstitutedasnationalisthistoriographyafter1945.In1961YiKi- baekpublishedKuksa sillon(ANewHistoryofKorea),writtenasahistory textbookthatincorporatedthenarrativeofkŭndaehwa(modernization). EchoingW.W.Rostow’semphasisontheimportanceofcreatingnewsocial groups—intellectuals, merchants, and military personnel—for economic development in the Third World,30 Yi attributed dynastic change andhistoricalprogressinKoreanhistorytotheemergenceofnewsocial classes. In thus adopting modernization theory promoted by American academicsandadvisors,Kuksa sillonpresentedanon-Marxistpostcolonial narrativethatwasanti-JapanesebutuncriticalofAmericanintervention. Thisrenovationofthetextual-critical tradition, intheformofmodernizationnarratives,quicklybecamethedominantmodeofhistorywriting inthecontextofthecoldwar.Chapter5makestheobservationthatthe questionofneocolonialism(theUnitedStatesinSouthKorea),suppressed bytheanticommuniststate,cametobesublimatedthroughdevelopmentaltime:SouthKoreawasdevelopingwithAmericanassistancebutalso by using its own sources of modernity. The bulk of chapter 5, however,
inTroDuCTion
focusesonhowandwhyMarxisthistoriographyofthe1930swasreconfiguredasnationalisthistoriographyinthe1970sand1980s.BecausePaek Nam-unwenttoNorthKoreain1948,historiansinSouthKoreacouldnot citehiswork,andtheonlywaytointegrateandengagehisworkwasby castinghimasanationalisthistorian.Throughtheirempiricalstudiesof landtenure,growthofcommerce(merchantcapital),andthedevelopment ofacommodity-monetaryeconomyinthelatterhalfofChosŏn,KimYong- sŏpandKangMan-gilrevivedandconfirmedPaek’sdisclosureoftheinternaldynamicunderlyingKorea’shistoricaldevelopment,withclassstruggle centraltothatprocess. Underanationalistcanopy,then,KimYong-sŏpandKangMan-gilreestablished intellectual links to a form of history writing that had been suppressedinSouthKoreaaftertheKoreanWar.Theirviewofhistorywas basedonananticolonial,oppositionalnationalism,andtheirhistoriographycontributedgreatlytounderstandingthedynamicnatureofKorea’s socialandeconomicdevelopmentinlateChosŏn.Inthislimitedsense, KimandKangsharedcommongroundwithnationalisthistorianswhopreferredmodernizationtheory;theircommonagendawastowriteaKorea- centeredhistory.Buttheimplicationsoftheirhistoricalnarrativecould notbemoredifferent.Formodernizationhistorians,theoriginsofKorea’s modernityweretobefoundintheculturalandscientificdevelopmentsin theeighteenthcenturyandtracedforwardtoWesternizedandWesternizingelitesofthenineteenthcenturyandtothenoncommunistnationalistsinthetwentiethcenturywhowouldeventuallyestablishSouthKorea. Kim,alongwithKang,laidthebasisfortheargumentthatthereweretwo possiblepathstomodernity:arelativelymoreegalitarianandautonomous pathfrombelow,withpeasantrebellionsprovidingthemainimpetusfor progressivechange,andamoreexploitative,dependentpathfromabove, ledbyeliteswhowouldultimatelycapitulatetoimperialistdemandsstartinginthelatenineteenthcentury. KimandKanglocatedtheWesternizedandWesternizingeliteswithin ahistoricaltrajectorythathadrootsintheculturalandpoliticalworldof thelandedclassinthelateChosŏnperiod,whosemodernizationefforts from the late nineteenth century to the present reflected their narrow classinterests,andforthatreasontendedtowarddependencyonoutside powers,thatis,collaborationwiththeJapaneseinthecolonialperiodand withtheAmericansafter1945.Thiswasatrajectorythatpavedtheway
15
16
inTroDuCTion
forKorea’scolonizationbyJapan,formationofseparatestatesin1948,and dictatorshipanddependentcapitalistdevelopmentinSouthKorea.Thisrevisionisthistoricalnarrativefoundabroadaudiencewiththepublication in1979ofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik(KoreanHistorybeforeandafterLiberation),editedbythecourageousintellectualandjournalistSongKŏn-ho. Thisbookpresentedapowerfulaccountofhow1945markedthebeginning ofthemosthorrificchapterinmodernKoreanhistory.ItexposedtheingloriousoriginsoftheSouthKoreanstateandnegatedcoldwarhistoriographybypositingasnationalisttheresistancetotheun-sponsoredseparate electionsin1948onwhichSouthKoreaclaimsitslegalbasis. It was the people’s uprising in the city of Kwangju in 1980, however, andthemassacreperpetratedbySouthKoreantroopsthatfinallybroke theSouthKoreangovernment’sideologicalhegemony.Themagnitudeof thestateviolencedrovestudentsandintellectualstosearchforthestructuralandhistoricaloriginsofSouthKorea’sdictatorship.DrawingonhistoricalnarrativeslikethoseinHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,throughminjung (people’s)art,minjungtheology,andprotestmusicandperformance,studentsandintellectualssoughttoconstitutetheminjung(thesubaltern)as anationalandnationalistsubject,asubjectivitythatcouldbeanalternativetoandautonomousfromnationalistnarrativesauthorizedbyeitherthe NorthKoreanortheSouthKoreanstate.ForKangMan-gil,thehistorian’s mostpressingtaskwastowriteahistoryofmodernKoreafromaperspectiveunfetteredby“thestructureofdivision.”Suchaperspectiveisaccessible,Kangargued,whenhistoriansunderstandthepoliticalstrugglesof theimmediatepostliberationperiodnotsimplyasthedenouementofthe colonialexperiencebutalsoasastruggletoovercomenationaldivision. Since the 1980s, then, nationalist historiography in South Korea has been associated with leftist politics. In the last decade of the twentieth century,withthecollapseofsocialiststatesinEasternEuropeandthedissolutionoftheSovietUnion,whatmightbecalledpostnationalisthistoriography began to gain ground in South Korea. Weary of nationalism’s totalizingpower,anumberofliterarycritics,alongwithhistoriansoutside thefieldofKoreanstudies,drewonpostcolonialtheoryandtookaimat muchofmodernKoreanhistoriography(thatis,notjustnationalisthistoriography),amongotherthingsforitsfixationonnarrativesoflineardevelopment.Buttheprincipaltargetwasnationalisthistoriographyforits erasureofplurality,complexity,anddifference.Inaninterestingtwist,the
inTroDuCTion
so-calledNewRightwelcomedscholarshipinspiredbypostcolonialtheory foritsrefusaltonarratethecolonialperiodastheManichaeanstruggleof acolonizingJapanthatwasracistandexploitative,opposedbyaresisting andenduringpeople,ornation(minjung, minjok).Withthis,theNewRight turnedtocriticismofnationalismingeneral,andnationalisthistoriographyofthe1980sinparticular,attackingnationalisthistoriographyforquestioningSouthKorea’slegitimacy. InHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik(ReexaminationofKoreanHistorybeforeandafterLiberation),publishedinFebruary2006withenthusiastic coveragefromconservativedailiesliketheChosŏn ilbo,theeditorscharged thatleftist-nationalisthistoriography,asepitomizedbyHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,wasresponsibleforthe“dangerouslydistorted”historicalperspectiveheldbyasizablesegmentofthepublic(mostlytheyoungergeneration) aswellasbytheleft-leaningRohMoo-hyunadministration.Compiledby fourscholarsidentifiedwithpostmoderntheoryandtheNewRight,the titleofthistwo-volumeanthologydeliberatelyevokedHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,signalingtheeditors’intentionofrestoringbalancetothehistorical understandingofcolonialandpostcolonialhistory.TheeditorsofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsikarguedthattheleftist-nationalisthistoriographyof the1980shadachievednearhegemonyinpolitics,inspiteoflaterresearch thatshouldhavecorrectedsuchaskewedview.Theyarguedthatleftist- nationalisthistoriographyremainedentrenched,discouragingthepublicationofmore“objective”scholarship.31TheNewRightwelcomedpostcolonialcritiquesofnationalismandnationalisthistoriographyasawayto reassertthesovereigntyoftheindividual(!)andtoreaffirmthesovereignty ofSouthKoreaandthelegitimacyofitsanticommunistlegacy. AsintenselyanticommunistastheOldRightbutalsofiercelyliberalin termsoftheircommitmenttoindividualfreedomsandmarketcapitalism, theNewRightaccommodatedpostcolonialscholarshipasatacticalmove, whiletheirstrategictargetwasleftist-nationalisthistoriographyanditspoliticalexpression.AsBruceCumingspointsout,whattheNewRightsawas a“dangerouslydistorted”historicalperspectiveappearedtimeandagainin classifiedreportsauthoredbyAmericanmilitaryandintelligenceofficers whowerecriticalofU.S.policytowardKorea.32Itshouldalsobenoted thatanumberofcontributorstoHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,eitherimplicitlyorexplicitly,tookissuewiththekindofuniversalismassumedby theeditorsofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik—auniversalismidentifiedas
17
18
inTroDuCTion
“civilization”33—basedontriumphalistnotionsofprogressandneoliberal valuesthatconvenientlyseparatedthepresentfromhistoriesofviolence, expropriation,exploitation,andcontrol.Whileitisevidentthatthereisno longeran“outside”tothelogicsofglobalcapitalism,itisalsoevidentfrom thehistoryofhistorywritingpresentedinthisbookthatglobalcapitalism createssurplusesthatrefusetobedisciplinedorregimented—specifically, knowledge,experience,andsubjectivity,surplusesthatconstituteaform ofwealthtowhichnotjustintellectualsbutthemultitudealsohasaccess. AsMichaelHardtandAntonioNegrihaveargued,thepoorrevoltnotbecausetheyhavenothingtolose,butbecausetheyarerich:“Deprivation ...maybreedanger,indignation,andantagonism,butrevoltarisesonly onthebasisofwealth,thatis,asurplusofintelligence,experience,knowledges,anddesire...notbecausethepoorareemptyandexcludedfrom wealthbutbecausetheyareincludedinthecircuitsofproductionandfull of potential, which always exceeds what capital and the global political bodycanexpropriateandcontrol.”34Inotherwords,thegreatenterprise ofsovereigntywaspotentfiction,afictionthatbecameaheadoverheels romancethatallowedfortheproductionofthelanguageandthecoordinatesforthecritiqueofsovereignty’scomplicitywithpower.Sovereignty providedtheconceptuallanguageforwritingnationalhistories,butitalso constitutedthesiteforthecontinuousproductionofoppositionalsubjectivitiesandpoliticalalternatives.
chapter one sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism Ahistoricallymeaningfulimperialismisnotonlyoressentiallymilitaryand maritimepanoply,notonlyeconomicandfinancialprosperity,but,also, thisabilitytodetermineinandofitselfthecontentofpoliticalandlegal concepts....Anationisconqueredfirstwhenitacquiescestoaforeign vocabulary,aforeignconceptoflaw,especiallyinternationallaw. —cARlscHMitt,lecture,1933
On January 7, 1895, King Kojong, accompanied by Queen Min, Crown PrinceYiCh’ŏk,theTaewŏn’gun(regent),royalprinces,cabinetministers, viceministers,andhundredsofofficials,musicians,dancers,andattendants,wasatthechongmyo,theChosŏndynasty’sRoyalAncestralTemple.1 Performing the grand sacrificial rite at the Royal Ancestral Temple as a directmaledescendantofYiSŏng-g ye,thedynasticfounder(KingT’aejo), KingKojongstoodbeforethespiritchambersofChosŏndynastykingsand theirqueensasthearchetypalfilialson,ChosŏnKorea’ssupremesacerdotalauthority,andasitsmonarch,thecarrierofthedynasticmissionand thebearerofHeaven’smandate(ch’ŏnmyŏng).In1895thenineteenspirit chambersintheMainHallheldthespirittabletsofthemajorChosŏndynastykingsandtheirqueens,startingwiththespirittabletofthedynasticfounderandhisqueeninthewesternmostchamber,withdescending kingsandqueensinsequencetowardtheeasternend.Asheperformed thegreatofferings,KingKojongsworetopreservethedynastythathisancestorshadfoundedandsustainedfor503years.ReadingtheOath“inthe presenceoftheSpiritsofOurAncestorsinHeaven,”Kojongvowed,“We willnolongerleanuponanotherstate[t’abang]butwilllaybroadthedestinyofthenation[kukbo:destinyofthestate],restoreprosperity,buildup thehappinessofOurpeople,andthussecureOurautonomyandindependence[chaju tongnip].” WedeclarepubliclytoalltheImperialAncestorsthatWe,yourhumbledescendant,havereceivedandguardedthemightyheritageofOurAncestors.... Butnowinourgeneration,thetimesaregreatlychanged....Aneighboring
22
ChapTer one
Powerandtheunanimousjudgmentofallourofficersuniteinaffirmingthat onlyasanindependentrulercanWemakeourcountrystrong.HowcanWe yourhumbledescendant,havingreceivedthespiritofthetimesfromHeaven, refusetoconformandthusfailtopreservetheheritagebestowedbyOurAncestors?...FromthistimeforthWewillnolongerleanuponanotherstate butwilllaybroadthedestinyofthenation,restoreprosperity,buildupthe happinessofOurpeopleandthussecureOurindependence....Therefore, We,Yourhumbledescendant,donowtakethefourteengreatLawsandswear inthepresenceoftheSpiritsofOurAncestorsinHeavenandannouncethat, relyingonthemeritsbestowedbyOurAncestors,wewillbringthesetoa successfulissue,norwillWedaretoretractOurword.BrightSpirits,descend andbehold! 1.AllthoughtofdependenceonChinashallbeputawaysothattheheritage ofindependencemaybesecured.2
Perhapsthescoresofmusicians,dancers,andattendantsdidnotknow, buthigh-levelofficialscertainlydid,thatitwasthe“neighboringPower” (ubang:alliedcountry)—specifically,InoueKaoru,MeijiJapan’senvoyextraordinaryandministerplenipotentiarytoKorea—whohadcompelled KingKojongtomakethis“OathofIndependence.”ItwasInouewhohad takentheleadinusingthegreatofferingatchongmyo-sajiktorenderthe Westernconceptsofsovereigntyandindependencesensibleandmanifest tothescholar-officialclassandthebroaderpublic.IsabellaBird,whowitnessedthis“singularceremony,”recountedhowtheOathwastaken“in circumstancesofgreatsolemnityinadarkpinewood,undertheshadow ofPukHan[Mt.Pukhan]atthemostsacredaltarinKorea,inpresenceof theCourtandthedignitariesofthekingdom.”“Oldandseriousmenhad fastedandmournedfortwopreviousdays,andinthevastcrowdofwhite- robedandblack-hattedmenwhichlookeddownuponthestrikingscene fromahillinthegroundsoftheMulberryPalace,therewasnotasmileor aspokenword.Theskywasdarkandgrim,andabittereastwindwasblowing—ominoussignsinKoreanestimation.”3 InthelateChosŏnperiod,greatofferingsattheRoyalAncestralTemple and at the Altars of Land and Harvest formed the core of the dynasty’s auspiciousritesandwereperformedseveraltimeseachyear.BythenineteenthcenturytheMainHalloftheRoyalAncestralTemplecomplex,with itslongfrontcorridorconnectingthenineteenspiritchambers,boastedthe
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
world’slongestfloorspaceinawoodenstructure.Atthetemple,totheeast ofthemainpalace,theChosŏndynastymonarchreportedtotheghostsof hisdeadancestorsregardingimportantmattersofstateandaskedfortheir helpandguidance.4AttheAltarsofLandandHarvest(sajik),tothewestof themainpalace,themonarchprayedtothegodsofearthandgrainforhis people’ssecurityandwell-being.ThroughouttheChosŏnperiod,untilthe veryendofKingKojong’sreign(1864–1907),Chosŏndynastykingsaswell asscholar-officials(sadaebu)regardedthesetworitualsitesasthemetonymforwhatwewouldcalltheChosŏnstate.5Chosŏndynastymonarchs could,anddid,subscribetothenotionthatthepeople(min)constituted thefoundation,andthatthepeople’swelfareformedtheraisond’êtreof thestate.Butsovereignty—supremeauthoritywithinKorea’sborders— belongedtotheChosŏnmonarch,andacorefunctionofdynasticrituals hadtodowiththe(re)productionofknowledgeandsentimentassociated withfilialityandloyaltyasappropriateforastrictlyhierarchicalandpatriarchalsocialorder.AlthoughthepowerofChosŏndynastymonarchswas circumscribedbythescholar-officialclass,aclassthatresolutelyclungto theconceitthattheChosŏndynastywasitscreation,itwasdynastickingly powerasmanifestedbytheRoyalAncestralTempleandtheAltarsofLand andHarvest(chongmyo-sajik)thatstoodguardovertheprogressivelylesser prerogativesoftheking’ssubjects.6Neitherthescholar-officialclassnor thecommoners,andcertainlynottheslaves(nobi),couldpresumetoclaim thechongmyo-sajikastheirown.IftheChosŏnmonarchspokeFrenchhe wouldhavesaid,“L’état,c’estmoi.”7 Whilethechongmyo-sajikprovidedthesymbolicandcognitivecoordinatesforidentifyingandidentificationwithChosŏnKoreaasadynastic state,itsstateritualsalsodesignatedChosŏnasanot-so-exemplaryvassal stateofChina.In1395,whentheChosŏndynastybuiltitsRoyalAncestral Templeinthenewcapital,Hanyang(Seoul),itsstructureconformedtoancientprescriptionspropertoatributarystate.Thetemplewasbuiltaccordingtothe“samehall,differentchambers”systemutilizedintheHandynasty,withthewesternmostchamberasthehonoredposition.Theoriginal MainHallwasaseven-kanstructurewithfivespiritchambers,thenumber ofspiritchambersstipulatedbytheZhōudynastyasappropriateforatributarystate.Butby1834theMainHallhadbeenexpandedtoanineteen-kan structure.InChinatheroyalshrinesofTangandSongdynastieshadonly elevenchambers.Thus,asinotherinstitutionsandpractices,theChosŏn
23
24
ChapTer one
dynasty’sRoyalAncestralTemplecomplex,patternedonChineseprecedents,cametotakeonauniquelyKoreanandnotsosubservientcharacter.8 During the previous dynasty, Koryŏ (918–1392) had also entered into someformoftributaryrelations,oftenreluctantly,withSong,Liao,andJin asthosedynastiesestablishedcontroloverpartsof“China”insuccession.9 Atthesametime,fromtheverybeginningoftheKoryŏdynastythrough thelatterpartofthethirteenthcentury,manyKoryŏscholar-officials,in bothofficialandprivatewriting,referredtotheKoryŏrulerasaSonof Heaven(K:ch’ŏnja,C:tiānzı̌)andemperor(hwangje,sŏnghwang,che).As RoMyoung-hohaspointedout,until1270,whenKoryŏcapitulatedtothe Mongolsafterthirtyyearsofresistance,earlyKoryŏrulersandmostofits officialshadhelda“pluralist”(tawŏnjŏk)outlookthatrecognizedgreater andequalempiresinChinaandinManchuria,whilepositingKoryŏasthe centerofaseparateandboundedworldruledbytheKoryŏemperor,who claimedaritualstatusreservedfortheSonofHeaven.10Koryŏrulersfrom thedynasticfounderWangKŏn(T’aejo,r.918–43)toWŏnjong(r.1214–74) hadtheimperialsuffix-cho,or-jongfortheirposthumoustemplenames. TheKoryŏArmywasorganizedintofivearmiesratherthanthethreeallowedtoaking.DuringthisperiodKoryŏrulerswereaddressedwiththe imperialp’yeha(C:bixia),woretheimperialyellow,usedtheirownreign names, invested members of the royal family as kings (wang), and conductedsacrificestoHeaven.11AsRemcoBreukernotes,imperialdesignationsforedict,crownprince,palace,andsoonareeasilyfoundinextant records,whileepitaphsandeulogiesonstelesreveal“diverseandcolorful instancesofimperialappropriations.”12 ReferringtotheKoryŏrulerasemperorandSonofHeavenseemsto havebeencommonplaceinearlyKoryŏ;forexample,among“folk”songs (sogak)inthemusic(akji)sectionoftheKoryŏsa,“P’ungipsong”eulogizes theKoryŏruleras“SonofHeavenintheEast”(Haedong ch’ŏnja),whoas emperor,withthehelpofBuddhaandHeaven,pacifiestheworldthrough histransformativeinstruction(kyohwa).13Indeedtheriseandfallofvarious dynastiesin“China,”fromthelateTangtotheestablishmentoftheYüan dynasty,encouragedlateSillaandearlyKoryŏcourtstoarticulate,using ostensiblySinocentricspatialterms,theirowncentralityinamultipolar world.UntilcapitulationtotheMongols,Koryŏwasan“empire”withits ownmicrotributarysystem.TheKoryŏemperorforcedJurchentribesoutsideitsborderstopaytributeandacceptKoryŏ’ssuzerainty,andthenbe-
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
stowedtitlesappropriatetotribute-offeringvassalsfrombeyondKoryŏ.14 Unequal sovereignty did not neatly correspond to borders: it was not a simplematterofbeingakingabroadandanemperorathome.ForlateSilla and early Koryŏ rulers, their appropriation, or annexation, of All under Heaven(K:ch’ŏnha,C:tianxia)toasserttheirvisionofdifferent,coexisting “worlds”asabroadlysharedideawenthandinhandwiththeproductionof complexdiscursivestrategiesthataffirmedtheserulers’possessionoffull dejuresovereignty,thatis,possessionofHeaven’smandate.EvenasSilla andKoryŏrulersreceivedinvestiturefrom(another)SonofHeaven,itwas Heavenitselfthatostensiblysupportedtheserulers’authority.Asthefolk song“P’ungipsong”suggests,Koryŏwasthecenterofthehaedong(Eastof theSea)world,andtherulerofKoryŏruledasemperorandSonofHeaven. ItseemsthisfolksongwassungwellintotheChosŏnperiod.15 Haidong(EastoftheSea;K:haedong)inTangdynastytextsreferredto a geographic area considered to be separate and distinct from China, a historicizedspacethatencompassedthethreekingdomsKoguryŏ,Silla, and Paekche. According to Ch’u Myŏng-ŏp, the term Haedong was appropriatedbytheSillacourtduringthe“Unified”Sillaperiodtonamea boundedworldsouthoftheLiaoRiver.WhiletheboundariesofHaedong, orforthatmattertheboundariesofSamhan(referringtoKoguryŏ,Silla, andPaekche),didnotremainfixed,thespatialimaginariesHaedongand Samhanconstitutedthe“world”(ch’ŏnha)thattheearlyrulersoftheKoryŏ dynastyclaimedasemperorsandSonsofHeaven.16In933,whenWangKŏn receivedinvestiturefromtheruleroflaterTang,Tangacknowledgedthe dynasticfounderofKoryŏasthelegitimatesuccessortoKingChumong, thelegendaryfounderofKoguryŏ.Atthesametime,asSemVermeersch pointsout,WangKŏn’sreigntitlech’ŏnsu(HeavenBestowed)madeitclear thathehadreceivedthemandatetoruledirectlyfromHeaven.17 WhilethispluralistoutlookseemstohaveprevailedinearlyKoryŏ,some advocatedamorefull-throatedversionofKoryŏasthecenterofHaedong. Intheearlytwelfthcentury,withLiao(oftheKhitan)fadingandJin(of the Jurchen) taking its place, the monk Myoch’ŏng advocated war with theJinto“recover”theheartlandofKoguryŏ,extendingdeepintoManchuria.Myoch’ŏngprophesiedthatthethirty-sixcountries(thatis,theentireworld)wouldeventuallysubmittoKoryŏandbringtribute.18While a definitive assessment is impossible, given the paucity of records from theKoryŏperiod,itseemstherewassignificantsympathyandsupportfor
25
26
ChapTer one
an expansionist, irredentist effort. Arguing that the topography of Kaegyŏng(Kaesŏng),Koryŏ’scapital,waslosingitsvitalenergy,Myoch’ŏng arguedformovingthecapitaltotheWesternCapital(Pyongyang).19For Myoch’ŏng,theshiftingofthecapitaltoPyongyangalsowouldhavesignaledacommitmenttoshiftawayfromaChina-centeredConfucianculture.Intheend,Myoch’ŏng’sforcesweredefeatedbyKimPu-sik,adefeatthatthetwentieth-centuryhistorianSinCh’ae-howouldrefertoas oneofthegreatesttragediesinKoreanhistory.WellawareofKoryŏ’simperialclaimsandpractices,butalsoawareofitsownlimits,(Southern) Song’sattitudetowardKoryŏimperialclaimsandpracticeswasrathertolerant.AsfortheLiaoandJin,theyweremorewillingtorecognizeanother SonofHeaven,accordingtoBreuker,“perhapsbecausetheyalwayshadto competewithotherSonsofHeaven.”20AttimesSongreceptionritualsfor KoryŏenvoysandKoryŏreceptionritualsforimperialenvoysfromSong, Liao, and Jin suggested equal rather than hierarchical relations; that is, whileSong,Liao,andJindidnotwhollyrecognizeKoryŏimperialclaims andpractices,neitherdidtheyrejectthemcompletely.21 In1270,afterthirtyyearsofstruggleagainsttheMongols,Koryŏfinally capitulated to the Yüan.The Yüan established commanderies in PyongyangandSsangsŏnganddemotedthetitlesoftheKoryŏruler,court,and officials.ThiscapitulationtotheMongolsassureddynasticcontinuityin termsoftheKoryŏname,ancestralshrines,andguardiandeitiesofthe state.ButstartingwithKingCh’ungnyŏl(r.1274–1308),theKoryŏcrown princewasraisedinBeijing,KoryŏkingsmarriedprincessesoftheYüan imperial house, and Koryŏ became a son-in-law state (puma’guk) of the Yüanempire.DuringthisperiodtheYüandynastyexertedapowerfulinfluenceoverkinglysuccessioninKoryŏ,andthetemplenamesofsixKoryŏ kings,fromCh’ungnyŏltoCh’ungjŏng(r.1348–51),weremadetobegin withch’ung(loyalty),indicatingloyaltytotheYüan.TheKoryŏcourt’sson- in-law status—that is, its loss of full sovereignty—lasted until the mid- fourteenthcentury,whenKingKongmincapturedSsangsŏnganddeclared theKoryŏthroneautonomous.22 At the beginning of the Chosŏn dynasty, to reconfirm sovereign autonomythathadbeenlosttotheYüanduringthelatterpartoftheKoryŏ period, the Chosŏn court built an Altar to Heaven. The officials on the BoardofRitesinsisted,however,thattheAltarbecalledwŏndan(Round Altar)ratherthanwŏn’gudan(RoundHillAltar),toavoidtheappearanceof
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
assertingtheChosŏnmonarch’sritualequivalencewiththeMingemperor andthusavoidconflictwithMingChina.ThemajorityofthesadaeburesistedthewishesofearlyChosŏndynastykingstopersonallyconductthe sacrificetoHeavenatthewŏndan,anactthatwouldhaveunmistakably constitutedtheChosŏnmonarchasequalinritualstatuswiththeMing emperor.PreventingthemonarchfromconductingsacrificestoHeaven wasadutyofthescholar-officialclasscheckingthepowerofChosŏndynastykings.23ThesadaeburepeatedlyremindedearlyChosŏnmonarchs thatonlytheSonofHeaven(theemperorofChina)hadtherequisiteritual statustoconductsacrificestoHeaven.24AfterKingSejo’sreign(1455–68), subsequentChosŏndynastymonarchsseemtohavegivenuponthewŏndan,anditfadedaway.25Thusin1895theChosŏndynastychongmyo-sajik configuration,delimitedbytheabsenceofanAltartoHeaven,unmistakablysignifiedChosŏn’srituallysubordinatestatustoChina.In1897,when KingKojongdeclaredKoreaanempire,anAltartoHeavenwasrebuilton thesitewherehigh-levelenvoysfromQingChinausedtobelodged.In 1913,threeyearsafterannexation,theJapanesecolonialgovernmentdismantledtheAltartoHeaven,andahotelwasbuiltonthesite.26 InestablishingtheChosŏndynastyin1392,YiSŏng-g yefounditnecessary to seek tributary status from the Ming emperor, and subsequent Chosŏndynastykingshadtocontinuethepracticeofreceivinginvestiture fromtheMingemperor.Butatthesametime,thecapital-basedscholar- officialswhohelpedYiSŏng-g yeestablishtheChosŏndynastymaintained thatthedynasticfounderhadreceivedHeaven’smandatetorule.InAugust1392,thefoundingyearoftheChosŏndynasty,ChoPakoftheBoard ofRitessubmittedamemorialtothethroneinwhichheaffirmedalong historyofKoreanrulersreceivingthemandatedirectlyfromHeaven:“BecauseTan’gunwasthefirstrulertoreceivetheMandateofHeaveninKorea (Tongbang),andKija[C:Jizi]wasthefirstrulertobringcivilizationtofruitioninKorea,themagistrateinPyongyangshouldbeinstructedtoconduct sacrificestothematappropriatetimes.”27InconfirmingTan’gun’sdirect relationshiptoHeavenandhisstatusasthefounderofthefirst“Korean” state(in2333bcEnearPyongyang),andbyhavingthecityofPyongyang conductsacrificestobothTan’gunandKija,thesadaebuoftheearlyChosŏn dynastychosetobuttressareligiousandpoliticalnarrative(andpractice) thatwasalreadywellestablishedduringtheKoryŏperiod:theclaimtoa distinctandindigenoushistoryoflegitimacy(chŏngt’ong)thatreachedfar
27
28
ChapTer one
backintothemythicpast,indeedtothedaysofTan’guncontemporaneous withtheChinesesagekingsYaoandShun.28 Inthesamememorial,however,ChoPakalsorequestedKingT’aejoto put an end to royal sacrifices to Heaven at the Round Hill Altar, pointedlyremindinghimthatonlytheSonofHeaven(theemperorofChina) couldperformthesacrifice.UnliketheMingemperor,KingT’aejocould notclaimtheuniquestatusofmediatorbetweenHeavenandthecivilized world.29TheseemingcontradictionofproclaiminganindigenousanddistincthistoryoflegitimacyforChosŏn,ontheonehand,andinsistingthat theChosŏndynastymonarchobserveritualproprietiesappropriatefora vassalstateofMingChina,ontheother,pointstothecomplexwaysin which Yi Sŏng-g ye and the capital-based sadaebu negotiated power betweenthemselvestoovercomebothexternalandinternalobstacleswhen establishingtheChosŏndynasty.Inotherwords,thecapital-basedscholar- officialclassthathelpedYitopowerwascarefultoinstitutionalizestructures,practices,andnarrativesthatlimitedthepowerandauthorityofthe Chosŏnmonarch.30Thisarrangement,orsettlement,alongwiththecontingentanddynamicaspectsofMing-ChosŏnandQing-Chosŏnrelations, producedmultipleandseeminglyconflictingnarratives—conflicting,that is,fromthemodernstandpointofsovereigntyinthemodernnation-state system. Intheseventeenthcentury,aftertwoinvasions,thesecondhavingbeen trulydevastatingandhumiliating,theChosŏndynastyacknowledgedQing suzerainty,butwithouttrulyacceptingtheManchudynasty’sclaimover theCentralPlain(K:chungwŏn).ScholarslikeSongSi-yŏl(1607–89),who livedthroughbothinvasionsasayoungman,yearnedtooverthrowthe QingandrestoretheMing.ForSong,disrecognitionofQingChinawas fundamentally linked to the question of civilization, and as adamant a Mingloyalistashewas,healsomadeitquiteclearthatcivilizationwas notpermanentlytiedtoplaceorpeople.BothConfuciusandMencius,for example,wereborninstateswherepreviouslytheregionanditspeople hadbeenconsideredforeign,orbarbaric(tongyi),andSongarguedvigorouslythatitwasthedutyoflearnedmeninChosŏnKoreatocontinuethe civilizationallegacythatbeganwiththesagekingsYaoandShun,apreciouslegacythatwascultivatedandtransmittedbyConfucius,Mencius, andZhuXiandtakenupbyYiHwang(Toegye)andYiI(Yulgok)ofChosŏn Korea.31ThatcommitmenttocivilizationallegacyiswhatpromptedSong’s
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
disciplestobuildashrinetotheMingemperor,bothtomakeamendsfor thefailuretoactuallylaunchanattackagainsttheQingandasanexpressionoftheirclaimtotheMingmantleofcivilization.32 ToreclaimitsauthorityoverritualsanddiscourseonthestateofChosŏn Korea’scivilization,andevenasitperformedritualsofsubmissiontothe Qing,theChosŏncourttookthedramaticstepofalsoestablishingashrine to the Ming. Sukchong (r. 1674–1720) established a shrine to the Ming Wanliemperoronthepalacegrounds,andeighteenth-centurymonarchs likeYŏngjo(r.1724–76)andChŏngjo(r.1776–1800)expandedthescope ofsacrificestoMingemperors.Thishigh-stakespoliticsoverritualpractice helpedestablishapotentnarrativeofChosŏnKoreaassoChunghwa,alesser civilizationcomparedtoMingChina,butaftertheManchuconquestof China,thelastbastionofcivilization.Thatistosay,latesixteenth-century andseventeenth-centurymortuaryritestotheMingconductedbyChosŏn monarchsandthesadaebuwereactsofself-identificationthatwouldmaintainChosŏnKorea’sdistancefromQingChinaandelevateChosŏnKorea anditscivilizationatQing’sexpense.33Inbroaderhistoricalperspective, Chosŏn officials, from the beginning to the end of the Chosŏn dynasty, oftenchafedatthedemandsimposedbythetributaryrelationshipwith China.AttheverybeginningoftheChosŏnperiodChosŏnofficialsrepeatedlybalkedattheamountoftributetobepaidtotheMing.Inrelationto theQing,GariLedyardwrylynotesthatKoreandiplomatsontributemissionstoBeijingseemedstrangelygracelessandclumsyintheirritualobeisance,atleastduringrehearsalssupervisedbytheChineseBoardofRites.34 Inthelatenineteenthcentury,thiscomplexdiscursivehistorysurrounding Chosŏn’s tributary status—that is, Korea’s multiple, seemingly conflictingnarrativesonlegitimacy—presentedaconundrumandobstacleto JapaneseandWesternimperialism.InoueKaoruinfacthadbeenakeyofficialinMeijiJapan’sfirstconcertedattemptto“deterritorialize”andthen “reterritorialize”Chosŏn’szoneofcontact.35Astheviceenvoy,Inouewas signatorytothe1876TreatyofKanghwa,inwhichthefirstarticleavowed thatChosŏnwasanindependentcountry(chaju chi pang)withthesame sovereignrights(kwŏn)asJapan.36Itturnedout,however,thatthisfirst “Western-style”treaty,towhichtheChosŏncourtwasforcedtoaffixits seal,didnotsucceedinwrenchingChosŏnKoreafromitstributarystatus towardChina.AttachedtotheTreatyofFriendshipandCommerceof1882, whichestablishedrelationsbetweentheUnitedStatesandKoreaonterms
29
30
ChapTer one
of“equality,”KingKojong’sdispatchstatedthatKoreawasadependency ofChina,“butthemanagementofhergovernmentaffairs,homeandforeign,ha[d]alwaysbeenvestedinthe(Korean)sovereign.”37Thestrategy, ofcourse,wastotrytoutilizetobestadvantagetheprinciplesofboththe China-centeredtributarysystemaswellasthesovereignty-basednation- statesystem. IndiscussionswithLiHongzhangleadinguptotheU.S.-KoreaTreatyof 1882,KimYun-sikhadpressedfortheformulation“forChina,Koreaisa dependentcountry;forallothers,Koreaisindependent.”38Between1885 and1887,inthedisputewithBritainoveritsoccupationofPortHamilton (Kŏmundo,agroupofislandsintheSouthSea),Koreanauthoritiesmade referencestointernationallaw(man’guk kongbŏp)toillustratetheillegality oftheBritishseizureofKoreanterritory.Itwasthisambiguity,thespace formaneuveraffordedbyKorea’sembraceofbothaChina-centeredworld andthenation-statesystem,whichInouewantedtonegate.AsAlexisDuddenhaspointedout,byleadingthewayinutilizingthepost-Westphalian, sovereignty-basedconceptionofinternationalrelations,JapanesestatesmenlikeInoueKaorupositionedthemselvesasthepreeminenttranslatorsandenforcersofinternationallawinEastAsia.39Thisstrategicmove, likemanyMeiji-perioddomesticreformsandinnovations,was“diplomacy carriedonbyothermeans.”Thatis,until1905thegoalofrevisingtheunequaltreatiesimposedonJapanwasneverfarfromthemindsoftheMeiji leadership, and many of the “reforms” that were instituted in the Meiji erawereintendedtoremakeJapanasrecognizablysimilartotheWestern powers(forexample,theMeijiemperorappearinginpublicwithaWestern haircut,stricturesagainstmixedbathing,endingthebanonChristianity). Therewere,ofcourse,otherstrategicconsiderations.InBritain’scompetitionwithTsaristRussia,theGreatGame,JapancouldpreventRussiafrom establishingawarmwaterportandthushaltRussianimperialexpansion southwardintoEastAsia.Forsuchreasons,BritainandtheUnitedStates didnotopposeJapan’seffortstowrenchChosŏnKoreafromitstributary status toward China. Moreover Meiji statesmen like Inoue Kaoru used Britain’simpositionofaprotectoratestatusonEgyptin1882asamodel forgiving“fullsovereignty”and“independence”toChosŏn.ThedestructionoftheChina-centeredtheoryandpracticeoftributaryrelations,based onritualhierarchyandactualautonomy,wastobereplacedbythepost- Westphaliantheoryandpracticeofequalsovereignty,ashiftthatwould
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
facilitateJapanesedominationoverChosŏnKorea.Perhapsitshouldbe saidthattheideaofequalsovereigntybothenabledandrestrainedEuro- Americanimperialisminnineteenth-centuryEastAsia.Inthemain,however,boththetheoryandthepracticeofsymbolicequalityandequalsovereignty facilitated actual domination and inequality—as authorized by internationaltreatiesandlaws.
TheHistoricityofConfucianKingshipandSovereignSpace SincetheThreeKingdomsperiod,whenBuddhismfirstreceivedroyalpatronage—latefourthcenturycEforKoguryŏandPaekcheandsixthcenturycEforSilla—BuddhistmonkshadentreatedtheBuddhasandbodhisattvastoprotectthestate.AccordingtoLewisLancaster,theBuddhism thatwasembracedbyKoguryŏandPaekchewastheroyalreligionofthe TurkicnomadickingdomsthathaddominatednorthernChinainthelate fourth century; developed along the Silk Road, Turkic Buddhism led to thedeepinvolvementofBuddhistmonksinpoliticalmatters.40Fromthe ThreeKingdomsperiodtotheendoftheKoryŏdynasty,theimageofthe benevolentandcompassionatekinginpossessionofdivineattributes(a Cakravartinking),arisingfromthebeliefinkarmicheritage,haddefined andenhancedtheauthorityofkings.WhileBuddhismaffirmedthepotentialofeveryhumanbeingtoachieveanenlightenedstateofmind,italso legitimatedSilla’scastesystembywayofmoralcausalityspanningmore than one lifetime, the cycle of death and rebirth inwhich, based on its karma,asoultransmigratesandisreborninvariousstatesofexistence,as animal,human,aristocrat.SuchnotionslegitimatedtheSillaaristocracy thatdifferentiateditselffromthelowerordersonthebasisofitskolp’um, orbonerank.Attheverytopofthearistocracywasthesŏnggol(holybone) thatidentifieditselfas“alineageofBuddhas,Buddhistrulersabouttobecome Buddhas, and Indian deities.”41 For newcomers to the throne, the king’sidentificationwithCakravartinkingscouldcompensateforshortcomingsinthedynasticfounder’sfamilybackground;WangKŏn(temple nameT’aejo),forexample,whofoundedtheKoryŏdynasty(918–1392), faceddownthearistocratsofSillaasthemaintainerofthedharma.Thus inthefirstofhisTenInjunctions,WangKŏninstructedhisdescendents, “Forthegreatenterprise[taeŏp]ofourcountry,itisnecessarytoprocure theprotectivepowerofalltheBuddhas.”42
31
32
ChapTer one
DuringtheKoryŏperiod,whenthepowerofBuddhistinstitutionswas atitszenith,theinsertionofIndianBuddhistandJainideasaboutkingship intopreexistingoriginandfoundationnarrativesbecameapartofhistorieswrittenbyBuddhistmonks,narrativesthatassertedcorrespondences betweenBuddhistdeities,localgods,andheroesthatfoundedkingdoms. Theoriginnarrativeforthefirst“Korean”statecenteredonTan’gun,the progenitorofAncientChosŏn.Inrecordingthisfoundationnarrative,the thirteenth-centurymonkIryŏnassertedanequivalencebetweenHwanin, theCelestialEmperor;ŚakroDevānāmIndra,LordoftheDevas,wholives inSvarga,asetofheavenlyworldslocatedonMt.Meru(inSouthAsia); andTan’gun,Hwanin’sgrandson,asthemanifestationofŚrīMahādevī.43 ThisBuddhistglossontheTan’gunnarrativewasbutonearticulationof spatialandtemporalimaginariesinformedbyBuddhistdiscourses,includingpropheciesaboutMaitreya,thefutureBuddhawhowouldappearin Koryŏtoenabletheconstructionofanewworld.ThoughKoryŏcentric, thespatialimaginaryhereisofamuchbroaderworld,withKoryŏasthe EastandIndiaastheWest,asinthismid-tenth-centuryinscription:“[King Kwangjong]wantstobringpeacetotheeasterncountryandgreatlyupholdstheteachingofthewesternregions....Hedrawstranquilwaterfrom theriverofSŏn[Zen]andspreadsthewaysofcompassioninthepalace. ThegateofLankawasbroadlyopened;thegardenofdhārāniswasbrightly expanded.”44AsVermeerschpointsout,duringKingKwangjong’sreigna climateofterrorpervadedthecourt,and“incriminationssufficedtoend acareeroralife.”KingKwangjongexecutedagreatmanypeople,andto atoneforthekillinghe“heldBuddhistmasses,distributedalmstothepoor, organizedthereleaseofanimals,andforbadethekillingofanimals.”45 KoryŏrulerslikeKwangjongundertookBuddhistconsecrationrituals, similar to bodhisattva ordination, committing them to the dharma. But howevermuchcommitmentKwangjongmayhavehadtoupholdingthe dharma,assovereign,likeallkingsandemperors,healsoclaimedtheright tokill.Thatfundamentalaspectofkinglysovereignpowerdidnotchange withthefoundingoftheChosŏndynasty,ofcourse,butthecapital-based scholar-officialswhohelpedestablishthenewdynastysawthemselvesas theauthorswhoprovidedmeaningandsignificancetothatdynasticchange. Staunchlycommittedtoagreattransformativeenterprise,theylauncheda sustainedattackonBuddhismandtheBuddhistchurch:Buddhistmonks and Buddhistrituals were banishedfromthecourtand thecapital, and Chosŏn rulers were prevented from undertaking Buddhist consecration
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
rituals.IntheircommitmenttothecomprehensiveConfuciantransformationofideas,institutions,andpracticesassociatedwithbothkingshipand dynastic narratives, these scholar-officials constituted themselves as the rulingclassandtheChosŏnstateasaConfucianbureaucraticstate.Confucianritualsbecamethepointofdepartureforgovernance(yech’i),with ritualproprietyunderstoodashavingatransformativepower,abletoconstitutepeopleasrighteousandloyalsubjects,makingitlessnecessaryfor lawsorthekingtokillsomany.BythelatesixteenthcenturytheChosŏn dynastycouldclaimsuccessinnaturalizingConfucianrituals,ritualsthat createdandmediatedstatusidentities(sinbun)andaffectiverelations.46 How was it that the scholar-officials and aristocrats residing in and aroundthecapital,whowerethemselvessteepedinBuddhistlore,sodeterminedtoeradicateBuddhistinfluencefromthepoliticalandcultural lifeoftheChosŏncourtandthescholar-officialclass?ThedecisiontocompletelypurgeBuddhismfromstaterituals,andBuddhistinstitutionsand influencefromtheChosŏncourt,providedthefledglingdynastyitsmaterial basis—in terms of land, labor, and taxes—for consolidating state power.Weshouldnotlosesightofthepressinginstitutionalandsecurity concernsbehindthecampaignagainstBuddhism.Therewasagreatneed toexpandthetaxbase,rewardmeritsubjectswithland,andcalculatehow thenewdynasticstatecouldconsolidatepower.Thispushedthesadaebu tobringaboutthedestructionofoverthreethousandBuddhisttemples, seizemonasterylandsandslaves,limitthenumberofnovicespermittedto becomemonks,sellBuddhiststatuestoJapanormeltthemdowntomint coins,andprohibitBuddhistmonksfromenteringthecapital. But at the same time it is difficult not to see this particular dynastic changeasalsoemblematicofapurposefulepistemologicalact.Therewere sustainedandcoordinateddiatribesnotjustagainstBuddhistinstitutions andpractices(particularlymortuaryrites)butalsoagainstshamansand shamanistic practices. Perhaps the most consequential epistemological move was made by Chŏng To-jŏn (1342–98), one of the intellectual foundersofthenewdynasty,whosoeffectivelymadeuseofthecategories oforthodoxandheterodoxthought.AfterChŏng,theConfucianliterati wouldregularlydrawdistinctionsbetweenorthodoxlearningandaberrant concepts(idan),andsuchcategoriesprovidedtheintellectualbasisforthe articulationanddisseminationofConfuciannotionsaboutsovereigntyand selfhood(withitsfocusonself-cultivation)andthesuppressionofBuddhistconcernswithother-worldlinessandsalvation.
33
34
ChapTer one
Onecouldstillfindintheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturiesmaps showing how the land itself (the topography of the Korean peninsula) continuedtobeconceptualizedinBuddhistterms;forexample,Korea’s mountainslinkedtothemountainsofTibetthatformedtheheadofahuge dragon, its long body stretching east along the mountain ranges above Mongolia,withitstailsweepingdownsouthalongKorea’sT’aebaekmountainrange,itstipendingwithMt.HallaonChejuIslandoffthesouthern coastoftheKoreanpeninsula.47Butsovereignspaceasimaginedbylate Chosŏnscholar-officialswasdefinitivelybounded,andinspatialtermsthe embraceofaNeo-Confucianuniversalordermeantaturningawayfrom Koryŏclaimstoaculturallydistinctempire.AsAndreSchmidnotes,“By thelateChosŏndynasty,travelerstoChinawerequiteconsciousthat,in thewordsofthefamousscholarPakChiwŏn,‘Thisriver[theYaluRiver] isthepointofcontactandtheboundarybetweenthemandus.’Tocross theYaluRiverwastoenterintoQingterritory.”48Intheeighteenthand nineteenthcenturies,writesSchmid,Chosŏnofficialsdemonstratedtheir considerabletalentinperformingtributeformalitiesbeforeQingofficials senttoclarifytheborderbetweenChosŏnandChina,whileremainingadamantaboutChosŏnlandclaimsandinterpretationofbordermarkers.49I think it is possible to understand this spatial imaginary of Chosŏn as a boundedsovereignspaceasindicativeofacontinuingsenseofbeingbesieged,followingtheincredibleshockofinvasionsfromJapanandthenby theManchus,asPakChe-gaputit,“whenHeavencollapsedandEarthwas tornapart”andbarbarians(theManchus)overthrewtheMingdynasty.50 Intheseventeenthcenturyithadnotseemedfar-fetchedforSongSi-yŏl toadvocatewarwiththeQingempire: Today,thosewhoopposetheplanfornorthernsubjugationtrytojustifytheir positionbystatingthatourmilitaryistooweaktocarryoutsuchatask.However,Koguryŏwasabletodefeatmillions[sic]ofSuiandTangsoldiersdespite thefactthattheirterritorywasonlyone-thirdofthelandwenowcallourown. NolessafigurethanEmperorTaizongofTangwashumbledbyourancestors duringthebattleforAnsiFortress.Thosebarbarians[Manchus]arenothing morethananuncivilizedpeoplewhodonotadduptooneten-thousandthof theworthofEmperorTaizong.51
ByPakChi-wŏn’stime,however,itwasclearthatChosŏnwouldnotbeable tomarchnorthto“punish”theManchus,leavingasituationofcontinued
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
uneaseoversharingaborderwiththeQingEmpire.Eighteenth-century scholars-officialslikeYuTŭk-kong(1749–1807),adiscipleofPakChi-wŏn, wrotehistoriesaboutKorea’s“northern”dynastiesKoguryŏandParhae, highlightinggreatmilitaryvictoriesovertheSuiandTangEmpires.Atthe sametime,YudidnotwritePalhaegoaspartofanirredentistproject.As HuhTae-yongexplains,thebookwasarecollectionaboutapowerfulkingdomthatservedadifferentpurpose:toreinforcethenotionofChosŏnas thelastbastionofcivilization.Earlytwentieth-centurynationalisthistorianslikeSinCh’ae-hosawKoguryŏ’smilitaryvictoriesagainsttheSuiand TangasproofofstrengthandresistancetoChina.But,asHuhargues,Yu’s historiographyshouldnotbereadasaprototypeorprecursortotwentieth- century nationalist historiography. His histories of Koguryŏ and Parhae weremeanttoshow“thatConfucian-basedSinocentricordercouldberestored”withintheboundedspaceofChosŏn.52 To be sure, in the early part of the Chosŏn period, the court and the scholar-officialclasschafedatpayingtributetotheMing—soreveredby SongSi-yŏlafteritsdemise—especiallyhumantribute(girlsfortheharem andboystoserveaseunuchs),sinceyounggirlssenttotheMingpalace wererecruitedfromamongdaughtersoflow-tomiddle-gradeofficials.53 Thenumberofhumanbeingsrequisitionedwasrelativelysmall(several dozenayear),andin1433theMingemperorstoppedthispractice.Justas intheearlyKoryŏperiod,theChosŏncourthadbuiltaTempletoHeaven andestablisheditsownmicrotributarysystem,launchingpunitiveexpeditionstoTsushima(todaypartofNagasakiPrefecture)andborderareas inhabitedbytheJurchen,forcingthesepolitiestosubmitasvassalstothe Chosŏnrulerandtopaytribute.Bythesixteenthcentury,however,the Chosŏnrulerwasclearlynotanemperor,nordidtheChosŏncourtsee itselfasthecenterofaseparateanddistinctworld.TheChosŏnmonarch, thesadaebu,andtheliteratiinthecountrysideembracedthecivilization- barbarismbinaryassociatedwithSinocentrism.54Thisconvictioninthe correctnessofaChina-centeredworldwasauthorizedbyaconceptionof sovereigntythatcouldnotbebasedonthenotionofmultiplecentersor multipleworlds,asincenturiesprior. In the late sixteenth century and early seventeenth, the devastations wroughtbytheHideyoshiandManchuinvasionsandthepoliticaldisorientation brought on by the collapse of the Ming dynasty prompted the Chosŏnmonarchyandthesadaebutointensifyeffortsto“Confucianize”
35
36
ChapTer one
Chosŏn society.55 When the Manchus demanded that the Chosŏn court transfertotheQingdynastythedeferentialritualanddiplomaticprotocolsChosŏnhadobservedinitsrelationswiththeMingcourt,theChosŏn court and the sadaebu could not bring themselves to comply, to which theManchusrespondedwithtwoinvasions,in1627and1636.Havingto capitulatetotheManchusin1636andwitnessthe“barbarian”Manchus seizingthecenterofcivilizationin1644,mid-seventeenth-centuryChosŏn literaticouldonlyfantasizeabout“marchingnorth”torestoretheMing dynasty.56Forcedtosubmit,andfacedwiththeimmensetaskofrestoringitsnetworksofpowerandauthority,theChosŏndynasty’sreactionin theintellectualandculturalrealmwasto(re)invigoratepatriarchyandreinforcethecategoriesofcivilization(hwa)andbarbarism(yi).57Forthe Chosŏn elite after the seventeenth century, it was Chosŏn’s embrace of Chunghwa,aChina-centeredculturalism,andtheirowncommitmentto thebasiccategoriesthatdefinedthatworldintermsofinnerandouter, civilizationandbarbarism(hwaandyi),thatendowedChosŏnwithitsdistinctiveandcivilizedstate-ness.ItwasthroughdeepintellectualengagementwithandfidelitytoaChina-centeredculturalinheritancethatthe civilizationofChosŏnrealizeditsfullpotentiality,itscosmicmeaning. Thatistosay,thecollapseoftheMingdynastyinthemid-seventeenth centuryhadtheeffectofreinforcingConfuciankingshipandtheperceptionofChosŏn’ssovereignspaceassoChunghwa,alesserbuttheonlyremainingcivilization.58Theattributesofcentrality(chung)andcivilization (hwa)weredetachedfromthehistorical,geographicalChinaandconverted intouniversalnormsthatboththeChosŏncourtandthesadaebucould claimtouphold,aloneintheworld.Towardtheendoftheeighteenthcentury,however,itbecameincreasinglydifficulttosustainthepretensethat Chosŏn was the last bastion of civilization. Pak Chi-wŏn, for example, called attention to the many favorable aspects of Qing China’s material culture(includingnewmodesofmanufactureandcommerce)anddisparagedthemoribundqualityofChosŏn’seconomy.59ForofficialslikePak, whotraveledtoBeijingandwroteaboutwhathesaw,thecharacterization ofQingChinaasbarbaricwaslaughable.Placingemphasisontechnical utilityandthepeople’swelfare(iyong husaeng),headvocatedathoroughgoingrenovationofChosŏn’seconomyandsociallifeonthemodelofQing China.HongTae-yong,withhisappreciationfortheJesuits’knowledgeof mathematicsandastronomy,soughttobringaboutanevenmoreradical
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
decentering:theEarthisround,spinsonanaxis,andcirclesthesunwith theotherplanets,andthustheconceptof“centrality”canonlyberelative.60 Justascomplexasthiscultural,spatial,andpoliticalhistory,themeaning ofthevariousstateritualsdidnotremainfixedoverthefivecenturiesof theChosŏnperiod.Tobesure,theChosŏncourtneverturnedawayfrom thenotionofyech’i,transformingpeopleintoloyalmoralsubjectsthrough ritual.Butitwouldbeinaccuratetoseethegrandsacrificialritesatthe chongmyo-sajikasemblematicofanunchangingorfixedtradition.Afterthe theoryandpracticeofChosŏn’sstateritualswerecodifiedduringthereign ofSŏngjong,in1474intheKukcho oryeŭi(ManualforFiveStateRites), debatesoverritualproprietyandthemeaningoftheritesindifferentcircumstancesbecamethecentralarenaofpoliticalstruggleuntilthevery endoftheChosŏndynasty.Theevolutionofthetheoryandperformanceof grandsacrificialritesatthechongmyo-sajikbringtolightnotonlythehistoryofconflictoverideasandexperiencesofConfuciankingshipbutthe historyoftheChosŏnelite’sunderstandingofbothstatesovereigntywithin aChina-centeredtributarysystemandConfucianselfhood—theselfthatis notprivate,solitary,andautonomousbutpositivelysituatedinhierarchic andpatriarchicsociality. In the late nineteenth century, for Russian, Japanese, American, and Britishdiplomatsandbusinessmenintentonacquiringconcessionsfrom theChosŏncourtinpursuitofbothpersonalandnationalgain,theseemingambiguityinChosŏn’ssovereignstatuscreatedanumberoflegaland strategicobstacles.Incontrast,asJapanesediplomatsknewverywell,the post-Westphalianconceptionofsovereignty—basedonthenotionofequal sovereignty, supposing a final and supreme authority within a political communitydelineatedbywell-definedborders—facilitatedthemachinationsoftheimperialistpowers.ByrulingoutpretextsforfurtherChinese interventionormediationonbehalfofKorea,JapancouldsupplantChina’s influenceoverKorea.Moreimportant,Japan’stutelageofKoreacouldreceivethesanctionofBritainandtheUnitedStates.
RitualsofIndependence Among Meiji elder statesmen (genrō), Inoue Kaoru was the most well- versedonthepoliticalsituationinChosŏnKorea,andintheautumnof 1894hevolunteeredtogotoKoreatoreplaceŌtoriKeisuke,theJapanese
37
38
ChapTer one
ministerinSeoulwhowasthoughttolacksufficientprestigetodealwith Westerndiplomats.61ŌtoriwasalsohavingtroubledealingwiththeTaewŏn’gun,whobegantoschemeagainsttheJapaneseoncetheDeliberative Council,ledbyKimHong-jip,begantopassreformmeasuresintendedto abolishslaveryanddoawaywithstatusdistinctions.Inoue,ontheother hand,easilysidelinedtheTaewŏn’gunwithevidenceofhisplottoenlist theaidofChineseforcesinthenorthandTonghakforcesinthesouth.As envoyextraordinaryandministerplenipotentiarytoKorea,Inouehadthe powertonegotiateandconcludetreatieswithKorea.Hisstrategicgoals weretoseverthetributarytiesthathadlinkedChinaandKoreaforcenturiesandthen,withoutoffendingtheWesternpowers,convertKoreainto Japan’sprotectorate.62 Soon after arriving in Seoul on October 26, 1894, Inoue revealed his twenty-pointreformprogramtoKingKojongandtheleadingmembersof theChosŏngovernment.Thefirstarticleofthereformprograminsisted,“All powershallstemfromonesource,namely,theking.”Thelastarticlestipulated,“ForthepurposeofsecuringtheindependenceofKorea,theabove articlesofreformandnationalpolicyshallbepresentedattheRoyalAncestralTempleandbepublishedforthebenefitofthepeople.”63Thusitwasthat KingKojong’sOathbeforetheghostsofhisdynasticforbearers,nottosubmittothedictatesofothercountries,wasdictatedtohimbyInoueKaoru. InJuly1894,afterJapanesetroopshadtakencontrolofthecentralpalaces inSeoul,aDeliberativeCouncil(Kun’gukkimuch’ŏ)hadbeenestablished. LedbyKimHong-jipandYuKil-chun,theCouncilpassedhundredsofreformmeasuresintendedtoabolishstatusdistinctionsand“cruelcustoms.” MostofthemembersoftheCouncilhadbeeninvolvedinEnlightenment effortssincethe1870s.Itshouldalsoberememberedthat,exceptinthose instanceswheretheytriedtoseizepowerdirectly,KingKojonghadsupportedandencouragedtheeffortsofreformistofficials.64Atthesametime, such revolutionary (antifeudal) reforms also took their impetus, in part, fromtheTonghakrebellion,withreformistofficialshopingtoconciliatethe Tonghakinsurgentsinthecountryside.65Thus,startingwithKingKojong, thetwodecadesprecedingtheSino-JapaneseWar(1894–95)hadwitnessed determinedeffortsinboththecapitalandthecountrysidetodoawaywith statusdistinctionsandtoenvisionalternativestructuresthatwouldaccommodateamuchbroadersectionofthepopulaceinpoliticaldiscourse.66 Aspartofthereformmeasures,theStateCouncilandSixMinistries, includingtheBoardofRites,wereabolishedinDecember1894.Intheir
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
place, seven ministries modeled on the Meiji government were established.Interestingly,whilemostofthereformistofficialsmaintainedan unfavorableviewofConfucianrituals,Inouewasmoreattentivetohowold ritualsmightbemadetoproducenewmeanings.ItwasInouewhotookthe leadintryingtousethegreatofferingatchongmyo-sajiktorendertheWesternconceptofsovereigntyandindependencesensible(andmanifest)to thescholar-officialclassandthebroaderpublic.FollowingInoue’sscript, KingKojongwasshownusingthegreatofferingatthechongmyo-sajikasa vehicleforimbuingtheoldwordswithnewmeanings,byassociatingwords suchastongnip(independence)withtheWesternsemanticsofsovereignty. Bysodoing,KingKojonginfactconfirmedtotheliteratiaswellasthe WesternpowersthatChosŏnKoreahadallalonglackedfullsovereignty. ByOctober1894,aftermajorJapanesevictoriesoverQingforcesonland (thebattleatPyongyang)andatsea,KingKojongandmostofhisofficials werereadytoformallycutChosŏn’stiestoChina.67InouemighthavewrittenthescriptforKingKojong’s“declarationofindependence,”buttheking andthegreaterpartofreform-mindedofficials,fortheirownreasons,were coauthorsoftheIndependenceOathtakenattheRoyalAncestralTemple. YuKil-chun,whoin1890submittedhismanuscriptSŏyu kyŏnmun(ObservationsonaJourneytotheWest)toKingKojong,hadofferedthisseemingly sympathetic but condescending appraisal of those who argued for continuedritualdeferencetoChina: Occasionally, people unfamiliar with international law [kongbŏp] and the trendofthetimes,andunabletomakeadistinctionbetweenavassalstate [sokkuk]andatributarystate[chin’gongguk],pointtoourpaymentoftribute [toChina]asevidenceofourcountry’svassalstatus.Butwhowouldpaytributeiftheydidnotrespecttheirowncountryandlovetheirownsovereign [in’gŭm]?Enmeshedinadifficultsituationbytheactionsofgreatpowers,they hadsettledonthestratagemofprotectingtheircountrythroughextravagant ritualdeference[toChina].Understandingtheircountry’svulnerablesituationandoverlyafraidandfearfulofthegreatpowers,theyswallowtheirsense ofoutrageandunderminethepowerthatcanflowfromconcertedeffort.But ifwethinkabouttheunderlyingbasis,wecansurmisethat[theiractions] stemfromanxietyandtrepidationrootedinloyaltytotheircountryandlove fortheirsovereign.68
Pak Yŏng-hyo and Sŏ Kwang-bŏm were the principal leaders within theDeliberativeCouncilfromDecember1894untilJuly1895,andwhile
39
40
ChapTer one
theCouncilpasseddozensofreformedicts,itcannotbesaidthatitwas autonomous from Japanese control. At the same time, since his role in theKapsincoupattemptin1884,Pakhadbeenconsistentinhiscallfor Korea’sindependencefromQingChina.WhileforcingChinatoacknowledge Korea’s complete independence would have been difficult without recoursetowar,itcanbearguedthattheking’spledgeto“dispensewith anythoughtofrelyingonQingChina,andtofirmlysetaboutlayingthe foundationsforKorea’ssovereignindependence”wasnotcompletelyoverdeterminedbyJapaneseoccupationforces. Itisimportanttokeepinmindthatasearlyas1883,priortothesigning ofatreatywiththeUnitedStates,theChosŏnofficialswhohadarguedfor theestablishmentofrelationswiththeUnitedStateswerenotobliviousto howpowerdeterminedinternationalrelationsandtheapplicationofinternationallaw.AsonewriterpointedoutintheHanyang chubo,“Whatare internationaltreatiesandlaws?Theyarebutatoolofrichandpowerful countriestorationalizetheirownmisconductandtorebukeothers....In internationalcommerceonlystrengthmattersamidrichandpoor,weak andstrong,andonecannotrelyoninternationaltreatiesorlaws.”69Atthe sametime,thosewhoadvocatedestablishingdiplomaticandtraderelationswiththeUnitedStatesunderstoodthatinternationallawfunctioned astheonlylanguagewithwhichChosŏncouldbothengageanddeterJapan andtheWesternpowers.Aswehaveseen,thechongmyo-sajikhadanchored theChosŏndynastytoextremelycomplexdiscursivetraditionsofasserting autonomy within a China-centered tributary system. Despite—for some,preciselybecauseof—profoundchangesforcedbymid-nineteenth- centuryWesternimperialismandthetreaty-portsystem,tributaryprotocolsinQing-ChosŏnrelationsremainedcentraltobothChinaandKorea intermsofself-representationsandrepresentationstotheworldatlarge.70 In that sense, King Kojong’s “declaration ofindependence” at theRoyal AncestralTemplein1895,inthepresenceofhisministersandotherhigh officials,andhisdetermination“nottosubmittothedictatesofothercountries”(thatis,nottosubmittothedictatesofChina)signaledaradical break not just politically but also in terms of diplomatic and discursive practices.71 Inthefirstarticleofthefourteen-articleOaththathereadaloud,King Kojongpledgedto“giveupallideaofanysubjectiontoChina[ch’ŏngguk], andtoagreetolabortofirmlyestablish[Korea’s]independence[chaju tong-
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
nip].”72ThiswasthefirsttimethataChosŏndynastymonarchexplicitly disavowedChosŏn’scommitment toaChina-centered geopolitics.73Kojong’sOathsignaledhiscommitmenttosecuringChosŏn’sindependence inaglobalnation-statesystemdominatedbytheWesternimperialpowers, asystemwhereinsovereigntysupposedafinalandabsoluteauthorityin aspecificpoliticalcommunity,a(nation-)state,withnofinalorabsolute authorityexistingelsewhere.Moresignificantperhapsthanthepledgeto severChosŏn’stiestoChinawasthelanguageoftheOathitself,inwhich the meaning and significance of old words like chaju and tongnip were linkedconclusivelytocontemporaryWesternlegalterminology(kongbŏp) andpractices,74settinginmotionaprocessthatwouldremoveHeavenas thesourceofpoliticallegitimacy. InthesecondarticleoftheOath,KingKojongpromisedtoformalize the royal succession. Although making the king even more vulnerable (withthepossibilityofforcedabdication),formalizingtheroyalsuccessionwouldstabilizethemonarchy,anddoingsowithoutanimperialpatent ofappointmentfromtheQingemperorwouldprovidefurtherproofofthe endofKorea’stributaryrelationshiptoChina.Instead,andtakingtheMeiji experienceashismodel,InoueendeavoredtomakeJapantheunderwriter oftheKoreanmonarchy.Inthatsense,KingKojong’sOathwasatranslationofsorts.ItwastobethehypotheticalequivalentoftheMeijiemperor’s CharterOathof1868.75Thesweepingreforms,datingfromtheoccupation ofKyŏngbokpalaceinJuly1894,weretobeseenastheKoreanequivalent oftheMeijiRestoration:anishin(K:yushin),atermemotivelyresonant withclassicalsignificance. The Meiji Charter Oath too was issued in the midst of revolutionary chaos,meanttoreassurethevariousdomainsconcerningtheaimsofthe newMeijigovernment.ThefigureoftheemperorinKyotohadprovided therationaleforoverthrowingtheTokugawabakufu.Inadditiontohisethicalandsacerdotalauthority,theemperorwastobe“restored”topolitical authorityaswell(andmovedtoEdo,theseatofTokugawapower),and underhisgazedomainalsectionalismwouldbereplacedbyanewpolitical unity.TheCharterOath,finalizedbyKidoKōinoftheChōshūdomainand signedbytheyoungEmperorMeiji(thensixteenyearsold),calledforthe unityofallclasses,highandlow,establishmentofdeliberativeassemblies, apromisethatmattersofstatewouldbedecidedbypublicdiscussion,permissionforpeopleofallclassestopursuetheiraspirations(forexample,
41
42
ChapTer one
commonerscouldseekgovernmentemployment),thediscardingofevil customs,andthesearchforknowledgethroughouttheworld(thatis,the West).76 WhileInouetriedtoportrayKingKojong’sOathasChosŏn’sequivalent oftheMeijiCharterOath,MeijistatesmenlikeMutsuMunemitsu,Japan’s foreignminister,weredisdainfulofthosewhosoughttorepresentJapan’s motivesasbeingentirelychivalrous.Onthetopicofsponsoring“reforms” inChosŏnKoreaMutsuwrote: Whenitbecamepubliclyknownthatwewereundertakingthesereforms[in Korea]byourselves,Japaneseopinionspontaneouslyagreedthatachivalrous nationlikeoursshouldnothesitatetoextendahelpinghandtoafriendlynationlikeKorea....Naturally,Imyselfneversawanysignificanceintheissue ofKorea’sreformotherthanitsbeingamatterofpoliticalnecessity....Nevertheless,oncethesituationchangedandJapanbecamesolelyresponsiblefor Korea’sreform,reformitselfbecameavitalissueinourforeignpolicy,and ourgovernmentwasobligedattheveryleasttoattemptitsimplementation. WhatevercircumstanceslaybehindtheunityofopinioninJapanatthemoment, I recognized that having such unity and cooperation was extremely desirablefordomesticanddiplomaticpurposes.77
Amongotherthings,the“reforms”weremeanttocurbthepowerofthe Koreanking,andonthispointMutsuwouldhaveagreed.Intheremaining articlesoftheOath,KingKojongpledgedthatallaffairsofstate(chŏngmu) wouldbedecidedinconsultationwithhiscabinet,thatthequeenwould notinterferewithsuchdecisions,andthattheexpensesoftheroyalhouseholdwouldbereduced.78Sothatallthepeoplewouldbecomeawareof KingKojong’svowtohisdynasticancestors,theroyalOath(sŏgomun)was publishedanddisseminatedinthreedifferentversions:inhan’gŭl,mixed script, and literary Chinese. Along with King Kojong’s birthday and the anniversaryofthefoundingofthedynasty,this“dayofindependence”was declaredapublicholiday.79
EqualSovereigntyasColonialPedagogy InEuropetheknowledgeandpracticeofstatesovereigntyemergedwith theTreatyofWestphaliain1648,andtraditionalnotionsabouttheHolyRomanEmpirewerepermanentlyabandoned.80Inplaceofoverlappingsover-
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
eignties—thatis,anempireheadedspirituallybyapopeandtemporallyby anemperor—theGermanprincesoftheHolyRomanEmpiregained“absolutesovereignty”intheirdominions,andEuropewasreconceptualizedas acommunityofsovereignstates.Equalsovereigntywasidentifiedwiththe principlethatthereshouldbeafinalandabsoluteauthorityinthepolitical communityandthat“nofinalandabsoluteauthorityexistselsewhere.”81 Thatistosay,sovereigntyofthenation-statedidnotprecedethedevelopmentofthenation-statesystem.AsAnthonyGiddenspointsout,“Internationalrelationsarenotconnectionssetupbetweenpre-establishedstates whichcouldmaintaintheirsovereigntywithoutthem:theyarethebasis uponwhichnation-statesexistatall.”82 JustastheideaofaChina-centeredtributarysystemwasaconstruct, sotoowasthepost-Westphaliannotionofequalsovereigntyand,forthat matter,theEnlightenmentnotionofindividualpersonhood,oftheunique individualasaself-aware,self-creatingsubjectbeyond(orpriorto)social status,roles,andobligations.Proponentsofequalsovereigntyandautonomouspersonhoodtendednottoforgettheconstructednessofboth,because,asStephenKrasnerremindsus,therewasnogoldenagewhenstate sovereignty(orpersonhood)waswhollyaccepted,respected,orscrupulouslypracticed.Aslongastherehavebeenstates,stateshavecompromisedtheirownsovereigntyandviolatedthatofothers.83Referringtothe experiences in Europe, Krasner points out, “Principles associated with both Westphalian and international legal sovereignty have always been violated.NeitherWestphaliannorinternationallegalsovereigntyhasever beenastableequilibriumfromwhichrulershadnoincentivetodeviate.”84 Inspiteofthishistory,theWestphalianideaofsovereigntycouldand didserveasacognitivemapfornineteenth-centuryWestern(andJapanese) imperialism in East Asia. Treaties, institutions, and discourses on equalitybetweensovereignstates,andequalitybetweenmen,servedto openupbothChinaandJapantotradeanddiplomacyinthemiddleofthe nineteenthcentury.WhileWesterndiplomatswerehypersensitivetoritualsandsymbolsthatcouldbeconstruedasviolatingtheirownsovereign equality,85thetreatiestheyforcedonChina,Japan,andKoreawereunequal,withthemost-favored-nationclausepreventingChina(andJapan) fromplayingoffoneWesternpoweragainstanother.Thatistosay,extraterritoriality,treatyportsandassortedconcessions,controlovertariffs,and beliefinwhitesupremacywenthandinhandwithWesternliberalclaims
43
44
ChapTer one
aboutindividualequalityandequalitybetweensovereignstates.Indeed JapaneseintellectualslikeFukuzawaYukichisawanessentialrelationship betweenthetwo,arguingthatJapan’ssovereigntyandindependencedependedonindividualswhowerethemselvesconstitutedasindependent andequal.86 KingKojong’sOathof1895wasnotthefirstnorthelastoccasionwherein JapaneseandWesterndiplomatstriedtoeducatetheKoreancourtonhow tomaintainChosŏnasan“independent”nation,whileatthesametime tryingtoensurethattheKoreancourtwouldcontinuetoyieldtotheirdemands.SeveraldaysbeforeKingKojongmadehispledgebeforehisdynasticancestors,forexample,InouehadalsoadvisedthekingtorecallKorea’s legationinWashington,D.C.,Korea’sonlydiplomaticlegationinaWestern countryatthetime.InoueadvisedKojongtosellthelegationpropertyand entrustKoreanmatterstotheJapaneseembassy.87JohnM.B.Sill,theU.S. ministertoKorea,reportedthatKingKojongwasnotpleasedbythissuggestion:“Thekingdislikestolosethischiefmarkofhisindependence.”88 DiplomatsintheU.S.legation,suchasHoraceN.Allen,hadbeenconcernedaboutJapan’sintentionsinKorea(namely,acquisitionofmonopoliesandconcessionrights)andinresponsetoKingKojong’sappealswanted theUnitedStatestojoinBritainandRussiaincallingforthewithdrawal ofbothChineseandJapanesetroopsfromKorea.89Butinstructionsfrom Washingtonheldthemto“impartialneutrality.”Thoughadiplomat,missionary,andentrepreneurlikeAllenchafedatAmerica’spassiveposition (fromthemid-1880son),liketheotherWesterndiplomatsinKorea,hewas notdispleasedwiththeOaththatKingKojongwasinducedtomake. According to Martina Deuchler, by 1880 King Kojong, along with his chiefstatecouncilorandotherhighministers,hadbecomeconvincedthat itwasinChosŏn’sinteresttosignatreatywiththeUnitedStates.Such a course was sure to elicit public outrage, however, especially from the Confucianliteratiinboththecapitalandthecountrysidewhowerestill adamantlyopposedtoopeningtheportstoWesternimperialpowers.The policypaperthatwonoverKingKojongandhisministerswasChaoxian celue(K:Chosŏn ch’aengnyak,APolicyforKorea)writtenbyHuangZunxian,councilortoHeRuzhang,thefirstQingministertoJapan.InHuang’s view,RussiaposedthechiefsecuritythreattoKorea,Koreawascriticalfor shieldingChina’seasternflank,andtheChineseArmyandNavywerenot capableofdefendingKoreaincaseofaRussianattack.TokeeptheRussians
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
incheck,Huangargued,Koreashouldbeencouragedtosignatreatywith theUnitedStates.90Forcommonsecuritycalculations,then,bothKingKojongandLiHongzhangwantedChosŏnKoreatoestablishdiplomaticrelationswiththeUnitedStates. LiHongzhang,viceroyofChina,didnotstartthetreatynegationswith CommodoreRobertShufeldtoftheU.S.NavyuntilKimYun-sik,KingKojong’s representative, arrived in Tientsin.91 Deuchler has suggested that onereasonforwantingahighKoreanofficialpresentatthenegotiations wasLi’sfearthatChinawouldbeheldresponsibleforthefulfillmentof thetreaty.NonethelesshewantedtoinsertintothetreatyaclausethatacknowledgedKorea’sdependenceonChina.AsarguedbyKwŏnHyŏk-su, this hybrid tributary-treaty approach sought to maintain tributary relationswhilegroundingcommercialandpoliticalrelationsonthebasisof internationallaw.92AtatimewhenChinawasitselfbesetbyWesternimperialpowers,thekindofdirectinfluenceandinterventionthatYuanShikai, the Imperial Chinese Majesty’s resident in Korea, attempted in the period1882–94wasquitenovel.ItwastoresistQingChina’sattemptto imposeontheChosŏncourttheequivalentofaprotectoratestatusthat KingKojongbecameeagertoestablishandstrengthendiplomaticrelations withtheUnitedStates.93KingKojonghadhisownreasonsforwantingto underscoreKorea’sdependenceonChinaatthistime.Mostimmediately hewantedtodeflectoppositiontothetreatywithinKoreabymakingitappearasifitweredemandedbyChina.ThustheformulaadvocatedbyKim Yun-sikinTientsinwasthis:“WithregardtoChina,Koreaisadependent country;withregardtoallothercountries,Koreaisindependent.”ButShufeldtrejectedthisformulationonthegroundsthat,whileitwasofnoconcerntotheUnitedStatesifKoreaneededChina’sapprovalforthetreaty, atreatybetweentwocountrieshadtopresupposecompleteequalitybetweenthepartners.94 WhenLuciusH.Foote,thefirstAmericanministertoKorea,finallyset footinSeoulinMay1883,hetoldKingKojongthattheUnitedStateswas motivatedbyconcernforthe“comfortandhappiness”oftheKoreanpeople andthat“theweaknessofanation[referringtoKorea]wassometimesits strength.”Kojongwelcomedtheminister,hopingthattheAmericanpresencewouldhelpkeeptheotherimperialistpowersatbay.Butbythemid- 1880s American interest in Korea was already waning; Washington did notbotherappointingaministerforanumberofyearsbetweenthemid-
45
46
ChapTer one
1880sand1905,andPresidentWilliamMcKinleyandPresidentTheodore RooseveltwerenotconcernedaboutthelikelihoodthatJapanwouldcolonize Korea. After Japan’s victoryover Russia in the Russo-JapaneseWar (1904–5)andthesigningoftheTaft-Katsuraagreement,AmericandiplomatsledtheWesternchargeoutofKorea.95 TheAmerican-KoreanTreatyof1882,Korea’sfirst(unequal)treatywith aWesternpower,hadnotresolvedwhatwasseenasambiguityinKorea’s sovereignstatus.Japan’svictoryoverChinain1895,however,notonlyput anendtothatambiguity(andtheChina-centeredtributarysystem),italso confirmedJapan’sroleasthepreeminenttranslatorofthenewsemantics ofsovereigntyinEastAsia.This,asweshallsee,didnotheraldthedisappearanceofoldcategorieslikeinnerandouter,civilizationandbarbarism (hwaandyi)inJapanesepublicdiscourse.Forscholarsandgovernment officialsalike,thesatisfactionderivedfromtranslatingthenewsemantics ofsovereigntywas,itseems,mostlyintellectual(asaninstrumentalform ofrationality):itwasthesatisfactionofmakingtransparentthecalculus (orrationality)ofpower,inquantitativemeasurement,inboththeoldand newrhetoric,anddepictinginternationalrelationsasarealmofpurepoliticsbasedonequalsovereignty.96 Itwasdifficulttomobilizeandatthesametimemanagepublicsupport forthegovernment’sinternationalrelations.MutsuMunemitsu,Japan’s foreignministerduringtheSino-JapaneseWar,explainedthislimitation succinctlyinKenkenroku(ARecordofArduousandSelflessServicetothe Throne): Thegovernmentquitenaturallywishedtofosterpatrioticsentimentandsaw noreasontorepressit.Patriotism,however,issomethingcoarsewhichruns toexcess;andifgreatcareisnottakenincontrollingitinspecificsituations,it maycauseseriousdifficultiesfortheauthorities.HerbertSpenceroncewrote attheconclusionofanessayontheprofoundpatrioticspiritoftheRussian people,thatpatriotismisthelegacyofabarbaricage.Whilehiscritiqueis perhapstoosevere,therearecaseswheretheinjudiciousencouragementof patrioticfeelingsmaybeinimicaltotheachievementofastate’slong-range objectives.97
AftervictoriesatPyongyang(September15,1894)andontheYellowSea (September17,1894),theJapanesepublichadbecomecertainofanearly victoryandwonderedonlywhenthestandardoftheRisingSunwouldfly fromtheGatesofHeavenlyPeaceinBeijing.Animatedby“coarsepatriot-
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
ism,”thepublicdidnotrealizethatthegovernmenthadnochoicebutto capitulatetotheTripleIntervention.98Becausethepeoplewereemotionallyaroused,theycouldnotobjectivelyassesstheinternationalsituation: “Whileourprestigerose,theneedtoactresponsiblyinworldaffairsgrew atacorrespondingrate.However,ourpeopleatthetimeweresoaroused thattheyactedpurelyonthebasisofsubjectivejudgments,withoutanyobjectiveregardfortheinternationalramificationsofthepoliciestheyadvocated.Judgingmattersonlyfromtheirownlimitedperspective,theyhad nosenseofhowfarJapancouldgowithoutprovokingseriouscomplicationsabroad.”99 Thusthepatriotismofthepeople,whileuseful,canalsocauseproblems instate-to-staterelationsandevengovernability.Becauseofuninformed andhighlyjingoisticpublicopinion,stirredupbyirresponsibleopponents ofthegovernment,JapanwasobligedtopushtheChineseforcesbeyond theprudentlimit,thatis,beyondthepointacceptabletoRussia,Germany, andFrance.Thegovernment’scapitulationtotheTripleInterventionwasa policyoflastresort,adecisionthatcouldhavebeenavoidedhaditnotbeen for the vagaries of European diplomacy (which Japan had little control over)andtheignoranceofthegovernment’sopposition.Mutsu’simplied demandforabsolutismindomesticpoliticsthuswenthandinhandwith hisunderstandingofinternationalrelations.Theprivilegingofrationality, atypeofrationalitythatwoulddisclosetheforeignOtherinquantitative measurement,wouldmakepossibletheestablishmentofclear,determinategoalsasthesolebasisforaction.Onlythiskindofrationalitycould safelyguideJapaninits(late)emergenceasanimperialpowerwithinthe nation-statesystemdominatedbytheWest.Thenewsemanticsofsovereignty,ostensiblymonopolizedbythoseintheMeijigovernmenttrained inlaw,couldnot,byitself,organize,mobilize,andcontrolpublicopinion. ItwasattheendofthenineteenthcenturythatMeijistatesmenlikeMutsu Munemitsu articulated the basis for the emperor system, idealizing the OneIndividualthatHegelidentifiedwithOrientaldespots,notinthelanguageofmythbutinthelanguageofinstrumentalrationality.
AuthorshipandRitualAction InthedaysleadinguptothegreatofferingattheRoyalAncestralTemple inJanuary1895,KingKojonghadtobeprudentinhisspeechandaction, tocleansehismindandpurifyhisbody.100Onthedayofthegreatoffering,
47
48
ChapTer one
beforeenteringtheprecinctoftheMainHall,Kojongandthecrownprince steppedintoawalledenclosure(chaesil),wheretheywashedthemselves with water drawn from a round well (chejŏng) and arranged their vestments.Proceedingnorthwestalongtheroyalpath(ŏro)towardtheMain Hall(chŏngjŏn),Kojongwalkedalonealongitsraisedmiddlepassageand enteredtheMainHallthroughtheeasterngate.Courtofficials,musicians, andfemaledancersenteredthechŏngjŏnthroughtwopillarsoutsidethe westerngate.Thefoundationofonepillarwasround,signifyingHeaven, andthefoundationoftheotherwassquare,signifyingEarth,thusforming theunityofHeaven,Earth,andhumankind.Insidethechŏngjŏn,thecourt officialsformedlonglinesontheupperstoneterrace(sang-wŏldae),and followingtheprinciplesofyinandyang,themusiciansformedtwoorchestras,oneontheupperstoneterrace(dŭngga)andtheotheronthelower stoneterrace(hŏn’ga).101 Aftertheplacingoftheancestraltablets,theroyalancestralspiritswere welcomed, theghosts entering the chŏngjŏn through the central gate in thesouthwall(sinmun).102Asthefirstcupofwinewasoffered,theupper orchestraperformedelevenmusicpieces(pot’aep’yŏng)anddancersperformedthecivildance(munmu)holdingtwoflutes,yakandchŏk,thelatter madefromapheasantfeather,assingerspraisedKingT’aejo’sfoundingof theChosŏndynastyandthecivilaccomplishmentofsubsequentChosŏn kings.Withtheofferingofthesecondandthirdcups,thelowerorchestraperformedelevenmusicpieces(chŏngdaeŏp),anddancersperformed themartialdance(mumu)holdingwoodenswordsandspears,assingers praisedthemilitaryfeatsofKingT’aejoandsubsequentChosŏnkings. Thesentimentalandcognitiveattributesofsuchritualactionformed thebasisforthepedagogicandlegitimatingfunctionsofgrandsacrificial ritesatthechongmyo-sajik,enablingthemonarchtoenactthestoryofthe Chosŏndynastyashisstory,remindinghimselfandhisofficialsofthedynasty’sraisond’être.103Performingthesacrificesatthechongmyoandthe sajikdaninthepresenceofhisministersandlesserofficials,theChosŏn monarchmediatedbetweenHeavenandEarth,betweenthedeadandthe living.ThroughtheactofinvokingHeavenandwelcomingthespiritsof hisdeadancestorsatthechongmyo,orinvokingthegodsoflandandgrain atthesajikdan,prayingforrain,theChosŏnmonarchaffirmedhislegitimacy, his responsibility for the welfare of his subjects (the moral criterionforexercisingpower),andthemetaphysicsofhierarchythatdefined
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
Chosŏn’suniquepoliticalandsocialorder.Ratherthansimplyreflect(and confirm) existing political and social relations, the sacrificial rites were supposedtoreconstitutethoserelations—therulerandtheruledconstitutingeachotherassuch—bydemonstratinghowhumanfeelingswereto bechanneledintoproperhierarchicalandpatrilinealchannels.104Byreplicatingstateritualsatthelocallevel,inappropriatelylesserforms,the peopleweretobeincorporatedintotheexisting(imagined)hierarchical, male-centeredpoliticalandsocialorderasfilialsonsandloyalsubjects, positivelysituatedintheirsociality.105 WhenKingKojongperformedthegreatofferingonJanuary7,1895,we donotknowwhathethoughtorhowhefelt.Inthesensethatallofhisactionswereprescribedindetail,inritualmanualsdatingbacktothelate fifteenthcentury,itcouldbesaidthatKingKojong,astheprincipalperformerofthestateritualatthechongmyo-sajik,was,andwasnot,theauthorofhisactions.106Whatevertheinnerstateofthekingandothersatany singlepointintheritual,however,itwasunderstoodbyallthathisOathbeforehisancestorsmadethepronouncementofindependenceinviolable.In otherwords,whetherornotKingKojongandhisscholar-officialsbelieved inghosts,theywouldnothavedeniedthatthepoliticaleconomyofknowledgeinlatenineteenth-centuryChosŏnstillvalidatedthenotionthatrituals, properly performed, provided unique access to essential knowledge aboutone’splaceintheworld,withappropriatefeelingsandvalues.Inthat sense,KingKojong’sinnerstatedidnotmatterasmuchasthefactthathe performedtheritualasprescribed.HisOathwasaspeech-act,anutterancethatimmediatelyproducedanewrealitypreciselybecausehealone possessedrequisiteauthority.Hisritualperformanceandspeech-actthat day were doubly prescribed, not just by centuries of ritual manuals but alsobyInoueKaoru’sscript.Thisdidmakeadifference.Chosŏn-period scholarsofritualrecognized,ofcourse,thatritualsarehistorical(human) creations.Butblatantattemptstousedynasticritualsasvehiclestocreate andcommunicatenewmeaningshelpedfosteramorewillful,unrestrained attitude(andrivalry)towardthemanipulationofsigns.SuchactsoftranslationnotonlydestroyedtheChina-centeredtheoryandpracticeoftributaryrelationsbutalsodemolishedthedynastic(feudal)incorporatinglogic andsetloosenewdesires. Aswithanyactoftranslation,Inoue’sattemptattranslationdidnotoccur betweentwodistinctsystemsofsignsandmeanings,JapaneseandKorean.
49
50
ChapTer one
Infacthisattemptattranslationnecessitatedapriorgesture:theportrayal ofKoreaandJapanasdistinct,unifiedspaces,eachwithitsuniquesystem ofsignsandmeanings.Herewasthedistinctivelyproductive(asopposedto repressive)aspectsofJapanesecolonialismatthishistoricaljuncture:the collaborationwithreformistofficialstoresignifythepastandtomobilize thepasttoauthorizeprojectsthatwouldbreakwithtradition.TheproductiveimaginationofthisparticulartranslatorwasconditionedbythenarrativeofWesternliberalismandthenation-statesystemintowhichKorea wastobeincorporated.Suchactsoftranslationhelpedproducenewsubjectivities,imaginedcommunities,andostensiblytransparentrelationsbetweenpresentandpastinlatenineteenth-centuryChosŏnaswellasin MeijiJapanandeventuallydeniedHeavenasthatwhichconferstheright torule. KingKojong’s1895OathbeforethespiritsofdeadChosŏndynastykings andtheuseoftranslatedwordsliketongnipinthelastdecadesofthenineteenth century hadmuchincommon andreveal agreatdealabout the nature of Korea’s translated modernity and the process by which Korea becamecolonizedbyJapan(1910–45).Newmeaningswereinventedthat would serve as hypothetical equivalents of the (Western) semantics of sovereignty involving terminology and practices that validated Western imperialism,colonialism,andcapitalistpenetration.Throughtheuseof neologismsandmanipulationofcenturies-olddynasticrituals,themade- upqualityoforthodoxconceptionsoftheworldwasbroughttothefore, andthesearchforintellectualcertitudeturnedincreasinglytowardinstrumentalreason.ButperhapsthespiritsofdeadChosŏndynastykingscould notbesoeasilyswayed,orKingKojong’sbodywasnotyetsodocile.Onthe dayoftheWinterSolstice,whenthevisittotheYiAncestralTempleshould have taken place, King Kojong’s body had broken out in a rash.107 Thus InoueKaoruandKorea’sdeclarationofindependencefromChinahadto waitsixteendaysuntiltheking’sbodyreturnedtoarituallycleanstate.108 Theking’sbodybreakingoutinarashcanserveasametaphornotonly for the process of deterritorialization but also for the process by which thenationalistdesireforequalsovereigntywascreatedbytheviolent,destructive,andconstructiveworkingsofimperialism.Inoue’smanipulation ofChosŏndynasticsymbolsandritualstocreateandcommunicatenew meaningsaimedtoconjurespirits—butspiritsrenderedmute,reduced tovisuality,andlockedinapastseveredfromtheirfuture.AftertheTriple
sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism
Intervention and the retreat of Japanese influence in Chosŏn, King Kojongcontinuedthemanipulationofdynasticrituals,leadingin1897tothe buildingofawŏn’gudan(RoundHillAltar),theelevationofChosŏntothe GreatHanEmpire(Taehancheguk),andtheelevationofhisownstatus tothatofemperor.109Butthisshortperiodofrelativeautonomywouldbe broughttoanendwiththeRusso-JapaneseWarandtheJapaneseimpositionofaprotectoratein1905.Thereafterthemoderndesireforindependenceandequalsovereigntywouldbenurturedbynationalisthistorians likeSinCh’ae-ho.WhiletheinitialconjuringofthatdesiretookplacebeforeHeavenandthespirittabletsofChosŏndynastykingsandqueens, withthedynasticstateonitsdeathbedandHeavenremovedasthesource ofpoliticallegitimacy,itisperhapsunderstandablewhyhistorianslikeSin Ch’ae-hoandPakŬn-sikwouldturntothemostelemental,themostquintessentialasthepointofdepartureforreconstitutingthewhole. Itshouldberememberedthatmortuaryrituals,amongotherthings,help gatherthelifeforce(K:ki,C:qi),anditisthegatheringanddispersingof thisforcethatsetinmotionthecycleoflivinganddying.Otherthanmortuaryrituals,andasprerequisitetoself-strengtheningandanticolonialresistance,whatpracticecouldgatherthisforcetoreconstitutethewhole?For SinCh’ae-ho,itwashistorywritingthatcouldrevivethepeople’squintessentialspirit(chŏngsin),anditwouldbeonthebasisofthatinnerforcethat thewholecouldbereconstituted—thepeople’sspirit,shapedbyhistory butalsotranscendingit,channelingandtransformingkiintoamodern, historical,andmaterialforce.Likethemonarchwhoisalsotheofficiant ofmortuaryritualsattheRoyalAncestralTemple,nationalisthistorians wouldtendtotheKoreanGeist.TakingupideasrelatedtosocialDarwinismandtheorganictheoryofthestate,SinCh’ae-hoandothernationalist historiansinthefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcenturywould(re)imagine ChosŏnKoreaasanorganicentity,theethnicnation,ratherthanadynasticstate.Likemortuaryritualsandtheexerciseofone’smoralcapacity,historywritinginearlytwentieth-centuryKoreawasremembrance,anactof mourning,andethicalpractice,anactthatgatherski,theethnicnation’s lifeforce,facilitatingmovementtowardanticolonialstruggleandthebirth ofanotherlivingbody,thistimeasasovereignnation-state.ThusforSin, oneofthefirsttonarrateKorea’spastinthemodeofnationalisthistoriography,historianshadaheavyresponsibility. Thehistoricalandsemanticlinksbetweenimperialismandnationalism
51
52
ChapTer one
areobviouslyquitecomplex,andthechaptersthatfollowtrytounravel someofthatcomplexity.Historianswhoinsistonmaintainingasharpdistinction,analyticalandotherwise,betweenimperialismandnationalism makeasimplebutimportantpoint.WhereasimperialismsoughttoestablishdominationoverKorea,Koreannationalisminthelatenineteenthcenturyandmuchofthetwentiethcenturywasdefensive.Inopposingimperialistencroachment,Koreannationalistssoughttouniteandmobilize thepeoplethroughmoreegalitarian,inclusivepolitics.Butindismantling statusdistinctions,inteachingpeopleofallclassestheideaandpracticeof citizenship,andinpursuingthegoalofdevelopment,nationalistsalsosucceededinnaturalizingthenation-stateformandlegitimatingitstotalizing power.110Atthesametime,focusingontheconceptofsovereigntyandthe historicalandmateriallinkagesbetweenimperialistviolenceandnationalistimagination,thehistoricalanalysespresentedhereshowhowthepast couldalsobecomethespaceofdemocraticreimagining,inspiration,and endurance.
chapter two imperiaLism anD naTionaLism Questionsanswered:“Korea”and“Corea”arebothcorrect,buttheformer ispreferred.KoreaisnotapartofChina,butisindependent.TheKoreans donotspeaktheChineselanguageandtheirlanguageresemblesneither theChinesenortheJapanese.Koreamadetreatiesin1882.Koreahaselectriclights,steamships,telegraph,butnorailroads.Koreansliveincomfortabletile-roofedhouses,heatedbyfluesunderthefloor.Koreancivilization isancientandhigh;area,100,000squaremiles;population16,000,000; climatelikethatofChicago.—SignovertheKoreaExhibit,World’sFair
inChicago,1893
InitsbriefdescriptionoftheKoreaExhibitattheChicagoWorld’sFair— namedtheWorld’sColumbianExpositiontocelebratethefour-hundredth anniversaryofChristopherColumbus’s“discoveryoftheNewWorld”— theChicago RecordquotedinitsentiretythesignthathungovertheKorea Exhibitandsurmised,correctly,thattheKoreansstaffingtheexhibithad gottentiredofansweringthesamequestionsoverandover.1InDecember 1893,whenCommissionerChŏngKyŏng-wŏnreturnedtoKoreaandreportedtoKingKojongaboutKorea’sparticipationintheWorld’sFair,he notedthatthereweresomanyvisitorsfromsomanycountriesaskingquestionsthattheyhadtoplacealabeloneveryitemtheydisplayed,explainingitsuse.2Providingadistinctlynationalbackdroptothesmalldescriptivelabels—KoreaisnotapartofChina;theKoreanlanguageresembles neitherChinesenorJapanese;Koreanhomesarekeptwarminthewinter byfluesunderthefloor—thesignovertheexhibitlikelyhadamoreambitiouspedagogicalintent,anticipatingnotjustquestionsfairgoersmight askaboutKorea,butalsothequestionsthattheyshouldbeaskingabout Korea’splaceintheworld. Whethertheauthorofthissignwasthecommissioneroftheexhibit, ChŏngKyŏng-wŏn,orperhapsHoraceAllen,appointedbyKingKojong to advise and assist the Korean delegation to the World’s Fair, the delegation took pains to emphasize Korea’s distinguishing characteristics.3
54
ChapTer Two
Korea’sdistinctivenessfromChinaandJapanandtheveryactofitsself- representationattheWorld’sFairweremeanttogiveevidenceofitsindependenceandsovereignty.ThesignabovetheKoreaExhibitcanbereadas asomewhatglumattempttoeducatefairgoers—theexhibititselfproving inadequate—thatKoreancivilizationwas“ancientandhigh”andthat,at thesametime,Koreawasbecomingmodern.Asanattempttoinsertalegal andmoraldimensionintothedescriptionofKoreaasanation-state,aswell astoserveasaninformationalbackdropforthetobaccopipesandother artifactsofeverydaylifeondisplay,thesignovertheexhibitspokedirectly towhatmanyfairgoersmighthaverecognizedasalegalprincipleoperativeincapitalistmodernity:onlyautonomousindividualsandnationscan enterintobindingcontractualagreements;onlyautonomousindividuals andnationsaretrulyadvanced(andmasculine),capableofmakingmature moraldecisions.4 Adecadeearlier,ayearafterthesigningoftheTreatyofCommerceand AmitybetweentheUnitedStatesandChosŏnKorea,aneight-mandiplomaticmissionhadbeendispatchedtotheUnitedStates.LedbyChiefEnvoyMinYŏng-ik, themission visited twoindustrial fairs inBoston.5By thetimeoftheWorld’sFairinChicago,QingChinastillhadnointention ofabandoningChineseclaimsofsuzeraintyoverKoreaandChosŏnKorea remainedinaseeminglyambiguous“dependent-yet-autonomous”status.6 Participation in international events like the World’s Fair provided evidenceofstate-ledeffortsthatBenedictAndersonreferredtoasofficialnationalism.7Toputitdifferently,ayearbeforethefirstSino-JapaneseWar andKingKojong’sdeclarationofKorea’s“independence,”materialanddiscursiveconditionsalreadyexistedwithinKoreathatwouldallowforthe disseminationofnotjusttheideaofnationalsovereigntybutalsothepresumptionthatrecognitionbytheWesternimperialpowerswasanecessary conditionforavoidingcolonization—whetherbyChina,Russia,orJapan. AsLydiaLiuhasobserved,sovereigntyinthelatenineteenthcentury wasbasedonaconstitutivenotionofsovereignright.8Inotherwords,sovereigntyrequiredrecognitionfromtheWesternimperialpowers.Toreceiverecognition,non-Europeanpolitieshadtodemonstratecommitment to European civilization, as measured by specific “reforms” of political, economic,andculturalinstitutionsandpractices,includingparticipation ininternationaleventsliketheChicagoWorld’sFair.Theproductofcenturiesofcolonialexpansionandconquest,latenineteenth-centurysover-
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
eigntywascapitalistsovereignty,functioning,asHardtandNegriargued, bothaspoliticalpowerandpolicepower:“apoliticalpoweragainstallexternalpoliticalpowers”andapolicepowerthatworkedtosubsume“singularitiesinthetotality,ofthewillofallintothegeneralwill.”9Atatime whenEuropeancoloniescoveredroughlyhalfofthemainlandoftheearth (subjugatingroughlytwo-fifthsoftheearth’shumanpopulation),10when Europeansuperiorityseemedindisputableandsovereignty-basedinternationallawfacilitatedEuro-Americanimperialism,sovereigntyhadbecome amachine,andKorea’s participation intheWorld’s Fairexpressed both complianceandthestagingofnewformsofsubjectivityanddesire—for example,desireforinclusioninthenation-statesystemdominatedbythe West. Extraordinarilypopularandinfluential,theColumbianExpositionhad more than 27 million visitors over its six-month run, a number equivalent to more than 40 percent of the population of the United States at thetime.AsRichardSeagernotes,theChicagoWorld’sFair“functioned asapilgrimagesiteformillions...enthralledbyitsevocationofhistory, itspanoramicdisplaysofglobalcultureandmoderntechnology.”11Expositionplannerscreatedthreeseparatespheresthattogetherencompassed theirvisionfortheWorld’sFair:themonumentalWhiteCity,theMidway Plaisance(anamusementareaofficiallyundertheauspicesoftheexposition’sDepartmentofEthnology),andeightmilesnorthoftheExposition, indowntownChicago,thenewlyconstructedArtInstitutetohostthevariouscongresses,includingtheWorldParliamentofReligions.TheWhite Citywassocalledbecauseofthewhiteplasterthatformedthefaçadeofthe Expositionbuildings.Litupbyninetythousandincandescentlampsand constructedalongalagoonandreflectingwaterwayscovering686acres, the buildings themselves were immense and ornate neoclassical Beaux Artsstructures.Housinggiganticmachineswhilealludingtotheglories ofAugustusCaesar,thesestructureselicitedintheleadingnationalperiodicalscountlessessaysthatpointedtothefuturewith“animperialcastof mind.”12 TheauthorofthesignovertheKoreaExhibitassertednotjustKorea’s selfhoodandautonomybutalsounambiguousagreementwiththebelief thatsuchanassertionwasappropriateandmoral.Atthesametime,the KoreaExhibititselfwasseeminglydeficient,embarrassinglyso,atleastfor Yun Ch’i-ho.13 Yun had just completed his graduate studies in Christian
55
56
ChapTer Two
educationandsystematictheologyatEmoryCollegeandwasonhisway toChina,withathree-weekstopinChicagotoseetheColumbianExpositionandtheWorldParliamentofReligions.HisfirsttripoutsideofKorea hadbeenin1881,whenhewassixteen.Hisfather,amilitaryofficial,had arrangedforhimtojointheInspectionMissiontoJapan(chosa sach’aldan) asanassistant.14SentbyKingKojong,theofficialswhotouredJapanwere to observe and report on institutional and technological changes being pushedthroughbytheMeijistateandtoassessthethreattoKoreansecurity. When the Inspection Mission returned to Korea, Yun stayed on in JapantostudyJapanese.15Ayearlater,in1882,hebeganstudyingEnglish, because“withEnglish,KoreanswouldbeabletodirectlyimportWestern civilizationwithouthavingtogothroughJapan.”16 In1883theJapaneseforeignministerInoueKaorurecommendedYun toLuciusHarwoodFoote,America’sfirstenvoyandministerplenipotentiarytoKorea.17ReturningtoKoreawithMinisterFoote,Yunreceivedan appointmentasaclerkinthenewlyestablishedOfficeofExtraordinary Affairs (T’ongni kimu amun, the antecedent to a foreign ministry) and wasassignedasFoote’stranslator.Later,asaprotégéofthe“progressives” wholaunchedafailedcoupattemptin1884,Yunhadtogointohiding, andwhenMinisterFooteleftKoreainJanuary1885,Yunwentwithhim.18 UponreachingNagasaki,YuncutoffhistopknotandboughtasuitofWesternclothes.HewentontoShanghai,whereheenrolledinaschoolrun bytheAmericanMethodistEpiscopalChurch,South,andinApril1887 convertedtoChristianity.Inlate1888,withthehelpofAmericanmissionaries,hewenttotheUnitedStatestostudytheologyatVanderbiltandat EmoryCollege.19HischiefinterestattheWorld’sFairwastheWorldParliamentofReligions,thefirstformalattempttocreateaglobaldialogue betweenfaiths,wheretherepresentativesofEasternandWesternspiritual traditionshelpedestablishthenotionof“worldreligions,”acategorythat expressedavaguecommitmenttoreligioustolerance,whilereinforcinga logicofclassification.20
WorldReligionsandTolerance DelegatestotheParliamentofReligionsweretoengageindialoguepremisedontolerance,therulesspecifyingthatdelegatesshould“statetheir ownbeliefsandreasonsforthemwiththegreatestfrankness”butrefrain
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
fromcriticismofothers.21Inhisdiary,however,YunCh’i-hodidnotrefrainfromcriticizingsomeofthedelegates.Betweensummarydescriptionsofdelegates’speeches,Yuntookswipesatthosewhoarguedforreligiouspluralism.OfHiraiRyugeKinzō,adelegatefromJapan,Yunwrote thathisstylewasbeautiful,histhoughts“expressedastheywereinvague andmetaphysicalterms.”HenotedthatHirai“caughttheaudience”but judgedhispaper“morallyuselessonaccountofitsfallacies.”“Headvocatingasyntheticreligiondefinedreligionasan‘aprioribeliefinanunknownentity.’Thenheproceededtoconsiderthenatureoftheunknown entity.‘Nonsense!’Foriftheentityis‘unknown’howcanheconsiderits nature?...Hetriedtoshowthatthecreatorofconditioned andfinite beings could not be infinite and unconditioned. He might as well have saidthatthemakerofunintelligentdollscan’tbeintelligent!”22Yunnoted thatthedelegatesofallthenon-Christiancreedspresentedaunitedfront toChristianityandthattheUnitariansandUniversalistssidedwiththem. Hirai’spaperwassharplycriticalofChristianmissionaryworkinJapan, butmanyofhisdeclarationswerefollowedbyloudapplause.23Inhisentry forSeptember27,thelastdayoftheParliament,YunmentionsHiraiagain: “Harai[sic]ofJapantalkedabouttheJapanesepriest’s[sic]sheddingtears forleavingAmerica.IcallthisanAsiaticliepureandsimple.”24 AsJohnP.Burrisnotes,someofthestrongestvoicesfromAsia,inexquisiteEnglish,belongedtodelegatesfromIndiaandCeylon:“Thelengthy BritishoccupationofIndiahadcauseddeepanimosities,andtheforemost thingontheIndians’mindswasnottoenunciatetranscendentaltruths, whichtheyalsodid,buttotalkreligiouspolitics.”25ButYunwasnotsympathetic.HequotedVirachandRaghavGandhifromGujarat,whorepresentedJains,andcommented,“Gandhi,aBombaylawyer[sic].‘DoIwisha Hindoo[sic]oraBuddhistturnaChristian?Godforbid!DoIwishaChristianturnaHindoooraBuddhist?Godforbid!’Thusintheverynameof liberty, toleration etc. etc. this man forbids the freedom of choice.”26 It shouldbenotedthatoneofthegoalsofthisfirstWorldParliamentofReligionswasto“inquirewhatlighteachreligionhasafforded,ormayafford tootherreligionsoftheworld.”Whiledesiringracialinclusion,27Yunwas notalittleskepticalaboutwhetherHindusandBuddhistsmightbeableto shedanylightondivinetruth.Hisprivilegingoffreedom(thefreedomto chooseone’sfaith)dovetailedcloselywiththeChristian-centricvisionof JohnHenryBarrows,thechairmanoftheGeneralCommitteeonReligious
57
58
ChapTer Two
CongressesoftheWorld’sCongress,forwhomoneoftheobjectsoftheParliamentwasto“change[the]many-coloredradiancebackintothewhite lightofheavenlytruth.”Thewhitelightofheavenlytruthwas,ofcourse, Christianity.Barrowschargedthat“thosewhoha[d]thefulllightofthe crossshouldbearbrotherlyheartstowardsallwhogropeinadimmerillumination.”28 Twoweekslater,arrivinginVancouverafterfourdaysofa“tediousride overprairies,wildmountains,canyons,valleysofvariedscenesandtemperature,”YunhadthistosayabouttheNativeAmericanshesawinthestationsalongtheCentralPacificRailroad:“Indianswereseenatalmostevery station.Someofthempaintedtheirfacesredandmosthadredorblue blanketswrappedaroundtheirbodies.Asadandsomewhatcontemptible sight:sadbecauseoftheirpasthistory,butcontemptiblebecauseofthe inabilitytoimprovetheircondition.Aracethatfails,fromvoluntarylazinessandignorance,toavailitselfoftheadvantagesofcivilizationbrought soclosetoitsreachisn’tworthwhiletolive.”29Yun’sperspectiveonNativeAmericansthusparalleledtheobjectifyingoperationofdiscourseson “civilization,”associatingamoralandpoliticalcomplexofmeaningswith whitesupremacy.IfNativeAmericansdidnotavailthemselvesofEuro- Americancivilization—iftheyvoluntarilychosetocontinuelivinginignorance and “degraded humanity”—then they did not deserve to live. No matterhowconstrainedorforcedthat“choice”mightbe,theactofchoosingEuro-Americancivilizationwas,initself,proofofapeople’scapacity forrationalityandautonomy—thatis,autonomyfromtraditionandignorance.Yun’sprivilegingoffreedom,alongwithruminationsonwhycertain populationsdidnotdeservetolive,pointtonotjusttheinclusionarypretensionsofliberaltheoryandtheexclusionaryeffectsofliberalpractices, butalsothecentralityofviolenceintheconstitutionof(Christian)liberal- bourgeoissubjectivityinthelatenineteenthcenturyanditspermutations throughthecolonial perioddowntopostcolonial anticommunist South Korea.30 WhileinChicago,whennotattendingtheParliamentofReligions,Yun also visited the Columbian Exposition. He observed that the China Exhibitseemed“moreconcernedaboutsellingitsmerchandise.”Yundoes notmentionit,anditisquitepossiblethathedidnotknow,buttheQing governmenthadturneddownPresidentBenjaminHarrison’sinvitationto participate in the Columbian Exposition toprotest theextension of the
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
ChineseExclusionActof1882.TherewereanumberofearlierChineseexclusionlaws,buttheActof1882,insofarasitwasafederallaw,established acomprehensivelegalbarriertoChineseimmigrationandmadeChinese alreadyintheUnitedStatespermanentaliens.In1892theChineseExclusionActwasrenewedforanothertenyears,andthatiswhatprompted theQinggovernmenttoboycotttheChicagoWorld’sFairin1893.Without China’sparticipation,theChineseExhibitwasorganizedbyfiveprivate groups,threeofwhichwerenotChinese,includingaNewYorkjewelerand aSwedish-ledcommitteethatdesignedtheChinese“temple.”Wellaway fromthemagnificentbuildingsandexhibitsaroundtheCourtofHonor,referredtoastheWhiteCity,theChineseExhibitwaslocatedintheMidway Plaisance.“Sandwichedbetweenentertainmentfacilities,”theChinesedisplays“becameasourceofamusement,notrespect.”31 SetapartfromtheWhiteCitybyarailbridge,theMidwayPlaisanceextendedwest,astripoflandamilelongandaboutsixhundredfeetwide, “organizedlinearly...providingalessoninracialhierarchy.”32ThehistorianHubertHoweBancroftdescribedtheMidway: Entering the avenue a little to the west of the Woman’s Building [the visitor]wouldpassbetweenthewallsofmedievalvillages,betweenmosquesand pagodas,pastthedwellingsofcolonialdays,pastthecabinsofSouthSeas islanders,ofJavanese,Egyptians,Bedouins,Indians....Then,astasteand lengthofpursedetermined,forfeesweredemandedfromthosewhowould penetratethehiddenmysteriesoftheplaisance,theymightentertheCongressofBeautywithitsplumpandpiquantdamsels,mightpassahouseinone ofthetheatresorvillages,orpartakeofharmlessbeveragesservedbynative waiters.FinallytheywouldbetakethemselvestotheFerrisWheel,onwhich theywereconveyedwithsmooth,glidingmotiontoaheightof260feet,affordingatransientandkaleidoscopicviewoftheparkandallitcontains.33
OnorneartheMidwayPlaisance,therewereexhibitsofDakotaSioux, Navajos,Apaches,andvariousnorthwesterntribes.AccordingtoRobert Rydell,theNativeAmericansbecameobjectsofabuseandridicule:“With WoundedKneeonlythreeyearsremoved,theIndianswereregardedas apocalypticthreatstothevaluesembodiedintheWhiteCity....TheWhite CityandtheMidwayweretrulysymbolic,butnotantithetical,constructs. Rather,thevisionofthefutureandthedepictionofthenonwhiteworldas savageweretwosidesofthesamecoin.”34
59
60
ChapTer Two
Amongforeignparticipants,Japanreceivedagreatdealofattentionand hadthelargestpresenceintermsofspace,includinga40,000-square-foot buildingandgardencomplexonWoodedIsland,severalbuildingsandattractionsontheMidway,andsome90,000squarefeetofdisplayspace intheWhiteCity.Inreturnforanearly,substantialcontributiontothe Chicago organizers and a promise to reproduce abuilding of “the most ancientstyleofarchitecture,”Japanhadbeengivenprimerealestateon WoodedIsland.Costingnearly$500,000,theJapanesepavilionincludeda reproductionofthePhoenixHalloftheByōdō-intemplenearKyoto,with ateahouseandgardens.35ItmustbenotedthattheJapanesepresentation atChicagowasstrictlycontrolledbyanimperialcommissionheadedby Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu, who spent “virtually every waking hour”ponderingtheproblemofhowtorenegotiate(unequal)treatieswith Westernimperialpowers.36Thepursuitofthisstateobjectivewaswoven intothenarrativestrategyofrepresentingJapaneseBuddhismattheWorld ParliamentofReligions.37 InhisopeningaddressfortheJapanesedelegation,NoguchiZenshirō, a Buddhist layman, artfully touched on the themes of Western aggressionandtheillegalityofthetreaties.JudithSnodgrasswrites,“Maintaininghisironicalmessageofgratitude,NoguchithankedAmericaforsendingPerryandpresentedJapaneseBuddhismasthemostpreciousgiftthat Japancouldoffer.”ComparingCommodorePerrytoColumbus,Noguchi hintedatthecontinuingmovementofcivilizationwestward,fromEurope toAmericatoJapan.AsSnodgrasspointsout,hispaper,inaverysubtle way,criticizedEuro-Americanimperialism:“TheJapaneseerectedastatue toPerry,astheAmericanshaddonetoColumbus,butbesideittheyplaced a statue of Ii Naosuke, the chancellor of the Tokugawa bakufu who had beenassassinatedasatraitor,Noguchiexplained,because‘heopenedthe doortoastrangerwithoutwaitingforthepermissionoftheemperor’... [alluding]totheinvalidityofthetreatiesforceduponJapanbytheUnited States.”38 Themajorityofthefairgoerswereworking-classandfarmingfamilies, andastheymarveledatthelatestscientificandtechnologicalinnovations exhibitedinornate,massiveneoclassicalbuildings,theywerealsointroducedtoinnovativeandentertainingwaysofrepresentingracialandcivilizationalhierarchies.In1890nearly78percentofthepopulationofChicago wereeitherforeign-bornorthechildrenofforeign-born,39anditwould
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
besafetosaythattheWhiteCityandtheideaofAmericaasunitedand progressivedidnotconvinceeveryfairgoer.Theworking-classmovement wasstrongandmilitant;sevenyearsearlierarallyinsupportofstriking workershadledtowhathascometobeknownastheHaymarketMassacre, andChicagohadthereputationofbeing“themostradicalofAmerican cities.”40BlackAmericansweredenigratedandexcluded,asFerdinandL. Barnettnoted:“OnlyasamenialistheColoredAmericantobeseen.... ItremainedfortheRepublicofHayti[sic]togivetheonlyacceptablerepresentation....ThatrepublicchoseFrederickDouglasstorepresentitas CommissionerthroughwhichtheColoredAmericanreceivedfromaforeignpowertheplacedeniedhimathome.”41 The Chicago of Upton Sinclair, the Chicago of sweatshops and tenements,habitatswithoutplumbingorlight—that“real”Chicagoconflicted withtheExpositiondirectors’visionofthefuture.Inthatsense,asAlan Trachtenberghaspointedout,theWhiteCitywasnotonlyphysicallyseparatedfromChicago,butalsoaestheticallydifferentiated.42ForYunCh’i-ho, thatphysicalandaestheticdistanceonlyintensifiedthedistanceheperceivedbetweenKoreaandcivilizednations.OnseeingtheKoreaExhibit, Yunwrotethatitwassosecond-rateanddismalthathecouldnotturn awayfromit.TheExhibitdidnotpresentChosŏnKoreaasanationthata moderncitizenmightadmire.ItwasaltogetherunabletoarticulateKorea inanycompellingwaywithinthatsymbolicuniversethatprivilegedindustrialization,progress,andempire.Yunwroteinhisdiarythathecouldnot helpbut“blushatthepovertyofCoreanarts.”Hespenttwodaysviewing theColumbianExposition.InhisentryforSeptember28hewrote,“After breakfastwenttotheFair.FelthumiliatednottofindaCoreanflaginany ofthebuildingsfromwhoseroofsflythecolorsofalmosteverynation.Ah! YetIshallnotknowthedepthandbreadthofthedegradationandshameof CoreatillIgetintohercapital....WenttotheCoreanPavilionat11a.m. andstayedthereuntil5p.m.!Whyandwhatfor?Ican’texplain;onlyI couldn’tgetawayfromthere,miserableastheexhibitis.”43 Korea’sparticipationintheColumbianExpositionanditsmodeofnationalself-representationillustratethepathwaysbywhichKoreawasimbricatedwiththeculturesofEuro-Americanempireandthe(re)structuringofracialandcivilizationalhierarchiesintheintellectualandpolitical terrainoflatenineteenth-centurysemicolonialKorea.Theyillustratehow imperialismandtheglobalarticulationofsovereigntybytheWesternim-
61
62
ChapTer Two
perialpowerscreatedthematerialanddiscursiveconditionsthatrendered KoreaandKoreans“wretchedandslavish.”44WhileastudentatVanderbiltandEmory,Yunhadspenthissummersgivingsermonsatchurches throughouttheSouth.45InhisdiaryentryforJune26,1893,inLincolnton, NorthCarolina,hewrote,“Hadafullhouselastnight.MetMrs.M.A. WildmanofRichmond.SheintroducedherselftomeasacousinofMiss LinnieDavisaPresbyterianmissionarytoCorea.Godblessher;amissionarytoCoreahasmoretoendurethanoneintheAfricanjungles.”Hisdiary recordsmanydelightfulhoursspentplayingthegameofquotationwith wives,daughters,andwidowsofpastors,andthedaughterofhislandlord whileinChicago.InhisentryforAugust11,1893,inLynchburg,Virginia, Yunrecordedhis“wanderingthoughts”:MissF.E.was“aristocraticinfeelingandbearingthoughnotincircumstances....[She]askedmeifIever getmad!HaveIdeceivedherinhidingandcontrollingmypassions?Certainlynot.Itisnosintohideourpassionsaslongaswedesignnoharm behindthosewhomayoffendus.” HisdiarymakesitclearthatYunwasoffendednumeroustimesbythe racismheencounteredintheUnitedStates.Butinhidinghisangerheinsistedthatheharborednodesigntoharmthosesame(white)Americans. Ontheotherhand,towardthosegroupsofpeople(nonwhites)whomhe judgedwillfullyinignoranceandbarbarity,suchastheNativeAmericans hesawintheAmericanWest,hisanger,indeedhiscasualgenocidalremark,couldbestatedfreelyandopenly.IntellectualslikeYunCh’i-ho— Korean, male, bourgeois, and Christian, practiced in public speaking, afternoonteas,andparlorgameswithwhitewomen,hispassionsfirmly controlledasbefitacivilizedman—helpedsetinmotionpoliticalandculturalmovementsundertherubricofCivilizationandEnlightenment(munmyŏng kaehwa)thatusheredinamodernpublicsphereandaracializedand nationalizedabstractedsubjectivity.46 From Vancouver, via Japan, Yun arrived back in Shanghai in mid- November1893toawaitpoliticalchangesinKoreathatmightpermithis return.47ThatopportunitycamewiththeoutbreakoftheSino-Japanese War,theJapaneseoccupationofSeoul,andInoueKaoru’ssupportforareformistgovernment.YunreturnedtoKoreainFebruary1895andreceived anappointmentfirstasviceministerofeducation,andthenasviceministerofforeignaffairs.48
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
TranslatingSovereignty ItisnotclearwhenYunCh’i-hobegankeepingadiary.WhathasbeenpreservedbeginsonJanuary1,1883.AtthetimehewasstudyingEnglishin JapanwithLizzieGoodhueMillet,thewifeofErnestFranciscoFenollosa, aprofessorofphilosophyandpoliticaleconomyatTokyoImperialUniversity,andKandaNaibu,alecturerinEnglishatTokyoImperialUniversity. Yun’s early diary entries were in literary Chinese. However, on November25,1887,whilestudyingattheAnglo-ChineseCollegeinShanghai,49 heswitchedtovernacularwritingintheKoreanalphabetwiththesimple declaration“FromtodayIwillkeepmydiaryinKorean[kungmun].”On December7,1889,ayearafterarrivinginNashvilletostudyatVanderbilt, hechangedhislanguageagain,thistimetoEnglish.Hewrote,inEnglish, “MyDiaryhashithertobeenkeptinCorean.Butitsvocabularyisnotasyet richenoughtoexpressallwhatIwanttosay.Havethereforedeterminedto keeptheDiaryinEnglish.”HisEnglishentriesweremuchlonger,andhe immediatelytookuptopicshehadnotwrittenaboutbefore:aboutJacob (“theArmenian”),afriendwhowaspoor(“poorerthanI”)butwhohad “simplicityinmannerandkindnessofheart”;aboutthesouthernerwho “looksdownonanegrowithasmuchcontemptasonabrute”;andabout thesouthernchurchthat“favoredslavery.”50 WhenYunswitchedfromKoreantoEnglish,thequestioning,feeling, self-conscious self that emerges from the diary seems to emerge fully formed.IntheKorean-languageentriesofthedaysandweekspriortothe shift,thelanguagedoesnot—cannot—giveevidenceofthatkindofinteriority, of a masculine and singular consciousness. Even for Yun, who obviouslyhadaknackforlanguagesandwriting,theKoreanvernacular atthetimeprovedinadequateforself-presentation.Itwasnotthepoverty of the Korean vocabulary that made written vernacular Korean inadequate. Vernacular Korean in the late 1880s, as a written language, did nothavethekindofliteraryconventionsthatEnglishdevelopedafterthe eighteenthcentury,thatcouldinterpellateYunasauthorandnarratorof aself-narrative.Centraltohisdiarykeepingwasthefigureofthesovereignsubjectinthepost-EnlightenmentWestthatwasinformedbynotions ofself-interest,self-consciousness,andself-knowledge.51Inhisswitchto English,hisdiarybecameaself-definingstory,andYunaself-determining authorwhocouldwriteabouthisownsubjectivityfromexternalizedand internalpointsofview,constitutinghimselfasbothsubjectandobject.
63
64
ChapTer Two
WhileYunmayhaveconstructedhissubjectivityinEnglish,itwasalso cleartohim,asitwastotheWesternmissionariesinKorea,thatadistinctly Koreansubjectivity—thatis,aKoreannationalsubjectivity—wouldhave tobeconstructedintheKoreanvernacular.Thiswouldnecessitateanimmenseculturalshift.WilliamE.Griffis,anAmericanOrientalistandCongregationalminister,recalledhow,morethanonce,hehadurged“Korean literarymen”to“cultivatetheirownmothertongue,”butinvain:“They weresafelyimmune,inertandunashamed,fortheyconsideredthesubject ofcultivatingtheirvernacularbeneaththeirnotice....IfDeQuincey’sdictum,thatnexttotheflagofhisnativecountry,ascholarshouldbeloyalto hisownlanguage,betrue,thenitseemslittlewonderthatKoreansovereigntywaslostandthatJapanesemayyetbecometheofficiallanguageof Cho-sen.”52Therewere,ofcourse,Koreanliterarymenwhohadsoughtto forgealinkbetweenwrittenKoreanvernacularandpatriotism,menlike YuKil-chun,SŏChae-pil,ChuSi-g yŏng,andYunCh’i-ho,allofwhomhad extensiveexposuretoWesternlanguages,especiallyEnglish.53Tonotonly articulateanddisseminatenewsandnewideas,buttoconvinceitsreadershipofthemoralandethicalsignificanceofrecognizingthat(seemingly) essential link between civilization, sovereign thinking, and a “national” languageconstitutedtheprimarymotivationbehindthecreationofKorea’s firstvernacularnewspaper,Tongnip sinmun(literally,theNewspaperIndependent).54 BeginningpublicationonApril7,1896,printedintheKoreanalphabet, withoccasionalarticlesandeditorialsinEnglish,Tongnip sinmunreferred totheKoreanalphabetcreatedduringKingSejong’sreign(1418–50)asthe nationalscript(kungmun).55AcreationofSŏChae-pil,andlaterwithYun Ch’i-hoaspublisherandeditor-in-chief,thenewspaperwaspublishedby theIndependenceClub.56ItwasprintedbytheTrilingualPressrunatthe PaejaeBoys’HighSchoolbytheAmericanMethodistEpiscopalMission.57 TheinauguralissueincludedaneditorialwrittenbySŏChae-pil: ThereasonthatournewspaperusesonlytheKoreanalphabet[kungmun],and notChinese[hanmun],issoastohaveitreadbyallthepeoplewithoutregard totheirsocialstatus[sangha kwich’ŏn].Spaceisprovidedbetweenwordsin thehopethatpeoplemightreadthepaperwitheaseandunderstandwhatis recordedinthepapermorefully.Inforeigncountries[kakkuk],people[saram tŭl],withoutregardtotheirsex,firstlearntheirownwritingsandonlyafter theyhaveacquiredagoodcommandoftheirlanguagedotheybegintolearn
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
aforeignlanguage[oe’guk kŭl].ButinKorea,peoplestudytheChinesewritingsystemeventhoughtheydidnotlearntheKoreanalphabet[Chosŏn kungmun],andthereforeitisraretofindpeople[saram]whoknowtheKoreanwritingsystemwell.WhenwecompareKoreanandtheChinesewritingsystem, Koreanlettersaresuperior.First,theyareeasiertolearn.Second,theyare Koreanletters[Chosŏn kŭl]andthereforeiftheKoreanpeople[Chosŏn inmin] usethemforallthings,thepeopleofallranks,withoutregardtotheirpositions,canunderstandthemwithease.Thepeoplehavelongbeenaccustomed totheuseofChineseorthographyandhavefailedtousetheKoreanwriting system,sothattheKoreanpeople[Chosŏn inmin]havenowbecomeunfamiliar withtheirownletters.InsteadtheyaremorefamiliarwiththeChinesewriting system.Isthisnotlamentable!58
SŏChae-pilwastwentyyearsoldwhenhehadtofleetoJapan,along with Kim Ok-kyun, Pak Yŏng-hyo, and Sŏ Kwang-bŏm, after the failure ofthe1884coupattempt.ReceivingacoldshoulderfromInoueKaoru, SŏwenttotheUnitedStatesthefollowingyear.Afterworkinginvarious menialjobs,hewasacceptedintotheColumbiaUniversityMedicalSchool (nowGeorgeWashingtonUniversity)andreceivedhismedicaldegreein 1892.Soonafter,hemarriedMurielArmstrong,thedaughterofColonel George Buchanan Armstrong, founder of the U.S. Railway Mail Service andacousinofPresidentJamesBuchanan.SŏhadU.S.citizenshipwhen hereturnedtoKoreain1896toparticipateinthemovementtotransform Koreaunderthebannerof“civilizationandenlightenment.”59HisAmericanname,PhilipJaisohn,wasitselfatranslation,basedonacombination ofthefirstcharacterofhisgivenname,Chae(載),withhisfamilyname, Sŏ (徐), to create Jaisohn. The second character of his given name, p’il (弼),becamePhilip.TherecombinationofthevarioussignifiersSŏ,Chae, p’ilintoPhilipJaisohnmayappeartousforcedandmechanicalbecauseof itsobediencetothewayAmericannamesareordered.Butobedienceto Euro-AmericannormsallowedSŏChae-piltoacquireahybridname,an Americanwife,andU.S.citizenship.Themakingofthishybridnameillustrateshowmodernityandthenationformfirstcametobetranslatedin latenineteenth-centuryKorea:theunavoidableaccommodationtoEuro- American modernity and semantic innovation through both productive imaginationandthelegislativerationalityofcapitalistsovereignty.60 Translatingmodernityandthenationformsuggestsbeginnings:theinaugurationoftheKoreanalphabetasthenationalscriptinthelastdecade
65
66
ChapTer Two
ofthenineteenthcentury,thebeginningofmodernKoreanhistoriographyinthefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcentury,theemergenceofmodern Koreanliterature,andahostofotherbeginnings.Togethertheseprovided evidenceofthesimultaneousemergenceoftheethnicnation(minjok)and modernityinKorea.ThereisatemptationtodepictKoreanintellectuals inthelatenineteenthcenturyandearlytwentiethassovereignsubjects ofsuchbeginnings,notjustpresentatthecreationbutthereastheactive subjectscreatingnewmeaningsastheytranslatefromonelanguagetothe hostlanguageandintheprocesscreatenewidentities,newinstitutions, andnewpracticesthatareoftheirownmaking.Formulatedinthisway,the actoftranslationmightsuggestahistoricalnarrativequitedifferentfrom thatsuggestedbyattentiontoWesternandJapanesehegemony:modernityandnationinKoreaasKorea’sowncreation,withKoreanintellectuals selecting,interpreting,andcreatingtheirownmodernityfromtheWesternarchive.ThemodernitythuscreatedwouldbeKorean(encompassing differentintellectualtraditions),dynamic,andongoing—anincomplete projectthatisbothparticularanduniversal.Historianswouldthenhavea firmbasisforwritingthehistoryofKorea’smodernity;thishistorywould be the retelling of the intellectual’s consciousness, while taking due accountofthehistoricalandpoliticalcontext,thatis,“thelimitationsofhis time.” Butsuchahistoricalnarrativeistheproductofatypeofdesirecreated bysovereigntyitself,asHardtandNegriputit,sovereigntyas“aformof commandthatoverdeterminestherelationshipbetweenindividualityand universalityasafunctionofthedevelopmentofcapital.”61Amorecritical historiographymightlocateactsoftranslationinaspecificspaceandtime, acrossroadwhere“thingshappen”bywayofimaginationandpoliticaldynamic.Oneofthethingsthathappenedwastheproductionofnewmeaningsandnewnarrativesthroughsemanticinnovation.Toseehowsemantic innovationmighthaveoccurredinspecificmoments,inspecifictexts,it canbearguedthat“combinatoryrationality”wasputintoplaybystructuralsemantics,whilea“legislatingrationality”wasatworkatthelevelof narrative.62Thingshappenedthroughtheproductiveimaginationofthe translator,buttherationalitiestobenotedherewere,forthemostpart, notunderthecontrolofthetranslator.Totheextentthattheserationalitieswerebeyondthereachofthetranslator,wehavetoconcedethatlanguageitselfhasacertainagency.Wecantalkabouttranslatingfromsome
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
languagetoKorean,butonlyifwedonotassumethatthisactoftranslation occursbetweentwodistinctsystemsofsignsandmeanings. Priortostandardizationandmodernizationbeguninthelatenineteenth century,Koreancouldnothavefunctionedasaneffectivemeansforshared communion.63AsRossKingpointsout,“Thelanguagesituationin1880s Koreawasoneofdiglossiaanddigraphia.”Theofficialwrittenlanguage washanmun—“classicalChineseinitsKoreanguise”—whilethespoken vernacularwas“aseriesofrelated,unstandardizeddialectsofKorean,the mostprestigiousbeingthatofthecapital,Seoul.”Asforwriting,therewere fourmajor“styles”:ŏnmun, ŏnhanmun, idumun,andhanmun.64Itwaswhen Koreanintellectualstranslatedcapitalistsovereigntyinthelatenineteenth centurythatthediachronicidentityofKoreancametobeassured—from thelanguageofhyanggaoftheThreeKingdomsperioddowntothelanguageofofficialsinlatenineteenth-centurySeoul—andKoreanimagined assingular,aunityeveninitsgreatvariationsoverspaceandtime.65Tohistoricizethisactoftranslation,then,itiscrucialtoattendtotheepistemologicalaswellaspoliticalpossibilitiesthatpresentedthemselvesasnation, the“West,”andthe“world”asaninternationalcommunity(man’guk:literally,tenthousandcountries)cametobeconstructedinlatenineteenth- centuryKorea. Legislativerationality,capitalistsovereigntyfunctioninglikeamachine, theunavoidableaccommodationtoWesternnormsandlaws,andsemantic innovation—howmightweconceptualizetheseasprocessesoftranslation andintranslation?Therewereanumberofwaysbywhichnewwordswere createdandoldwordsgivennewmeanings.Forexample,neologismssuch asethnic nation(J:minzoku)werecreatedinJapanintheprocessoftranslation.Intheearly1880sMiyazakiMuryūtranslatedtheFrenchAssemblée Nationaleasminzoku kaigi.Ittookadecadeorsoforthisneologism,minzoku,toattainacertaindegreeofstabilityinitsmeaningasethnicnation.66 Thecompoundminzoku(K:minjok),understoodasethnic nation,beganto circulateinKoreaintheearly1900s.Asusageofthetermbecamemore fixedinEastAsianpoliticaldiscourse,itsmeaningapproachedtheGerman VolkorVolkschaft.67An“old”compoundlikekokumin(國民),usedinternally torefertothepeopleofone’sdomain(J:han, 藩)duringtheTokugawa period,accruednewassociationsaftertheMeijiRestorationandbeganto circulatethroughoutEastAsiaintheearlytwentiethcentury,itsmeaning vacillatingbetweentheconservative“nationalsubject”andthemorelib-
67
68
ChapTer Two
eral“nationalcitizen.”TherewereothercompoundsusedthroughoutEast AsiawhosemeaningswereradicallyalteredbytheirassociationwithcertaintermsinWesternsocialsciencetexts. AnotherrevealingexampleisthewordforeconomyusedtodayinChina, Japan, and Korea (經濟; K: kyŏngje, C: jingji, J: keizai). The lexical unit kyŏngjeisacontractionofkyŏngse jemin(經世濟民,togoverntheworld andrelievethepeople),foundinclassicalChineseliterature.Thatistosay, priortothenineteenthcentury,kyŏngjereferredtoapoliticaleconomy thatwasnecessarilyandovertlymoralinthesenseofobligationtopeople’s welfare.68In1827SatōNobuhiroinhisworkKeizai yōroku(TheEssence ofEconomics)renderedkeizaiintermsofproduction,consumption,and thewealthofnations,anintellectualapproachthatlinkedpublicinterest withcompetitionandthepursuitofprivategain,almostcertainlyinthe contextofstudyingandtranslatingDutchtexts.69AsJustinRosenberghas pointedout,whereastribute(taxesorrents,inmoneyorkind)wasextractedthroughdirectpoliticalrelationsofdominationpriortocapitalism, inacapitalisteconomy“profit[is]appropriatedthroughaseriesofrelationsofexchange.”Whenthepeople(min, 民)hadbeensubordinatedas theking’ssubjects,theyweretheobjectofbothgovernanceandsometimes compassion.Withcapitalistsovereignty,andkyŏngjerenderedaseconomy, politicalinequalitywasnolongerinscribedintherelationsofproduction. Theextractionofprofitappearsasaseriesofrelationsofexchangerather thantributeextractedthroughpoliticaldomination;thepeople,asworkers andproducers,became“free”intheirpovertyandpropertylessness.Like capitalism,then,thetermkyŏngjecould(anddid)takea“purelyeconomic” form.70 Forourpurposes,Iwilllimittheexaminationofsemanticinnovationto thequestionofhowKoreanintellectualslikePhilipJaisohn,ChuSi-g yŏng, andotherscouldhave“shortenedthedistance”betweenwordslikeŏnmun (諺文, vulgar script)—the Chosŏn literati’s designation for vernacular writingusingtheKoreanalphabetinventedinthemid-fifteenthcentury, todayreferredtoashan’gŭl(inSouthKorea)—andChosŏn kŭl(Koreanletters,朝鮮글)andkungmun(nationalscript,국문,國文).FortheChosŏnliterati,vernacularwritinginKoreanwasŏnmuninthesensethattheKorean alphabetrecordedvulgarspeech.ButinNovember1894,inthewakeofthe Kaboreforms,aroyaledictreferredtovernacularwritingintheKorean alphabetasthenationalscriptanddecreed,“Alllawsandedictsshallhave
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
Koreanastheirbase;onemayattachatranslationinliteraryChinese[hanmun]orinmixedscript[kukhanmun].”Here,itshouldbenotedthatthis royaledictgaverecognitionandenormousprestigetonotjustvernacular writingintheKoreanalphabetbuttotheveryconceptofa“nationalscript.” Whenfirstpromulgatedin1443underthedirectivehunmin chŏngŭm(instructthepeopleonthecorrectsounds),thevernacularwritingsystem thatcametobebelittledasŏnmunwasatruealphabetthatrepresented phonemes,unitsofsoundthatdistinguishmeanings.Itwaseasytolearn, buttheChosŏnliteratiopposedtheuseofthisalphabetinofficialtexts onepistemological grounds.LiteraryChinese(hanmun)wasthewriting systemofpoweranduniversaltruth.Itwasnotforeign.Itwasthescript thatsecuredKorea’splaceincivilization.TheChosŏnliteratiexpressedintenseanxietythatthewidespreaduseofŏnmunwouldinevitablyresultin manyturningtheirbackonavastuniverseofcultivatedlearning.71Thus laws,indeedanythingofimportance,couldnotandshouldnotbewrittenintheKoreanalphabet.Priortothelatenineteenthcentury,then,it wouldhavemadelittlesensetoplacecountry(國)beforemun(文).Tothe extentthata“nationalscript”(國文)madeanysenseatall,itwouldhave suggesteda“country”modeofwritingunabletoshakeoffitsparochialism: countrywouldhaverenderedmun—letters,butalsoliteratureinthelarger sense—intoitsother,thatis,thelocalwrittenvernacular,the“other”of trueknowledge.72 Whenreferringtotheircountry,theChosŏnliteratioftenusedtheterm Eastern Country(K:Tongguk, 東國),thegeographicalpointofreference, ofcourse,beingChina.73Buttheformalnameforthisdynasticstatewas Chosŏn,74 and in referring to Chosŏn kŭl (Korean letters) Philip Jaisohn hadcombinedthe“pure”Koreanwordkŭl,forwriting,withthenamefor KoreathatdidnotlocateitspatiallywithregardtoChina.Thehugegulf betweenwritingthatiskŭl(글)andwritingandliteraturethatismun(文) wasbridgedbykŭl’sassociationwithChosŏnandmun’sassociationwith kuk(country)inthespaceandtimeofKorea’sbecoming“sovereign”from China.75Thatistosay,ittookmorethanjustproductiveimaginationto shortenthedistancebetweenthenationalandmunandtopositanequivalencebetweenthelocalvernacular(Chosŏn kŭl)andnational(kungmun) script.Thedeclarativesentence“TheyareKoreanletters[朝鮮글]”derived itsmeaning,significance,andpowerfromimperialismandcapitalistsovereigntythathadde-centeredandprovincializedChinaandshatteredthe
69
70
ChapTer Two
notionofall-under-heaven(C:tianxia,K:ch’ŏnha),aconceptwhichplaced theChineseemperoratthecenteranddefinedpoliticalsovereigntyinrelationtothatcenter.Withintherationalityofcapitalistsovereignty,itnow madegoodsensetocombineChosŏnwithkŭlandcountrywithmun:Korea isdifferentfromChina;kŭlcannotcomeafterChinaorJapanorFrance; countryandmunbelongtogether.Itwasthatinternationalcontext—sovereignty’slegislativerationality—whichenabledintellectualslikeJaisohnto imagineKoreaasasingularlinguisticcommunityandtourgeallKoreans toreadandwriteintheKoreanvernacular. WesawhowthisrationalityworkedinthecaseofYunCh’i-ho’sdiary writing when, in 1887, he switched from literary Chinese to vernacular writingintheKoreanalphabetandreferredtoitaskungmun.Itwasnot anaccidentthatYunswitchedfromliteraryChinesetotheKoreanscript whilestudyingattheAnglo-ChineseCollegeinShanghai.Throughpersonalandinstitutionalnetworksthatweretransnational,throughchurch servicesandBiblestudygroups,andbyinspiringandtrainingmanyprominentKoreanlinguistsandgrammarians—includingthebrilliantlinguist ChuSi-g yŏng—Christian(especiallyProtestant)missionariesmadepossible international recognition of the scientific value of the Korean vernacularscript,promotedrespectforandstandardizationofKorean,and fosteredaspiritofprotectingtheKoreanscript.76Protestantmissionaries helpedtransformtheKoreanvernacularscriptintoaniconofKoreaand aniconforKorea.ThestatusgiventoChosŏn kŭlasnationalscriptmight seemtopayhomagetoKoreangenius.ButasReyChowhasargued,the homagetotheWesthaslongbeenpaidintheformofwhatseemstobeits opposite:77inthiscase,theinsistenceonnationallanguage.Thatistosay, imperialismandcapitalistsovereigntycompelledKorea’sdistinctionfrom China, Japan, and all the other countries, and the West was very much presentinconstitutingtheKoreanlanguageandKoreanpeopleasinherent attributesofadistinctunity.78
SovereigntyandPeoplehood InEnglish-languagehistoriographyonmodernJapanandmodernChina, many of the groundbreaking histories written in the early years of the coldwardealtwithWestern“impact”andJapaneseandChineseresponse. Whilethishistoriography,forthemostpart,presentedWesternimpactas
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
modernization—asocialscientificreworkingoftheearlier“civilizing”process—inKorea’scaseWesternimpactwasrenderedevenmorebenign,becauseKoreawascolonizedbyJapanin1910.Thatistosay,historians(outsideofNorthKorea)havenotconsidered,inacriticalway,thecolonizing effectofnotjustWesternimpactonlatenineteenth-centuryKoreabutof thenation-statesystemintowhichKoreawasforciblyincorporated.The nation-statesysteminterpellatedintellectualslikeChuSi-g yŏng,PhilipJaisohn,andothersasnationalizedsubjectswhoproducedsemanticinnovationsanddemarcated Koreaasaunifiedspacewithadistinctsystem ofsignsandmeanings.Thissemanticinnovationwasoverdeterminedand markedabeginning,notjustinthesensethatTongnip sinmunwasthefirst newspaperpublishedinvernacularKoreanandEnglish.TheIndependent becamea“national”newspaperbecauseitwasprintedinthevernacular. Thisnewspaper,disseminated“nationally,”enablednewwaysofexperiencingtimeandspace.79Ithelpedcreate,asRebeccaKarlfoundforChinaat theturnofthetwentiethcentury,“aworldofsynchronictemporalityemphasizinghistoricalidentificationandspatialproximity.”80 Thepointtobemadehereisthatanewconsciousnessofhistoryand globality—forexample,theplightoftheVietnameseunderFrenchcolonialrule,orlessonstobelearnedfromItalianorPolishhistory—helped establishalogicofequivalencebasedonaracialgeographyoftheworld andaconcomitantdesireforaunifiednationspacepredicatedonaunity ofKoreanlanguageandKoreanpeople.Whilethisimaginedunifiednation space enabled “historical identification” with other countries and peoples, how that identification would be articulated—who and what wouldbemadevisibleandaudible—was centraltoanewpolitical aesthetic of subject-making. In Philip Jaisohn’s editorial in the Tongnip sinmun,readersweretoldthatpeopleinforeigncountries(kakkuk saram tŭl), regardlessofsex,studyforeignlanguagesonlyaftertheyhaveacquireda goodcommandoftheirownlanguage(pon’guk kungmun).Byinference,Jaisohnconstructedacivilizationalhierarchy,andKoreansweretoemulate thosepeoplemostcivilized—Euro-Americans—whoknewtovaluetheir ownnationallanguage.81IncallingonallKoreans(Chosŏn inmin),without regardtopositionorsocialstatus,toreadandwriteinvernacularKorean, Jaisohnwasechoingacentraltenetofliberalismandcapitalistsovereignty: thatformalpoliticalinequalityamongmenshouldnotbebasictoKorea’s sovereignty.82
71
72
ChapTer Two
Jaisohn’seditorialproblematizednotjusttheprofoundgapseparating literaryChinesefromvernacularKoreanbutalsotheprofoundsocial,cultural,andpoliticalgapthatseparatedthesocialclassesinKorea.Toputit differently,whileTongnip sinmunenabledaconsciousnessofsimultaneity withone’scountrymenandwithpeopleselsewhere,italsohighlightedand problematizedthehierarchicallyfragmentedstateoftheKoreanpeople. For Jaisohn and many other intellectuals in ensuing years, it was clear whichsocialclassconstitutedthemainobstacletounifyingandstandardizingboththelanguageandthepeople.Foryoungerpoliticalactivistslike Rhee Syngman, the main impediment was posed by the scholar gentry steepedinclassicaltraining,whilehopelayinthecommonpeople(paeksŏng). In the introduction to Tongnip chŏngsin (Spirit of Independence), writtenin1904whilehewasinjail,Rheewrote: Tomakethisbookasreadableasanold[vernacular]novel,Iprovidedlengthy explanationsinsimpleeverydaylanguageanddidnotwritedownthenames ofmanypeopleandplaces.Sothatalargenumberofpeoplethroughoutthe countrycouldreadthiseasily,IhaveonlyusedtheKoreanscript[kungmun] torecord[mythoughts].Muchdiscussionisaddressedtothecommonpeople [paeksŏng]inparticular,becausethefutureofKorea[TaeHan]isentirelydependentonthem.Byandlarge,people[saram]ofmiddleandhigherstatus, orthosewhoknowsomeliteraryChinese,areforthemostpartrotten,setin theirways,andbeyondhope.Notonlyarethesepeople[beyondhope],but theplacestheyinhabitarealsobeyondsalvation.83
ItshouldbenotedthatthefutureRheeinvokedforKoreawasafuture(possiblyquitedisastrous)differentfromKorea’spastandpresent.Thescholar gentrysteepedinConfucianlearningwere“rotten,setintheirways,and beyondhope.”Thepast,nowidentifiedwiththeworldofthescholargentry,couldnotbeinstructiveforKorea’spresentorforthefuture.Butwhat about the common people whom Rhee presumably addressed and on whomthefutureofKoreadepended? Inanessaytitled“ToEstablishtheNationTeachingandTransformation IstheKey,”writteninliteraryChineseroughlyinthesameperiod,Rhee referredtothepeople(paeksŏng)asdollsmadeofwood(mok’u)orgrass (ch’ou).84Inthisessay,asinTongnip chŏngsin,Rheerepeatedanassertion thatwouldhavebeenfamiliartoanyonewithamodicumofknowledgeof classicalChineseliterature:thepeoplearethefoundationofthecountry.
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
Buthecastthepeopleasthecountry’sfoundationnotjustintheoldsense thattheyaretheproducersofallthingsessentialtolife(thustheirmoral stature)butalsointheverynovelsensethatthecommonpeoplearethe historicalagentsthatusherinthefuture.Theproblem,forRhee,wasthat theirminds(chŏngsin)werestiffandpreoccupiedbypettyinterests;their mindshadnofeelingormovement.Asnarrative,wemightcallthisthe poeticsofdegeneration.ThiskindofpoeticshadalreadybeenwellestablishedaroundthetimeRheebecameanactivist,asillustratedbythiseditorialintheIndependentinMarch1897: Whetheracountryisprogressing[chinbo]ornotprogressinghastodo,above all,withwhetheritscountrymenseektheirrightsasapeople[paeksŏng].By people,wearenotjusttalkingaboutthosewhoholdnogovernmentoffice: allwholiveinthecountryarepaeksŏng....Whenthepeopleexercisetheir rightstheauthorityofthemonarch[ingŭm]becomesenhancedandthecountry’sstanding[chich’e]iselevated.85ButthepeopleofChosŏn,havingbeenoppressedbytheirowncountrymenforhundredsofyears,havelongforgotten theirrights[paeksŏng ŭi kwŏlli],anddonotevenknowwhatitmeans.86
Just as Tongnip sinmun conferred (inter)national status on vernacular Korean,sothiseditorialsoughttoreconstitutepaeksŏnginaworldofsynchronictemporality,abstractedthroughalogicofequivalence:paeksŏng nolongerinthesenseofpeoplewhodonotholdofficebutinclusiveofall wholiveinKorea,thepeoplenotastheobjectofgovernancebutasbearers ofrights. Sevenyearslater,however,inRhee’sTongnip chŏngsin,thecategorypaeksŏngstillretainedthatcharacterofrequiringedification(hwa).Ratherthan describethepeopleasthebearerofrights,however,Rheeconstitutesthem asfallenkin,brothersandsistersgrippedbyignoranceandpoverty—and, itshouldbeadded,sinfulness.“Myonlyferventwishisfortheignorantand despised,youngandweakbrothersandsistersinthecountrytopayspecialattention,tobecomeinterestedontheirowninitiative,tostepbystep trytomovetoaction,andalsotoguideothers,sothatdaybydaypeople’s attitudeswillchangeandmannersreformed,sothattransformation[hwa] willcomefrombelow.”87WhileRheehopedfortransformationtocome frombelow,andwhilehewascertainthatthefutureofKoreadepended entirelyonthepeople(paeksŏng),therewasnounityamongthemillionsof Koreans:thechildrenofrichfamiliessawtheworldasaparadiseonearth,
73
74
ChapTer Two
caughtupinlicentiousness, giventodrink,sex,andgambling(chusaekchapki);thechildrenofpoorfamiliesthoughtonlyoffillingtheirstomachs,ifnecessarybystealinganddeception.88RheewroteTongnip chŏngsin preciselybecausehethoughttheKoreanpeoplewerenotuptothetaskof defendingKorea’sindependence,andhisview,asreflectedinhispolitical practice,hardlychanged. Priortohisimprisonment,Rheehadbeenoneoftheyoungestandmost ardentactivistsintheManminkongdonghoe(People’sAssembly),which grewoutofdebatingforumsfirstorganizedbytheIndependenceClubat hugeoutdoorassembliesintheheartofSeoulthatdrewthousands,ifnot tensofthousands,evolvingfrompublicgatheringsfordeliberativedialogue towhatmightbecalledstreetparliaments.89OnOctober30,1898,inan assemblyheldinfrontofthepalaceorganizedjointlybyreformistofficials andtheIndependenceClub,theassemblydiscussedasix-pointresolution tobepresentedtoEmperorKojong,withtwoofthepointsrelatedtothe campaignforalegislativeassembly:treatiesandagreementswithforeign powersshouldrequirelegislativeratification,andappointmentofallhigh officialsshouldrequiretheapprovalofthemajorityofEmperorKojong’s ministers.90 On November 4 the arrest of Independence Club activists began.InJanuary1899theIndependenceClubwasforciblydissolved,Yun Ch’i-howassentintointernalexileinWŏnsan,andninemonthslaterTongnip sinmunstoppedpublication.91 Rhee was charged and then jailed for involvement in an alleged conspiracytohaveEmperorKojongabdicateinfavorofYiKang(1877–1955), Kojong’sfifthson,andthentobringbackPakYŏng-hyo(1861–1939)from Japantoheadareformistcabinet.92Rheewassentencedtodie,butafter heavypressurefromAmericanmissionarieslivinginthecapital(Rheehad attendedPaejaeBoys’HighSchoolandconvertedtoChristianitywhilein jail),hissentencewascommutedtolifeinprison;hewasreleasedwhen theRusso-JapaneseWarbegan,andthenhewasonhiswaytotheUnited States.93HistriptotheUnitedStateswasreportedlyarrangedbytwohigh officials,MinYŏng-hwanandHanKyu-sŏl,whowantedhimtoseekAmerican help in safeguarding Korea’s independence. Rhee met Secretary of StateJohnHayandPresidentTheodoreRoosevelt,buttherewasnochance thathecouldhavesucceeded.Rooseveltbroughttogetherrepresentatives ofRussiaandJapantonegotiateatPortsmouth,producingatreatywhich endedtheRusso-JapaneseWar,withRussiaagreeingnottointerferewith
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
JapaninmattersrelatedtoKorea.94Amonthbeforetheconclusionofthe TreatyofPortsmouth,SecretaryofWarWilliamHowardTaftandPrime Minister of Japan Katsura Tarō came to an agreement regarding Korea. IntheTaft-Katsuramemorandum,RooseveltagreedtoJapan’scontrolof Korea,andJapanrecognizedAmerica’sparamountinterestinthePhilippines.InNovember1905KoreabecameaprotectorateofJapan. In1906RheebeganhisstudiesintheUnitedStatesandearnedthree academicdegreesinrecordtime:abachelor’sdegreefromGeorgeWashington University in 1907, a master’s degree from Harvard in 1910, and a doctorate from Princeton in 1910. Until he returned to Seoul in 1945 onaU.S.militaryplane,andthroughouttheKoreanWarandbeyond,he continuedtolooktotheUnitedStatesforpolitical,economic,andmilitarysupport.95HiscritiqueofKorea’saristocracy,hiscondescendingattitudetowardthecommonpeople,andhisfaithinbothChristianityand theUnitedStatestracetheoutlinesofwhatIhavebeencallingthe(Christian)liberal-bourgeoissubjectivitythatemergedinKoreaattheturnofthe twentiethcentury. ForRhee,politicsremainedprimarilyapedagogicproject,atop-down processofedifyingtheignorantmassesinordertoconstituteaunity.He was quite clear about the necessity of the civilizing process. Where the problemsofignorance,superstition,andlethargyamongthepeoplewere intractable,Rheewarnedagainstactualindependence.Asheputit,“To grantindependence[chaju kwŏlli]to[anunenlightenednation]wouldbe likegivingasharpswordtoanimmaturechild.Sothatitwillnotharm him,theswordoughttobetakenaway.Justasachildshouldnotbeallowed to wield a sword at his whim, the unenlightened nation, regardlessofitssizeorstrength,cannotreceivetheprotectionofinternational lawnorretainitssovereignrights,notbecausethelawisunfair[p’yŏnbyŏk].”96Rhee’sconceptionofsovereigntyandpeoplehood,whileseeminglyinclusiveofeveryone,wasprofoundlyundemocraticandcolonial.As UdayMehtahaspointedout,suchexclusionwasnottheresultofliberalismpracticedincompletely.Theexclusionarybasisofliberalismderived fromitstheoreticalcore:thelegitimacyofpoliticalauthorityrequiresconsent;consent,tobemeaningful,requiresthepeoplegivingthatconsentto bepossessedofreason;certaingroupsofpeople(children,madmen,and idiots)areincapableofexercisingthatkindofreason;suchpeoplecanbe excluded,governedwithouttheirconsent.97Rhee’sSpirit of Independence
75
76
ChapTer Two
outlinedthosecultural,social,andevenpsychologicalattributesthatconstitutethepreconditionsforpoliticalinclusion.Likeliberalism’sprescriptionforcolonizedpeoples—wherethecolonizedwererenderedequivalent tochildrenorsemicivilizedorsimplyincompetent—Rhee’speopleshould beattentive,obedient,industrious,andsitpatientlyinthewaitingroomof Historyuntilthedaytheyarereadyforsovereignty. More democratic articulations of sovereignty and peoplehood would emergefromotherproductiveimaginations,includingthoseofhistorians turnedrevolutionariesimmersedinmass-basedanticolonialstrugglesin colonialKoreaandintheKoreandiaspora.AshistoriansadoptednarrativestrategiesthatsoughttoexplainKorea’slossofsovereigntyandpoint thewaytowardrecoveryofsovereignty,historywritingbecameanintegralpartofanticolonialstruggles.Ratherthanpositinganinherentlack, thesehistoriespointedtotheexistenceofanautonomousnationalsubjectinKoreanhistory,variouslyidentifiedwithaKoreanspirit—sim(心), hon(魂),orŏl,theequivalentofGeist—orwithdifferentconceptionsof peoplehood:minjok(ethnicnation,民族),minjung(people,民衆),orinmin (people, 人民).Invitingthepeopleintohistory,modernnational(ist)historiesreifiedsovereignty,renderingthepresentconditionasamomentin thetelosofHistory.
HistoryWritingandNationalism Iftheimpetusforthecreationofapublicsphereandthenationalizingof both language and people originated with imperialism, capitalist sovereignty,andliberalismthatwasdeeplyimplicatedinboth,thenwhatkind of conception of the whole existed within Korea prior to the late nineteenth century? The case can easily be made that “Korea” as a civilization,orasaculturalandsocialformation,hadahistorydatingbackwell overathousandyears.Asthepoliticalandreligiouseliteof“Unified”Silla (676–935),Koryŏ(936–1392),andChosŏn(1392–1910)reactedtoandparticipatedinintellectualmovementswithinthelargercosmopolitanworld centeredaround“China,”theywerecompelledtogeneratevariousformsof collectiveidentity—representationsoftheirstateandtheirpeopleasbeing separateandunique.Throughthepracticeofstate-sponsoredrituals,the buildingofmonuments,andthecompilationofofficialhistories,narratives aboutthecollectiveselfwerecontinuouslygenerated.Assuchnarratives weregenerated,other(competing)narrativeswererepressedorcontested.
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
That is, narratives on “Korean” identity did not simply accumulate over time;notallsuchnarrativesgottransmitted,andthosethatwerewereinvariablytranslated(thatis,reinvented)foruseinthepresent.98 ItisinthissensethattheconceptofKoreansasconstitutinganethnic nation(minjok)isamodernconstructwhich,inthehistoricalcontextof itsemergenceattheturnofthecentury,enabledmoredemocratic,more inclusiveformsofpoliticalaction.Asnotedearlier,thewordminjok(read asminzokuinJapanese)wasaneologismcreatedinMeijiJapan.99When Korean(andChineseandJapanese)nationalistswroteinEnglishinthe firsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,theEnglishwordtheygenerallyused forminjokwasrace.Inthelatenineteenthcenturyandearlytwentieth, asWalkerConnerpointsout,numerouswritersintheWest(incorrectly) employedraceasasynonymfornation.And,asAndreSchmidpointsout, whenintellectualsthroughoutEastAsiaappropriatedtheneologism,minjokbecamenotonlyapowerfulpoliticalconceptbutalso“apowerfulconceptualtool...torewrite[the]historicalpast.”100 ThisisnottoignoreLydiaLiu’sinjunctiontothoseengagedincross- culturalstudiestoeschewaconceptualmodel“derivedfromabilingual dictionary.”101 Following Liu, I do not assume that languages are commensurateorthatequivalentsexistnaturallybetweenthem.Althoughthe wordminjokenteredtheKoreanvocabularyinthelate1890sandbecame widely used two decades later, this is not sufficient proof that the minjokisamodernconstruct.SonChin-t’ae(1900–KoreanWar?)madethis pointin1948whenhewrote,“Althoughtheword‘minjok’wasnotused inthepast—becauseitwasthequintessentialcharacterofKorea’scourt- centered,aristocraticstatestoobstructthedevelopmentofsuch[national] consciousness[sasang]andconcepts—the[Korean]minjokcertainlydid existeveniftheworddidnot.”102SimilarlyChoTong-gŏlapplaudsthepioneerofnationalisthistoriography,SinCh’ae-ho(1880–1936),notforcreatingahistoricalnarrativebasedonanewconstructcalledtheminjokbut forcreatingahistoricalnarrativebasedonthediscoveryoftheminjok— suggestingthatpriortoitsdiscoverytheminjokwasalready(andalways) present.103Incontrasttotheseviews,Iamarguingthatminjokisamodern construct,andnottorecognizeitassuchistomissthecruciallink,inearly twentieth-centuryKoreanhistoriography,betweennationalismanddemocraticthought. Tounderstandthislinkage,wemightbeginwiththequestionofwhen andhowpeasantsofKyŏngsangProvince,forexample,became“Koreans.”
77
78
ChapTer Two
Ofaverydifferent historical context, EugenWeber has argued that the Frenchpeasantwas“nationalized”(thatis,madeFrench)onlyinthe1880s. “TheFrench”wereproducedinthelastdecadesofthenineteenthcentury throughthecreationofanationallanguage(standardFrench)andnational customs.Tobemoreprecise,thetransformationofpeasantsintoFrenchmenbecamepossibleaftertheestablishmentofuniversalschooling,unificationofcustomsandbeliefsbyinterregionallabormigrationandmilitary service,andsubordinationofpoliticalandreligiousconflictstoanideology ofpatriotism.Inotherwords,itwasonlyaftertheemergenceofmodern statestructuresthatdistinctivesocial,political,andlinguisticpracticesbecame“localvariations”ofanewlycreatednationalculture.104 IftheFrenchbecame“French”inthe1880s,whendidKoreansbecome “Korean”?Inaskingthisquestion,ImustemphasizethatKorea,perhapsas earlyastheKoryŏperiod,hadfarmorelinguisticandculturalunitythan didprerevolutionaryFrance.Therewere,however,significantlinguisticand culturaldifferencesamongthevariousprovincesinKorea.Evenmoreimportantthantheseregional(lateral)differences,statusdistinctionsbetween yangban,chungin(middlepeople),commoners,andch’ŏnmin(basepeople) hadcreatedhorizontallinesofculturalcleavageinwhicheachstatusgroup haditsownidiom,norms,andsocialrole.Itcanbeargued,forexample, that Confucianism “belonged” to the ruling (yangban) class in the sense thatitservedtounderscore,legitimize,andmakeauthoritativethedifferent worldsinhabitedbythehorizontallysegregatedlayersinpremodernKorean society.105AsCarterEckertnotes,priortothelatenineteenthcentury, therewaslittle,ifany,feelingofloyaltytowardtheabstractconceptof“Korea” asanation-state,ortowardfellowinhabitantsofthepeninsulaas“Koreans.” Farmoremeaningfulatthetime,inadditiontoasenseofloyaltytotheking, weretheattachmentsofKoreanstotheirvillageorregion,andaboveallto theirclan,lineage,andimmediateandextendedfamily.TheKoreanelitein particularwouldhavefoundtheideaofnationalismnotonlystrangebutalso uncivilized.SinceatleasttheseventhcenturytherulingclassesinKoreahad thoughtofthemselvesinculturaltermslessasKoreansthanasmembersof alargercosmopolitancivilizationcenteredonChina....Toliveoutsidethe realmofChineseculturewas,fortheKoreanelite,toliveasabarbarian.106
Eckert is not suggesting that Korean elites were ignorant of differences (political,linguistic,andcultural)betweenthemselvesand,say,theChi-
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
nese.Formorethanathousandyears,Koreahadacentralbureaucratic statethatemployedaclassofpeoplewhosejobwastomaintainandarticulatetheirdifferencefromcompeting,neighboringstates(mostoftenin Manchuria,sometimesJapan,andofcourse,Chinaitself).107However,unlikethemodernnation-state,thekingdomsof“Unified”Silla,Koryŏ,and Chosŏnwerenotinterestedinhomogenizingtheirsubjects.Infactitcan bearguedthatthepremodernstate’s(extremelyeffective)solutiontothe problemofmaintainingpoliticalstabilitywastotoleratelocaldistinctivenessandtomaintainstatusdistinctions.108 The people of Chosŏn knew that they shared certain ties with other peoplelivingintheChosŏnkingdom,aswellaswithancestorstheyhad never seen. But, as Benedict Anderson would argue, these “ties” would have been imagined particularistically, “as indefinitely stretchable nets ofkinshipandclientship.”109Attheturnofthecentury,however,anew generationofpoliticalactivistsandintellectualsfelttheyhadtoredefine Koreaintermsofinternalhomogeneityandexternalautonomy.ThehistoricaljunctureforthisepistemologicalbreakcameaftertheKoreanmonarchyprovedincapableofkeepingimperialistpowersatbayandafterJapan made Korea its protectorate, undermining the notion of Pan-Asianism basedonracialsolidarity.Organizingmovementsforindependence,self- strengthening,andpeople’srights,theseintellectualsreimaginedKorea’s collectiveidentityintermsofa“deep,horizontalcomradeship”—regardlessof,orbecauseof,theactualdivisionsandinequalitiesthatprevailedin Koreansociety. Itwasethnicnationalhistoriography(minjok sahak),then,borninthe earlytwentiethcentury,thatforthefirsttimenarratedthehistoryofKorea asthehistoryoftheKoreanminjok,acategoryinclusiveofeveryKorean withoutregardtoage,gender,orstatusdistinctions.110Thefirstnationalist historianresponsibleforcenteringtheethnicnation—bothasthesubject ofhistoryandastheobjectforhistoricalresearch—wasSinCh’ae-ho.111 His essay “Toksa sillon” (A New Way of Reading History), published in 1908,setforththefirstandmostinfluentialhistoricalnarrativeequating Koreanhistory(kuksa)withthehistoryoftheKoreannation(minjoksa).As ahistoryoftheethnicnationratherthanadynastichistory,“Toksasillon” tracedtheoriginoftheKoreannationtothemythicalfigureTan’gun.112The first“modern”historytextbookspublishedin1895hadtreatedTan’gunasa deity(sinin,神人)whodescended(降)fromHeaven.Startingin1906,after
79
80
ChapTer Two
KoreabecameaprotectorateofImperialJapan,Tan’gunbecamehumanizedinthehistorytextbooks,ashavingbeenborn(生). Christianmissionariesinlatenineteenth-centuryKoreawereanxious tomakedistinctionsbetweenhistoria,logos,andmythos.WhilepresentingthestoriesintheBibleashistory,theytreatedthestoryofTan’gunas myth,inthesenseof“fable,”“invention,”“fiction,”“whatcouldnothave happened.”In1901,themissionaryandhistorianHomerB.Hulbert,who evincedhighregardforKoreanhistoricalsources,neverthelessarguedthat events prior to the Three Kingdoms period belong to the time of myth. “AuthenticKoreanhistorymaybesaidtobeginwiththeyear57b.c.... Fromtheyear57b.c.thehistoryofKoreaisrecordedinaclearandrationalmanner.”113ForHulbert,thebeginningsoftheThreeKingdomsperiod markedtheadventofKoreanhistory.StartingwithSinCh’ae-ho,theinitial nationalistresponsetothediscreditingoftheTan’gunstorywastoseparate outthemythicelementsfromthehistoricalandonthegroundofhistorical actualitytraceKoreanethnicnationaloriginandessentialculturebackto Tan’gunasahistoricalfigurewhohadestablishedancientChosŏn.114 TheTan’gunlegendhadanambiguousplaceinpremodernKoreanhistoriography.ItisnotmentionedinKorea’soldestextanthistory,theSamguk sagi(HistoricalRecordoftheThreeKingdoms),compiledbyKimPu-sik in1145.115AccordingtoHanYŏng-u,thepoliticalintentofKim’sSamguk sagi was to bolster bureaucratic authority centered around the Koryŏ court(936–1392).CompiledtenyearsafterKimsuppressedarevoltled byMyoch’ŏng,Samguk sagialsomakesnoreferencetoParhae(699–926; P’ohaiinChinese),akingdomestablishedbyaformerKoguryŏgeneralencompassingmuchofManchuria,southernSiberia,andnortheastKorea.116 InwritingthehistoryoftheThreeKingdoms,117KimPu-sikdepictedKoryŏ asthesuccessortoSilla(whichby676controlledthesoutherntwo-thirdsof thepeninsula).Incontrast,theforcesledbyMyoch’ŏngregardedKoryŏas thesuccessorstateofKoguryŏandadvocatedan(incautious)expansionist policytorecoveronetimeKoguryŏland.118ThesuppressionofMyoch’ŏng’s revoltwenthandinhandwithpoliciesofpeacefullycoexistingwiththeJin andbolsteringtheauthorityoftheKoryŏcourtbypromotingConfucian principles,particularlyloyaltytotheking.Likewisethenarrativestrategy aswellasthemethodologyofKim’sSamguk sagi,includingtheinvocation oftheConfucianhistoriographicprinciplesofrationality(mujing pulsin) andfidelitytohistoricalsources(suli pujak,thatis,transmissionwithout
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
creativeelaboration),cannotbeunderstoodapartfromthepoliticalcontextofmid-twelfth-centuryKoryŏ. TheTan’gunlegenddoesappearinthethirteenth-centurytextsSamguk yusa(MemorabiliaoftheThreeKingdoms,1285?),writtenbytheBuddhist SŏnmasterIryŏn,andinChewang un’gi(RhymedRecordofEmperorsand Kings,1287),writtenbyYiSŭng-hyu.119Butthesehistorieswerecompiled underverydifferenthistoricalcircumstances.Bothbegantheirhistories withTan’gun,asignificantassertionthattracedKoryŏ’sorigindirectlyto Heaven. Because Iryŏn and Yi Sŭng-hyu witnessed the suffering of the peopleduringtheMongolinvasionsanddominationofKoryŏ,YiKi-baek surmisesthatthis“strengthenedtheirsenseofidentityasadistinctrace [minjok]andgaveforcetotheconceptoftheirdescentfromacommonancestor.”120Among theeventsthatIryŏnandYiSŭng-hyu witnessed was KingCh’ungnyŏl’smarriagetoadaughterofKhubilaiin1274andtheKoryŏ royalfamily’sbecomingacadetbranchoftheMongolimperialhouse.121 ThemeaningoftheTan’gunlegendinthesethirteenth-centurytexts,then, cannotbeisolatedfromthehistoricalcontextoftheMongoldomination of Koryŏ from 1259 to 1356. Indeed it is reasonable to interpret Iryŏn’s narrativestrategyofmakingTan’gunasancientasthelegendaryChinese emperorYaoandhiswillingnesstotalkabout“extraordinaryforcesand capriciousspirits”and“wondroustales”(religiouslyignoringtheConfucianprincipleofmujing pulsin)asanarrativeofresistance.122 SinCh’ae-ho’suseoftheTan’gunlegendinthetwentieth-centurycontextwassimilarlyanarrativeofresistance,butitwasalsoareinvention— andnotsimplyarevival—ofthisoldandrecurrentnarrativeinpremodern Korean historiography. The claim to a distinct history of legitimacy (chŏngt’ong)thatreachedfarbackintothemythicpastdidnotnaturallyor teleologicallygiverisetonationalistmodesofnarratingterritory,temporality,andpeoplehood.Thebestevidencethatany“transmission”ofthe pastmustalsobeareinventionisSin’s“Toksasillon”itself.IfKoreaasa homogeneousethnicnationhadbeenawell-established,abidingconcept, thentherewouldhavebeennoneedtowrite“Toksasillon,”anditwould nothavecausedsuchexcitementamonghisreadersin1908.Byidentifying theminjokratherthanthemonarchasthesubjectofanevolutionaryhistory (wherethestrongsurviveandtheweakperish),“Toksasillon”displaced traditionalformsofConfucianhistoriography—p’yŏnnyŏnch’e(chronicles) andkijŏnch’e(annalbiographies)—withthe(tragic)epicform.Sinadopted
81
82
ChapTer Two
anovelwayoftellingwhatConfucianhistorianshadalreadyknown;his narrativeutilizednewcodestoproducenewstructuresofmeaningquite differentfromthatfoundinhistorieswritteninthechroniclestyleandthe annalbiographystyle.123 Confucianhistoriographyhadconstituteditselfnotasaseparatedisciplinebutasanintegralpartofthestudyofclassicsandstatecraft.Itsfunctionwastoserveasamirrorandasarepositoryofknowledgethatwould enablethemonarchandallscholar-officialstoactmorallyandethicallyin thepresent.Asapoliticaltool,historywritinghadthesolemnethicalfunctionofassigningpraiseandblame.Astextsconsideredcentraltosubject- formation,Confucianhistoriesservedapedagogicfunctioninthepractice ofself-cultivationthatwastobebothself-directedandyetprofoundlysocial.Althoughbothofficialandprivatehistoriesexisted,bothwerewritten bybureaucratsforotherbureaucrats(eitherholdingofficeoraspiringto doso).124Moreoverintermsofaccesstocourtdocumentsandofficialhistories(withtheexceptionoftheCollectedStatutes),thesecouldbeconsultedonlybyasmallgroupofscholar-officials.125 Although nationalist historiography was constituted as a modern and scientificdiscipline,itpreservedcertainaspectsofConfucianhistoriography,forexample,theconceptofhistoryasamirrorforthepresentand historyasservinganethicalfunction,assigningpraiseandblame.Butthe criticaldifferencehadtodowiththeprofoundepistemicbreakcausedby Korea’sincorporationintothenation-statesystemdominatedbytheWest inthelatenineteenthcenturyandthesocialpositionofthehistorianand hisintendedreadershipincolonialmodernity.Fewofthenationalisthistorianscamefromhighyangbanstatus;manywereregularlyhoundedby thecolonialpolice;andmostwrotetheirhistoriesintheircapacityas“publicintellectuals.”WhenSinCh’ae-howrote“Toksasillon,”forexample,he wasamemberofthesecretsocietySinminhoe(NewPeople’sAssociation) andemployedbythenewspaperTaehan maeil sinbo(KoreanDailyNews), andtheessayitselfwasserializedintheTaehan maeil sinbofromAugustto December1908.126 OntheeveofKorea’sbeingcolonizedbyJapan,toachievepoliticalindependenceandtoreclaimdignityand“authentic”identityinreactionto colonialistdiscoursesonKorea,nationalistssuchasSinCh’ae-hosought to arouse, unite, and mobilize the entire Korean population.127 In place ofloyaltytothekingandattachmentstothevillage,clan,andfamily,and
imperiaLism anD naTionaLism
in place of hierarchic status distinctions among yangban, chungin, commoners,andch’ŏnmin,nationalisthistoriographyendeavoredtoredirect thepeople’sloyaltytowardanew,all-embracingidentityofKoreansasa uniqueethnicgroup.ItwaswiththispoliticalintentthatSinwrote“Toksa sillon”foranemerging“generalpublic,”tracingKorea’sethnicandcultural originsasfarbackaspossibletoageographicareathatextendedfarbeyond theKoreanpeninsulaintoManchuria. In1908Sin’sindictmentofKimPu-sik’sSamguk sagiforitsdeletionof ManchuriafromKoreanhistoryandhisreconceptualizationofstatehistory (kuksa) as the history of the Korean nation (minjoksa) were radical conceptualacts.Sin’sidentificationoftheminjokasthesubjectofanevolutionaryhistorymarkedawatershedinmodernKoreanintellectualhistory.128Inamuchlateressay,serializedinTonga ilbofromOctober1924 throughMarch1925,whereSincontinuedhispolemicagainstKimPu-sik, Kim’smanyfaultswerecondensedtosadaejuŭi(事大主義),amentalityof subservience—theantithesisofasovereign,autonomoussubjectivity.For Sin,thedefeatofMyoch’ŏngbyKimin1135andthesubsequenterasure ofTan’gunandParhae(andthusManchuria)fromKoreanhistorywasthe disastrousturningpointinKoreanhistoryandusheredinathousand-year legacyofsadaejuŭi.129Withthis,Sincreatednewpossibilitiesforimagining theethnicnation:asautonomoussubject,aprimordialunity,acomplete figureofsovereigntyabsentinthepresentbutpresentattheverybeginningofhistoryandrecoverableinthefuture. Thiswasastrategyofdisavowalsimilartoandyetdifferentfromthatof YunCh’i-ho.LikeSin’s,Yun’sdisavowalwastemporal.Hecouldhavetea withwhiteChristianladiesintheJimCrowSouth,sympathizingwiththe cousinofMissLinnieDavis,aPresbyterianmissionaryinKorea,who“ha[d] moretoendurethanoneintheAfricanjungles.”Inthisintenselyracialized private space, a congregation point for supporting those who bear thewhiteman’sburden,130YuncouldbedifferentiatedfromthoseKoreans who desperately needed American missionaries through the shared fictionthathissocialityinthatspace(hisChristianfaith,hisdemeanor, hisskillatwordgames)removedhimtemporallyfromhisbrethren.But livinginAmericantime,thedisavowalwasdifficultandcomplicatedgiven howintenselyracializedwerethespacesheinhabited.Hisemotionallife saturatedbyracialandcivilizationalhierarchiesthatproducedfeelingsof fascinationandrevulsion,Yunfoundhimselfunabletowalkawayfromthe
83
84
ChapTer Two
KoreaExhibitattheColumbianExpositionbecauseitwassosecond-rate anddismal.TotheextentthatforYun,theKoreaExhibitfunctionedasa synecdocheofKorea’sabjection,itispossibletounderstandhissadness and contempt for Native Americans in the American West as springing fromrecognitionandidentification. SinCh’ae-ho’sdisavowalwasdifferent;theethnicnationhelocatedat theverybeginningofhistoryalreadycontainedwithinitselfanautonomoussubjectivity,itsownsovereignty.Subsequenthistorians,especially MarxisthistorianslikePaekNam-unwritingintheearly1930s,wouldbe criticalofSin,historicizinghishistoriographyasan“antiqueinheritance” fromthenineteenthcentury.BecauseSingroundedhishistoricalnarrativeonconceptslikesim(心),hon(魂),andŏl(Spirit,Mind,orGeist),Paek Nam-unrenderedSin’shistoriographyasanidealist-particularisthistory thatintheendonlyreinforcedcolonialisthistoriography.Byemphasizing Koreanuniqueness,nationalisthistoriographyreinforcedtheviewofprecolonialKoreaasoutsideofworldhistory.Bethatasitmay,historywritingafterSincontinuedtorevolvearoundtheproblematicofsovereignty, and sovereignty continued to be privileged precisely by the claim that the ethnic nation preceded sovereignty. The problematic of sovereignty and autonomous subjectivity rendered the past flexible and the present changeable.
chapter three naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT The history of a state is that which renders a precise record of the rise and / orfall,prosperityand / ordecayofthe[ethnic]nation.Withoutthe nationthereisnohistory;withouthistory,thenationcannothaveaclear perceptionofthestate,andthusthehistorianhasaheavyresponsibility.
—sincH’AE-H O,“Toksasillon,”Taehan maeil sinbo,1908
AyearbeforeJapan’sannexationofKorea,whileclimbingtheeasternslope ofMt.T’ohaminKyŏngju,aJapanesemailmanmadeagreatdiscovery.1 Nearthesummit,ashetookinthebeautyofthemountainshapedlikea greatfoldingscreenandinthedistancetheEasternSea,hechancedupon whatlookedtobeacave.InsideheencounteredaBuddhiststatueofastonishingbeauty.Followingthis“discovery”oftheSŏkkuram,constructedin themid-eighthcentury,Japaneseauthoritiesbegananextensiverestorationandpedagogiceffort.TodaytheSŏkkuramisamajortouristdestinationinSouthKorea,anationaltreasurerecognizedbyunEscOasaWorld HeritageSite,givingtestimonytothebrillianceofKorea’sculturalandreligiouspast.Therestorationeffortbeganin1913,anditwastheJapanese colonialstatethatfirstbroughtSŏkkuramtotheattentionoftheworld. WhywouldtheJapanesecolonialstatespendmoneyandresourcestorestoreSŏkkuramandsingodestothebeautyofnotjustSŏkkurambutalso PulkugsaandtheSillacapitalofKyŏngju?WasSŏkkuramforgottenduring theChosŏnperiod?Didn’ttheChosŏnstaterecognizeitshistoricandartisticimportance?WhatmadeiteasyforJapanesewriterslikeYanagiSōetsu, founderofthefolkcraftmovementinJapan,totaketheleadinpraising Sŏkkuramasthe“culminationofthereligionandtheartoftheOrient”?2 Questionslikethesegototheheartofunderstandingthecomplexityof colonialdominationandpowerandthemultifacetedhistoryofcolonialism, starting with Euro-American and Japanese colonialism. Ultimately colonialruledependedoncoercivepower:thepowertoeradicateorrepress armed resistance and protest. But Japanese colonialism could not havebeensustainedwithjustcoercivepower;Japanhadtoestablishsufficienthegemony,thecreationofapoliticalandculturalenvironmentin
88
ChapTer Three
whichthecolonizedrecognizedtherelativesuperiorityofthecolonizer. Inotherwords,colonialismhadalsotobeapedagogicendeavorinwhich thecolonizedweretaughttolive,andtowanttolive,inaworldcreated bythecolonizerandtoseethatworldasnatural.RestoringSŏkkuramto itsformergloryformedapartofthatpedagogicendeavor,teachingabout theworldandKorea’splaceinitasdefinedbyJapanandtheWest.Thatis tosay,anessentialpartofJapanesecolonialruleinvolvedknowledgeproductionthatdrewheavilyonEuro-Americancolonialpractices.Likethe BritishinIndiaandtheAmericansinthePhilippines,theJapanesecolonialstateinvestedtime,money,andhumanresourcestocarryoutexcavationsandsurveys,tostudyKorea’spastandrestoresomeculturalsites(but notothers)inordertoestablishthecategoriesandnarrativestrategiesby whichKoreaandKoreanswouldbeunderstood.ThisKorea,contemporaneouswiththetimeanddiscursivespaceinwhichJapanesescholarsworkingforthecolonialauthoritiesproducedknowledgeaboutKorea’spast,is whatIrefertoascolonialKorea. The Japanese discovery of Sŏkkuram in 1909 coincided with massive and brutal suppression campaigns in the southern provinces to eradicatearmedresistancebyRighteousArmies.TheRighteousArmieswere aresponsetotheforcedabdicationofKingKojongandthedisbandingof theKoreanArmyin1907.UpanddowntheKoreanpeninsulaRighteous Armies launched attacks against Japanese and pro-Japanese individuals andorganizations,alsotargetinginfrastructuresuchasbridges,railroads, andtelegraphlines.InNorthKyŏngsangProvince,RighteousArmieswere mostactivearoundMt.Ilwol.ItwasduringhisinspectionofthesuppressioncampaigninTaejŏnthattheJapaneseresidentgeneralSoneArasuke heard news about Sŏkkuram, visited the site himself, and immediately orderedSekinoTadashi,anexpertonantiquities,toconductathorough studyofthesite.3Sone’sinitialplanforSŏkkuramwastotakeitapartand shipittoJapan—inotherwords,tolootit. AroadwasconstructedbetweenPulguksaandSŏkkuram,andtheresidentgeneralhadplansdraftedtoconstructaraillinefromKampotothe topofMt.T’ohamandtoenlargetheportatKampo.Sŏkkuramwastobe takenapartpiecebypieceandsentbytrainandthenbyshiptoJapan. Butintheendthecostsinvolvedturnedouttobeprohibitive,intermsof moneybutalsointermsoftheresistancethatwouldhavebeenwagedby Koreans.In1910,theyearJapanannexedKorea,SekinoTadashipublished
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
astudyinwhichheexplainedtotheJapanesereadingpublictheartistic valueofSŏkkuram.InthesameyearphotosofSŏkkuramwerepublished for the first time—in Japan.4 Afterannexation, with colonial Korea formallypartoftheJapaneseEmpire,theheadofthecolonialgovernment, Governor-GeneralTerauchiMasatake,droppedplansfordismantlingand shippingSŏkkuramtoJapan.In1912hevisitedSŏkkuramandapproved theplansandbudgetforitsrestoration.Therestorationwork,begunin 1913,tookthreeyearstocomplete.WitharoadbuiltconnectingPulguksa andSŏkkuram,schooltripswereorganized,withteachersbringingstudentsdownfromSeoultoPusanbytrain.UnderJapanesetutelage,KoreanswouldcometolearnaboutthebeautyandsignificanceofSŏkkuram. Thisshiftinpolicy—fromplundertorestoration—wouldshowcasenot justSŏkkurambutalsoJapan’ssophisticationandmodernity,itsmastery ofthe(Western)disciplinesofarchaeology,architecture,andarthistory. ThisrestorationworkwoulddemonstrateJapaneseknowledgeandcommitmenttostudying,restoring,andappreciating“Asianart.”Japanwould bethecurator,uniquelyabletopreserveandpresentAsianartasequally compellingasWesternarttobothAsiaandtheWest. Exceptforthewoodusedforstructuralsupports,theworkmen,tools, andmaterialsfortherestorationwereallbroughtfromJapan.Themain Buddhaintherotundafacedeastwithanetherealsmile,hisrobedraped overhisleftshoulder,sittingcross-leggedonaraisedcentralpedestal,his lefthandopeninthegestureofbearingwitness.ThisBuddhawasleftin place,buteverythingelsewastakenapart.Thegranitestones,“wovenlike silk,”thatformedtheoutsidewalloftherectangularanteroom,whereceremonieswereconducted;therotundabeyondwherethemainBuddhawas enshrined;theeightguardiandeitiescarvedinreliefonstoneslabsthat formedtheinnerwalloftheanteroom;thetwomassivestonepillarsat the entrance to the rotunda; the curved stone slabs along with knuckle stonethatformedthevaulteddome,servingasacanopyoverthemain Buddha;acarvingofIndraontherightandBrahmaontheleft;andlining thewallaroundtherotundatwoBodhisattvasandtheTenDisciples5—all theseweretakenapartandthenputbacktogetheragain.Butitturnedout thattherestorationeffortwasnotentirelysuccessful. ToprovidemorestructuralsupporttheJapaneserestorersusedconcrete toputthepiecesbacktogetheragain.Thestoneslabsstillformedacanopy overtheBuddha, butthesewerenowpartofaconcretedomeoverthe
89
90
ChapTer Three
rotunda.Soonafterrestorationmoisturebecameaproblem.Theoriginal structure,thegranitestones“wovenlikesilk,”hadallowedforbothcirculationofairandindirectsourcesoflightintotherotunda.6Withaconcrete dome,however,moisturetrappedintherotundacondensedandtrickled downthefaceoftheBuddha,asiftheBuddhawassweating,andmoss begantogrowonthestonereliefs.7Inspiteofthisdebacle,theJapanese colonialstatewenttogreatlengthstoshowcaseitsculturalpreservation efforts.Reportingonthestartofrestorationwork,Maeil sinbo,theKorean- languagenewspaperpublishedbythecolonialgovernment,describedSŏkkuramasabrilliantexampleoftheKoreannation’sartisticcharacter(minjokjŏk kaesŏng).8ThusitwastheJapanesecolonialstatethatdefinitively identifiedSŏkkuramasanexampleofKorea’sculturalandreligiouspast. OnJuly4,1916,theJapanesecolonialstatepromulgatedtheRegulations onthePreservationofAncientSitesandRelicsofChōsen.AsHyungIl Paihaspointedout,theseregulationsstipulated thatanydiscoveriesof historicruinsorbuildings,sitesofpalacesortemples,Buddhistimages, earthenware, and other objects of Korean art, archaeology, and history weretobereportedtothenearestpolicecaptain.Thecolonialstatealso establishedtheCommissionforInvestigatingHistoricRelics(Chōsenkosekikenkyūkai),chargedwiththetaskofimplementingtheregulations and“investigatingarcheologicalremains,planningexhibitions,preserving and reconstructing monuments, registering national remains, and publishing the results of their research activities.” Pai also notes that these regulationswereadaptationsofregulationsandguidelinesfirstpassedin Meiji Japan.9 But it should be stressed that Meiji heritage-management lawsgrewoutoftheMeijistate’sown“discovery”of“Japan’s”artisticpast. In1884acommissionsponsoredbytheMeijigovernmentcataloguedthe temples,shrines,andartifactsinNaraPrefecture.Thiscommission,ledby OkakuraKakuzō,KanōTessai,andErnestF.Fenollosa,“discovered”the GuzeKannon,aseventh-centurygilt-woodsculptureatHōryūjitemple.10 ItwasadiscoveryinthesensethattheGuzeKannonhadbeenlocked insideashrinethathadnotbeenopenedforcenturies.ErnestFenollosa,at thetimeaprofessorofphilosophyandpoliticaleconomyatTokyoImperial University,11describedthediscoverythisway: ThegreatestperfectmonumentofCoreanArtthathascomedowntous,withoutwhichwecouldonlyconjectureastotheheightreachedbythepeninsulacreations,isthegreatstandingBuddha,orpossiblyBodhisattwa,ofthe
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
YumedonopavilionatHoriuji.12Thismostbeautifulstatue,alittlelargerthan life,wasdiscoveredbymeandaJapanesecolleagueinthesummerof1884. Ihadcredentialsfromthecentralgovernmentwhichenabledmetorequisitiontheopeningofgodownsandshrines.Thecentralspaceoftheoctagonal Yumedonowasoccupiedbyagreatclosedshrine....ThepriestsoftheHoriujiconfessthattraditionascribedthecontentsoftheshrinetoCoreanwork ofthedaysofSuiko,butthatithadnotbeenopenedformorethantwohundredyears....Theyresistedlong,allegingthatinpunishmentforthesacrilegeanearthquakemightwelldestroythetemple.Finallyweprevailed,and Ishallneverforgetourfeelingsasthelongdisusedkeyrattledintherusty lock.Withintheshrineappearedatallmasscloselywrappedaboutinswathingbandsofcottoncloth,uponwhichthedustofageshadgathered.Itwas nolighttasktounwrapthecontents,some500yardsofclothhavingbeen used....SeeninprofileitseemedtorisetotheheightofarchaicGreekart.... Butthefinestfeaturewastheprofileviewofthehead,withitssharpHan nose,itsstraightclearforehead,anditsratherlarge—almostnegroid—lips, onwhichaquietmysterioussmileplayed,notunlikeDaVinci’sMonaLisa’s.13
Fenollosa’saccountpresentsasingularmasculinevoice,acknowledginga Japanese colleaguebut notnaming him,displaying imperial credentials thatoverpowerlocalresistance,unlockingandenteringforbiddensacred places, stripping away the cloth to reveal the Bodhisattva’s mysterious smile.14 OkakuraKakuzō’saccountofthisdiscoveryisdifferentinanumberof ways.15In1884OkakurawasworkingintheartsectionoftheMinistryof Education.Eighteenyearslater,whilestayinginIndia,herecountedthe discoverythisway: In1884alongwithFenollosaandKanōTessai,Iapproachedthepriestsasking thattheyopenthedoor.Thepriestsrepliedthatiftheydidsothunderwould certainlybeheard.TheyopeneditatthebeginningofMeijiduringtheclamor overtheseparationofBuddhismandShintō.Instantlytheheavensclouded overandthunderroared;themassesbecamefrightenedandfled.Withsuch amemorableexperiencetheydidnoteasilyacquiesce....Afterweremoved theclothwereachedwhitepaper.Thisiswherethemassesstoppedwhenthey werefrightenedoffbythethunder.16
PublishedwellafterOkakura’sdeath,intheimmediateaftermathofJapan’s invasionofChinain1937,The Awakening of the Eastpresentspowerfulde-
91
92
ChapTer Three
nunciationsofWesternimperialism.17Okakura’saccountlocatestheGuze Kannoninitslocalandcontemporaneoussignificance,asmeaningfuland connectedtoearlyMeijireligiousandpoliticallifeandconflict.Inadifferentwork,writteninthesameperiodbutpublishedin1903asThe Ideals of the East,OkakuranarratedthepastincorporationofBuddhistartandideals fromIndia,viaChinaandKorea,asexemplifyingtheintellectualandartisticwavesthathadwashedashoreinJapanovermillennia,makingJapan “the real repository of the trust of Asiatic thought and culture.” In that sense,Okakuracontinued,“JapanisamuseumofAsiaticcivilization;and yetmorethanamuseumbecausethesingulargeniusoftheraceleadsitto dwellonallphasesoftheidealsofthepast.”18 JapanwasthespiritualrepositoryofAsiaovermillennia,theonlyplace inAsiawherethebestofAsianthoughtandculture“inalltheirpurity”was incorporatedintoJapaneselife“inthespiritoflivingAdwaitism”—Adwaita meaning“thestateofnotbeingtwo...[consistentwith]thegreatIndian doctrinethatallwhichexiststhoughapparentlymanifold,isreallyone.”19 ThereforetheJapanesepeoplewereboundtoshouldertheresponsibility ofservingasthevoiceofAsia.OkakuraexplainedhowtheJapanesecame tothisresponsibilityintermsof“unbrokensovereignty,”asovereigntythat endowedtheJapanesewith“thespiritoflivingAdwaitismwhichwelcomes thenewwithoutlosingtheold”:“thestrangetenacityofthe[Japanese] race,nurturedintheshadowofasovereigntyunbrokenfromitsbeginning, thatverytenacitywhichpreservestheChineseandIndianidealsinalltheir purityamongstus,evenwheretheywerelongsincecastawaybythehands thatcreatedthem.”20 WhileastudentatTokyoImperialUniversityOkakurahadstudiedwith FenollosaandcametosharehisdeepinterestinJapaneseart.Inthesame yearthattheydiscoveredtheGuzeKannonintheircapacityasimperial artcommissioners,OkakuraandFenollosafoundedKanga-kai,anartsocietythatendeavoredtoawakentheJapanesepublictothesignificanceof Japan’snationaltreasures.TogethertheyhelpedestablishtheTokyoFine Arts Academy and the Tokyo Imperial Museum, and they helped draft thelawforthepreservationoftemples,shrines,andarttreasures.Itwas Okakura’srenderingofJapanas“therealrepositoryofthetrustofAsiatic thoughtandculture”thatallowedhimtobeginThe Ideals of the Eastwith thedeclaration“Asiaisone.” In Chōsen bijutsushi, a 1932 publication on Korean art history, Sekino
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
Tadashi,whohadbeenthechiefconsultantontheSŏkkuramrestoration project,identifiedtheoriginsofKoreanartwiththeChinese-influencedart oftheLelangCommandery(K:Nangnang),negatinganynotionofanautochthonousorigin.PublishedayearafterJapan’sinvasionofManchuria, Sekino’shistoryofKoreanartfitcomfortablywiththeManchuria-Korea spatial conception of Mansenshi, a colonialist narrative that presented Koreanculturalhistoryintermsofmovement,incolonizingwaves,into theKoreanpeninsula.Sekino’shistoryofKoreanart,itsoriginsidentified withbothManchuriaandChina,usedanarrativestrategywellestablished bytheearly1930s, ofbrilliant origins andthendecline.With theadoptionofBuddhismduringtheThreeKingdomsperiodKoreanartreached itszenithinSillaandthen“Unified”Silla.Butthenbeganalongdecline startingintheKoryŏperiod,reachingitsnadirinthedryandtrivialartof theChosŏnperiod.21Withinthatnarrative,SŏkkurambecameagreatartifactofJapan’sAsia:AsiaasOne.Thatis,intakingresponsibilityforKorea’s culturalandartisticpast,andunlikeOkakura,whotookcaretosituatethe GuzeKannoninitslocalandcontemporaneoussignificance,theJapanese colonialstate’srestoration ofSŏkkuraminKyŏngjuemptiedthatsiteof localandcontemporaneousmeanings,whilecolonialscholarshipreterritorializedSŏkkuramandotherThreeKingdoms–periodsitesandartifacts, helpingtoproducenewhistoricalandspatialimaginaries(forexample,the binaryofWesternartandEasternart)foranexpandingJapaneseempire.
ColonialistandNationalistHistoriography ThepedagogicendeavorsoftheJapanesecolonialstatesituatedChosŏn KoreainatemporalityinwhichKorea’sbrilliantartisticachievementsin ancienttimesstoodinstarkcontrasttoitsrecentprecolonialpast.Sŏkkuram, presented as the “culmination of the religion and the art of the Orient,”alsorenderedBuddhistartandarchitectureofSillaastheapexof Koreanculturalhistory.ThestoryofSŏkkuram—itscreationandsubsequentslideintoobscurity—wasthestoryofKorea:abrilliantpastthatwas AsianratherthanKorean,followedbyadownwardslideintothevulgarand trivialartoftheChosŏndynasty,pointingtothenecessityofJapan’stutelageofKoreaandKoreans.Japan’sannexationofKoreawasarestorationat manylevels,includingrestorationofancientkinshiptiesandofJapanese ruleoverKorea—JapanhavingruledsouthernKoreainancienttimes,as
93
94
ChapTer Three
assertedbynativist(kokugaku)readingsoftheeighth-centurytextsKojiki (RecordofAncientMatters)andNihon shoki(TheChroniclesofJapan). Colonialisthistoriography,then,writtenmostlybyJapanesehistoriansbut alsobyanumberofKoreanhistorians,providedjustificationforJapanese control over Korea by narrating Korean history in terms of decline and lack.ContemporaryKoreanslackedthecapacityforautonomousdevelopment,lackedaprogressivespirit.Colonialisthistoriographysuggested,and attimesstatedunequivocally,thatbecauseofsuchinherentdeficiencies JapanhadnochoicebuttoleadKoreaintomoderncivilization. ContemporarySouthKoreanhistoriansidentifyfourthemeswhichcharacterize colonialist historiography on Korea: that external forces—Chinese,Manchurian,andJapanese—hadalwaysdeterminedKorea’shistoricaldevelopment(t’ayulsŏngnon);thatpremodernKoreansocietyhadbeen utterly stagnant, nineteenth-century Korea being equivalent to twelfth- centuryJapan(chŏngch’esŏngnon);thatfactionalismwasdeeplyingrained intheKoreanpoliticalculture,asevidencedbycontinuousfactionalstrife duringtheChosŏnperiod(tangp’asŏngnon);andthatJapaneseandKoreans shared a common ancestry, and therefore Japan’s colonization of Korea representedtherestorationofancientties(Il-Sŏn tongjoron).22 In this way colonialist historiography suggested, and later stated unequivocally,thatbecauseofsuchinherentdeficienciesJapanwascompelled toextendimperialruleoverKoreasoastoleaditintomoderncivilization.AccordingtoHatadaTakashi,theoriginsofwhatmanycontemporary KoreanhistorianscharacterizeascolonialisthistoriographyonKoreacan betracedtomid-MeijieffortstowriteanationalhistoryforJapan.Onevery influentialworkwasKokushi gan(ASurveyofJapaneseHistory),published byTokyoImperialUniversityin1890.WrittenbyShigenoYasutsugu,Kume Kunitake,andHoshinoHisashi,Kokushi ganwasintendedasaprimerin theteachingofJapanesehistory,anditwaslongusedasauniversitytextbook.AccordingtoNumataJirō,itwasShigenoYasutsuguwhoplayedthe leadingroleinestablishingthe“modernTokyotradition”ofhistorywriting.Stressingthenativeoriginsof“mainstream”historiographyinmodern Japan,NumataarguesthattheTokyotraditionresultedfromafusionbetweenthecriticalmethodsofWesternhistoricalscience(asintroducedby theGermanhistorianLudwigRiessin1887)andthescholastictraditionof evidentialresearch,orkōshō gaku(K:kochŭnghak,C:k’ao cheng),whichhad beenwellestablishedduringtheTokugawaperiod.23
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
WhatHatadaTakashiwouldpointout,however,isthatifthebirthof modernhistoricalscienceinJapanoweditsmethodologytotheTokugawa tradition of evidential research, the narrative framework for Japan’s nationalhistorywasalsogreatlyinfluencedbyTokugawanativist(kokugaku) viewsonJapan’sorigins.AccordingtoHatada,Kokushi gandrewonthe nativistreadingoftheKojikiandtheNihon shoki,whichassertedthatJapaneseandKoreanshadacommonancestry(Nissen dōssoron),butonlyinthe sensethatlongagotheJapanesehadcontrolledthesouthernpartofKorea. Kokushi gan,asintended,providedthenarrativeframeworkforJapan’snationalhistorytextbooksusedinprimaryandsecondaryschools,creatinga historicalimaginary(rekishi zō)whereinthecolonizationofKoreainmodern times represented the restoration of an ancient relationship.24 This kindofexpansionisthistoricalimaginary,alongwithmediaportrayalsof KoreafollowingJapan’svictoryinthefirstSino-JapaneseWar(1894–95), createdahistoricalimaginarywherebytheJapanesecametobelievethat JapanhadruledKoreainancienttimesandthattheJapanesecolonization ofKoreainmoderntimesrepresentedtherestorationofanancientrelationship.25 ThisimperialimaginaryinJapan’snationalhistorieswasreproducedin histories of Korea. Hayashi Taisuke’s Chōsenshi (History of Korea), publishedin1892,arguedthatinancienttimesthenorthernpartofKoreahad beenacolonyofChina(withHanChinesecommanderiesofLelang,Lintun,andChenfancontrollingareasthathadbelongedtoWimanChosŏn) andthesouthernpartofKoreahadbeencontrolledbyMimana(Kaya),a Japanesecolony.Hayashi’sChōsenshisettheframeworkforotherstudies onKoreathatsoughttoexplainitshistoricaldevelopmentashavingbeen determinedbyexternalforces.HyŏnCh’ae’sTongguk saryak(1906),which was used as a Korean history textbook in the newly established public schools,waspublishedasatranslationofHayashi’sChōsenshi,perhapsas anexpedientwaytogetaroundJapanesecensors.AsAndreSchmidhas pointedout,inhistranslationofChōsenshiHyŏnchangedthenarrativein importantways,downplayingEmpressJingū’sallegedinvasionofKoreaas oneofmanybattlesbetweencompetingKoreankingdomsandbetween KoreankingdomsandJapan.26Neverthelessthisactof“translation”scandalizedSinCh’ae-ho,becauseHyŏndidnotseemmindfuloftheconsequencesofsuchexpediency,eitherintermsofhistoricalscholarshipor politically.27Tociteonemoreexample,FukudaTokuzō’sKankoku no kei-
95
96
ChapTer Three
zai soshiki to keizai tani(EconomicUnitsandEconomicOrganizationin Korea),publishedin1904,assertedthatthemostsalientcharacteristicof Koreanhistorywasitsstagnancy.FukudafoundChosŏnofthelatenineteenthcenturycomparabletotenth-centuryJapan(Fujiwaraperiod).28 ThesestudiesofKoreasetthetoneforotherstudiesontheOrient.StefanTanakahasshownthatJapanesehistorianscreatedthecategoryoftōyōshi(Orientalhistory)soastonarrateJapanesehistoryasdifferentfrombut equaltoEuropeanhistory.OnestrategyusedbyTokugawaintellectuals todealwiththeprevailingChina-centeredEastAsianworldorderandto assertJapan’sequivalencewithChinahadbeentoreplaceChūgokuwith ShinaastheJapaneseappellationforChina.Thisnameallowednativist (kokugaku)scholarstoseparateJapanfromthebarbarianandcivilizedor outerandinnerimplicationsofthenameChūgoku.29However,afterJapan’s victoryinthefirstSino-JapaneseWar(1894–95),historianssuchasShiratoriKurakichiemployedthenameShinatosignifyChina“asatroubled placemiredinitspast,incontrasttoJapan,amodernAsiannation.”30The symbolicshiftinnamesforChinahaditscounterpartinKoreaaswell. SinCh’ae-ho’suseofJinaratherthanChunggukreflectswhatSchmidhas calledthe“decenteringoftheMiddleKingdom.”AfterJapan’svictoryin thefirstSino-JapaneseWar,thisde-centeringreversedinheritednotions ofcivilization andshiftedthelocusawayfromChinaandtowardJapan andtheWest.ThispointisillustratedbyarevealingeditorialintheTongnip sinmun,theorganoftheIndependenceClub,uncoveredbySchmid:“The only thing [we Koreans] knew was to revere China as the central plain [chungwŏn],scornJapanasthecountryofwae,andcallallothercountries barbarians[orangk’ae].Now,formorethantenyears,ourdoorshavebeen openandwehavewelcomedguestscomingfromallplaces.Withourears wecanhear,andwithoureyeswecanseethecustomsandlawsofwestern countries.Wecannowgenerallyjudgewhichcountriesarethecivilized onesandwhichcountriesarethebarbarousones.”31 InJapanesehistoriography,thesubstitutionofShinaforChūgokuand thecreationofanewspatialcategorycalledTōyō(theOrient)andanew academicdisciplinecalledtōyōshi(Orientalhistory)markedtheemergence ofacomprehensiveideologicalsystemregardingJapan’spositionanddestinyinrelationtotheWestandtherestofAsia.32Behindthecreationof tōyōshiwasthepoliticaldesiretoportraytheJapaneseasuniquelycapable of meeting the European nations on an equal plane, and thus uniquely
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
capableofleadingAsia.TōyōshienabledJapaneseintellectualstoconceptualizetheWestas“merelyanotherculture(thoughinsomeaspectsstilla superiorone),afellowcompetitoron[the]rockypathtowardprogress.”33 Thecreationoftōyōshiwasmotivatedbydefensiveconsiderationsinthat itsoughttodeflectnotionsofpermanentWesternsuperiority.Atthesame time,tōyōshihaditsaggressiveside.InthehandsofJapan’sOrientalists, ChinaandKoreacametoembodyallthenegativeaspectsoftheWest’sOrient,andtōyōshiprovidedjustificationforJapan’simperialexpansion.AsarguedbyTanaka,“modern”Japanesehistoriographyemergedasaresponse totheOrientalismoftheWest—thatis,asanattempttode-objectifyJapan andAsia.ThestrategyadoptedbyhistorianslikeShiratori(andinstitutions liketheDepartmentofOrientalHistoryatTokyoImperialUniversity)was toprovethattheJapanesewerenotOriental,asdefinedbytheWest,by usingthesame(Orientalist)epistemology.34Asanewacademicfield,tōyōshilegitimateditselfonthebasisofits“scientific,”“rationalistic”methodologyandonthebasisofitspracticalapplicationinthe“administrationof southernManchuria”andthe“protectionanddevelopmentofKorea.” ForhistorianslikeSinCh’ae-ho,theviolenceofimperialismandcolonialisthistoriographywasjustificationenoughforwritinganationalisthistoriography.Sin’shistoriographysetthethemesforlaternationalisthistoriography,whichinsistedthatKoreahadalwayshadadistinctcultureand society,testifiedtotheveracityoftheKoreannationbychroniclingthe longhistoryoftheKoreanpeople’sresistancetoforeignaggression,and narratedtheemergenceoftheKoreannationasanessentialpartofworld history.Manycontemporaryhistorianslocatetheemergenceofmodern historywritinginKoreawithSin’s“Toksasillon,”publishedin1908.On whatbasiscanthisessayclaimsuchstatus?In1894,undertheaegisofthe newlyestablishedEducationMinistry(Hakmunamun,laterhakbu),“modern”textbooks,includinghistorytextbooks,werepublished.However,as Sinhimselfnotes,althoughthehistorytextbookslistedKimT’aek-yŏng, HyŏnCh’ae,andothersasauthors,thesetextbookswere,onthewhole, translationsofhistorybooksonKoreawrittenbyJapanesescholars.35 Examininghistorybooksusedatdifferentschools,I’vefoundhardlyanyof value.Inthefirstchapter,Koreans[minjok]aredescribedasiftheywerepart oftheChinesepeople;inthesecondchapter,Koreansappearalmostlikepart oftheSŏnbijok[Hsien-pi];andreadingtheentirebookKoreansarevariously
97
98
ChapTer Three
madeouttobepartoftheMalgaljok[Moho],partoftheMongojok[Mongols],partoftheYŏjinjok[Jurchen],orpartoftheIlbonjok[Japanese].Ifthis weretrue,ourland,whichencompassseveraltensofthousandsli,wouldbe inpandemoniumwithbarbariansfromnorthandsouthmillingaround,and [our]accomplishmentsoffourthousandyearswouldbecreditedtotheLiang inthemorning,andintheeveningtotheCh’u.36
Incriticizingthesetextbooks,SinidentifiedthehistoryofKoreawiththe fortunesoftheminjokasconstitutedbythedescendantsofTan’gun;gave the geographic length of Korea as about ten times the customary three thousandli,thusappropriatingnearlyallofManchuria;tookgreatpains toassertadistinct,separateethnicityfortheKoreanpeople,tracingaprecise,singulargenealogicalhistory,beginningwithTan’gunandcontinuing throughAncientChosŏn,Puyŏ,Koguryŏ,Parhae,Koryŏ,andChosŏn;and characterized,withoutequivocation,historyasaninstrumentforinstilling patriotismamongyouth. Onthefirstpoint,Sin’sidentificationofacountry’shistorywiththehistoryofthepeople(minjok)parallelstherevolutionaryshiftthatoccurred withtheFrenchRevolution,theshiftfromL’état c’est moitoL’état c’est le peuple.Theopeningsentenceof“Toksasillon”reflectstherepublicanideal heldbySinandmanyotherleadingnationalistintellectualsofthattime. Laterinthistexthewrote,“Astatedoesnotbelongtooneindividual,it belongstotheentirepeople.”37Asatacticalmatter,however,hedidnot attacktheKoreanmonarch.38Neverthelesstherepublicanpositionstaked outin“Toksasillon”givesevidenceofwhatKangMan-gilhasdescribed astheshiftfrompatriotismbasedonloyaltytothekingtoanationalism based on popular sovereignty.39 This democratic predisposition became muchmoreobviousinSin’slaterwriting(seethediscussionbelowofthe minjokinrelationtotheminjung). AsSchmidhaspointedout,whenSinassertedadistinct,separateethnicityfortheKoreanpeoplethatoriginatedwithTan’gunanddescended through Puyŏ, his aim was to subvert weak and limited conceptions of Korea’snationalspace.HislamentovertheerasureofParhaefromofficial historiographyhadhistoricalprecedent.InParhae ko,completedin1784, YuTŭk-konglamentedthefactthatKoryŏdidnotcompileahistoryofParhae.BecauseKimPu-sikhadnotincludedParhae’shistoryintheSamguk sagi,insteadtracingKoryŏ’slegitimacyonlythrough“Unified”Silla,Koryŏ
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
hadineffectgivenupitsclaimovertheterritoryParhaehadoncecontrolled.(IntheConfucianhistoriographictradition,itisthedutyofsuccessivedynastiestocompilethehistoryofprecedingdynastiesfromthe materialleftbytheirpredecessors.)ToreclaimParhae’shistoryaspartof Koreanhistory,YuarguedthatParhaeand“Unified”Sillashouldbeseenas formingnorthernandsouthernstates.ThisargumentwasrepeatedbyKim Chŏng-hointhemid-nineteenthcenturyinhisTaedong chiji(Geographyof Korea).40Duringthecolonialperiod,thiswayofperiodizingKoreanhistory wasadoptedbyChangTo-bin,AnHwak,andKwŏnTŏk-kyu.Afterliberation,inNorthKorea,PakSi-hyŏng,ChuYŏng-hŏn,andotherscharacterizedParhaeasthesuccessorstateofKoguryŏ,buttheydidnotrefertothis eraasthePeriodofNorthernandSouthernStates(nampukguk sidae).41 Schmid notes that confrontations over territorial access—such as resource concessions to foreign powers, circulation of foreign currencies, extraterritoriality, and unregulated Japanese immigration—had already underminedinheritedconceptionsofterritorialauthority.Sin’s“Toksasillon”“becamethefirstinalonglineofKoreanhistorywritingthatwielded theManchurianconnectiontocreateanationalisthistorythatreveledin thegrandeurofanancientpast.”42InthusproblematizingChosŏn-period orthodoxconceptionsofKorea’snationalspace,Sindrewonirredentist themes that existed in earlier historiography. In Chosŏn sanggosa (HistoryofAncientKorea),writtensixteenyearslater(1924),SinpraisedHan Paek-kyŏm’sTongguk chiriji(Korea’sTopographicRecord)ashavinginaugurated(proper)historiography.Completedin1615,Hannarratedtwolines ofdescentforKoreanhistory:inthenorth,fromTan’gunandKijadown throughKoguryŏ;inthesouth,fromSamhandownthroughPaekche,Silla, andKaya.Han’snarrativeprivilegedthenorthernlineofdescentoverthe southern.Writingatatimewhenanotherinvasionfromthesouth(from Japan)seemedunlikely,atimewhentheMingseemedweakevenasthe Jurchensweregatheringtheirforcesinthenorth,Hanhadarguedfora strong policy toward the Jurchens and included (reinstated) Manchuria withintheterritorialboundariesofKorea’sancientpast.AdoptingHan’s narrativestrategy,Sinpanegyrizedthenorthernlineofdescent. Itisalsoimportanttonotethat,twodecadespriorto“Toksasillon,”Japanesehistorianshadbeguntoquestionthe“limited”conceptionofJapan’s nationalspace.Inanarticlepublishedin1889,KumeKunitakecriticized thenotionof“Japanasanislandnationthathadnotchangedinthousands
99
100
ChapTer Three
ofyears,”andheremindedhisreadersofanancientJapanthathadencompassedKoreaandsoutheasternChina.Eventually,asTanakanotes,“argumentslikeKume’s[served]asahistoricaljustificationfortheannexation ofKorea.”43In1891KumepublishedanarticleinShigaku zasshiinwhich hereferredtoShintōas“aprimitivecustomofsacrificetoheaven.”Kume came under such heavy attack from Shintoists and nationalists that he wasobligedtorelinquishhispostatTokyoImperialUniversity.44ThespatialimaginingofagreaterJapanandSin’sgreaterKoreasharedasimilar strategy,buttheirpoliticalaimswere,forthemostpart,diametricallyopposed:Kumewascreatingamodernand“rational”historicalframeworkfor Japanesecolonialism,andSinahistoricalframeworkforKoreanresistance. Withthisdefensivemotivation,SinidentifiedtheKoreanminjokasthe descendantsofTan’gunandreconstitutedManchuriaasthebirthplaceof theminjokandapowerfulreminderofKorea’spastglory.AlthoughhisappropriationofManchuriacanbeseenasadefensiveresponse,thishistoricalnarrativealsosustainedandduplicatedapotenttotalizingtendency.45 WecanalsodetectinhisadoptionofcategorieslikeJina(J:Shina)and tongyangsa(J:tōyōshi)aparadoxinherentinnationalistdiscourseinthe colonialworld:thesubjugatedpeople,intheveryactofresistingcolonial rule,speakthelanguageoftheiroppressors—thelanguageofempire.The problematicinnationalistthoughtforcesitrelentlesslytodemarcateitself fromthediscourseofcolonialism,butevenasnationalistdiscourseseeks to assert the feasibility of entirely new political possibilities, it remains aprisonerofthemodesofthoughtcharacteristicofrationalknowledge inthepost-Enlightenmentage—thusthelackofautonomyofnationalist discourse.46 Perhapspreciselybecauseofitsderivativenature,asatwentieth-century construct the discourse on minjok could become a powerful mobilizing force.47Butwhileacknowledgingtheinclusiveandegalitarianpropensity oftheKoreannationalistmovement,weshouldbeonguardagainstthe appropriatingandtotalizingpowerofnationalisthistoriography.AsElie Kedouriecautions,nationalisthistoriographywoulddeceivemostreaders: “Men who thought they were acting in order to accomplish the will of God,tomakethetruthprevail,ortoadvancetheinterestsofadynasty, or perhaps simply to defend their own against aggression, are suddenly seentohavebeenreallyactinginorderthatthegeniusofaparticularnationalityshouldbemanifestedandfostered.”48Or,asarguedbyPrasenjit Duara, while in reality the “nation” is a contested and contingent iden-
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
tity,national(aswellasnationalist)historiographysecuresforthenation “thefalseunityofaself-same,nationalsubjectevolvingthroughtime.”49 Kedourie’sandDuara’scritiquesofnationalhistoriographyarepertinent totheKoreancase.Withtoomuchconfidence,contemporaryKoreannationalhistoriography (minjok sahak)securesforthenationalonglistof “national”heroesfromasearlyastheThreeKingdomsperiod,heroeslike ŬlchiMundŏk(mid-sixthcenturytoearlyseventhcentury)ofKoguryŏ. ButasJohnDuncanpointsout,itis“extremelyunlikelythatthepeoples of Koguryŏ, Paekche and Silla all thought of themselves as members of alarger,‘Korean’collectivitythattranscendedlocalboundariesandstate loyalties.”Duncanrejectsthepremisecommoninnationalisthistoriesthat aKoreanethnicnationwasalreadyinexistenceatthedawnofhistorical time.Accordinglyheisskepticalofthenotionthatthecontestbetween the Three Kingdoms—the wars between Koguryŏ, Paekche, and Silla— representedastruggleforthepoliticalunificationoftheKoreanminjok. Whilepointingtothecapacityofthepremodernstatetobreakdownlocal culturalandlinguisticbarriers,Duncanalsocautionsagainstnationalist historiographythatseeks“toelidepotentiallycompetitiveformsofidentificationsuchasclass,region,orgenderinfavorofatotalizingnational identity.”50 Nevertheless,onthebasisofcertainassumptionsmadeaboutbloodand soil,national(andnationalist)historiographyendowsasuccessionofculturalandmilitaryheroeswithacommon“national”identity.AsEtienne Balibarexplains,thisnationalidentity“isalwaysalreadypresentedtous intheformofanarrativewhichattributesto[thisentity]thecontinuityof asubject.Theformationofthenationthusappearsasthefulfillmentofa ‘project’stretchingovercenturies,inwhichtherearedifferentstagesand momentsofcomingtoself-awareness.”51Throughthepowerofthisideologicalform,nationalhistoriescanportrayevenPaleolithicinhabitantsof thepeninsulaas“earlyKoreans,”theircultureas“pre-national,”andthe modernKoreannation-stateastheculminationofalongprocessofdevelopment.52ThesameholdsforNorthKoreanhistoriography,exceptthat KoguryŏandParhaewouldbesubstitutedfor“Unified”Sillaintracingthe developmentofsubsequent“mainstream”Koreanhistory.ButasBalibar remindsus,weshouldnotreadthishistoryas“alineofnecessaryevolution but[as]aseriesofconjuncturalrelationswhichhasinscribedthemafter theeventintothepre-historyofthenation-form.”53 Evenassomehistoriansacknowledgethediscontinuitiesandbreaksin
101
102
ChapTer Three
Koreanhistory,nearlyallstillacceptthenation-stateasthe“normal”or “natural” form of political community.54 This, Duara argues, is a central facetofWesternhegemony:theassumptionthatthenation-stateistheonly legitimateformofpolity.55Weareasyetunabletoimaginealternativepoliticalforms,andbywritingnarrativesofthenation,whichconstitutemuch ofmodernhistoriography,historianshelpmaintaintheillusionofanation’s necessaryandunilinearevolution.Thenationform,asideology,presents itselftousasontologicalnecessity;ourdesirethathistorywillconfirmour beliefthatthepresentrestsonprofoundintentionsandnecessitiesprompts theproductionofalinear,continuoushistorythatbeginsintheancientpast andculminatesintheestablishmentoftheRepublicofKoreaor(depending onone’spolitics)theDemocraticPeople’sRepublicofKorea. AlmostallgeneralhistoriesofKoreabeginwiththeBronzeAge,ifnot earlier,suggestingthatthepeoplewhousedbronzedaggersandbuiltdolmentombsmorethan2,500yearsagowereearlyKoreans.Tocitebuttwo examples,theuniversity-levelgeneralKoreanhistorytextbookHan’guksa kaesŏl(OutlineofKoreanHistory),writtenbySouthKorea’sCompilation CommitteeforNationalHistoryTextbooks,beginsthenarrativeofKorean history with this sentence: “The Korean nation [minjok] emerged from theNeolithicperiodandtheBronzeAgeasanexceptional,homogeneous peoplepossessingauniqueculture,andestablishedatraditionthatwas differentfromthatoftheChinese.”56Involume1ofChosŏn t’ongsa(HistoryofKorea),publishedinPyongyangbytheSocialScienceAcademy, thenationalnarrativebeginswiththeappearanceof“primitivebands”in NortheastAsiaandtheKoreanpeninsuladuringthePaleolithiceraabouta millionyearsago.57Itremainsforademocratichistoriographytoshowhow thenationthreatenstoimposeimmutablearticulationsinanauthoritarian way.Strangeasitmaysound,thebasisforamuchlesstotalizinghistoriographymay,Ithink,befoundinSinCh’ae-ho’slaterhistoriographyand certainlyinhisanarchistwritings.
CoauthorsofNation TheproliferationofdiscoursesonKoreanidentity,whichemanatedfrom both the Korean nationalist movement and the Japanese colonial state, stemmedfromthenecessityto“nationalize.”ForbothKoreansandJapanese,thenecessityofproducingKoreansubjectswaspromptedbythedevelopment of the global nation-state system. In the process of trying to
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
compete,orsimplysurvive,inthenation-statesystem,boththecolonial state and the Korean nationalist movements and organizations had to study,standardize,andthusreinvent(orjustinvent)everythingwenow associatewiththeKoreannation,includingsuchcardinalelementsasthe KoreanlanguageandKoreanethnicity.ImperialistrivalryoverKoreaand eventualcolonizationbyJapanintervenedinKorea’snation-buildingprocess,andtheprocessofnationalizingKoreanswas,inasense,takenover bytheJapanesecolonialstate.StartingwiththerestorationofSŏkkuram,it wastheJapanesecolonialstatethatwentontoestablishcontrolsoverprint capitalism as well as national systems of schooling, transportation, and communicationthatproducedcolonialChōsenjin(Koreans).ThetransformationofJapanesepeasantsintoJapanese(kokumin)hadbegunseveral decadesearlier,aftertheconsolidationoftheMeijiRestorationandthe establishmentofastrongcentralstate.BythetimeofKorea’sannexation, theJapanesestatehadaccumulatedsubstantialexperiencewiththetechnologiesofbothnation-buildingandcolonization,includingtheproductionofnationalconsciousness.Thosewhobecamecolonialadministrators (forexample,GotōShinpeiincolonialTaiwan)hadmadeacarefulstudyof Westerncolonialinstitutionsandmethods. Compelledtodenyany“constructive”roleinJapanesecolonialism,contemporaryKoreannationalistaccountsdrawattentiontothelastdecade ofthecolonialperiod,whenthecolonialauthorities,underthebannerof NaisenIttai(JapanandKoreaasOneBody),pursuedapolicyofforcedassimilation:eliminatingtheuseofKoreaninschoolinstruction(1934),requiringattendanceatShintōceremonies(1935),andforcingtheadoption ofJapanesesurnames(1939).ThesloganofNaisenIttai,however,reveals the ambivalence of Japan’s racist policy throughout the colonial period, marked by the combination of exteriorization and internal exclusion. Japan,astheInterior(Nai),excludesKorea(sen)asthe“outside”;atthe sametime,thisoutside(Korea)mustbecomeonewiththeInterior,which isalwaysalreadythere.58ItwasinthissensethatJapanesecolonialismwas “constructive”forboththecolonizerandthecolonized:theconstructionof JapanesesuperiorityasdemonstratedbytheinferiorityofKoreansandthe superiorityclaimedbythecolonizergeneratingaself-imageofinferiority amongKoreans. Coercion,prohibition,andcensorship,then,werenottheonly(oreven primary) forms through which colonial power was exercised. The Japanesecolonialstatedidestablishnewrulesandcontrolsovertheenuncia-
103
104
ChapTer Three
tionofKoreannationalidentity,andthereweretopicsthatwereoff-limits orrequiredstrictobservanceofprotocol,tact,anddiscretion.Atthesame time,therewasasteadyproliferationofdiscoursesconcerningKoreanidentityemanatingfromtheJapanesecolonialstateitself,includingstudiesof Koreanhistory,geography,language,customs,religion,music,andartin almostimmeasurabledetail.Whatarewetomakeofthis?FortheJapanese colonialstate,thegoalofexploitingKoreaandusingitforJapan’sstrategicendswenthandinhandwiththeworkoftransformingpeasantsinto Koreans.Inotherwords,thelogicofitsracistcolonialpolicycompelledthe Japanesecolonialstatetoreconstitute(disparate)Koreanidentitiesintoa homogeneousChōsenjin.ThereafterChōsenjinbecamebothabureaucratic andderogatoryclassificationthatappliedtoallKoreansregardlessofgender,regionalorigin,orclassbackground. Thus, contrary to conventional nationalist accounts which argue that Japanesecolonialauthoritiespursuedaconsistentandsystematicpolicyof eradicatingKoreanidentity,weshouldseethattheJapanesecolonialstate actuallyendeavoredtoproduceKoreansassubjects,inthesenseofbeing undertheauthorityoftheJapaneseemperorandinthesenseofhavinga separate(andinferior)subjectivity.Thisinturnledtoabifurcatednational (andracial)discoursebecauseKoreannationalisthistorians,incompetitionwiththeJapanesecolonialstate,wereengagedintheprojectofrecoveringorproducinganautonomousKoreansubjectivity.Nationalisthistorianswouldfindevidenceofthissubjectivityinhistory,butinnecessarily incompleteordisfiguredform.Theypresumedanessentiallinkbetween nationalsovereigntyandindividualsovereigntyandregardednonnational formsofcommunityandsolidarityaspartial,incompletegrounding,assertingthatonlynationalliberationcouldrenderpossiblethefullrealizationofauthenticsubjectivity. ThuswehaveboththeJapanesecolonialstateandKoreannationalistsresearchingandwritingKoreanhistory,preservingandinterpretingKorean customsandreligiouspractices,andlaboringtocreateastandardKorean language.Althoughthepoweroftherepressiveandideologicalapparatuses oftheJapanesecolonialstatefarsurpassedthatoftheKoreannationalist movement, the contradictions inherent in Japan’s racist colonial policy, alongwiththecapacityoftheKoreannationalistmovementto(re)generatediscoursesofidentityandliberation,ensuredthatthediscourseon nationremainedacontestedfieldthroughoutthecolonialperiod.59Thus
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
any“Korean”subjectivitycreatedundersuchconditions—whetherloyalor defianttotheJapaneseEmpire—hadtobeprofoundlyunstableandconstantlythreatenedbythecontradictionsofcolonialexperience.60 Inanalyzingdiscoursesthatarehegemoniconaglobalscale,suchasthe nationform,wemustconsidernondiscursivemacroprocesses,processes that have to do with the capitalist world economy, or what Immanuel Wallersteinhascalledthe“WorldSystem.”AccordingtoWallerstein,hegemonyintheWorldSystemhastodowith“productive,commercialandfinancialpreeminenceofonecorepoweroverothercorepowers,”apreeminencethatisnotenduringbecausethereisbothupwardanddownward mobilityincore-peripheryrelations.61Thenation-statesystememergedas thepoliticalsuperstructureofthisWorldSystem.Theinterstatesystemis competitivebecausenation-statesintheperipherymaysucceedinattainingcorestatus,andcorenationscansliptosemiperipherystatus.62 Bruce Cumings makes use of World Systems theory to argue that for mostofthetwentiethcentury(withtheexceptionofthesevenmonths from Pearl Harbor to the Battle ofMidway), Japan had been a subordinatepartofeitheratrilateralAmerican-British-Japanesehegemonyora bilateralAmerican-Japanesehegemony.63Inotherwords,evenasitruled Korea,Japanwasasubimperialpower,a“core”powerinrelationtoKorea andChinabutadependencyofBritainandtheUnitedStatesinboththe regimeoftechnologyandworldpolitics.Cumingsillustratesthisbyciting the example of Japanese textile firms, the leading sector in Japan’s first phase of industrialization, which bought their machines from England untilabout1930.Inthe1930sJapanbeganproducingbettermachinesand quicklybecamethemostefficienttextileproducerintheworld.Intheminingindustry,however,JapanwasstilldependentonAmericantechnology throughoutthe1930s,allowingAmericangold-miningcompaniestoprofit fromKoreangoldmines.Insum,accordingtoCumings,Japan’spositionin theWorldSystemchangedaccordingtothefollowingtimeline: 1900–22:JapaninBritish-Americanhegemony 1922–41:JapaninAmerican-Britishhegemony 1941–45:JapanasregionalhegemoninEastAsia 1945–70:JapaninAmericanhegemony64 Cumingsisnotproposingareductionofnationalnarrativestosomeabstractcapitalistrelationsofproduction.Rather,alonglinessuggestedby
105
106
ChapTer Three
Balibar,Cumings’sapproachtounderstandingnationalnarrativesmight bedescribedas“boundupnotwiththeabstractionofthecapitalistmarket,butitsconcretehistoricalform:thatofa‘world-economy’whichis alwaysalreadyhierarchicallyorganizedintoa‘core’anda‘periphery,’each ofwhichhasdifferentmethodsofaccumulationandexploitationoflabor power,andbetweenwhichrelationsofunequalexchangeanddomination areestablished.”65Inotherwords,asBalibarexplains,itis“theconcrete configurationsoftheclassstruggleandnot‘pure’economiclogicwhichexplaintheconstitutionofnationstates.”66OntherelationshipbetweendiscoursesonethnicidentityandthelogicoftheWorldSystem,Wallerstein notesthatthecapitalistsystemisbasednotmerelyonthecapital-labor antinomybutonacomplexhierarchywithinthelaborsegment.Thishierarchywithinlaborgeneratesthe“ethnicization”oftheworkforcewithina givenstate’sboundaries.Therearecertainadvantagestotheethnicization ofoccupationalcategoriesbecausedifferentkindsofrelationsofproductionrequiredifferentkindsof“normal”behavior.Theadvantageshaveto dowiththefactthatthestateneednotdoallthework;theoppressedgroup will voluntarily defend its ethnic identity and socialize its membership. Thisresolves“oneofthebasiccontradictionsofhistoricalcapitalism—its simultaneousthrustfortheoreticalequalityandpracticalinequality.”67 Theconcrete,historicalformofthisWorldSystem,whichisalwayshierarchicallyorganizedintoacoreandaperiphery,providedtheframework forthehegemonyofthenation-statesystem.Theabilityofhistorianslike Shiratoritodefine,limit,andauthorizeacertainviewoftherestofthe Orient,andthenimposeit,wasmadepossiblebyanemergingindustrial modeofproductioninJapanwhosesuccesswasverifiedinJapan’svictoriesoverChina(1895)andRussia(1905).AndyetJapan’sversionofOrientalismcouldnotachievefullhegemonicstatusinthesensethateven asJapancolonizedKoreaandestablishedapuppetstateinManchuria,it remainedadependencyofBritainandtheUnitedStates.Thuswemight saythattherewereoverlappingandcompetinghegemoniesoperatingin Korea,producingcompetingdiscoursesonrace,nation,gender,modernity, and culture. Moreover these hegemonies dissipated as one moved fromthecore(London,Washington,Tokyo)tothemajorintellectualcentersintheperiphery(Beijing,Shanghai).InBeijingandShanghai,urban centerswhereamultitudeofintellectualsandpoliticalactivistsinsome form ofexilewere thrown into unexpected contact, hybrid spaces with
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
complex, international financial and intellectual ties yielded new possibilitiesforchangeandinnovation,forboththinkingandorganizing.From thisperiphery,intellectualslikeSinCh’ae-hosucceededinsubvertingor displacingthedominant(colonial)frameworkinimportantways.68 InSin’sanarchistwritings(from1925on),theall-embracingidentityof minjokisreplacedbythemorepartisancategoryofminjung.Inhistorical studieswrittenintheearlytwentiethcentury,Sinpresentedalessessentialistwayofconceptualizingthenation.Perhapsasaself-critiqueofhis earlierpositionin“Toksasillon,”hisintroductiontotheChosŏn sanggosa (HistoryofAncientKorea)hasmomentsofambivalenceinsignifyingthe minjok,thatis,momentsofslippageintheoppositionofselfandOther. WhywasChosŏn sanggosapublishedinKoreain1931,aboutadecadeafter itwaswritten?In1931thegeneralcrisisintheworldeconomicsystemhad pushedtheSovietUniontowardthepolicyof“socialisminonecountry” andtheUnitedStatestowardtheNewDeal.InEuropeandJapanfascism reemergedasapowerfulmovement,presentingitselfasanalternativeto theproblemsofamarketeconomy.In1931JapaneseforcesinvadedManchuria,andKoreabegantobetransformedintoaneconomicandmilitary base for Japanese penetration of the Chinese mainland. That same year the Sin’ganhoe voted to dissolve, acknowledging its failure to create an effectiveunitedfrontofKoreancommunists,nationalists,andanarchists withinKorea.Ontheintellectualscene,theChōsenshihenshūkai(Society fortheCompilationofKoreanHistory;sckH),whoseworkwasdirected andfundedbytheofficeofthegovernor-generalinKorea,wasaboutto beginpublicationofitsmassive,detailedstudyofKoreanhistory,theoutcomeofaprojectbegunbyGovernor-GeneralSaitōMakotoin1922. In1932,aftertenyearsofwork,sckHpublishedthefirstfivevolumes of what became the thirty-eight-volume Chōsenshi (Korean History). In addition, sckH published a three-volume Chōsen shiryō shushin (CollectionofKoreanDocuments)andatwenty-one-volumeChōsen shiryō sōkan (Archive of Korean Documents). The sckH was clearly an organ of the Japanesecolonialstate,butitsmembersincludedKoreanhistorianslike Ch’oeNam-sŏn,themanwhodraftedthe“KoreanDeclarationofIndependence”in1919,andYiNŭng-hwa,arenownedhistorianofKoreanBuddhism.YiwasoneoftheoriginalfourteenmemberswhenthesckHwas organizedin1922byArikishiTadaichi,andCh’oejoinedin1928.69Itwas atthishistoricaljuncturethatSinCh’ae-ho’sChosŏn sanggosawasserial-
107
108
ChapTer Three
izedinKoreaintheChosŏn ilbo.70ThedayafterChosŏn sanggosaended, theChosŏn ilbobeganpublishingSin’sChosŏn sanggo munhwasa(Cultural HistoryofAncientKorea),whichraninfortyinstallments.AnChae-hong (1891–1965),ahistorianinhisownrightandthepresidentofChosŏn ilbo, wasinstrumentalinpublishingSin’sworkinsideKorea.71BecauseSinhad notcompromisedwiththeJapanese—atthetimehewasincarceratedina JapaneseprisoninLūshun(PortArthur)—andbecausetheworkitselfhad beenwrittenoutsidethegeographicalandintellectualperimeterofJapan’s hegemony,Sin’shistoriographywaspresentedasamuchneededcorrective tocolonialisthistoriography’sdistortionsofKorea’sancientpast.Butin writingfromtheperiphery,Sinsucceededinsubvertingnotonlycolonialisthistoriography,butmanyoftheassumptionsassociatedwiththenation form.IronicallythiscounterhegemonicmovewasmadepossiblebySin’s appropriationofHegel’ssubject-objectdistinction.Itisworthquotingat lengthfromSin’sintroductiontoChosŏn sanggosa: Whatishistory?Itistherecordofthestateofmentalactivityinhumansocietywhereinthestrugglebetweenthe“I”[a]andthe“non-I”[pi-a]develops throughtimeandexpandsthroughspace.Worldhistory,then,isarecordof suchastateforallofmankind,whileKoreanhistoryisarecordofsuchastate fortheKoreanpeople[Chosŏn minjok]. Whodowerefertoas“I”andthe“non-I”?Simplyput,wecalltheperson situatedinthesubjectiveposition“I,”andallotherswecall“non-I.”Forexample,KoreanscallKorea“I”andcallEngland,America,France,Russia,and othersthe“non-I.”ButthepeopleofEngland,America,France,Russia,and othercountrieseachcalltheircountries“I”andcallKoreaa“non-I.”Theproletariatreferstoitselfas“I”andtolandlords,capitalists,andothersasthe “non-I.”Butthelandlords,capitalists,andotherseachrefertotheirowngroup as“I”andtotheproletariatasthe“non-I.”Notonlythisbutinlearning,in technology,inoccupations,andintheintellectualworld—andineveryother area—ifthereisanItherewillbeanon-Iasitsopposite;andjustasthereis anIandthenon-IwithintheIposition,sothereisanIandthenon-Iwithin thenon-Iposition.Therefore,themorefrequentthecontactbetweentheI andthenon-I,themoreheatedwillbethestruggleoftheIagainstthenon-I. Andsothereisnorespiteintheactivityofhumansociety,andtherewillnever beadaywhentheforwardadvanceofhistorywillbecompleted.Itisforthis reasonthathistoryistherecordofstrugglebetweenIandthenon-I.... IfthepeopleofMyo,Jina,etc.—thenon-I—constitutingtheother[sang-
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
daeja]hadnotexisted,itisunlikelythat“I”wouldhaveexisted.Thatis,namingthestateasChosŏn,buildingthethreecapitals,keepingthefivearmies, etc.—thismanifestationofthe“I”wouldnothaveoccurred.72
Here,inreferencetoJina(J:Shina),wemightdetectthepresenceof JapaneseOrientalism. ButalthoughSinmayhaveusedJinaratherthan ChungguktodistanceKoreafromthebarbarian andcivilized, outerand inner implications of China as the Middle Kingdom, his use of Jina in Chosŏn sanggosadidnot(indeedcouldnot)invokethekindofOrientalist assumptions present in Shiratori’s historiography. National identity (Korean,English,orFrench)ishistoricallyconstructedandchangesover time;73itmayhavebeenconstructedinoppositiontoaforeignother,but itisalso(necessarily)fragmentedfromwithin.Thuswefindthesubject- object distinction made by Hegel, but it is clear that the philosophical structure “which uncannily simulates the project of nineteenth-century imperialism,”asRobertYoungputsit,hasbeentakenover,made“universal”fromthepointofviewofthecolonized.74
BeyondNationalism ImmersedintheintellectualfermentofShanghaiandBeijing,especiallyin thewakeoftheMayFourthMovement,SinCh’ae-howasabletoappropriateHegel’sdialecticinawaythatassertednotatriumphant,rationalsubjectbutacontingentandopen-endedone.WhentheKoreanprovisional governmentinShanghaielectedRheeSyngmanaspresidentinabsentia andprovedunwillingtotakeuparmedstruggleagainstJapanesecolonialism,SindenounceditinthenewspaperSin Taehan(NewKorea)andreturnedtoBeijingin1920.In1923,whenSinwrotethe“Declarationofthe KoreanRevolution”fortheKoreanrevolutionaryorganizationŬiyŏldan,he didsoinconsultationwithYuCha-myŏng,whowasananarchistandthe leadingtheoristintheŬiyŏldan.75EvenhadwenotknownthatSinbecame ananarchistafterwritingthesehistories,thetextsthemselvessuggestmomentsofambivalenceinsignifyingtheminjok,thatis,moments of slippage in the opposition of self and other:“IfthereisanItherewillbeanon-Iasits opposite;andjustasthereisanIandthenon-IwithintheIposition,so thereisanIandthenon-Iwithinthenon-Iposition.”76 Inhislateranarchist writings, Sintriedtoconstruct anewcollective subjectivitycapableofsubvertingthemodernistprogram,whichhesaw
109
110
ChapTer Three
asoppressive,exploitative,andbrutal.Thenationformasimaginedbythe Westwashegemonic,inthesensethattheglobalnation-statesystemset theboundariesofpoliticaldiscourse,definingthenation-stateasthe“normal”or“natural”formofpoliticalcommunity.Andyetnoconstructcanbe completelyorpermanentlyhegemonic,andhegemonydissipatedasone movedfromthecoretotheperiphery.Fromtheperiphery,then,intellectualslikeSinsucceededinsubvertingordisplacingthedominantframework inimportantways. NationalistreadingsofSin’sworkfocusontheanti-Japaneseaspects.In the“ManifestooftheKoreanRevolution”(1923),Sindidlist“BanditJapan” (kangdo Ilbon)astheprimarytargetoftherevolution,understoodasthe Japaneseemperor,thegovernor-generalofKoreaandotherhighofficials, “traitorouspoliticians,”andanyandallfacilitiesbelongingtotheenemy. BysmashingJapan,Koreanscouldrecoveran“indigenousKorea”(koyu ŭi Chosŏn)whichlaybeneathJapan’sdespotism.(Sinplacesquotationmarks aroundKoreaandJapan.)ButtherecoveryofanindigenousKoreadidnot meantherestorationofoldsocialforms.Alongwithforeignrule,“slavish cultureandservilementality”weretobedestroyed.Allreligiousbeliefs, ethics, culture, art, customs, and habits of traditional culture produced bythestrongfortheirenjoymenthadtobedismantledsothatthepeople (minjung)couldbreakoutoftheirabjectfateandconstructapeople’sculture(minjungjŏk munhwa). SinexcoriatedthoseKoreanswhowerelobbyingforan“independent domestic administration” (naejŏng tongnip), “participatory government” (ch’am chŏngkwŏn),or“self-rule”(chach’i).TheywereforgettingthatJapan had devoured Korea “even as the ink was drying on [Japanese] slogans thathadguaranteed‘PeaceinAsia,’andthe‘ProtectionofKoreanIndependence.’”Sinalsoridiculedthosenationalistswhoadvocateda“cultural movement”(munhwa undong).Writingeditorialsthatwouldnotoffendthe colonialauthoritieswasalltheculturalmovementamountedto.ForSin, 100millionpagesofnewspapersandmagazinescouldnotequalthepower ofoneuprisinginawakeningtheminjung. Sinalsodenouncedthosenationalistswhoadvocated“diplomacy”(oegyoron)or“preparation”(chunbiron).Hedidnotnamespecificindividuals,but it would have been clear to his readers that the targets of his polemics wereRheeSyngmanandAnCh’ang-ho.Rheewas“stupid”(ŏlisŏkgo yongryŏl hada)forbankingonforeigninterventiontosolvetheproblemofnational
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
survival.AsforAnandotherswhoarguedfor“preparation,”Sinreminded themthattheyshouldbepreparingforawarofindependence.Arguing thatKoreansmustreadythemselvesforindependence,theadvocatesof preparationactuallyadvocatedpoliticalquietism,turningtheirenergiesto education,industry,andawholelistofthingsthathadtobereadiedprior to direct, uncompromising struggle. These activists made the rounds in Beijing,Siberia,Hawaii,andtheUnitedStatestocollectmoneyfortheir programs,butalltheycouldshowfortheireffortswereafewprecarious schoolsandineptorganizations.77 WhatdidSinCh’ae-hoadvocateinthe1920s?AsSinYong-haargues, Sin’sdisgustwithnationalistsintheKoreanprovisionalgovernment,plus his reading of Pyotr Kropotkin, turned him from nationalism to anarchism.78TodaymostconservativeintellectualsinSouthKoreaglossover thefactthatratherthanthenation(minjok),thehistoricalsubjectinSin’s revolution was the people, or the multitude (minjung), a broad political groupingoftheoppressedandexploited“propertylessmasses”(musan taejung).79Theminjung,asSinusedtheterm,wasamoreamorphouscategory thanMarx’sproletariat,butitwasnotsynonymouswiththeKoreanpeople as a whole, that is, minjok. As Marx did for the proletariat, Sin granted ontologicalprivilegetotheminjung. ThroughoutKoreanhistory,arguedSin,theminjungformedthewretched majority—exploited,beaten,starved,lulledintosubservienceandobedience. For that very reason, the minjung was uniquely capable of sweepingawayalloppressiveandexploitativeinstitutionsandpractices,andin that sense the minjung was a universal subject. But unlike the Marxist- Leninists,Sinrefusedtodistinguishbetweenthevanguardandthemasses, orbetweenleadersandtheled,andtherevolutionwasthereforea“minjungrevolution”ora“directrevolution.”Theminjungformedthe“grand headquarters”oftherevolution(Minjung ŭn uri hyŏngmyŏng ŭi taebonyŏng ida).Throughaprogramofassassinations,bombings,anduprisings,Sin believed,the“conscientized”segmentoftheminjungcouldsucceedinimparting“resolve”(kag’o)totherestoftheminjung.Whentheminjungasa wholeresolvedtotakethepathofrevolution,allthecunningandsavagery ofthecolonialstatewouldnotbeabletostoptherevolution. ThusSindifferentiatedbetweenthe“awakened”minjungandthe“not awakened”minjung,butthisdistinctionwasnotatallsimilartothekind ofexternalandmanipulativerelationshipthatcharacterizedtheLeninist
111
112
ChapTer Three
conceptionofrelationsbetweenthe“vanguard”andthe“masses.”SinresistedtheLeninistideathatthe“foritself”oftherevolutionarysubjectwas accessibleonlytotheenlightenedvanguard.Indeedevenashecalledfora revolution,hislanguageechoedthemoralistictoneofKropotkin.Theexploitativeeconomicsystemswallowsupthepeople(minjung)inorderto fattenthieves,butthissystemofplundermustbedestroyedinordertoimprovethelivesofthepeople.Inallsocietieswithinequalities,thestrong oppresstheweak,thehigh-bornstandabovethehumble,andthepeople havetoplunder,excoriate,andenvyoneanother.Atfirstthemajorityofthe peopleareharmedforthehappinessofafew.Butlatertheprivilegedfew struggleamongthemselvessothatthepeopleareharmedevenmore.Thus thehappinessofallthepeoplecanbeattainedonlywiththeeradicationof socialinequalities.80 Inspiteofthisseeminglyimmutablecommitmenttoanegalitarianideal, manyconservativeintellectualsassumethathadSinlivedtoseeKorealiberatedhewouldhaveabandonedhisanarchism.81Butitwashisassertion thatanunfetteredpeoplewouldconstructcommunitiesbasedonequality, cooperation, and reason. Although Korea’s liberation from colonial rule wasafundamentalgoaloftherevolution,the“privilegedclasses”(t’ŭkkwŏn kyegŭp)whichoppressthe“Koreanpeople”(Chosŏn minjung,inquotations intheoriginaltext),includingthecolonialadministration,weretobeoverthrownsoastorecoveran“unfetteredpeople”(chayujŏk Chosŏn minjung). Theemergenceofanunfetteredpeople,andthecommunitiestheywould createbasedonequality,cooperation,andreason,couldnotbebrought aboutthroughthepowerofanynation-state. Here,then,wasapoliticalprogramthatwentbeyondnationalandindividualsovereigntyandahistoricalviewthatunderminedthecontinuous, unifiednarrativeofthenation.TothosewhofeartheunravelingofcapitalistsovereigntySinmightsay,“Thosewhodonotknowhowtobuilddo notknowhowtodestroy,andthosewhodonotknowhowtodestroydo notknowhowtobuild.Constructionanddestructionaredifferentonlyin appearance.Inthemind,destructionisimmediatelyconstruction.”82After theKoreanWar,statenationalismasitemergedinbothNorthandSouth Koreaallbutoverwhelmedandswampedsuchautonomousformsofimagination.Sin’sturntoanarchism(wheretheall-embracingidentityofminjokisreplacedbythemorepartisancategoryofminjung)alreadysuggested thatminjokbyitselfcouldnolongerserveasademocraticimaginary,was
naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT
no longer able to reveal and subvert a wide range of subordinated subjectpositionssuchaswoman,worker,tenantfarmer,andilliterate.Before theendofthecolonialperiod,amoredemocratichistoriographywould emergeasacritiqueofnationalisthistoriography,byshowinghowclaims stakedoutbyotheridentitieshaveoftenbeensuppressedormarginalized bythediscourseonminjok.
113
chapter four universaLizinG korea’s pasT Beyond critical readings of those classical [dynastic] histories, we have takenonthetaskofgatheringandanalyzing,consistentwiththehighest standardsofmodernhistoriography,allthematerialsthatwerescattered orignored,allkindsofshardsandfragments,toestablishaprogressivehistoriographyoftheentiretyofnational life.That[kindofhistoriography] doesnotsimplypresentthepastforself-critique;itconstitutesourperspectiveonwhatliesahead.Itisthisthatgiveshistoriographyitspoliticality[silch’ŏnsŏng],andprescribesthegeneraldirection[ofpoliticalstruggle]. —PAEknAM-u n,Chōsen shakai keizaishi,1933
In a Korean-language article published in Chungang in November 1933, threemonthsafterthepublicationofhisfirstmajorwork,Chōsen shakai keizaishi(ASocialEconomicHistoryofKorea),PaekNam-unsoughtto reachouttoabroadKoreanaudienceinhisapproachtowritingKorean history.WritteninJapaneseandpublishedinTokyo,Chōsen shakai keizaishi wasthefirstcomprehensivesocioeconomichistoryofancientKorea,and itspublicationwaspromptlycelebratedbyintellectualcirclesinbothJapan andcolonialKorea.IntheChungangarticle,consistentwithhismaterialist stance,PaekrefusedtoportrayChōsen shakai keizaishiasgroundbreaking scholarship,insistinginsteadthatthebookshouldbereadasaninitialarticulationofanalreadyexistingsocietal(class)consciousnessarisingfrom present-day realities confronting Koreans. At the same time he insisted thathehadtobefreetopresentacriticalreadingofhistoricalsourcesand, “asaKoreanscholar,”freetoengagein“scientificdebate”with“ordinary popularconceptions.”1 ThetensionbetweenPaek’sclaimthathisworkarticulatedanalready existing consciousness and his contention that Korean historians must challengeordinarypopularconceptionsgivessomeindicationoftheforbiddingintellectualterrainthatheandotherKoreanMarxistsoccupiedin theearly1930sincolonialKorea.ThePeacePreservationLawof1925,as amendedin1928,hadmadeitacapitaloffensetoorganizeorleadanyor-
universaLizinG korea’s pasT
ganizationthatthreatenedthekokutai(nationalbody/structure).Militant leftistsandfutei senjin(malcontentKoreans)werethemaintargetsofthe PeacePreservationLawinJapan,aswellasincolonialKorea.InJapan,futei senjinwasafrequentlyusedpejorativetermthatgainedcurrencywhen, in the wake of the forced abdication of Emperor Kojong in 1907, Righteous Armies (ŭibyŏng) in Korea launched armed struggle against Japaneseforces.IntheimmediateaftermathoftheGreatKantōEarthquakeof 1923,thefearandanxietyamongtheJapanesepublicthathadaccompanied KoreanresistancetocolonizationgavewaytowildrumorsthatKoreans weretakingadvantageofthecatastrophebyperpetratingrape,arson,and seditiousriots.VigilantessetupcheckpointsandmassacredoversixthousandpeopleintheTokyo-YokohamaareawhomtheyidentifiedasKorean.2 WiththeonsetoftheGreatDepressionin1929thepriceofricedropped precipitously,leadingtoevengreaterhardshipintheKoreancountryside. In1930,50to60percentoffarmincomecamefromrice,andwhenprices dropped,thelossinincomewaspasseddowntothetenantfarmers.After theinvasionofManchuriain1931,censorshipandpolicesurveillancebecamemoreintense,andwiththeeliminationofmanysocialistsandcommunists from various movements and institutions Marxist intellectuals likePaekNam-unwere,toalargeextent,isolatedfrominstitutionsthat couldshapeordinarypopularconceptions.Between1925and1928there hadbeenfourattemptstoestablishaKoreanCommunistPartyinsideof colonialKorea,butallendedinmassarrests.Colonialpolicekeptformer KoreanCommunistPartymembersandfellowtravelersundermoreorless permanentsurveillanceevenaftertheyhadservedtheirprisonterms.By 1928ithadbecomeimpossibletosustainarevolutionarymovementwithin colonialKorea—theJapaneseauthoritiesweretooefficient—andthelocus and leadership of the Korean communist movement shifted to overseas bases.3 ManyoftheinstitutionsthatattemptedtoshapeordinarypopularconceptionswereideologicalapparatusesoftheJapanesecolonialstate:the publicschoolsystem,certainreligiousinstitutions,and,asdescribedby ChulwooLee,thepolice,who“conductedsurveys,supervisedpublichygiene,directedresidentsinroadbuildingandrepair,gaveinstructionson farming,exhortedpeopletotakeside-jobsandtosavemoney,actedasconciliatorsinprivatedisputes,enforcedcourtjudgments,organizedmeetings forideologicalpropaganda,andsoon.”4TheBuddhistorganizationChōsen
115
116
ChapTer Four
Bukkyōdan(K:ChosŏnPulgyodan),forexample,wasfoundedaspartof thecolonialprojectofJapanese-Koreanreconciliation.AsMicahAuerback pointsout,however,ChōsenBukkyōdanneverovercamethetensionsbetweentheJapaneseandKoreanBuddhistcommunities.Basedonaclose readingofbothJapanese-andKorean-languagearticlesinChōsen Bukkyō, the newsletter of the Chōsen Bukkyōdan, Auerback concludes that becauseoftheJapanesesenseofentitlementandethnicandculturalsuperiority,publicationslikeChōsen Bukkyōultimatelyfailedtogenerateamong KoreanreadersasenseofintimacywiththeJapanese,knownasch’in-Il, commonlytranslatedaspro-Japanese.5 ForalittlemorethanadecadeaftertheMarchFirstMovementof1919, a“culturalpolicy”hadreplacedthepatentlycoercivepoliciesofthefirst decadeofcolonialrule.Underthebannerof“HarmonybetweenJapanand Korea”(Naisen yūwa),floggingasaformofpunishmentwasabolished,the CorporationLawthathadpreventedKoreansfromstartingmodernenterpriseswasabolished,6andpermitsweregrantedforindependentKorean- languagenewspapersandmagazines.Korean-languagepublicationsproliferated and tested thelimits ofcensorship laws. AsMichael Robinson pointsout,until1932thecolonialstatemaintainedadualsetofpublication laws:oneforJapanese-languagepublications,anotherforKorean-language publications.WhereasJapanese-languagematerialsweresubjecttopostpublicationcensorship,Korean-languagenewspapersandmagazineswere subjecttoprepublicationcensorship.MoreoverthepoliceappliedasecondarydualpolicyofcensorshiptowardKoreanpublications,repressing radicalpublicationsandtoleratingapoliticalexpressionsofnationalpride andaspiration.Ofthepublicationsthatweresuspendedpermanentlyin the1920s—magazineslikeSinsaenghwal,Shinch’ŏnji,andKaebyŏk—allhad relentlesslyadvancedleftistoruncompromisingnationalistviews.7 Eventhoughtheyoftenquestionedcolonialpolicyandpopularizednationalnarrativesthatseeminglycounteredcolonialistnarratives,nationalistnewspaperslikeTonga ilboandChosŏn ilbowereseenaslessthreatening andallowedtocarryon.Forthenationalistpress,therewasamarketfor counternarrativeswithincolonialKorea,andthestatureandcirculationof Tonga ilboandChosŏn ilboroseintandemwithits“nationalist/anti-colonial quotient.”Bytheearly1930s,asRobinsonnotes,aprocessoffinancialattritionandpolicerepressionhadeliminatedpoliticallyorientedjournals, whileTonga ilboandChosŏn ilbobecamemajorpublishinggroupsthatprof-
universaLizinG korea’s pasT
itedfromthepublicationofslickmagazinesforamassaudience.8Itwas thiscommercialized,politicallyrestrainedpublishingindustrythathelped shape“ordinarypopularconceptions”atthetimePaekNam-unwroteChōsen shakai keizaishi. FromthepointofviewofMarxistslikePaek,thenationalnarrativesdisseminatedinnewspaperslikeTonga ilbodidnotfundamentallysubvertthe hierarchiesandcategoriesofknowledgeestablishedbytheJapanesecolonialstate.Ontheonehand,theBolshevikRevolutionandsubsequentsnipingfromKoreanMarxistshadforcedmanynationalistintellectualsto“discoversociety”(sahoe)andtheimpoverishedmasses(minjung)ashistorical, political,andethicalcategoriesthathadtocomplementthediscourseon theethnicnation(minjok).Ontheotherhand,afterthedissolutionofthe unitedfrontorganizationSin’ganhoe(NewTrunkSociety,新幹會)in1931, nationalistintellectualshadbecomeevenmorehostiletoMarxists.The Sin’ganhoe, organized in 1927, had sought to bridge the gap between a dwindlingnumberofcommunistsandunwaveringnationalists.Bothcommunistsandnationalistshadcalledforunitysincetheearly1920s,butthe catalystforactuallycreatingabroadunitedfrontcameinlate1925,when itseemedthatsomeoftheprincipalleadersinthe“culturalnationalist” campwerecontemplatingmore“realistic”goalsinplaceofoutrightindependence. TheinfluentialwriterYiKwang-suhadgoneonrecordcallingforhome rule (chach’i), thereby accepting Japan’s sovereignty over Korea. In late 1925reportssurfacedthatCh’oeRin,theleaderofaCh’ŏndogyofaction, alongwithKimSŏng-suandSongChin-u,whoranTonga ilbo,wereengagedinseriousdiscussionwiththecolonialauthoritiesaboutthepossibilityofhomerule.9ItwasthisthatpromptedthefirstrealagreementbetweencommunistsandunwaveringnationalistslikeAnChae-hong,editor ofChosŏn ilbo,tocreateabroadunitedfrontorganization.10Anhadbecome thechiefeditoroftheKorean-languagedailyin1924,andin1927hehad playedaleadingroleinorganizingSin’ganhoe.In1931heopposedthecommunists’callforthedissolutionoftheSin’ganhoe,buttonoavail.NationalistslikeAnsharedasimilardilemmawithcommunists:howtocreateand sustainaneffectiveunitedfrontbetweenthecommunistsandnationalists butatthesametimemaintaintheirdistinctideological“identity,”continue theirpolemicsagainsttheother’sideologicalstance,andextendhegemony overtheentireunitedfront.11Amongcommunists,thosewhose“national-
117
118
ChapTer Four
istquotients”werehighwerelabeled“petitbourgeois”and“right-wingopportunists.”Thosewhose“classmilitancy”ledtothecollapseoftheunited front(andpoliticalisolation)werelabeled“left-wingextremists.”12 When Sin’ganhoe was founded in February 1927, the Tonga ilbo management(KimSŏng-suandSongChin-u)wereobligedtosupportit,and itsunambiguousgoalofcontinuingthestruggleforKorea’sindependence throughpoliticalresistanceeffectivelyshelvedanyplansfororganizinga movementforhomerule.EvenafterjoiningtheSin’ganhoe,however,Kim andSongdidnotabandontheideaofhomerule,andbeforetheorganization’sdissolutionin1931,alessintractableleadershipflirtedwiththeidea. WhenthealliancebetweentheKuomintangandtheChineseCommunist Partycollapsedin1927,resultinginthedeathsofthousandsofChinese communists—andmanyKoreancommunistsaswell13—thefourthexecutivecommitteeoftheKoreanCommunistParty(1928)triedtopreventa comparablecatastrophebycreatingapowerfulworker-peasantblocwithin theSin’ganhoetopreventthe“reformistbourgeoisie”fromgaininghegemonyovertheunited front,butwithoutsuccess.TheJapaneseauthorities,fortheirpart,weresympatheticandyetguardedabouttheideaof homeruleforKoreans.Seriousconsiderationofhomerulestoppedwith theimplementationoftheNaisenIttaipolicyinthemid-1930s.14By1931 thecommunistsandtheJapanesecolonialauthoritieswerereadytodissolvetheSin’ganhoe.Notallleftistsagreedwiththisdecision,andmost nationalistsintheSin’ganhoe,includingAnChae-hong,triedtoprevent thedissolution.Thecommunists’decisiontodissolvetheorganizationin 1931wasanticipatedintheComintern’sDecemberThesesof1928,which pointedtotheerrorofcedingleadershipoftheunitedfronttothenationalists.Buttheactualdissolutioncameasaresponsetothesharplydifferent contextof1931:Japan’sinvasionofManchuria,thestrengtheningoffascist movementsaroundtheworld,andtheheightenednecessityofdifferentiatingrevolutionaryinternationalsolidarityfromnationalistpolitics.After thedissolutionoftheSin’ganhoeuntilthebeginningofthePacificWar,the remainingKoreancommunistsfocusedtheireffortoncarryingoutrevolutionfrombelow. Itwasinthispoliticalandintellectualcontext,asideologicaldivisions among Korean intellectuals became much more pronounced, that Paek Nam-unpublishedChōsen shakai keizaishiin1931andChōsen hōken shakai keizaishi (Economic History of Korean Feudal Society) in 1937.15 In both booksPaektookissuewith“stagnationtheory,”thenprevalentinJapanese
universaLizinG korea’s pasT
socioeconomichistoriographyonKorea,reactingspecificallytoFukudaTokuzō’sassertionthatfeudalismandprivateownershipoflandhadfailedto emergeinKorea.ForFukuda,despitedramaticsocialanddynasticchangesin Koreanhistory,suchasthetransitionfromtheKoryŏdynastytotheChosŏn dynasty,Korea’ssocial-economicstructurehadfailedtochange,andthus thelevelofdevelopmentinlatenineteenth-centuryKoreawascomparable tothatoftenth-centuryFujiwaraJapan.Fukuda’sassumptionsregardingthe stagesofeconomicdevelopmentcamefromtheworkofKarlBücher,who wrotethateconomicdevelopmentadvancesinstages,fromanaturaleconomytoacityorburgeconomytoanationaleconomy.Basedonatwenty-day triptoKoreain1902,Fukudawasabletoconcludethat,withoutafeudal class,transactionsbetweenproducerandconsumercouldnotevolvefrom credittoafullymonetaryeconomy,andKorearemainedstuckatthestageof anancientvillageeconomy(Bücher’snaturaleconomy).16Inoppositionalso toJapaneseMarxisthistoriographyonKorea,whichtendedtoviewKorean societyastruly“Asiatic,”Paek’saimwastoshowthattheKoreansocietyand economyhaddevelopedinaccordancewithuniversalstagesofdevelopment andasaresultofsocial-economicforcesinternaltoKorea. Paek also took to task Korean nationalist historians like Sin Ch’ae-ho andCh’oeNam-sŏn(1890–1957)fortheiridealist,particularistviewofhistory,whichhesawasanantiqueinheritancefromthenineteenthcentury, suitedtotheneedsofemergingcapitalistnationslikeGermanyandJapan intheirconfrontationwithadvancedcapitalistpowerslikeEngland.But thishistoriography,whichdepictedKorea’spastasifitformedaunique “mikrokosmus,”didnotsuitthepoliticalneedsofthepeopleincolonial Korea;itsuitedtheneedsonlyof“wanderingscholars”(p’yŏnnyŏk hakdo; fahrender Shüler)fondofcollecting“antiques.”Bygroundingtheirhistoricalnarrativeonidealistconceptslikehonorŏl(Spirit,Mind,orGeist),Paek argued,theidealistandparticularisthistoriesintheendonlyreinforced colonialisthistoriographybyemphasizingKoreanuniqueness.17ForPaek, theparticularityofKoreansocialformationsrepresentedonlytheparticularityofuniversalhistoryasmanifestedinKorea.
PaekNam-un’sSocialEconomicHistory The characterization ofleftists as embracing universalism and nationalistsasembracingparticularismreducestoasimplebutneverthelessuseful dichotomywhatisactuallyaverycomplicatedintellectualterraininthe
119
120
ChapTer Four
early1930s.ManyaspectsofChōsen shakai keizaishiwentagainstthegrain ofnationalisthistoriography,includingPaek’streatmentofTan’gun(檀君), themythicalprogenitoroftheKoreannation.Intheprecolonialperiod, startinginthelatterhalfofthe1890s,thestoryofTan’gunwascentralto thehistoricalnarrativethatde-centeredChinaandestablishedKoreansovereigntyinthenation-statesystem.Sinceitsestablishmentin1895,allof thehistorytextbookspublishedbytheKoreangovernment’sMinistryof Education(hakmunamun,hakbu)presentedTan’gunasthefounderofthe firstKoreanstate.Textbookspublisheduntil1906presentedTan’gunasa deity(sinin, 神人)andthefoundingofancientChosŏnasasacredevent. Chosŏn yŏksa,thefirsthistorytextbookpublishedbythenewlyestablished MinistryofEducation,referredtoTan’gunasadeity.Publishedin1895, theTan’gunstoryinChosŏn yŏksawastakenfromKwŏnKŭn’stextŬnjesiju (1396).ConfucianliteratilikeKwŏnclaimedTan’gunasthefirstrulerof theKoreanstate.ThepassagetakenfromŬnjesijureads,“Longagowhen thedeity[sinin]descendedbythepakdaltree[Betula schmidtii]thepeople [kugin,國人]acceptedhimastheirsovereign.”18 Japanesehistorians,ontheotherhand,startinginthelatenineteenth centuryandcontinuingthroughtheendofthecolonialperiod,treatedthe Tan’gunstoryasmyth(mythos)notjustinthesenseofnotbeinghistory (historiaandlogos),butasafablecreatedonlycenturiesearlier.Inthe 1890s Naka Michio and then Shiratori Kurakichi dismissed theTan’gun storyasastoryfabricatedinthethirteenthcenturybytheBuddhistmonk Iryŏn.Inthe1920shistorianslikeInabaIwakichicontinuedtodismissthe Tan’gunstoryasanarrativecreatedinthethirteenthcentury,evenwhile speculatingabouttheshamanisticelementsinthestorythatbelongedtoa muchmoredistantpast.ForJapanesehistorianstogivehistoricalveracity totheTan’gunstorywouldhavemeantconfirmingnotjustthesovereign originsofthefirstKoreanstatebutalsoKorea’sclaimtoamucholderhistory:Tan’gun’sbirthdatedto2333bcE;Iwarebiko,orEmperorJimmu,the firstlegendaryemperorofJapan,wassaidtohaveestablishedhisthronein 660bcE. StartingwithSinCh’ae-ho,theinitialnationalistresponsetoJapanese (andWestern) discrediting oftheTan’gun storywastoseparateoutthe mythic elements from the “historical,” to trace Koreans’ ethnic-national origin,andessentialculture,backtoTan’gunasahistoricalfigurewhohad establishedAncientChosŏn.Inthe1920s,withgreaterfreedominpub-
universaLizinG korea’s pasT
lishingaffordedbythecolonialgovernment’s“CulturalPolicy,”andwith ethnographicandfolklorestudiesintroducedbyJapanesescholarsthatreconstitutedmyth,andthestudyofmyth,asanythingbutanantithesisto science, Korean historians found new ways of historicizing the Tan’gun story.19Drawingonscholarshipontotems,taboos,andshamanism,Ch’oe Nam-sŏndrewattentiontothepracticeofheavenworshipandtheocracy asexemplifiedintheTan’gunnarrative.Asanationalisthistorian,Ch’oe Nam-sŏn read the Tan’gun story as the expression of religious practice datingtoprehistorictimes,anancientnarrativethatindicatedacommon culturalsphereforallofnortheastAsiacenteredaroundAncientChosŏn, whichhereferredtoasaPurhamculturalsphere,aculturalspherethatin itsimportanceandgeographicscoperivaledthatoftheChinese,Indian, andEuropeanculturalspheres.20 InChōsen shakai keizaishi,PaekalsotreatedtheTan’gunfoundationstory asamyth,butamyththatopensawindowintosocial relationsinKorea’s prehistoric era. Paek rejected both nationalist (religious) readings of Tan’gunthatwere“far-fetched”andcolonialistreadingsthatwere“fraudulently rational.”21 In the genealogy of Tan’gun that begins with Hwanin (RulerofHeaven),Hwanung(sonofHwanin),andthebearwhomHwanin transformedintoawomanandwhomHwanungmarried,givingbirthto Tan’gun,thefounderofancientChosŏn,Paeksawevidenceofthebeginningsofbothclassdifferentiationandtheprivilegingofthemaleoverthe femaledescentlineinprimitivetimes.Drawingontheoriesofphonologicalchangeinhistoricallinguistics,PaekarguedthatthenameTan’gunwas originallyanhonorifictitleforamalearistocraticchieftain(wŏnsi kwijokin namgye ch’ujang).22 InadditiontohisinterpretationoftheTan’gunstory,Paekalsothought hehadfoundevidenceofmatrilinealityandpromiscuityinKorea’sprimitivecommunalsociety.HethoughthehadfoundevidenceofaPunaluan family structure in Korea’s ancient past based on his philological study of kinship terms such as menuri (daughter-in-law), manura (wife), and nui(sister);accordingtoPaek,thesetermsalloriginatedfromanolder Koreanword—notderivedfromChinesecompounds—thatmeantsleeping companion.ForLewisH.Morgan,HawaiiankinshiptermslikePunalua referredtotheearliestmarriageformsinhumanevolutionaryhistory.23 DrawingonMorgan’swork,viaFrederickEngels,Paekassumedthatkinshipterminologyreferredtoconsanguinityandfamilystructures;heas-
121
122
ChapTer Four
sumed,inotherwords,thattermslikemenuri, manura,andnuiwerethe “precipitates”ofextinctformsofsexualpracticesandfamilystructures.For Paek,theKoreanequivalenttothePunaluanfamilywasthetongsŏ kajok ofKorea’sdistantpast.24AsinMorgan’swork,Paek’scouldprovidelittle evidencethatspecificnomenclatureindicatesconsanguinityratherthan simplytermsofaddressorlabelsforsocialrelations.MoreoverPaekdid notproblematizethekindofhistoricismthatrenderedsexualpracticesand familyorganizationsassociatedwithcontemporary“primitive”societiesas survivalsofearlyhistoricalstages. Likemanyothersinthemid-nineteenthcentury,Morganaimedtoarticulate a grand theory of human history, a theory of cultural evolution thatwouldreplacethe“theoryofhumandegradationtoexplaintheexistenceofsavagesandbarbarians”:“Asitisundeniablethatportionsofthe humanfamilyhaveexistedinastateofsavagery,otherportionsinastate ofbarbarism,andstillothersinastateofcivilization,itseemsequallyso that these three distinct conditions are connected with each other in a naturalaswellasnecessarysequenceofprogress.”25AdoptingMorgan’s visionofhumanculturalevolutionintoto,EngelsarguedinOrigin of the Family, Private Property and the Statethattheconceptofincestandtheemotionreferredtoasjealousyemergedashumanityevolvedoutoftheprimitive stage. In primitive society, promiscuous sexual intercourse was the rule:everywomanbelongedequallytoeveryman,andeverymantoevery woman.Intheevolutionofthefamily,then,thefirststagewastheConsanguineFamily,whereinparentsandchildrenwereproscribedfromhaving sexualrelations.Atthisstage,marriagegroupswerearrangedaccordingto generations:allthegrandfathersandgrandmotherswithinthelimitsofthe familywereallmutualhusbandsandwives,thesamebeingthecasewith theirchildren;brothersandsisters,maleandfemalecousinsofthefirst, second,andmoreremotedegreeswereallmutuallybrothersandsisters, andpreciselybecauseofthis,theywereallmutuallyhusbandsandwives. ThesecondstageintheevolutionofthefamilywasthePunaluanFamily (the Hawaiian system of consanguinity). At this stage, not only parents andchildrenbutbrothersandsisterswereproscribedfromhavingsexual relations.Thiswasaccomplishedgradually,commencingwiththeexclusionofbrothersandsisters(onthematernalside)fromsexualrelations; oneormoregroupsofsistersbecamethenucleusofonehousehold,their naturalbrothersthenucleusoftheother.Thismeantthatagroupofnatu-
universaLizinG korea’s pasT
ralorcollateralbrothersheldincommonmarriageanumberofwomen, who were not their sisters, and these women addressed one another as punalua.Similarlyanumberofsisters,eithernaturalorcollateral,were thecommonwivesoftheircommonhusbands,excludingtheirbrothers.26 Paek’s(erroneous)discoveryofthePunaluaFamilystructurepriortothe ThreeKingdomsperiodwasneverthelesssignificantnotonlyinthesense thatitinitiatedsocialeconomicstudiesofKorea’sancientpast,butalsobecauseitplacedKoreawithinalinearevolutionarynarrativethatcoincided with“historicallaws”atworkinallsocieties:theKoreannation(minjok) started from primitive communal tribes, giving rise to the slave society intheThreeKingdomsperiod(firsttoseventhcenturies),Asiaticfeudal societybeginningwiththe“Unified”Sillaperiod(seventhtotenthcenturies),withincipientcapitalismemerginginlateChosŏnstartinginthe eighteenthcentury. Paekexpectedanangryreactionfromnationalistintellectuals,sincehe had deliberately set out to demolish, in one stroke, the epistemological foundations ofcolonialist historiographyandKoreannationalist historiography,assertingthattheysharedacommonepistemologicalground.27 Elsewhere he stated unequivocally that, in his trek back and forth over fourtofivethousandyearsofKoreanhistory,hedidnotdiscoveranything thatparticularlydistinguishedtheKoreansocialsystemfromthatofother “culturednations”(munhwa minjok).28Headmitted,however,thattheparticularistviewofKorea’spasthadstubbornlypersisted.Intruth,the“culturemovement”(munhwa undong)ofthe1920shadtakenonnewlifein theaftermathofthedissolutionoftheSin’ganhoein1931.Korean-language dailies like theTonga ilbo andChosŏn ilbo,under theleadershipofSong Chin-u (1889–1945) and An Chae-hong (1891–1965), respectively, were abletomobilizebroadpublicsupportintheearly1930sfortheMovement to Preserve Historical Relics (Kojŏk pojŏn undong) and the Movement toRevitalize Korean Studies (Chosŏnhak undong).29These movements, launchedindefenseofKoreanculture,drewstrengthfromandinturnbolsteredreactionarypoliticsandnationalist-essentialist(kuksujuŭijŏk)historiographythatreifiedaunified,continuouspast. TwofairlytypicaleditorialsintheTonga ilboandanessaybyYiKwang-su madethecaseforbuildinganationalculturethisway.In1932Yiwrote, “Religionandideologyemerge,vanish,andchange.[But]thenation[minjok]isunchangeable!Thenationisanenduringentity,andthetermminjok
123
124
ChapTer Four
shouldnotbebelittled.”InJanuary1934aneditorialinTonga ilbodeclared, “National culture cannot be completed with one class or region, and it shouldnotbecompletedwithoneclassorregion....Thewholenation [minjok]hastogatheritsstrengthandworktogethertobuildanational culturethatwouldnotbeinferiortothatofanyothernation.”30Regardlessoftheirintention,fromPaek’spointofview,theessentialistviewsof Koreannationalists,alongwithcallsforunity,integrity,andtrust,dovetailedwiththeJapanese colonialist discourseon“Korea’s uniquecondition”(Chōsen tokushū jijō),whichalsoservedasideologicaljustificationfor coerciveandautocraticmethodsemployedbythecolonialstate.Paek,of course,wascarefultodistinguishbetweenthetwo.Buttotheextentthat bothrejectedtheapplicabilityoflawsofhistoricaldevelopment(thatis, theMarxistworldview),fundamentallytheirpoliticsranparalleltoeach other and consequently both were reactionary.31 Thus, although Paek’s polemicsseemedtobedirectedatmultipletargets,hewasinfactsuggestingthatKoreannationalistssharedacommonphilosophicalandpolitical ground with the Japanese colonial state. He chose to call this common ground“particularism.” Paek’sindictmentofparticularismwasnotamereacademicexercise. TheWanpaoshanIncidentof1931illustratedthecomplicitybetweenthe particularismofKoreannationalismandtheJapaneseEmpire.Inthelate 1920sandearly1930s,astheKoreanpopulationinManchuriaexpanded toabouttwomillion,thepersecutionofKoreansbyChineseauthorities intensified;KoreanswereseenasaninstrumentofJapaneselandinvestors andapretextforexpansionofJapanesecontroloverManchuria.TheChinesegovernmenthadtriedtopreventtheacquisitionoflandbyJapanese individualsorcorporations.Ontheotherhand,KoreanswhoobtainedChinesecitizenship,numbering48,000in1931,wereallowedtoresideanywhere—thatis,theywerenotlimitedtotheChientaoregion—andtopurchaseorleaseland.AccordingtoChinesereports,KoreanswithChinese citizenshipfrequentlyresold,mortgaged,orleasedthelandtoJapanese investors.Unofficialsourcessuggestthat,ofthetotal643,242acresofland cultivatedbyKoreansinManchuriain1929,atleast40percentwasreally underthecontrolofJapaneselandspeculatorsandmortgagecompanies.32 JapaneseconsularpolicebasedinChientaointervenedonbehalfofKoreansindisputesbetweenKoreansandChinese,basedontheargumentthat KoreanslivinginChinawereJapanesesubjectsandthusentitledtothe protectionandprivilegesofextraterritorialstatusgrantedundertheTreaty
universaLizinG korea’s pasT
of1915.IndeedmanyKoreansettlersinManchuriawhohadobtainedChinesecitizenshipinordertoresidethereandpurchaseorleaselandoutside oftheChientaodistrictshiftedbacktoJapanesecitizenship inorderto claimprotectionfromtheJapaneseconsularpolice.33 In 1931, in a small town called Wanpaoshan in Manchuria, violent clashestookplacebetweenChineseandKoreans.Exaggeratedaccountsof “ChineselandlordsmassacringKoreanpeasants”werereportedinKorean- languagenewspapersinKorea(Tonga ilbo,Chosŏn ilbo).Thenewspapers failedtopointoutthatJapaneseconsularpoliceweredispatchedtoprotecttheKoreanfarmers.Itseemslikelythattherushtosensationalizethe incident was fueled by competition between Tonga ilbo and Chosŏn ilbo. Anti-Chinese riots broke out in nearly all the major urban areas. In Inch’ŏn, Chinese stores were targeted. In Pyongyang, organized mobs attacked the Chinese quarter, breaking into houses and hacking to death scoresofpeople,includingwomenandchildren.Approximately127Chinesewerekilledand393wereinjured.34Thenationalistpresshadwhipped upafrenzyofanti-ChinesesentimentthatsuitedJapaneseplansforcreatingthepuppetstateofManchukuo.PaekNam-un’spolemicagainstboth nationalistandcolonialisthistoriographywasverymuchgroundedinconcretepoliticalquestionsoftheday.Thecommuniststookthelineofminjung yŏnhap:unitybetweentheoppressedChineseandKoreanpeoples.It wasinthiscontextthatPaekcriticizedKoreannationalist(especiallynativist)historiographyasbeingamirrorimageofcolonialisthistoriographyin thatitsoughttonarrateKoreanhistoryintermsofitsancientoriginsand formergloryandpower.Irredentistyearnings(recoveryofManchuriaas theancientbirthplaceoftheKoreanminjok),ontheonehand,andOrientalistrepresentationsoftheChinese,ontheother,displacedattentionand resentmentawayfromJapaneseimperialism.Inthisway,nationalistdiscoursecould(anddid)complementorreinforceJapan’simperialproject. ByopposingJapaneseexceptionalismwithKoreanexceptionalism,nationalisthistoriographyonlyreinforcedthemodesofthoughtthatlegitimated Japaneseimperialism.
NationalistHistoriographyinthe1930s AfterJapan’sinvasionofManchuriain1931,openandlegalformsofpoliticalresistancebecameimpossible,and“unwaveringnationalists”focused theireffortsondefendingtheknowledgeandpracticeofthingsKorean—
125
126
ChapTer Four
especiallyKoreanlanguageandhistory.ForcedtoresignfromChosŏn ilbo in1932,35AnChae-hongturnedhisfullattentiontothestudyofKorea’s past,writinghistoricalnarrativesthataffirmeddifferenceandparticularisticclaimsincontradistinctiontobothJapanesepoliciesofassimilationand Marxistpoliticsofclassstruggle.HisinspirationcamefromSinCh’ae-ho, thebrilliantnationalisthistorianwhowentintoself-imposedexilein1910. An’sappropriationofSin’searliernationalisthistoriographyresultedina sociallygroundednationalisthistoriographyandapoliticalprogramthat he would later call “new nationalism” (sin-minjokjuŭi). As a nationalist historianwhothoughtseriouslyaboutthecategoryofsubjugatedmasses (minjung)exploitedbycapitalism,Ancreated“newnationalism”asaprogressiveformofnationalismthatwouldstrivetoresolveconflictbetween socialclasses,evenasitcontinuedtoprivilegetheunityofthenationand maintainananticommuniststance. ForAn,Korea’sancientpastwasakindofgoldenage.Whilehisnarrativedifferedsharplyfromcolonialisthistoriographyontheancientperiod, therewasalsoasimilarity,asinSinCh’ae-ho’shistoriography,innarrating subsequentKoreanhistoryintermsofadecline.RejectingMarxismand Marxist historiography, An maintained that materiality and subjectivity werealwaysmutuallyconstitutive,andhesoughttolocateinKorea’sancientpastanintellectual,religious,andculturalchŏngsin(Geist)thatboth identifiedandunifiedtheKoreanethnicnationinrelationtootherpeoples. Justassubjectivitycouldconstituteamaterialforceinhistory,universality andparticularitywerealsomutuallyconstitutive.Inthatsense,theparticularityofKorea’spastwasalreadyuniversal,andKoreanhistoriansneed notbeself-consciousaboutaccentuatingtheKoreannation’sdistinctive subjectivitythatlinkedcontemporaryKoreanstotheir(brilliant)ancient past.Anidentifiedthisdistinctsubjectivityastasari chuŭi,fromtheancient Koreanwordforthenumberfive(“alldigitsofonehand”)thatheclaimed alsomeant“makealllive.”ThiscommunitariananddemocraticethosproducedinKorea’sancientpastademocraticaristocracy,acommunityin whichallfreenativemaleswereactive,participatorycitizens.Incontemporarytimes,then,tasari chuŭicouldserveasthehistoricalbasisforanew nationalismandnewdemocracythatwouldobviateclassexploitationand conflict. IndefenseofKorea’ssovereignpast,AnrefutedthenotionthatKijawas anoblemanofShangwhowenteasttoestablish(Kija)Chosŏntowardthe endofthesecondmillenniumbcE.AccordingtotextssuchastheShang-
universaLizinG korea’s pasT
shu dazhuanandtheShiji,followingZhou’sconquestofShang,KingWuof ZhouenfeoffedKijaasarulerofChosŏn.Suchtexts,writtencenturiesafter theevent,whenincorporatedintothenarrativeframeworkofMansenshi and tōyōshi, presented Kija Chosŏn as a “Chinese” colony, undercutting anynotionofasovereign,autochthonousoriginforKorea.ThiswasespeciallysobecauseKijawasanobjectofreverencefromtheThreeKingdoms periodupthroughtheendoftheChosŏndynasty.Fromtheearlyyearsof theChosŏndynasty,Kijabecameanobjectofthedynasticstate’sveneration,astheSageKingwhoelevatedritesandcivilization.36AnChae-hong, likeCh’oeNam-sŏnandPaekNam-un,turnedtohistoricallinguisticsand thestudyofphonologicalchange,andtakingthosetextsasaninterpretive springboard,arrivedattheconclusionthatKijamusthavebeenacommon nounratherthanapropernoun,denotingafeudalvassalofTan’gun(ancient)Chosŏn.37Inthisway,An’shistoriographydefendedKoreanclaims to a national, sovereign past and identified a uniquely Korean chŏngsin, relevanttothepresent,thatwasnotonlytransmitteddownthroughtime butalsomanifestedconcretelyinKoreaninstitutionsandpractices. NationalistnarrativessuchasAn’sdidnotmakeanyobviousimpacton university-trainedhistorianswhowereaffiliatedwiththeChindanSociety, anacademicsocietyorganizedin1934to“compete”withtheJapanesein rigorousempiricalresearchinKoreanhistoryandculture.Trainedinsilchŭng sahak (positivist historiography) that built on the historiographic traditionofmunhŏn kojŭng sahak(critical-textualhistoriography;J:kōshōgaku),38mosthistoriansaffiliatedwiththeChindanSocietyduringthecolonialperioddistancedthemselvesfrombothnationalistandMarxisthistoriographyintheiracademicwriting.Amonghistorianswhoformedthecore oftheChindanSocietymostweregraduatesofWasedaUniversityandKeijō ImperialUniversity.OrganizedbyYiPyŏng-doalongwiththefolkloristand historianSonChin-t’aeandotherleadingscholarsofKoreanhistory,language,linguistics,andclassicalliterature,theChindanSocietyprovideda focalpointofinstitutionalaffiliationinthemid-1930sforKoreanscholars workinginKoreanstudies(ChindanbeingasobriquetforKorea),consolidatingnetworksthathadformedamonggraduatesofselectuniversities, especiallyWasedaandKeijō.39Chindan hakbo,thejournalpublishedbythe Society,providedavenuefortheseKoreanscholarstopublish,inKorean, scholarlyworkinKoreanstudies. WhileYiPyŏng-dotooktheleadingroleinorganizingtheChindanSocietyandpublishedmuchofhisworkinChindan hakbo,healsomaintained
127
128
ChapTer Four
hismembershipinSeikyōgakkai(靑丘學會),anacademicsocietyledby Japanesescholars,andpublishedinJapaneseacademicjournals.Although theChindanSocietyanditsjournalwereoutsidethedirectcontrolofthe colonialJapaneseacademy,Yiremainedcommittedto“pure”(thatis,nonpolitical)scholarship,anduntilitwascloseddownin1940colonialcensorsdidnotneedtocloselymonitorChindan hakbo.40Thatistosay,from the 1930s until the end of the colonial period, most university-trained KoreanscholarsinKoreanstudieswerenotdissidents;theydidnotchallengecolonialruleor,forthatmatter,colonialistscholarshipinanyfundamentalway.Towardtheendofthecolonialperiod,however,ChindanhakhoememberslikeSonChin-t’aebegantorethinkcertainhistoriographic questionsbywayoftheoriesandmethodologiestakenfromanthropology, archaeology,andfolklorestudies,andfromthelate1930sonwarditisnot possibletowhollyconflatepositivisthistoriography(silchŭng sahak)with textual-critical historiography (kojŭnghak). Moreover in comparing the workofIkeuchiHiroshiandKimSang-gi,RemcoBreukerhasarguedthat whiletextual-criticalhistoriographywashighlyderivativeoftōyōshi,ChindanhakhoehistorianslikeKimSang-giwerestillabletoportrayKoreans ashistoricalsubjects:relationsbetweenChinaandKoreahadbeenbased onreciprocity;Koreansparticipatedinthetributarysystemforthepurposeofinternationaltrade;andwhileforeignpowerandinfluencewere stillcentralthemes,KimSang-gishiftedthefocusfrominvasiontoresistance.41WithoutdoubtChindanSocietyscholarschafedatdisparagingor condescendingviewsofKoreanhistory,people,andculturethatwerequite palpableinJapanesecolonialistdiscourseonKorea.In1942theChindan Societywasdissolvedwhenseveralofitsleadingmemberswerearrested inconnectionwiththeSocietyofKoreanLanguageResearchincident,includingYiYun-jae,YiHŭi-sŭng,andCh’oeHyŏn-bae. In1927YiPyŏng-dobeganworkingfortheChōsenshihenshūkai(Society for the Compilation of Korean History), an organization directed and funded by the office of the Japanese governor-general.42 At Waseda (1916–19)hehadstudiedunderTsudaSōkichiandalsoIkeuchiHiroshi, thefirstlecturerofKoreanhistoryatTokyoImperialUniversity.Itwason Ikeuchi’srecommendationthatYiwashiredonapart-timebasisin1927 by the Chōsenshi henshūkai. Ch’oe Nam-sŏn joined Chōsenshi henshūkaiin1928.Asthecentralfigureinpositivistandcritical-textualhistoriographyamongKoreanscholars,Yiconcededagreatdealtothenarrative
universaLizinG korea’s pasT
frameworkofMansenshiandtōyōshiandtothatmodeofhistoricalwriting as objective, academic, anduniquely legitimating historical scholarship.43WhiletheChindanSocietyprovidedaninstitutionalplatformand venue forpublishing academic papers written byKorean academics, an additionalmotivationfororganizingtheChindanSocietyhadtodo,inpart, withcounteringMarxistslikePaekNam-un.44Stayinglargelywithinthe frameworkofMansenshiandtōyōshi,historianswhoself-identifiedwiththe positivistandtextual-criticalschoolhelpedcreatenewarchives,gathering texts and writing histories that focused on very narrow, specific topics, tofillwhatWalterBenjamincalledthe“homogenous,emptytime”ofthe nation’spast,inmarkedcontrasttoPaek’sefforttoblastapartthathistory torevealclassconflictandthematerialbasisforKorea’shistoricaldevelopment.InSouthKorea,afterliberationandtheKoreanWar,theworkof YiandotherscholarsaffiliatedwithChindanhakhoeformedthebasisfor academicstudiesofKoreanart,architecture,folklore,history,language, literature, and religious traditions. Cho Tong-gŏl suggests that criticism ofpositivisthistoriographyincontemporarySouthKoreamaystemmore fromthetextual-criticalschool’ssubmissionto,ifnotcomplicitywith,authoritariangovernmentsinSouthKoreaafter1945thanfromcomplicity withcolonialisthistoriographyunderJapanesecolonialrule.45
UniversalizingKorea’sPast TherewereafewMarxistscholarsintheChindanSociety,mostnotably,Pak Mun-kyu,aneconomichistorian,andKimT’ae-jun,ascholarofChosŏn- periodliterature,bothgraduatesofKeijōImperialUniversity.Inanarticle publishedin1933,Pakpointedtothecoloniallandsurveyconductedbetween1910and1918aspivotalinestablishingexclusivepropertyrights, commodificationofland,andthereaftercapitalistrelationsinthecountryside. In the immediate postliberation period (1945–48), Pak became a memberoftheCentralCommitteeoftheSouthKoreanWorkers’Partyand thenwentnorthin1948.KimT’ae-junstudiedChineseandKoreanliteratureatKeijōImperialUniversityandin1939becamealecturerinKorean literaturethere.In1931,attheageoftwenty-six,hepublishedChosŏn hanmunhaksa(HistoryofChineseLiteraryStudiesinChosŏn),andin1933he publishedChosŏn sosŏlsa(HistoryofChosŏn-periodFiction),serializedin Tonga ilbo.Beyondbeingabrilliantscholar,Kimwasalsoanactivist,more
129
130
ChapTer Four
sothanPaekNam-unorPakMun-kyu.WhilealectureratKeijōImperial University,hewasamemberoftheKyŏngsŏngkomgroup(Seoulcommunists)inchargeoftheBureauofPeople’sFront.Arrestedin1941,hewas releasedfromprisonin1944forhealthreasons.SoonafterhisreleaseKim madehiswaytoYenan,returningtoKoreasoonafterliberation.Hewas (re)appointedtothefacultyofKyŏngsŏngUniversity(formerlyKeijōImperialUniversity,laterSeoulNationalUniversity),andhewasoneofthree facultymembersrecommendedbythefaculty,students,andalumnifor thepositionofuniversitypresident.Buthewasfiredfromthefacultyin connectionwithprotestsagainstusAMgik’splansforreorganizationof KyŏngsŏngUniversity,andin1949hewasexecutedbytheSouthKorean Armyforhislinkswitharmedpartisans.46 PaekNam-un(1894–1979)studiedinJapanatTōkyōKōshō(today,HitotsubashiUniversity)from1919to1924andreturnedtoKoreain1925to teacheconomichistoryatYŏnhŭichŏnmun(later,YonseiUniversity).Outsideofteaching,hejoinedtheChosŏnsajŏngchosayŏn’guhoe(Association forResearchonKorea’sSituation).Asidefromonearticleonthekyesystem(creditsocietiesorganizedforaidormutualbenefit),allofPaek’spublishedwritingsfromthisperiodarerelativelysimplearticlesoneconomic issuesandcontemporaryevents,andhewasnotactiveintheSin’ganhoe. Chōsen shakai keizaishi,publishedin1933,wasPaek’sfirstbook,andvery soonafteritspublicationhebecameKorea’sforemostscholar.Whenhe wroteChōsen shakai keizaishi,heconceiveditasthefirstbookofacomprehensivehistoryofKorea’shistoricaldevelopment.Toprovidethebasis forsuchahistory,heoutlinedintheprefacetoChōsen shakai keizaishisix issueshehopedtoeventuallyaddress: 1.Formsofprimitivetribalcommunism 2.TheslaveeconomyintheThreeKingdomsperiod 3.ThecharacterofAsiaticfeudalsocietyinKoreafromtheendofthe ThreeKingdomsperiodtocontemporarytimes 4.ThedisintegrationofAsiaticfeudalsocietyandthesproutsof capitalism 5.Internationalrelationsandtheagendabehindthedevelopmentof transplantedcapitalism 6.Acomprehensivesurveyofthedevelopmentofideology Afterthepublicationofhissecondbook,volume1ofChōsen hōken shakai keizaishi,in1937,Paekwasnotabletofollowthroughontherestofhisre-
universaLizinG korea’s pasT
searchagenda:locatingthe“sproutsofcapitalism”inthelatterpartofthe Chosŏnperiodanddelineatingthehistoricaldevelopmentofideologyin Koreaandthedevelopmentof“transplanted[colonial]capitalism.”In1938 hewasimprisonedforviolationofthePeacePreservationOrder;hewas subsequentlyreleasedin1940butforcedtorelinquishhispositionatYŏnhŭichŏnmun.Asoutlinedhere,Paek’sprojecthadbeentorewriteKorean history from the perspective of historical materialism, starting with the primitivecommunalstageallthewayuptoKorea’sannexationbyJapan. AsopposedtoJapaneseMarxisthistoriographyonKorea,whichtendedto viewKoreaastruly“Asiatic”(thatis,stagnant,nothavingreachedeventhe feudalstageofhistoricaldevelopment),Paek’saimwastoshowhoweach stageofKoreanhistoryemergedasaresultofsocialforcesinternaltoKorea. Paek’sagendaofdemonstratingKorea’suniversalandyetautonomous subjectivity led him to participate in the centennial commemoration of the death of Chŏng Yag-yong (1762–1836; pen name Chŏng Tasan). The commemorationwaspartofanationalistefforttodevelopKoreanstudies (Chosŏnhak),aprojectspearheadedbyAnChae-hongandothers.47While Marxists like Yi Ch’ŏng-wŏn were contemptuous of such projects, Paek tookpartwiththeintentionofestablishingChŏngTasanasatransitional figure.AccordingtoPaek,ChŏngTasanwastheleadinglightamongSirhak (practicallearning)thinkers,advocating,innascentform,whatsomepostcolonialscholarswouldcharacterizeas“communistic,socialisticeconomic theory.”CertainlyChŏngTasancouldfullytranscendhishistoricalmilieu. Hewasagreatscholarwhowasnotcompletelyemancipatedfromfeudal thinking. He could not have produced modern revolutionary ideas, and yet,beingborninthefeudalage,hewascriticaloffeudalism,andthough trainedintheConfucianclassics,hewasnotamereConfucianist(sun yuhakja).ThetributethatPaekpaidtoChŏngTasan,then,hadtodowith Chŏng’sprescientandprogressivepoliticalandepistemologicalstance,a stanceworthadoptingeveninthepresent.48 Thus,timeandagain,Paekarguedthatdespitelocalvariationsandconsistentwithallofhumanhistory(includingEuropeanandJapanesehistory),Koreanhistorydevelopedinaccordancewithhistoricallawsandby wayofuniversalstagesofdevelopment.TheparticularityofKoreansocial formations,startingfromprimitivetribalcommunitiesandcontinuingto theslavesocietyoftheThreeKingdomsperiod,totheAsiaticfeudalsociety beginningwiththe“Unified”Sillaperiod,andthetransplantedcapitalist society(isik chabonjuŭi sahoe)ofPaek’stime,representedtheparticularity
131
132
ChapTer Four
of universal history as manifested in Korean history. Paek rejected the notionofKoreanuniqueness—thatis,Koreanhistoryasoutsideofuniversalhistoricaldevelopment—withtheargumentthatwhileKoreansociety maybe“Asiatic,”thedevelopmentoftheproductiveforcesinKoreanhistorywasentirely“world-historical.”Hewrote,“Inhistoricalscience,the onlyparticularitytobeaccountedforistheparticularityofthestageofa society’shistoricaldevelopment,and[Korea’s]particularityhastodowith aspecificreality,ratherthanaphantasmicuniqueness.Moreover,dueto itsmanifestlyprogressivequality,[theparticularityofKoreanhistory]constitutesasinglefundamentalcorrelation[withworldhistory].”49Whatwe havehereisaclearrejectionofthemostinsultingaspectsofthe“Asiatic modeofproduction”asconceivedbyMarxandEngels. MarxandEngelsusedthetermAsiatic societytodescribenotonlyChina and India, but also Spain, the Middle East, Java, and pre-Columbian America.Thatis,theconceptoftheAsiaticsociety,ortheAsiaticmode ofproduction,wasusedtodescribealmostanysocietybasedoncommunalownershipandself-sufficientvillageswherecapitalistmarketrelations areabsent.AsdescribedintheGerman Ideology,Grundrisse(unpublished notes),Critique of Political Economy,andAnti-Dühring,theessentialcharacteristicsoftheAsiaticsocietywerecommunalownershipoflandbyself- sufficientvillages(thatis,theabsenceofprivateproperty),unityofhandicraftsandagriculture,simplicityofproductionmethods,anddominance ofthestateoverpublic(irrigation)works.IncreatingthecategoryofAsiatic society, Marx sought to explain and contrast the dynamic and progressivecharacteroftheWestwiththestaticanddespoticcharacterofthe Orient.Butasidefromnumerousempiricalobjectionsthatcanberaised withrespecttotheconceptofanAsiaticmodeofproduction,italsocontainedtheoreticalcontradictionsinternallyaswellasexternallywithregardtohistoricalmaterialism.WithintheframeworkoftheAsiaticmode ofproduction,self-sufficient,autonomousvillagesseemedtoargueagainst acentralizedstatethatintervenesinthevillageeconomy.Asforhistorical materialism,itsinapplicabilityoutsideofEuropecouldbeexplainedonly intermsofgeographic(thatis,ecological)incongruitywithEurope. AttheLeningradConferenceof1931,theconceptofadistinctAsiatic modeofproductionwasrejectedbySovietscholars.50Thereaftertheunilinear(ormonistic)scheme—movingfromprimitivecommunismtoslave, feudal, capitalist, and socialist societies—became the prevailing ortho-
universaLizinG korea’s pasT
doxy,andvariousaspectsofAsiaticsocietyweresubsequentlysubsumed under the categories of slavery or feudalism. In Chōsen shakai keizaishi, Paeklocatedclassdifferentiationandclassdominationattheveryorigin of the Korean ethnic nation: it was the effort to establish durable class dominationthatdrovetheprocessofunifyingvarioustribalfederationsby acentralizingstate.IngeneralagreementwithMikhailGodes’scritique oftheAsiaticmodeofproduction,PaekarguedthatKoreanfeudalsociety mighthavebeen“Asiatic,”butnotinthesensethattherecouldbeadistinctmodeofproductionparticulartoKorea,orAsia.InChōsen hōken shakai keizaishi,hefinessedthe(colonialist)assertionaboutstateownership oflandbycharacterizingfeudalisminKoreaasaparticular(Asiatic)manifestationofthesameforminEurope’shistoricaldevelopment.Inthisway, hedisposedofthenotionoftheAsiaticmodeofproductionthatechoed thecolonialistnarrativeofadynamicandprogressiveWestandJapancontrastedwithastaticanddespoticOrientsaddledwithdebilitatingcustoms andalongtroubledpast.InfactPaek’smonisticviewofhistorytookaimat twodifferenttargets:colonialisthistoriographybutalsotheparticularistic viewofhistorythatdominatedKoreannationalisthistoriography. Paek’sChōsen shakai keizaishi (1933)andChōsen hōken shakai keizaishi (1937) were both written in Japanese and published in Japan. In both books,hetookissuewith“stagnationtheory”thenprevalentinJapanese historiographyonKorea,especiallythehistoriographyofFukudaTokuzō. Atthesametime,hepolemicized against nationalist historians likeSin Ch’ae-hoandCh’oeNam-sŏnfortheir“idealist”approach,faultingthem for adopting outdated German methodologies. By grounding their historicalnarrativeonessentialistconceptslikehonandŏl,heargued,these idealisthistoriesintheendonlyreinforcedcolonialisthistoriographyby emphasizingKoreanuniqueness.InPaek’swork,weseeaconsistentand sustainedpolemicagainstnationalisthistoriographyforitscommitment toaparticularistic(idealist,culturalist)viewofhistory.Thealternative,as proposedbyPaek,wastonarrateKoreanhistoryfromamaterialiststance, aspartofmonistic(universal)historywhereinKoreaisseenashavingdevelopedalonguniversallyapplicableprinciplesorlaws. We should remember that particularism in Japan (especially in the 1930s)appearedasarejectionoftheWestandasacritiqueof“universalism”whichwasinfactEuropeanparticularismimposedontherestofthe world.ButJapaneseparticularism(orexceptionalism)waspresentedas
133
134
ChapTer Four
beingfatedtoabsorbtheother“particularities”inAsia(Korea,China,etc.). ByopposingWesternimperialism,Japaneseparticularismassumedamoral superioritytowardtherestofAsia.Butultimatelyitwasthe(temporary) militaryandeconomicsuperioritytowardtherestofAsiawhichmadeJapaneseexceptionalismahegemonicdiscourse.Koreanparticularismpitted itselfagainstJapaneseparticularism,butbecausetherationalesunderlying bothweresosimilar,Koreanparticularismwasfatedtobesubsumed.IndeedwhenrepressionheightenedwiththesecondSino-JapaneseWar(beginningin1937)andJapaneseparticularismdemandedhomogeneityboth inJapanandKorea(Naisen ittai),manyoftheculturalnationalistsargued that Korea should actively support the war effort in order to ensure its properplaceintheJapaneseEmpire.51 ItisinthissensethatPaeksawthedangerofparticularistichistoriographyinKorea.Onlyamaterialistviewofhistorycouldtrulyresistcolonialistclaims.Historicalmaterialismofferedamonisticviewofhistorythat didnotpermanentlyprivilegethecapitalistWest.ThecapitalistWest(and Japan)didnotrepresenttheendofHistory.Thewealthandpowerthese capitalistnationshadaccumulatedfromtheexploitationoftheirworking class(athomeaswellasintheircolonies),themaintenanceofwhichultimatelydependedonthepoweroftheirarmiesandpoliceforces,wouldgive waytoahighercivilizationandanewuniversalismcreatedbyarevolutionaryworkingclassunitedacrossnationalboundaries.Thisuniversalism offeredthepossibilitythatabackwardKoreacouldbecomethesovereign subjectofitsownhistory,onanequalplanewiththeforcesofrevolution intheWestandelsewhereintheworld. InChōsen shakai keizaishi,Paekequatedtheprimitivecommunalstage withthepre–ThreeKingdomsperiod,theclassicalstagebasedonslavery withtheThreeKingdomsperiod,thefeudalstagewiththeperiodbeginning in “Unified” Silla up through the late nineteenth century, and the capitaliststagewithincipientcapitalismwhichemergedinlateChosŏn that was displaced by transplanted capitalism following Japan’s annexationofKorea.WhenChōsen shakai keizaishiwaspublishedin1933,Marxist intellectualslikePaekweremarginalizednotonlybythecolonialstatebut also by Korean nationalist (especially nativist, kuksujuŭija) intellectuals. ButitshouldbenotedthatPaek’sbookalsocameundercriticismfromthe Left.YiCh’ŏng-wŏn,forexample,attackeditasamechanicalapplicationof JapaneseMarxist(Kōza-ha)historiography(onJapanesehistory)toKorean
universaLizinG korea’s pasT
history.52Yi’scritiqueofnationalistic(nativist)historiographywasmuch moresweepinganddismissive.In1936hewrote: Therecentchainofeventsbothontheinternationalfrontanddomestically havenecessitatedthepromotionofeffortstounderstand“Korea’spastand present.”But“KoreanStudies,”whichisConfucian-moralistic,pre-ordained, andsemi-feudal,constituteKorea’shistoricaldevelopmentasentirelyautonomousofworldhistory,passionate[only]initsinvestigationofKorea’ssacred and inviolable “five thousand years old ŏl.” The genius[es] behind this discourse(kongsik:formula)whopaintthemselves[inthelikenessof]“Tan’gun,” thetyrannicalheroes[chŏnch’ejŏk yŏngung]whoborrowtheclothesof“YiSun- sin,”andthosewithabilitywhoputonthemaskof“ChŏngTasan,”areallfalsifyingKoreanhistory.Thisishowhistoryasmystifiedbyŏlemerged.53
Thiskindofaggressivepolemic,directedagainstPaekNam-unasmuchas againstnationalistslikeChŏngIn-bo,mightbeexplainedbythefactthatYi wroteandpublishedhisbookinJapan,wherehisprimarytaskwasorganizingKoreanstudentsstudyinginTokyo.Butintermsofbothtemperament andcircumstance,Paekwasmuchmoresensitivetohowhisworkwasreceivedbynationalist(nativist)intellectuals,especiallysinceChŏngIn-bo wasaclosecolleagueandfriendatYŏnhŭichŏnmunandPaekbenefited greatlyfromhisremarkablemasteryofliteraryChinese.54 AsamemberofYŏnhŭichŏnmun’sfaculty,andasapublicintellectual (ratherthananundergroundactivistinTokyo)underclosesurveillanceby thecolonialpolice,Paeksufferedfromhisdoublymarginalizedposition intermsofboththecolonialstateandconservativenationalistsassociated withTonga ilbo.HisanxietyisquiteevidentinaninterviewhegavefollowingChōsen shakai keizaishi’spublication.Heexpressedsadnessoverthefact thathehadthe“freedom”toassertthatTan’gunwasmerelyanhonorific titleforaprimitivearistocraticchieftainandnotthefatheroftheKorean minjok, whereas he was not free todirect the same kind ofcritical perspectivetocontemporaryhistory.Herehewasreferringtothe“freedom” grantedbythecolonialauthoritiestodebunknativistclaimsaboutKorea’s ancientpast,afreedomthatdidnotextendtodebunkingJapaneseclaims aboutitsroleincolonialKorea.ButPaekalsofeltobligedtomakethepoint thatarigorousandcriticalapproachtounderstandingKorea’spastwasthe truemanifestationofaloveforKoreanhistory.Inanarticlepublishedin theTonga ilboin1934,Paekwrote,“Ratherthanboastingaboutourpast,
135
136
ChapTer Four
weshouldrigorouslycriticizeit.This[criticalapproach],Ibelieve,istruly thepure-mindedmeansto‘loving’ourpast.”55 IntheinterviewinNovember1933,however,hehadgoneevenfurther, insistingthat,“asaKoreanscholar”(Chosŏnin hakdo ro sŏ nŭn),hemust befreetopresentarigorouslycriticalreadingofgenealogies,thatis,clan histories,privatehistories(yasa),andofficialhistories,andbepreparedto engageinascientificdebatewithordinarypopularconceptions.56While thereissomethingpoignantaboutPaek’sassertionofhisKoreanethnicity assanctioninghiscriticalapproachtoKoreanhistory,itshouldbenoted thatforPaek,theKoreannation(minjok)wasanobjectivehistoricalentity. HereferredtotheKoreanpeopleasa“precocious”nation(chosuksŏng ŭi minjok)becausetheydevelopedquiteearlyonthosenationalcharacteristicsassociatedwithmodernnationalism,thatis,aunifiedculture,language,andcustoms.57 PaeksharedwithotherAsianMarxisthistoriansofhistimeanapproach to history writing wherein the objective was to reveal how laws which governuniversalhistoricaldevelopmentweremanifestedinaparticular nation’shistoryatvariousstagesofitsdevelopment.Hisdiscoveryofthe PunaluafamilystructurepriortotheThreeKingdomsperiodandhisstudy ofslaveryintheThreeKingdomsperiodweresignificantnotonlyinthe sensethattheypositedaradicallydifferentviewofKorea’sancientpast (radicallydifferentfromthenativistconception)butalsobecausetheysignifiedKorea’sconformitywithhistoricallawswhichgovernallsocieties— includingthatofEurope.Inthatsense,thediscoveryofthePunaluafamily structure and the specific nature of the social formation at a particular stagewerelessimportantasevidenceofwhatwashappening.Ratherthey were important because they were evidence of certain classes of phenomenathatinturnconfirmedtheregularity(oruniversality)oflawsthat governhistory. WhilePaek’sagendawastoconstituteKoreanhistoriographyasa“science,”hewasnotoblivioustotheideologicalimplicationsinherentinthis category.Pointingtothehistoricityofscience(kwahak ŭi yŏksasŏng),hearguedthatwhilethenaturalsciencesdidnotinherentlycontainaclassbias, their historical development was linked to the development of the productiveforcesandwasattimeshamperedbylimitsimposedbytheruling classofeachepoch.Moreoverifthenaturalsciencesweresusceptibleto becomingatoolforclassexploitation,thenthesocialsciencesmuchmore
universaLizinG korea’s pasT
readily served class interests. But even as Paek considered science as a practicewithdeterminateconditions,andtoagreatextentasanideologicalreflectionofthosehistorical(social)conditions,heretainedacommitmenttotheliberatingpromiseofscienceandthehistoricalteleologythat Marxism,asscience,illuminates:ahistoricaldirectionthatwasbothinevitableandemancipatory,withthedispossessed(theproletariat)asthe sovereignsubjectofhistory.Bydemonstratingthehistoricallawsatwork inKoreanhistory,PaekshowedthatMarxisthistoriographywasa“historiographythatdoesnotknowdespair.”
137
chapter five DiviDeD sovereiGnTy anD souTh korean hisTorioGraphy IfJapanhadwonratherthanlostthePacificWar,whatwouldwebethinking?Inthatmoment,whatwouldbegoingthroughourmindsaseachof usponderedhowtogoonwithourlives?Ithinkthishastobethebasisfor ourself-criticism.Wouldwe[still]havehadtheresolvetoliveoutourlives asbackwoodsmen,buriedintheremotecountryside? —iMHwA,“DeclarationofConscience”
InlateDecember1945,inSeoul,nowoccupiedbytheU.S.Army,agroupof prominentwritersandcritics—KimNam-ch’ŏn,YiT’ae-jun,HanSŏl-ya,Yi Ki-yŏng,KimSa-ryang,YiWŏn-jo,HanHyo,andImHwa—cametogether for a key session of criticism and self-criticism.1 As politically engaged intellectuals they were all intensely involved in political and organizationalstrugglesoftheday.Thatparticularday,however,theobjectoftheir strugglewastheirconceptionofthemselves,andthetruthofhowtheyhad livedunderJapanesecolonialrule.Whoweretheywhenliberationcame uponthem,andwhatshouldbethebasisforcriticismandself-criticismof whattheyhaddone,said,andwroteduringthecolonialperiod?ImHwa’s questionwenttotheheartofthematter.IfJapanhadwonthewar,what would they be doing? What would they be thinking? If Japan had been victorious,wouldtheynothavefelttemptedtocompromise,andtoembracethevictoriousempire?Turningfromthehypotheticaltoadefiniteacknowledgmentoftheircollectiveandindividualresponsibility,Imargued thatevenifawriterhadnotoutwardlysupportedimperialJapaninaction, speech,orwriting,andevenifnoonehadnoticedone’sconcealed,latent urgetocompromise,theself-reflectiveandself-critical“I”cannothelpbut know.Therefore,instrugglingforKorea’spostcolonialpresentandfuture, itwasimperativethatwriterspubliclyacknowledgeandstruggleagainst suchdefeatist,reactionarypotentialinthemselves. TheotherwritersagreedwithImthatonlyathoroughself-examination thatyieldedacomplete,detailed,andtruthfulaccountingofone’soffenses,
DiviDeD sovereiGnTy
weaknesses,andshortcomings,alongwithsincereacknowledgmentand contritionforthoseoffensesandshortcomingsinacollectiveorpublicsetting,constitutedarigorousself-critique.Indeedthesewriterswereatthe forumbecausetheyagreedwiththecontentionthatself-critiquehadto bethepointofdeparturefordealingwiththepersonalandcollectivepast andconstructingasovereign,postcolonial,emancipatoryfuture.Callsfor self-criticism,or“declarationsofconscience,”hadappearedinavarietyof publicationsalmostimmediatelyafterliberation.2Withthecollapseofthe JapaneseEmpireandtheeuphoriaandpubliccelebrationsthatfollowed, theKoreanpeople’saspirationtousherinasovereign,postcolonialfuture wasmademanifest,whollypalpable,andunequivocal.Forthesewriters, criticismandself-criticismwerenotdebilitatingandwerenotmeanttobe debilitating.Throughcriticismandself-criticism,thewriter,andbyextensiontheproletariatandthemultitude(inmin),wouldbecomemoreaware ofhowandtowhatextenttheirthoughtsandurgeshadbeenshaped(distorted)bytheirhistorical(colonial)condition.Asthewriterconstituted himselforherselfasanobjectofcollectiveandself-scrutiny,thepossibility opened up foran ongoing transformation wherein thewriter, alongside themasses,wouldbecomeatrulyself-conscious,historical(revolutionary) subject.Inthisprocessofsubjectification,ethicalresponsibilitytonation andclasswastoprecedeandestablishthegroundfor(re)shapingone’s subjectivebeingintheworld,inturnmakingpossibledecolonizationof societyandculture,andtheassumptionofnationalsovereignty. Thenecessityofathoroughself-critiqueinapublicsettingandthepresumptionofcollectivefaultpointedtoatleasttworealitiesthatleftistintellectualslikethisgroupofwritershadtoconfrontsoonafterliberationfrom Japanesecolonialrule.Allofthewritersattheforumhadbeencomplicitto somedegreewithJapaneseimperialpolicies,especiallyaftertheinvasion ofChinain1937andtheintensificationofwarmobilization.Moreoverliberationhadbeenconferredratherthanwon.IfKoreanshadwontheirown liberation,theissueofcomplicitywithJapanesecolonialrulewouldhave beensettledinthecourseoftheanti-imperialiststruggleitself,withcollaboratorssidelined,andtheworstcollaboratorsexecuted,asthenational liberationmovementoverthrewJapanesecolonialruleandestablishedits ownhegemony.Butasithappened,theliberationonAugust15“camelike athiefinthenight.”3IntheaftermathofaliberationthatwasgiventoKoreansbytheAllies,followingJapan’s(tooearly)surrender,andinthecontext
139
140
ChapTer Five
ofoccupationbySovietandAmericantroopswhohadagreedonthe38th parallelastheirdividinglineforoccupation,KoreanswhohadactivelysupportedtheJapaneseEmpireasofficialsinthecolonialgovernmentoras officersintheJapaneseImperialArmyandpolicewerestillinpositionsof powerinsouthernKorea,thistimeaidingandprotectedbytheU.S.occupationforces. Marxistswerecentraltoconfirmingcriticismandself-criticismasprincipledpractice,asthewaytosubvert“commonsense”notionsaboutthe worldandone’splaceinit,referredtoinshorthandasa(petit)bourgeois outlookoraslavishmentality,notionsthatworkedtonaturalizeselfishness, opportunism,ortheideathatKoreanshadnochoicebuttorelyonimperial powers—ImperialJapanpreviously,andnow,asitwasbecomingincreasinglyapparentinsouthernKorea,theUnitedSates.ForMarxists,thepoint ofcriticismandself-criticismwastoestablishanunshakeableunitybased on“scientifictruth”andabsolutededicationtonationalandclassemancipation,aunitytobeestablishedamongmembersoftheKoreanCommunistParty(kcP),andthenabroaderunityintheformofaunitedfrontencompassingworkers,peasants,andintellectualscapableofcarryingouta nationaldemocraticrevolution.4ButwiththePeople’sCommitteesforcibly “disestablished”bytheU.S.ArmyMilitaryGovernment,andtheusAMgikexercisingallsovereignpowerpreviouslyheldbytheJapanesecolonial statesouthofthe38thparallel,itwastheleftistswhowerebeingsidelined andpushedundergroundinsouthernKorea.5 ThiswasthecontexttowhichYiT’ae-junreferredinaroundaboutway earlyonintheforumwithhisobservation,“Genuineliberationandfreedomstillseemremote.”Notraisedexplicitlywasthequestion,thepolitical question,ofwhatitmeantto(still)refertoAugust15asLiberationDay,as didallthewritersattheforum,ifgenuineliberationstillseemedremote. HanSŏl-ya’scommentindirectlyacknowledgedsuchuncertaintyoverhow toassessthepresent:hefounditeasytowriteabouttheperiodbeforeAugust15,buthefounditverydifficulttograspandwriteabout“realityafter liberation.”ForYiKi-yŏngaswell,August15wasanambiguousmarker,a fissureorbreakthatconfoundednarrativization.Yiremarkedthatitwould bestrangetowriteonlyabouttheperiodbeforeAugust15ortowriteonly abouttheperiodafterAugust15.But,heasked,asifraisingarhetorical question,howdoesonelinktheperiodbeforeAugust15towhatcomes afterliberation?Whatnarrativestrategycouldconnectthecolonialpast
DiviDeD sovereiGnTy
toapostliberationpresentinwhichgenuineliberationandfreedomstill seemedremote?Inlieuofareadyanswerthefocusshiftedtothepurpose athand. ItwasKimSa-ryang,theyoungestwriterinthegroup,whofirstoffered specificself-criticism.Inearly1940Kim’sshortstory“Hikarinonakani” (IntotheLight)hadbeennominatedfortheprestigiousAkutagawaPrize.6 Thestorywaswrittenin1939,soonafterKimgraduatedfromTokyoImperialUniversity;theprotagonist,liketheauthoratthetime,isaKorean studentataprestigiousuniversityinTokyoandateacheratanightschool. In addition to being a university student, the Japanese kun reading of the protagonist’s family name is Minami, making it relatively easy for theteachertopassasJapanese.Intheend,hisinnerconflictoverethnic passingfindsaresolutionofsortsasoneofhisstudents,whosemotheris Korean,pronouncestheteacher’sfamilynameusingtheonreadingNan, closetotheKoreanpronunciationNamratherthanMinami.7Thisreciprocalrecognition,uptothepointofattemptingtopronounceaKoreanname, andacceptanceandembraceofbiethnicity,followsaliteralcoming-outas theteacherandthestudentenjoyadayatUenoParkandshopping.The shortstorycanbereadasanindictmentofJapaneseracismandthepolicy ofhavingKoreansadoptJapanesefamilynames.Butitalsosuggeststhat recognitionofethnicdifference,andanearfuturewhenstigmaattached toKoreansmightbeovercome,becomepossibilities(only)inthelightof empire—thusthetitle“IntotheLight.” Inhisself-criticism,KimSa-ryangexplainedthathehadwritten“Hikari nonakani”withgritandzealtoconveyinaveryrealwaytheemotionsof KoreansinJapanintheireverydayencounterswithJapaneseracism,social isolation,andpoverty.Butlookingback,heconfessedthat“intermsofthe content,”hehadcommittedanerror.Hedidnotelaborateonwhatmade thecontentproblematic.Perhapsitwasobvioustotheotherwritersthat Kim’s depiction of poverty, discrimination, and social isolation of KoreansinJapancouldhavehadtheeffect,ultimately,ofaffirmingratherthan subvertingJapan’simperialaims.Morethancontent,however,HanSŏr-ya seizedontheissueoflanguage:evenifthecontenthadnotrequiredany blameorcensure,thefactthattheauthorhadwritteninJapaneserequired self-criticism.LaterintheforumYiT’ae-junreturnedtotheissueoflanguage by pointing to a structural relationship between language, literature,andculture.Morethanliterature,andmorethanculture,Yisawthe
141
142
ChapTer Five
attemptedobliterationoftheKoreanlanguageastheprincipalcrisisthat shouldhavebeenalltooevidenttoKoreanwriters.Inthelate1930sand 1940s,withKorean-languagenewspapersandmagazinesshutdownand Korean-language education eliminated, how could one even talk about (other)predicamentsfacingKoreanliteratureorculture? FollowingKimSa-ryang’sself-criticismandthefocusofcriticismshiftingtoKoreanwriterswritinginJapanese—thatis,writinginthelanguage ofthecolonizer—anumberofwritersattheforumchimedinonthekind of self-criticism that should be undertaken but in most cases was not. KimNam-ch’ŏn,whooversawtheprocessforapprovingmembershipin thenewlyformedChosŏn munhakga tongmaeng (Federation ofKorean Writers),expresseddisappointmentatmanywriterswhofailedtoengage incriticismandself-criticismorwhoseself-criticismwasinadequateorinsufficient.8HanHyoagreed:toomanywriterswenttogreatlengthstotry torationalizewhattheywroteordidpriortoAugust15.DuringthePacific WaritcouldbesaidthattherewasnotasingleKoreanwhodidn’tcooperateinsomewaywithJapan’swareffort.ItwasatthispointthatImHwa intervened.Self-criticismshouldnotdevolveintoadiscourseofWe were all guilty;thatis,the(end)pointofself-criticismisnottosayOthers were bad and I was bad too.Evenwiththeknowledgethatnoonewasentirelyexemplary,one’sattitudetowardself-criticismneverthelesshastobeOthers were virtuous (ch’akhada) and exemplary (hulryunghada), whereas I was the worst. For Im, this was the type of attitude necessary for self-(re)making, and fromone’sconscience(yangsim)onehadtodrawthecourageandthewill neededtoengageinthatkindofpainfulself-examinationandcontrition. Thatis,inspiteofstructuralreasonsforconsciousness,one’sconscienceis notwhollydeterminedbyhistoricalormaterialcircumstances,thusthe possibilityofreconstitutingoneselfanew. In contrast to the other writers at the forum, Im’s approach to self- criticismwastogrounditinreflexiveinteriority.Itwasanapproachthatrefusedtorelativizeone’scomplicitywithcolonialrule.Indeedifone’scomplicitywasevaluatedagainstadefinedhierarchyofoffenses,fromthemost terrible(treason)tothenotsoterrible,thencriticismandself-criticism, thepurposeofwhichisself-(re)making,canbemisdirected.Ultimatelythe self’sotherhastobeanexemplary(imagined)self-consciousnesswhich alonecanactasawitnesstoconfirmthetruthofone’sconfession,contrition,andsubjectivetransformation.PerhapsIm’sadmonitionwasutopian.
DiviDeD sovereiGnTy
Perhapssuchanethicofself-(re)makingcouldneverhavebeenputinto practiceinanorganizedway,onamassscale.Evenifsuchanethiccould havebeeninterpolatedintopublicdiscourse,perhapstheinevitableresult wouldhavebeenadisciplinarysystem,aformofmodernityastotalizing asthewartimesystemofcontrolsinthelastyearsofthecolonialperiod. But with Korea divided and occupied by Soviet and American troops, doubtaboutKorea’ssovereign,postcolonialfuturecoalescedaroundthe fear that refusal of self-criticism, especially on the part of intellectuals, wouldperpetuateapoliticalculturethatinthepasthadacquiescedtoimperialpowersandsurrenderedthedreamofsovereignty,ofpostcolonial self-realization. YiWŏn-jopointedoutthatsomeKoreanwriterswroteinJapanesebecauseitbecameimpossibletopublishinKorean,andonecouldmoreeasily avoidcensorshipifthetextwaswritteninJapanese.Justbecauseawriter wroteinJapanesedidn’tmeanthatheorshecooperatedwithJapan.But, headded,therightdecisionwastohavenotwrittenanythingatall.Han Hyoagreed.Thecolonialauthoritiesdidnotpersecutewritersforwriting. Aslongaswritersrationalizedtheimperialistwaritdidnotmatterhow muchtheywrote.Inthatsense,notwritinganythingatallwasaformof resistance.KimSa-ryangtriedtoshiftthefocusofcritique:Inwhatsense canawritertalkaboutconscienceordedicationifheorshedidnotwrite anything?Aswriters,whatonewroteandhowonewrotehadtobethe focusofdiscussion.Kimadmiredthewriterwhoretreatedintoahoveland keptonwriting.YiT’ae-junhadthelastwordandturnedthefocusbackto language.Moresothanthewriterwhoputawayhisbrushandkeptsilent, headmiredthewriterwho,withoutcausingharmtothepeople(minjok), wroteinKoreansimplytokeeptheKoreanlanguagealive.9Thewriters whoparticipatedinthisforum,allofthem,wenttoNorthKoreapriorto theoutbreakoftheKoreanWar.
HistoriographyafterLiberation Forhistorians,self-criticismwasmoreproblematic.Positivisthistorians’ claimtoobjectivityhadrestedonthenotionthatthenarrativestheyproduced were immanent in the empirical evidence: the facts forming the story,factsconfirmedbycarefulanddispassionatereadingofthesources, the sources themselves having been subjected to rigorous scrutiny, and
143
144
ChapTer Five
causalrelations(whichstructurethenarrative)arrivedatthroughscientific principles.10 To the extent that these historians remained rigorous andobjectiveintheirresearchandmethodology,whatwouldtheyhaveto apologizefor?Onwhatbasiscouldhistorianswhohadbeencommittedto positivisthistoriographydisavowtheirpreviouswork,otherthandiscovery ofadditionalsourcesorminorrevisionsinexplanationsofcausalrelations? In other words, how could historians who had written histories that fit thenarrativeframeworkofcolonialisthistoriography,underthebannerof scientificobjectivity,nowreinventthemselvesaspostcolonialnationalist historians?Intheimmediatepostliberationperioditseemsmosthistorians,includingMarxisthistorians,werenotreadytopresentasystematic critiqueofpositivisthistoriographyandthenarrativestrategiesithelped legitimateintheformofMansenshiandtōyōshi.Asystematiccritiqueof colonialist historiography would come later in South Korea, starting in 1961,eightyearsaftertheendoftheKoreanWarandintheimmediate aftermathoftheApril19revolutionthatforcedPresidentRheeSyngman fromoffice.Subsequently,andasacoldwarnationalistproject,positivist andidealiststrandsinhistoriographywerebroughttogetherasnationalist andanticommunisthistoriography,largelyintheformofculturalhistory.11 Forhistorianswhowerewellregardedduringthecolonialperiodandat thesametimemanagedtokeepsomedistancebetweenthemselvesand Japan’s imperialist project, liberation from Japanese colonial rule presentedanopportunitytotaketheleadingroleinreconstructinghistorical narrativesandreorganizingKorea’seducationalandacademicinstitutions. Inthemonthsfollowingliberation,PaekNam-unfocusedhiseffortsonlayingthefoundationsforKorea’shigheracademicinstitutions.Thedayafter Japan’s surrender, Paek began organizing the National Academy of Sciences(Chosŏnhaksulwŏn),whichwastocompriseleadingscholarsacross thedisciplinesandacrossthepoliticalspectruminthenaturalsciences, socialsciences,andhumanities.12Thisacademywouldhavehadtremendousinfluenceoverthereorganizationofhighereducationandresearch institutionsinKorea.Thatistosay,intheimmediatepostliberationperiod Marxistintellectuals,withPaektakingtheleadingrole,soughttoestablishhegemonyoverintellectualproduction,reachingouttonon-Marxist scholars,includingnationalisthistorianswhohadnotcapitulatedtocolonialpower.ButthisreachingoutdidnotprecludeMarxistsfromtakinga polemicalandpartisanstance:evenPaek,whowascriticalofthe“exces-
DiviDeD sovereiGnTy
sivelyleftist”linetakenbytheKoreanCommunistParty,depictedallnon- Marxisthistoriographyasreactionary.13 MostoftheleadingscholarswhohadbeenChindanhakhoemembers chosenottoaffiliatewithPaek’sNationalAcademyofSciences.OnAugust16,1945,thesamedayPaeklaunchedtheacademy,SonChin-t’aeand ChoYun-jaetooktheleadinreconstitutingtheChindanhakhoe,andaccordingtoPangKie-chung,theydidsoinordertoestablishandmaintain anationalist(thatis,noncommunist)stancewhileparticipatinginLeft- Rightcoalitionefforts.14InreconstitutingtheChindanhakhoe,Chocalled fortheexpulsionof“pro-Japanesescholars”fromitsranks.Thetargetof hiscritiqueincludedhistorianslikeYiPyŏng-do.ExcludedfromaleadershippositioninChindanhakhoe,Yiorganizedaseparateorganization,the AssociationforKoreanHistoryResearch(Chosŏnsayŏn’guhoe),butneverthelessmaintainedaninfluentialpresenceinChindanhakhoe.Younger historians,however,didnotjoinYi’sassociation;theyeithersoughtmembershipintheMarxistLeagueofScientists(Kwahakjatongmaeng)orthe newlyorganizedKoreanHistoricalAssociation(Yŏksahakhoe),whichincludedMarxistandnon-Marxisthistorians.15 Thehastewithwhichthesehistorianssoughttodistancethemselvesfrom scholarslikeYiPyŏng-doisunderstandableinlightofanintenseantipathy thatemergedintheimmediatepostliberationperiodtowardthosewhohad heldpositionsofauthorityunderJapanesecolonialrule.AsTocquevillehad observedabouthatredtowardthearistocracy—thatthepeoplehatedaristocratswhowereabouttolosetheirauthority—sotoointheimmediate postliberationperioditseemedasifthosewhohadflourishedandhadheld officialpositionsundertheJapanesewouldnolongerbeabletoexercise theirauthority,aspopularsentimenttowardcollaboratorsshiftedradically. Collaboratorswhowerenotonlytoleratedbutrespectedduringthecolonialperiodcametobereviledpreciselybecause,asHannahArendtputit, “wealthwithoutvisiblefunctionismuchmoreintolerablebecausenobody canunderstandwhyitshouldbetolerated”:“Whatmakesmenobeyortoleraterealpowerand,ontheotherhand,hatepeoplewhohavewealthwithoutpower,istherationalinstinctthatpowerhasacertainfunctionandis ofsomegeneraluse.Evenexploitationandoppressionstillmakesociety workandestablishsomekindoforder.Onlywealthwithoutpoweroraloofnesswithoutapolicyarefelttobeparasitical,useless,revolting,because suchconditionscutallthethreadswhichtiementogether.”16Whenthe
145
146
ChapTer Five
JapanesecolonialstatelowereditsflaginAugust1945,collaboratorscame tobeviewedasparasitesonthenationalbody.Itwasinthatsensethatthe demandforlandreformandthepurgeofcollaboratorsbecamecentralto postliberation politics, precisely because those who had lost real power whentheJapaneseEmpirecollapsedstillpossessedconsiderablewealth. WithYiPyŏng-doexcludedfromitsleadership,someChindanhakhoe historianscooperatedcloselywiththeusAMgik,whileothersparticipated inorganizationsledbytheLeft,includingtheCommitteeonSciencethat waspartoftheNationalDemocraticFront(Minjujuŭiminjokchŏnsŏn).17 TheNationalDemocraticFrontinsouthernKoreawasestablishedinFebruary1946andledbyafive-personsecretariatthatincludedYŏUn-hyŏng, PakHŏn-yŏng,HŏHŏn,KimWŏn-bong,andPaekNam-un.Totheextent thatonecanimputeapoliticalorientationtoChindanhakhoeasawhole, intheimmediatepostliberationperioditspoliticalorientationwassimilar tothestrategychartedbyAnChae-hong;in1947SonChin-t’aeandYiIn- yŏngexplicitlyreferredtotheirhistoriographicstanceas“newnationalist historiography”(sin-minjokjuŭi yŏksahak).18ChoYun-jae’schargeagainstYi Pyŏng-doandotherhistoriansfocusedontheircollaborationwithcolonialgovernmentinstitutions,specificallytheChōsenshihenshūkai.Itwas generallyacceptedthatthefundamentalaimofChōsenshihenshūkaias anorganofthecolonialstatewastolegitimizeJapanesecolonialrule,and thatitdidsobydistortingKoreanhistory,specificallybysuppressingordelegitimizingimportanttexts(forexample,theSamguk yusa)andbyproducinghistoriesthatdownplayedthedegreetowhichKoreansweresubjects oftheirownhistory.19 Onefocalpointforthiskindofcriticismwasthethirty-eight-volume Chōsenshi(KoreanHistory)publishedbyChōsenshihenshūkai,aworkthat wasbothahistoryandacompilationofprimarysources.YiPyŏng-do’sself- defenseranalongathemesimilartothosepresentedbyCh’oeNam-sŏn,Yi Kwang-su,andotherprominentintellectualswhohadactivelycollaborated withJapan’simperialproject.HehadworkedfortheChōsenshihenshūkai topreventaworseoutcome:tothedegreethathecould,hetriedtoprevent Japanese distortion of Korean history.20 Unlike Paek Nam-un and many otherhistorianswhoweredeeplyinvolvedinpoliticalworkintheimmediatepostliberationperiod,takingleadershippositionsinpoliticalparties,Yi continuedtowritehistory.TheKoreanhistorytextbookKuksa kyobon,for example,adoptedandpublishedbytheusAMgikin1946foruseinjunior
DiviDeD sovereiGnTy
andseniorhighschools,waswrittenbyYiandKimSang-gi.Forthemodern periodKuksa kyobonhighlightedtheMarchFirstMovement,activitiesof theKoreanprovisionalgovernmentinShanghai,andtheKwangjustudent movementin1929.Kuksa kyobondidnotmentionarmedstrugglewagedby thecommunistsinManchuriainthe1930s,nordiditmentiontheKwangbokgun(RestorationArmy).21 InAugust1946,whenusAMgikannounceditsplantomergeKeijōImperialUniversitywithnineexistingprofessionalschoolstoformSeoulNationalUniversity,PaekNam-unwasvocalinhiscriticismoftheplan(Kukdaean):universityfacultywouldhavelittleautonomyfromtheusAMgik’s DepartmentofEducation,andacademicswhohadactivelycollaborated insupportoftheJapaneseEmpirewouldbeincludedinthefaculty.Duringthecolonialperiod,atKeijōImperialUniversityasinotherimperial universities,thefacultyofeachschoolhadsignificantautonomyfromthe MinistryofEducation.Almostallissuesrelatingtofaculty,forexample, weredecidedbythefacultyofeachschool,althoughdecisionsinvolving curriculum,research,andpersonnelweresubjecttoapprovalbytheMinistry.Thisautonomywaslargelyaffirmedafter1918,when,inpractice,the university president was appointed after nomination by secret ballot of thefaculty.ThechangesintroducedbytheusAMgikshiftedtheorganizationoftheuniversityfromthechairsystemofthenineteenth-centuryGermanuniversitytothedepartmentsysteminU.S.universities,butinthis instancewascentrallyorganizedbytheusAMgik’sDepartmentofEducation.22WithconservativesincontroloftheDepartmentofEducation, theKoreanhistorianswhobecameSeoulNationalUniversityfacultywere mostlyChindanhakhoemembers,includingYiPyŏng-do,whobecamethe chairmanoftheHistoryDepartment.ThoseappointedtothesocialsciencesfacultywereclosecolleaguesofPaekNam-un,andtheydominated theEconomicsDepartment.23 Asstatedearlier,thepoliticalstrategyofAnChae-hong’s“newnationalism”hadcalledforthecreationofaLeft-Rightcoalitionthatwouldexclude communists.InSeptember1945AndemandedPakHŏn-yŏng’sexclusion from the Korean People’s Republic (kPR), organized by Yŏ Un-hyŏng. When Yŏ refused to exclude Pak, then general secretary of the Korean CommunistParty,AnleftthekPR.24Asthe“middleground”quicklydisappearedinthecontextofadividedoccupationbySovietandAmerican troops,AnacceptedthepositionofdirectoroftheInterimSouthKorean
147
148
ChapTer Five
GovernmentundertheusAMgik.AstheusAMgikandRheeSyngman tookmeasurestoestablishaseparatestatesouthofthe38thparallel,Paek Nam-unwentnorthin1948,ostensiblytoattendapoliticalconference. Buthestayedontobecomethefirstministerofeducation(1948–56)in theDemocraticPeople’sRepublicofKorea(dPRk,NorthKorea),establishedlaterthatyear.Whenhediedin1979attheageofeighty-six,Paek wasstillamemberoftheCentralCommitteeoftheKoreanWorkers’Party, rankedforty-sixthintheleadershiphierarchy.By1948manyMarxistintellectualshadleftSeoulandgonenorthofthe38thparallel,pushedbyanticommunistrepressionintheSouthandpulledbyoffersofemployment and opportunity to take part in the dPRk’s national democratic revolution.Between1946and1947historianslikeKimKwang-jinfromKimIl SungUniversityinPyongyangwentsouthtorecruitmanyofthebesthistoriansinsouthernKorea.YiCh’ŏng-wŏn,KimSŏk-hyŏng,PakSi-hyŏng, ChŏnSŏk-dam,andotherswentnorth,andhistoriographyinthedPRk cametobedominatedby“historiansfromtheSouth.”WhenthedPRk’s Chosŏnryŏksap’yŏnch’anwiwŏnhoe(KoreanHistoryCompilationCommittee)wasestablishedin1949,PaekNam-unwasitschairman.25Atthe sametime,intellectualsandpoliticianswhohadstruggledforaLeft-Right coalition—especiallythosewhohadopposedtheun-sponsoredelection in1948whichcreatedSouthKorea—weresubjectedtorepressionandterrorfromtheSouthKoreanpoliceandright-winggroups.WithAmerican backing, those who had championed “objective” empirical research and “nonpolitical”historiographyduringthecolonialperiodseizednearlyall themajoracademicpostsintheRepublicofKorea(ROk,SouthKorea). Soonaftertheestablishmentofseparatestatesin1948,MarxistsinSouth KoreaeitherhadtofleetotheNorthorgounderground.TheRepublicof KoreawasestablishedonAugust15,1948,withRheeSyngmanaspresident.TheDemocraticPeople’sRepublicofKoreawasestablishedonSeptember3,1945,withKimIlSungaspremier.WiththepassageoftheNationalSecurityLawinSouthKoreainNovember1948,anticommunism wasinstitutionalizedasSouthKorea’soverridingpoliticalprinciple,and praisingorsupportingNorthKoreainanywaybecameanactoftreason. InJune1949,lessthanayearafteritssovereigntywasestablishedthrough un-sponsoredelections,theSouthKoreanstatecreatedtheKungminpodo yŏnmaeng(NationalGuidanceLeague,ngl).Podoliterallytranslatesto caring and guiding.Inthelate1930sand1940s,leftistswhorenouncedtheir
DiviDeD sovereiGnTy
politicalbeliefshadgreatdifficultyfindingworkandcaringfortheirfamilies, and the Japanese colonial state organized the League for Servicing theStatetoguideandcarefortheseformerpoliticalprisoners.AccordingtoKimDong-choon,thiscolonialpolicyservedasthemodelforthe nglasSouthKoreanauthorities,especiallyprosecutors,establishedlaws andinstitutionstomaintainsurveillanceandcontroloverpoliticaldissidents.Membershipinthenglwassupposedtobevoluntary,butinactualityformercommunistsandpoliticaldissidentswereforcedtoregister. Bylate1949membershipinthenglhadreached300,000.AsaninstitutionalinnovationfromthelatecolonialperiodrevivedbytheSouthKorean state,thenglnotonlymaintainedsurveillanceoverpoliticaldissidents;it alsoinstitutionalized,inacomprehensiveway,socialisolationandpoliticalcontainmentofformermilitantsandfellowtravelers,includingleftist intellectuals.In1950,soonaftertheoutbreakoftheKoreanWar,South Korean security forces systematically executed thousands of ngl members.26 InNovember1949YiPyŏng-dobecamethechairmanwhentheAssociationforKoreanHistoryResearch(Chosŏnsayŏn’guhoe)mergedwith Chindanhakhoe.Inlate1949theremainingprogressivescholarsonthe SeoulNationalUniversityfacultywerefired.AftertheKoreanWar,with SonChin-t’aedead,theremainingMarxiststurned,andnationalisthistorianswhohadparticipatedinLeft-Rightcoalitioneffortswerenowisolated. YiPyŏng-doandChindanhakhoeabsolutelydominatedSouthKoreanhistoriography.Beyondthehorrificanticommunistwitchhuntsduringand aftertheKoreanWar,Yi’sreturntoChindanhakhoewasmadepossible,in part,bymoneyfromtheUnitedStates.BothbeforeandaftertheKorean War, Chindan hakhoe received financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation.In1954YiwasnamedastheprimaryinvestigatorinanambitiousprojectofpublishingacomprehensivehistoryofKorea,fundedby alargegrantfromtheRockefellerFoundation.Theseven-volumehistory, publishedbetween1959and1965,focusedonpolitical,institutional,and culturalhistory,startingwiththequestionofTan’gunandancientChosŏn, andendingin1910withKorea’sannexationbyJapan.Yiwrotethebulk ofvolume1andallofvolume2,fromancientChosŏntotheendofthe Koryŏ period. It was not until the student revolution of April 19, 1960, whichtoppledtheRheeregimeandcreatedforabriefmomentademocraticopening,thatnationalisthistoriansofayoungergenerationcould
149
150
ChapTer Five
challengethepoliticalandintellectualauthorityofYiandthepositivistand textual-criticaltradition.
PostcolonialHistoriography:1960–1980 AlthoughthestudentrevolutionofApril19,1960,thattoppledtheRhee regimewascrushedbyamilitarycoupin1961,thatdemocraticopening nevertheless allowed a younger generation of historians to narrate historyinnewways.Intheintroduction toKuksa sillon, published in1961 (justpriortoParkChungHee’smilitarycoup),YiKi-baek,whohadstudied underYiPyŏng-do,presentedacomprehensiveaccountofcolonialisthistoriography,specificallyIl-Sŏn tongjoron,thenarrativeofJapaneseandKoreanssharingcommonorigins,andthusJapan’scolonizationofKoreain1910 astherestorationofancientties;tangp’asŏngnon,factionalismasdeeply ingrainedintheKoreanpoliticalculture,evidencedbysuccessivepurges ofliteratiandfactionalstrifeduringtheChosŏnperiod;chŏngch’esŏngnon, thenotionthattheKoreaneconomyandsocietyhadbeenstagnantfora thousandyears;andt’ayulsŏngnon,anarrativedenyingautochthonousdevelopment,focusingonhowexternalforcesfromChinaandManchuria haddeterminedKorea’shistoricaldevelopment.27 Written as a history textbook, Kuksa sillon aimed to dismantle such “prejudiced views and theories that impede a correct understanding of Koreanhistory.”YiKi-baekusedthewordkŭndaehwa(modernization),the firstKoreanhistoriantomakereferencetomodernizationtheorythatwas beingpromotedbyAmericanacademicsandadvisors.Kuksa sillon,inother words,createdanarrativeframeworkthatwassafelypostcolonial:anti- JapanesebutuncriticalofAmericaninterventioninpost-1945Korea.This typeofhistoriography,amarriageofmodernizationtheorywiththepositivistandtextual-criticaltradition,quicklybecamethedominantmodeof narratingKoreanhistoryinthecontextofthecoldwar.Thequestionof neocolonialism(acritiqueoftheUnitedStates),suppressedbytheanticommuniststate,wouldbesublimatedthroughdevelopmentaltime:South Korea was developing with American assistance but also from its own sourcesofmodernity.28 Astheeffortto“overcome”colonialisthistoriographygatheredmomentum, however, closet Marxists began to venture beyond the ideological boundariesimposedbySouthKorea’splaceinthecoldwarsystemunder
DiviDeD sovereiGnTy
thebannerof“nationalist”historiography.ItwasinthatcontextthatYiKi- baektooktotaskhistorianslikeKimYong-sŏpfordrawingontheworkof PaekNam-unandotherMarxisthistorians,andfor“turningablindeye” tothefactthatPaekhadbeenhostiletonationalisthistoriographyduring thecolonialperiod.29ButignoringPaek’scritiqueofnationalisthistoriographywasaself-preservationmeasure.ForprogressivehistorianslikeKim Yong-sŏpandKangMan-gil,Paek’shistoriographyofferedawaynotjustto overcomethelegacyleftbycolonialisthistoriographybutalsotoreinsert classstruggleinhistoriography. BecausehehadleftSouthKoreatogototheNorth,Paekcouldnotbe citedinprintnorclaimedasanintellectualforbear;theonlywaytoappropriatehisworkwasbycastinghimasanationalisthistorianwhotook partintheKoreanstudiesmovement(Chosŏnhak undong)inthemid-1930s. Throughtheirempiricalstudiesoflandtenure,thegrowthofcommerce (merchantcapital),andthedevelopmentofacommodity-monetaryeconomyinthelatterhalfofChosŏn,KimYong-sŏpandKangMan-gilrevived andconfirmedPaek’sdisclosureoftheinternaldynamicunderlyingKorea’s historicaldevelopment,inwhichclassstrugglewascentral.Underanationalistcanopy,KimandKangreestablishedintellectuallinkstoaformofhistorywritingthathadbeensuppressedinSouthKoreaaftertheKoreanWar. Theirviewofhistorywasbasedonananticolonial,oppositionalnationalism,andtheirhistoriographycontributedgreatlytounderstandingthedynamicnatureofKorea’ssocialandeconomicdevelopmentinlateChosŏn. Inaverylimitedsense,KimandKangsharedcommongroundwithnationalisthistorianswhopreferredmodernizationtheory;theiragendawasto writeaKorea-centeredhistory.Buttheimplicationsoftheirhistoricalnarrativecouldnotbemoredifferent.Formodernizationhistorians,theoriginsofKorea’smodernitywastheculturalandscientificdevelopmentsin theeighteenthcentury,tracedforwardtoWesternizedandWesternizing elitesofthenineteenthcenturyandtononcommunistnationalistsinthe twentiethcenturywhowouldeventuallyestablishSouthKorea. Incontrast,KimYong-sŏp,alongwithKangMan-gil,laidthebasisfor theargumentthatthereweretwopossiblepathstomodernity:arelatively more egalitarian and autonomous path from below, with peasant rebellionsprovidingthemainimpetusforprogressivechange,andamoreexploitative,dependentpathfromabove,ledbyeliteswhowouldultimately capitulatetoimperialistdemandsstartinginthelatenineteenthcentury.30
151
152
ChapTer Five
Thus Kim and Kang located the Westernized and Westernizing elites withinahistoricaltrajectorythathadrootsintheculturalandpolitical world of the landed class in the late Chosŏn period, whose modernizationeffortsfromthelatenineteenthcenturytothepresentreflectedtheir narrowclassinterests,andforthatreasontendedtowarddependencyon outsidepowers:collaborationwiththeJapaneseinthecolonialperiodand withtheAmericansafter1945.Thiswasatrajectorythatpavedthewayfor Korea’scolonizationbyJapan,theformationofseparatestatesin1948,and dictatorshipanddependentcapitalistdevelopmentinSouthKorea. Bythelate1970stheargumentthatthereweretwopossiblepathsto modernitywasanacademicformulationofmorebracingnarrativestrategies employed by student activists and dissident intellectuals in South Koreaastheyreimaginedthepresentasaconjunctureofconflictinghistoricaltrajectories.IntheleadessayofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik(Korean History Before and After Liberation), published in 1979, Song Kŏn-ho presentedanethicalcritiqueofhow1945markedthebeginningpointof themosthorrificchapterinKoreanhistory.31Liberation,comingafterdecadesofcolonialrule,shouldhavemarkedthebeginningofanewhistory whereintheoppressedpeople,theminjung(themasses,themultitude), couldfinallyandrightlybecomethesovereignsubject(chuch’e)ofhistory. Instead,withthepartitionofKoreaalongthe38thparallelcomingsimultaneouslywithliberation,formercollaboratorsandthosewillingtoserve the new occupying powers—the Soviet Union and the United States— divertedhistoryfromitstruepathandbroughtaboutaterribleordealfor theKoreanpeople.32 TheprimarytargetofSongKŏn-ho’sessaywasnotAmericanimperialismbutRheeSyngman,thearchanti-communist,conservativepolitician whobecamethefirstpresidentofSouthKoreain1948.WhileavoidingdetaileddiscussionoftheroleofPakHŏn-yŏngandtheKoreanCommunist Party(kcP)(later,theKoreanWorkers’Party),Songremindedhisreaders thatitwasRheewhohadallowednotoriouscollaboratorstoevadepunishment,includingformerKoreanpoliceofficialswhohadhunteddown,tortured,andkilledindependenceactivists.Asawhole,theessaysinHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insikdrewalinkbetweenRhee’srefusaltopunishcollaboratorswithotheractsthatabortedjusticeandstrippedliberationofanyreal meaning:delayinglandreformandweakeningitsimpact;sabotagingthe workoftheU.S.-SovietJointCommissiontopreventtheformationofauni-
DiviDeD sovereiGnTy
fiedcoalitiongovernment;andtakingtheleadinmanipulatinganticommunistdiscoursetoestablishaseparatestateintheSouth,thusmakingthe 38thparalleldrawnbytheUnitedStatesandtheSovietUnionapermanent (andmilitarized)linedividingtheKoreannationintwo.33 ThroughthiscritiqueofRhee,Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insikreinterpreted historyafter1945intermsofpowerfulbinariesthatinspiredopposition discourse: genuine nationalism versus mindless anticommunism, and minjung-orienteddemocracyversusmereformaldemocracy.34Song’sessay notonlyexposedtheratheringloriousoriginsoftheSouthKoreanstate; italsonegatedcoldwarhistoriographybypositingasnationalistresistance totheun-sponsoredseparateelectionsin1948onwhichtheROkclaimed itslegalbasis.Song’sessaywaspartofasustainedandcourageouseffort bydissidentintellectualsinSouthKoreatoconstitutetheminjungasanational(andnationalist)subjectandtoimagineasubjectivitythatcouldbe analternativetoandautonomousfromnationalistnarrativesauthorizedby eithertheNorthortheSouthKoreanstate.35 Itwasthepeople’suprisinginKwangjuin1980,however,andthemassacreperpetratedbySouthKoreangovernmenttroops,whichbrokethe state’sideologicalholdoverthedemocraticmovementinSouthKorea.36 Themagnitudeofthestateviolencedroveyoungintellectualstosearchfor thestructuraloriginsoftheirpredicament.Whereasdissidentintellectuals likeSongKŏn-hohadpreviouslyskirtedtheissueofcommunismandthe roleplayedbyPakHŏn-yŏngandthekcP,forexample,bythemid-1980s suchtaboosnolongerevokedautomaticself-censorship.37Inintroducing thesecondvolumeofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,publishedin1985,Kang Man-gilnotedthathistorydepartmentsinKoreanuniversitieshadupto thenavoidedthemodernperiod.38Pastattemptstowritethehistoryof colonialandpostcolonialKoreafroman“objective”viewpointhadbeen repressed,whilehistoriesthatdidgetpublishedeitherconsciouslyorunconsciouslyconferredlegitimacyonthepoliticalforcesresponsibleforthe divisionofKorea.Suchhistoriographynaturalizedthepresent.Theywere writtenfromwithinthestructure of division. Thehistorian’smostpressingtask,then,wastowriteahistoryofmodern Koreafromaperspectiveunfetteredbythisstructureofdivision.Sucha perspectivewasaccessible,KangMan-gilargued,whenhistoriansunderstood the political struggles of the immediate postliberation period not simplyasthedenouementofthecolonialexperiencebutalsoasastruggle
153
154
ChapTer Five
to overcome national division. Beyond objective analysis of the history thatledtonationaldivision,aunification-orientedhistoriography(t’ongil chihyangjŏk yŏksa insik)hadtopayspecialattentiontoeffortsatcreating aunitedfrontbetweentheLeftandtheRightattheendofthecolonial periodandeffortstoovercomenationaldivisionafter1945.SimilartoSong Kŏn-ho’sessay,KangMan-gil’sessaywasahistoricalnarrativethatvindicatedmovementsinoppositiontotheestablishmentofseparatestates,includingtheboycottofun-sponsoredelectionsin1948,ledbycommunists aswellasnationalistslikeKimKu. IfKangMan-gil’snarrativestrategyaimedtorecenterKoreans(rather thanforeignpowers)inhistoryafter1945,theleadchapterinthefourth volumeofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,publishedin1989andcowrittenby ChoiJang-jipandChŏngHae-gu,lookedattheKoreanWarintermsofits structuralorigins,bothdomesticandinternational,whilenotlosingsight ofthedynamiccharacterofpoliticalstruggle.39Indescribingthisdynamic, ChoiandChŏngbeganwithexplanationsofwhyliberationbroughtforth arevolutionarysituation.Simplyput,itwasthebreakdownofthecolonial stateattheendofthePacificWarwhichunleasheddemandsforrevolutionarychange.Thesedemandswereanti-imperialistandantifeudalinnature: thevastmajorityofthepeoplewantedformercollaboratorspurgedfrom government posts and nationalization of land, factories, and businesses thathadbeenownedbytheJapaneseandcompradorcapitalists.40 Inmarkedcontrastwithanticommunisthistoriography,theappearance of People’s Committees throughout Korea immediately after liberation markedthefirststepstowardtheestablishmentofapostcolonialgovernmentwhichwouldhavecarriedouttheanti-imperialist,antifeudalrevolution.OnthequestionoftheAmericanroleinpostliberationKoreanpolitics,ChoiandChŏngagreedwiththeargumentsmadebyBruceCumings inOrigins 1:whileSoviettroopsdidnotneedtoforcearevolutionaryprogramonnorthernKorea,thetideofrevolutionwasreversedinsouthern KoreaonlywithconsiderablecoercivepowerbytheusAMgik.41Moreover, intheperiod1945–47,evenastheUnitedStatesparticipatedintheJoint Commissiontalks,whichweretohavelaidthebasisforaunifiedKorean state,theusAMgikhadpursuedapolicyofcontainment,asevidencedby theoutlawingofthekcP,strengtheningoftherepressivestateapparatuses, andsupportforright-wingyouthgroups. Northofthe38thparallel,immediatelyafterliberation,boththeSoviet
DiviDeD sovereiGnTy
ArmyandKimIlSungwantedtoestablishthepartycenterinPyongyang, andChoiandChŏnglinkedthistowhatlatercametobecalledminju kijiron, thestrategyofcreatingademocraticbaseareaasapreliminarytoseizing thewhole.42TheuseofconventionalmilitaryforcetoovercomeKorea’s divisionwasnotinherentinminju kijiron.ButafterthefailureoftheU.S.- SovietJointCommissiontalksandtheestablishmentofseparatestatesin 1948,theformalleadershipstructureoftheNorthKoreanWorkers’Party andtheSouthKoreanWorkers’Partyweremergedintoone,andthereafter minju kijironwasunderstoodinmilitaryterms.Thus,fromliberationto theeveoftheKoreanWar,theintentandeffectofminju kijironproduced, insequence,anindependentkcPleadershipinnorthernKorea,political consolidationbywayofanti-imperialistandantifeudalstruggles,central leadershipfortheunitedfrontstruggleagainsttheU.S.-sponsoredmovementtoestablishaseparatestateintheSouth,andfinallyNorthKoreaas amilitarybasefromwhichawarofnationalliberationcouldbelaunched. OnthequestionofwhostartedtheKoreanWar,ChoiandChŏngdismissedbothnamch’imnon(NorthattackedSouth)andpukch’imnon(South attackedNorth)asexercisesinassigningblame.Buttheydidexpressmore interestinspeculationsaboutentrapment(hamchŏngsŏl)bywayofnsc 68andDeanAcheson’sPressClubspeechandtheNorthKoreanattackas limitedwarmeanttoforcequicknegotiations.43ThisvolumeofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insikwasimportantforthenumberofissuesitraisedandwas instructiveinhowitrecapturedthedynamicnatureofpostliberationpoliticsevenwhilepointingtothestructuralcausesfortheKoreanWar.44
ARightistCritiqueofNationalistHistoriography As“revisionist”historicalnarrativegainedcurrencyinthe1980s,conservativehistoriansbecameincreasinglyfrustratedathistoriographythatconceded nationalist credentials to North Korea and seemingly denied historicallegitimacytoSouthKorea.45ButthefallofcommunisminEastern Europein1989andthedissolutionoftheSovietUnionin1991brought aboutashift,andsodidtheemergenceofpostcolonialtheoryinKorean academicscholarship.TheNewRightwelcomedscholarshipinspiredby postcolonialtheoryforitsrefusaltonarratethecolonialperiodasaManichaeanstrugglebetweenacolonizingJapanthatwasracistandexploitative andaresistingandenduringpeople,ornation(minjung, minjok).Withthis
155
156
ChapTer Five
theNewRightturnedtocriticismofnationalismingeneral,andnationalisthistoriographyofthe1980sinparticular,attackingthelatterforbeing “criticalofSouthKorea.” Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik(ReconsiderationofKoreanHistoryBeforeandAfterLiberation)waspublishedinFebruary2006withenthusiasticreviewsfromconservativedailiesliketheChosŏn ilbo.Compiledby fourscholarsidentifiedeitherwithpostmoderntheoryorwiththeNew Right,thetitleofthistwo-volumeanthologydeliberatelyevokedHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insikasitspolemicaltarget,signalingtheeditors’intentionof restoringbalancetoahistoricalunderstandingofcolonialandpostcolonial history.Intheirintroduction,theeditorschargedthatleftist-nationalist historiography,asepitomizedbyHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,wasresponsibleforthe“dangerouslydistorted”historicalperspectiveheldbyasizablesegmentofthepublic(mostlytheyoungergeneration)aswellasby theleft-leaningRohMoo-hyunadministration.46FortheeditorsofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,leftist-nationalisthistoriographyofthe1980s, asepitomizedbyHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,hadachievednearhegemony in politics, and in spite of subsequent research that should have correctedsuchaskewedview,leftist-nationalisthistoriographyremainedentrenched,discouragingthepublicationofmore“objective”scholarship,attackingthosewhostrayedbeyondleftist-nationalistnarrativesofcolonial exploitation,anti-Japaneseresistanceduringthecolonialperiod,andthe privilegingofleftist-nationaliststrugglesinthepostliberationperiod. AsCumingspointsout,whattheNewRightsawasa“dangerouslydistorted”historicalperspectiveinfactappearedtimeandagaininU.S.classifiedreportsleadinguptotheKoreanWar,inreportswrittenbyAmerican militaryandintelligenceofficerswhowerecriticalofAmerica’sdecision to divide Korea and distressed about American involvement in political assassinations,forexample,duringcounterinsurgencyoperationsinYŏsu in1948andChejuIslandin1948–49.47Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsikdid includeanumberofessays,botholderandmorerecent,thatpresentedevidenceaswellascompellingnarrativesonarangeofissuesthataddcomplexitytonarrativesaboutthecolonialexperienceandhistoryafter1945.48 Someessays challenged Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik andleftist-nationalist historiographymuchmoredirectly.Onlandreform,forexample,Chang Si-wŏn’schapterarguedthatSouthKorea’slandreformsucceededintransformingpeasantsintoindependentfarmersandhelpedputanendtostatus
DiviDeD sovereiGnTy
distinctions.49Onthecreationofseparatestates,YiChŏng-sik’schapter, originallypublishedin1998,presentedevidencethatasearlyasOctober 1945theSovietUnionwascommittedtoestablishingaseparatestateinthe North.50 AccordingtoKimChul(KimCh’ŏl),oneoftheeditorsofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,politicaldiscoursehadshiftedtosuchanextentduring theKimDaeJungandRohMoo-hyunadministrationsthatscholarswho questioned leftist-nationalist narratives experienced a backlash comparabletotheanticommunistwitchhuntsofthepast.51TheimmediatepoliticalcontexttowhichKimandtheothereditorswerereferringhadtodo withthetwentyorsoTruthCommissionsestablishedsincetheyear2000. The first was the Presidential Truth Commission on Suspicious Deaths, formedtoinvestigatesuspiciousdeathsofcitizensbetween1975and1987 andtoidentifyperpetratorsforprosecution.OtherTruthCommissionsinvestigatedthekillingsonChejuIslandin1948(whenapproximately30,000 peoplewerekilled),collaborationduringthecolonialperiod,andresponsibilityformassacresandkillingsofciviliansbyU.S.andSouthKoreanmilitaryandpolicebefore,during,andaftertheKoreanWar.Fortheeditors ofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,theseinvestigationsintothepastwere aimedatconsolidatingleftisthegemonyandunderminingSouthKorea’s legitimacythroughaone-sidedattackonanticommunistconservativesin SouthKorea—becauseconservativesweremuchmorelikelytohavehad familymemberswhohadcollaboratedwithJapaneseimperialistsaswell asclosepersonaltiestoauthoritarianregimesofthepast.52 Thus,intheconservativepress,Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsikwaspresentedasafull-throatedandmuchneededcorrectivetoleftist-nationalist historiography.ThattheleadingconservativenewspaperinSouthKorea was at the forefront of criticizing nationalism and nationalist historiography,andactivelycultivating(andsupporting)postcolonialscholarship, testifiestohowcloselynationalismhadcometobeassociatedwithleftist politicsandhistoriography.TheNewRightembracedpostcolonialtheory’s critiqueofnationalismandnationalisthistoriographyastotalizingandundemocratic.EconomichistorianslikeYiYŏng-hunwelcomedpostcolonial theoryforsubvertingunitiessuchasclassandnationimposedbynationalistnarratives.ForYi,postcolonialscholarshipprovidedtheopeningforrecenteringtheindividualandasawaytorestorelegitimacytoSouthKorea’s anticommunistlegacy,nowreconfiguredascivilizationalprogress.53
157
158
ChapTer Five
Intellectually,however,theaccommodationbetweentheNewRightand postcolonialscholarshipwastenuous,restingsolelyontheircommonantipathy toward nationalism and nationalist historiography. For the New Right,intenselyanticommunistandfiercelyunapologeticaboutcapitalism andcapitalistdevelopmentinSouthKorea,accommodationwithpostcolonialscholarshipwastactical,andthestrategictargetwasleftist,nationalist historiographyanditspoliticalexpression.Ontheotherhand,anumberof contributorstoHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,eitherimplicitlyorexplicitly,tookissuewiththekindof“universalism”advocatedbytheNewRight, auniversalismbasedonuncriticalnotionsofprogressandcapitalistdevelopmentthatsoughttosweepundertherughistoriesofracism,violence, classexploitation,andthereinventionofpatriarchybothunderJapanese colonialruleandunderU.S.-supportedSouthKoreangovernments.
InLieuofaConclusion Whilethegenealogiespresentedherewereunavoidablyschematic,theaim ofthischapterwastosituatedifferent,competingmodesofhistorywritingwithinandagainstthedistinctivepoliticalandintellectualconfigurationsthatdominatedaparticularconjunctureinmodernKoreanhistory. Insocioeconomic(Marxist)historiography,forexample,PaekNam-un’s critiqueofbothcolonialistandnationalisthistoriographyintheearly1930s drewonandreinforcedtheidealist / materialistanduniversality / particularitybinariesthatnationalisthistorianslikeAnChae-honghadtocontendwithlater.EvenasPaekaffirmedaunilinearviewofhistoricaldevelopment,hisrenderingofKorea’sancientpastasconsistentwithuniversal developmentincludedfindingwhathethoughtwasKorea’sequivalentof thePunaluanfamilystructure,thustransformingancestorsinto(interesting)strangers. Intheimmediatepostliberationperiod,withKoreaunderdividedoccupationbySovietandAmericanforces,Paek’sstancebecamemorenationalist,callingforabroadunitedfrontthatcouldbringaboutaunifiedand sovereign nation-state. In this revolutionary context, Chindan hakhoe memberssuchasSonChin-t’aeandYiIn-yŏngturnedtonarratingthenation’spastonthebasisofa“newnationalism,”tryingtoidentifyanessentialandabidingunitythatmighttranscendandmitigateclassconflict.It wastherevolutiononApril19,1960,however,thatpromptedYiKi-baek
DiviDeD sovereiGnTy
toofferasystematiccritiqueofcolonialisthistoriography,atlastrendering positivisthistoriographysafelypostcolonialandmoreeffectiveinnaturalizingcapitalistmodernity,thatis,criticalofcolonialisthistoriographyand MarxisthistoriographybutuncriticalofAmericaninterventioninKorea after1945. Astheeffortto“overcome”colonialisthistoriographygatheredmomentum,intandemwithanincreasinglyvibrantdemocracymovement,historians likeKimYong-sŏp andKangMan-gil reengaged withPaek’sdisclosureofaninternaldynamicunderlyingKorea’shistoricaldevelopment, wherein class struggle was central to that internal dynamic. It was the people’suprisinginKwangjuin1980,however,andthemassacreperpetratedbygovernmenttroops,whichpushedhistorianslikeKangtonarrate colonialandpostliberationhistoryfromoutsidethe“structureofdivision.” Thishistoriographywasexplicitlynationalist.Butitshouldbekeptinmind that,forKang,thisconvergenceofMarxisthistoriographywithnationalist historiographywashistoricallycontingent.54 Postnationalistscholarship,whichemergedinthefirstdecadeofthenew millennium,beganwithstudiesofthecolonialperiod.Ratherthantaking ethnicity,sexuality,andclassasfixed,objectivecategories,ayoungergenerationofhistoriansandliteraryscholarsfocusedattentionontheprocess bywhichethnicity,sexuality,andclasscametobe(re)constitutedunder colonial rule. As these scholars eschewed a simple colonizer/colonized binary,theirworkelicitedhostilereactionfromleftist-nationalisthistoriansbutenthusiasticinterestfromtheNewRight,inlargepartbecauseof theirdeploymentofthenotionofcolonialmodernity,inwhichthecolonial sometimesrecededintothebackground,leavingonlythemodern—but notalwaysasanobjectofcritique.Assuggestedhere,theaccommodation betweenNewRightintellectualsandpostnationalistscholarshipwasalso contingent,anditremainstobeseenwhetherpostnationalisthistoriographycanremaincriticaloftheworkingsofpowerwithoutstronglinksto socioeconomic(Marxist)historiography.55 Whatbeganinthelatenineteenthcenturyasaneffortonthepartof thedynasticstatetoattainequalsovereigntydevelopedintoamassenterprisethatdemandedperseveranceandfidelity.Manyhistoriansdutifully didtheirpartbysustaininganormativeunderstandingofsovereigntyas boththeembodimentandtheexerciseofreason,autonomy,andfreedom. Throughnarrativestheycompiled,activisthistorianssoughttoinducethe
159
160
ChapTer Five
subject that would be the master and sole author of that enterprise. To paraphraseAlainBadiou,fromnationalisthistorianslikeSinCh’ae-hoto MarxisthistorianslikePaekNam-un,orNewRighthistoriansincontemporarySouthKorea,historiansimaginedsovereigntytobenotjustagoal butanaxiom,anideathatdemandsfidelity.56Asarecordofthatfidelity, thisbookpresentedanoutlineofthesituationthatelicitedvariousmodes ofhistorywriting,butverylittleintermsofwhatthatfidelitymeantas livedexperience.Asalegalandideologicalprincipleincapitalistmodernity,equalsovereigntyasanaxiomengenderedattachmentandattendant range of emotions, including joy, exhaustion, and what Laurent Berlant calls“crueloptimism.”ForBerlant,arelationofcrueloptimismemerges whentheobjectthatdrewyourattachmentbeginstoimpedetheaimthat broughtyoutoitinitially.“Itiscruelinsofarastheverypleasuresofbeing insidearelationhavebecomesustainingregardlessofthecontentofthe relation.”57From“K.Y.,”astudentat“XWomen’sSchool”inthe1930swho couldlikehershorthairbutonlyatthecostofcontendingwithsocialconventions, to writers like Im Hwa, who, in the immediate postliberation period,feltthatonlyathoroughself-examinationandself-critiquewithin acollectivesettingcouldproduceagenuinelyrevolutionaryandsovereign subject,fidelitytosovereignty,aslivedexperience,was(andis)atonce threateningandprofoundlyconfirming.
appenDix 1
NamesandVitalDates: AkibaTakashi AnChae-hong AnHwak ChangTo-bin ChoPak Ch’oeNam-sŏn ChŏngTo-jŏn ChŏngIn-bo ChŏngYag-yong ChuSi-g yŏng FukudaTokuzō FukuzawaYukichi HanPaek-kyŏm HanSŏl-ya HayashiTaisuke HongTae-yong HoshinoHisashi HuangZunxian HwangHyŏn HyŏnCh’ae ImHwa ImamuraTomo InoueKaoru Iryŏn ItōHirobumi (Empress)Jingū KandaNaibu Kija(C:Jizi) KimChŏng-ho
1888–1954 1891–1965 1886–1946 1888–1963 1356–1408 1890–1957 1342(?)–98 1893–1950 1762–1836 1876–1914 1874–1930 1834–1901 1552–1615 1900–1976 1854–1922 1731–83 1839–1917 1848–1905 1855–1910 1856–1925 1908–53 1870–1943 1836–1915 1206–89 1841–1909 ca.169–269 1857–1923 1804(?)–1866(?)
秋葉隆 安在鴻 安廓 張道斌 趙璞 崔南善 鄭道傳 鄭寅普 丁若鏞(茶山) 周時經 福田德三 福澤諭吉 韓百謙 韓雪野 林泰輔 洪大容 星野彬 黄遵黄 黃玹 玄采 林和 今村黄 井上馨 一然 伊藤博文 神功天皇(legendaryfigure) 神田乃武 箕子 金正浩
162
appenDix one
KimHong-jip KimHwal-lan KimKi-rim KimNam-ch’ŏn KimOk-kyun KimPu-sik KimSa-ryang KimT’ae-jun KimYun-sik Kojong(YiChae-hwang) KumeKunitake LiHongzhang LiangQichao (Queen)Min(MinCha-yŏng) MinYŏng-ik MinamiJirō MurayamaJijun MutsuMunemitsu Myoch’ŏng OkakuraKakuzō PaekNam-un PakChe-ga PakChi-wŏn PakHŏn-yŏng PakSi-hyŏng PakŬn-sik PakYŏng-hyo RheeSyngman SaitōMakoto Sejong(YiTo) SekinoTadashi ShigenoYasutsugu ShiratoriKurakichi SinCh’ae-ho SŏChae-p’il SŏKwang-bŏm
1842–96 1899–1970 1908–? 1911–53 1851–94 1075–1151 1914–50 1905–49 1835–1922 (r.1863–1907) 1839–1931 1823–1901 1873–1929 1851–1895 1860–1914 1874–1955 1891–1968 1844–97 d.1136 1862–1913 1894–1979 1750–1805 1737–1805 1900–1955 1910–2001 1859–1925 1861–1939 1875–1965 1858–1936 (r.1418–50) 1868–1935 1827–1910 1865–1942 1880–1936 1864–1951 1859–97
金弘集 金活蘭(Helen,天城活蘭) 金起林 金南天 金玉均 金富軾 金史良 金台俊 金允埴 久米 邦武 李鴻章 梁黄超 明成皇后 閔泳翊 南次黄 村山智順 陸黄 宗光 妙淸 岡倉黄三(OkakuraTenshin) 白南雲 朴齊家 朴趾源 朴憲永 朴時亨 朴殷植 朴泳孝(YamazakiEiharu
山崎永春) 李承晩 黄藤黄 黄野貞 重野安繹 白鳥庫吉 申采浩 徐載弼(PhilipJaisohn) 徐光範
names anD viTaL DaTes
SonChin-t’ae SonPyŏng-hŭi SoneArasuke SongSi-yŏl Suiko Taewŏn’gun(YiHa-ŭng) Tan’gun TerauchiMasatake ToriiRyūzō WangKŏn YanagiSōetsu YiCh’ŏng-wŏn YiHwang YiKi-yŏng YiKwang-su YiNŭng-hwa YiPyŏng-do YiSang YiSŏng-g ye YiSŭng-hyu YiT’ae-jun YiYi YuKil-chun YuTŭkkong YuanShikai YunCh’i-ho ZhuXi
1900–1950 1861–1922 1849–1910 1607–89 554–628 1820–98 (r.2333bcE–) 1852–1919 1870–1953 (r.918–43) 1889–1961 ?–? 1501–70 1895–1984 1892–1950 1869–1943 1896–1989 1910–37 (r.1392–98) 1224–1300 1904–56 1536–84 1856–1914 1749–1807 1859–1916 1865–1945 1130–1200
孫晋泰 孫秉熙 曾禰 荒助 宋時烈 推古天皇(EmpressSuiko) 大院君(李昰應) 檀君(legendaryfigure) 寺黄 正毅 鳥居 龍黄 王建(高麗太祖) 柳 宗黄 李淸源 李滉(courtesynameToegye) 李箕永 李光洙(香山光郞) 李能和 李丙燾 李箱 李成桂(朝鮮太祖) 李承休 李泰俊 李珥(courtesynameYulgok) 兪吉濬 柳得恭 袁世凱 尹致昊(ItōJikko伊東致昊) 朱熹(K:ChuHŭi)
163
appenDix 2
CharacterList chajuchipang chajutongnip che chehu’guk (C:Chenfan) ch’in-Il chin’gongguk chŏngch’esŏngnon chongmyo chongmyocherye chŏngsin chŏngt’ong ch’ŏnha ch’ŏnja ch’ŏnmyŏng (J:Chōsenjin) Chosŏn chuch’e;chuch’esŏng chukwŏn chungin ch’ungŏkukka chungwŏn (J:futeisenjin) (J:genrō) Haedong hanmun hon
自主之邦 自主獨立 帝 諸侯國 唇番郡 親日 進貢國 停滯性論 宗廟 宗廟祭禮 精神 正統 天下 天子 天命 朝鮮人 朝鮮 主體,主體性
主權 中人 忠於國家 中原 不逞鮮人 元老 海東 漢文 魂
independentcountry autonomyandindependence emperor vassalstate (K:Chinbŏn)HanChinesecommandery Japanophile tributarystate theoryaboutstagnation RoyalAncestralTemple grandsacrificialrite mind,spirit,Geist legitimateline,legitimatesuccession world,AllunderHeaven SonofHeaven Heaven’smandate Koreans 1392–1910 (sovereign)subject,subjectivity, subjectivewill sovereignty hereditaryclassoftechnicalspecialists loyaltytothestate CentralPlain(NorthChinaPlain) malcontentKoreans Meijielderstatesmen East,Korea literaryChinese soul,spirit;itsvitalitycomesfrom Heaven,andthuscanbedetached fromthebody
166
appenDix Two
hongikin’gan Hunmin chŏngŭm hwangje hwa-yi Hwangsŏng sinmun hyangch’al hyangga hyangyak hyoŏpumo idan idu Il-Sŏntongjoron inmin (J:Jiji sinpo) (J:Keijō) ki (J:Kojiki) Koguryŏ (J:kokumin) (J:kokutai) Koryŏ kukka kŭndaehwa kun’gukkimuch’ŏ kungmin kungmun kunminilch’e kyŏre kwanbo
弘益人間 訓民正音
皇帝 華 夷 皇城新聞 鄕札
鄕歌
鄕約 孝於父母 異端 吏讀/吏頭
日鮮同祖論
人民 時事新報
京城 氣 古事記 高句麗 國民 國體 高麗 國家 近代化 軍國機務處 國民 國文 君民一體 겨레 官報
devotiontowelfareofhumankind publishedin1443,Instructthepeopleonthe propersounds, emperor civilization-barbarism September5,1898–1910 localletters,archaicKoreanvernacularthat usedChinesecharactersformeaningand sound poemsfromtheThreeKingdomsperiodto theKoryŏperiodrecordedinhyangchal communitycompacts filialitytowardparents heresy,deviance archaicwritingsystemsthatusedChinese charactersandtheirabbreviationsto transcribeKorean (J:Nissendōsoron)theoryaboutJapanese andKoreanssharingcommonorigins thepeople Current Events,anewspaperstartedby FukuzawaYukichi Seoul lifeforceorbreath,energy RecordofAncientMatters,completedin712 37bcE–668 nationalcitizen,subject nationalbody/structure 918–1392 thestate,polity modernization deliberativecouncil nationalcitizen,subject nationalscript rulerandhispeopleasonebody ethnicnation Official Gazette(1894–1910)
CharaCTer LisT
kwangmu kwinsin kwŏlli kwŏn (C:Lelang) Liao (C:Lintun) man’gukkongbŏp ManminKongdonghoe (J:Mansenshi) min minjok minjung mujingpulsin munhŏnkojŭngsahak (J:Naisenittai) (J:Naisenyūwa) (J:Nihon Shoki) kuk’ŏ ŏl ŏnmun Paekche ŏp paeksŏng Parhae Parhaego pongkŏn puma’guk P’ungipsong p’yeha sadae
光武
鬼神 權利 權 樂浪郡
遼 臨屯郡
萬國公法 萬民共同會 滿鮮史 民 民族 民衆 無徵不信 文獻考證史學 內鮮一體 黄鮮融和 日本書紀
國語 얼 諺文
白濟 業 百姓 渤海 渤海考
封建 駙馬國 風入松 陛下 事大
eraname,August17,1897to August11,1907 ghost authority,privilege,rights rights,prerogative (K:Nangnang)103bcE–313cE, HanChinesecommandery (KhitanEmpire)907–1125, (K:Imdun)107–82bcE,Han Chinesecommandery internationallaw AssemblyofAll(People) historyofManchuriaandKorea people ethnicnation people,thesubaltern fidelitytohistoricalsources critical-textualhistoriography JapanandKoreaasonebody harmonybetweenJapanandKorea TheChroniclesofJapan,completed in720 nationallanguage mind,spirit disparagingtermforKoreanletters inventedbyKingSejong 18bcE–660 work,enterprise thepeople (C:Bohai)696–926 historyofParhaebyeighteenth- centuryscholarYuTŭk-kong feudal son-in-lawstate aKoryŏperiod“folk”song YourMajesty(formofaddress) servethesuperior
167
168
appenDix Two
sadaebu sajikdan sanghakwich’ŏn sarim Silla sim sinkungmin sinyŏsŏng soChunghwa sŏgomun sokkuk Sŏkkuram sŏnghwang Sŏyu kyŏnmun Ssangsŏng suripujak Taehancheguk taeŏp taesa tanbalryŏng tangp’asŏngnon t’ayulsŏngnon Tongbang Tongguk tongnip Tongniphyŏphoe Tongŭipogam (J:tōyōshi) ŭm,yang wae
士大夫 社稷壇 上下貴賤 士林 新羅 心 新國民 新女性 小中華
誓告文 屬國 石窟庵
聖皇 西遊見聞 雙城(摠管府) 述而不作 大韓帝國
大業 大祀 斷髮令 黨派性論
他律性論
東方 東國 獨立 獨立協會
東醫寶鑑
東洋史 陰陽 倭
scholar-officialclass AltarsofLandandHarvest peopleofallranks literatiinthecountryside 57bcE–668cE;“Unified”Silla,668–935 mind,heart newcitizen-subject newwoman Koreaasalesser(butonlyremaining) civilization royaloath vassalstate,dependency man-madestonegrottowithBuddhist statue emperor Observations on a Journey to the West Yüancommandery transmissionwithoutcreativeelaboration Han(Korean)Empire(October12, 1897–August29,1910) great/grandenterprise greatofferings topknotdecree factionalism(ingrainedinKoreanpolitical culture) heteronomousevolution,lackof autochthonousdevelopment EasternCountry,Korea EasternCountry,Korea independence IndependenceClub,July1896– December25,1898 completed1613,PreciousMirrorofKorean Medicine Orientalhistory yin,yang Japan(pejorative)
CharaCTer LisT
WanpaoshanIncident wŏndan wŏn’gudan (C:Xuantu) yushin
萬寶山事件 圜壇 圜丘壇 玄菟郡
維新
(K:Manbosan)July1931 RoundAltar RoundHillAltar (K:Hyŏndo)HanChineseCommandery 107bcE–302 restoration
169
noTes
Introduction 1.Sŭpotssŭ,sŭpidŭ,andsaeksŭ,alongwiththeexplanationforthebobhaircut, are in parentheses in the original. Other foreign words like Nora, the Bob, and haremareinquotationmarks.KimKi-rimwasamodernistpoetandliterarycritic. Hisessay“‘MissŭKoria’tanbalhasio”(“MissKorea,”CutYourHair)appearedin Tongkwang,no.37(September1932)withoutattribution. 2.Thetextreferstosŏppun tchari ka’gŭk,KurtWeilandBertoltBrecht’sDie Dreigroschenoper,firstperformedinBerlinin1928. 3.X’swereinsertedtoavoidcensorship.TheKwantungArmyhadseizedManchuriainSeptember1931andinvadedShanghaiinJanuary1932.ThuswhenKim Ki-rimwrotetheessayanti-imperialismhadtakenprecedenceinChinesepolitics. 4.Establishedin1886byMaryScranton,Ehwabeganasamissionschoolfor girls.Intheearly1930sEwhaCollegeadmittedaboutahundredstudentseachyear. Ofthethirty-sevenfacultymembers,twenty-onewereKorean.KimHwal-lanwasa graduateofEwha,andin1922shehelpedorganizetheKoreanywcA.YunCh’i-ho, whofoundedtheyMcAinKorea,washermentor.Shewasalsoamemberofthe Kŭnŭhoe,anationalistwomen’sorganizationfoundedin1927.Butsheresigned soonafterward,unwillingtoworkwithwomenwhowereMarxistsandsocialists. KimHwal-lan,“Nanŭntanbalŭlirrŏkkyeponda,”Tongkwang,no.37(September 1932).SeealsoIhwaYŏksagwan,Ewha Old and New: 110 Years of History (1886–1996) (Seoul:EwhaWoman’sUniversityPress,2005),andInsookKwon,“FeministsNavigatingtheShoalsofNationalismandCollaboration:ThePost-ColonialKoreanDebateoverHowtoRememberKimHwal-lan,”Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 27,no.1(2006). 5.AchilleMbembe,“Necropolitics,”Public Culture15,no.1(2003),13.Ithank AlexisDuddenforreferringmetothisarticle. 6.K.Y.,“Tanbalhankamsang,”Tongkwang,no.37(September1932). 7. On the historical relationship between imperialism and international law, seeAntonyAnghie,Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2004).SeealsoMarttiKoskenniemi,The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001). 8.Therewereother,lessdramaticchangestosumptuarylaws,forexample,laws thatregulatedthelengthofthepipeandthelengthandwidthofthesleeves. 9.AccordingtoHwangHyŏn,KingKojongturnedtoChŏngPyŏng-ha,anofficial whowasborninthenonaristocraticchunginclass,andtoldhimtocutthetopknot.
172
noTes To inTroDuCTion
YuKil-juncutthecrownprince’shair.CitedinLeeKwang-rin(YiKwang-rin),Yu Kil-chun(Seoul:Tongailbosa,1992),122–23. 10.AcrossEastAsia,writerswroteabouthair.InLuXun’s“Toufadegushi”(A StoryaboutHair,1920),forexample,astudentcuthisqueuewhenhewentto Japantostudy.UponhisreturntoChinahepurchasedafakequeueinShanghai. Butitwas1910,andhewasridiculedforwearingafakequeue.Hetookoffthe queueandputonaWesternsuit.Hewasjeeredinthestreets.Heputonthelong Chinesegown,andhewasstillridiculed.Theprotagonistinthestory,N,finally lashedoutathistormentorswithhiscane,afterwhichhewasleftalone.Nsays, “It[hittingothers]mademefeelsorrowful.”Inanessaypublishedin1935,LuXun revealedthat“Toufa”wasautobiographical.SeeEvanShanChou,“‘AStoryabout Hair’:ACuriousMirrorofLuXun’sPre-RepublicanYears,”Journal of Asian Studies 66,no.2(2007). 11.IntheEnglishtranslationreleasedbytheHomeOfficeandsignedbyYuKil- chun,taeŏpwastranslatedas“thegreatwork.”CitedinIsabellaL.Bird,Korea and Her Neighbors(1897;Boston:KPI,1985),363.Thephrase“Oursubjects”(sinmin) isactuallyacompoundthatreferstotwogroups:“subjects”orofficials(sin),and therest(min,orpeople).FortheKoreantext,seeKojong sillok,33-kwŏn,32-nyŏn (1895),11/15.Kuksapyŏnch’anwiwŏnhoe(NationalInstituteofKoreanHistory): http://sillok.history.go.kr/main/main.jsp.ForKojong sillok,aswithotherannalsin theChosŏn wangjo sillok(AnnalsoftheChosŏnDynasty),thecitationbeginswith theruler’stemplenameidentifyingtherecord(sillok),followedbyvolumenumber(kwŏn),thereignyear(nyŏn)withtheCommonErayearinparentheses,the monthanddaybylunarcalendar,andwhennecessarytheentry’slocationonthe page.November15bythelunarcalendar,32ndyearofKojong’sreign,wasDecember30,1895,intheGregoriancalendar. 12.ThebestworkonthisperiodisAndreSchmid’sKorea between Empires, 1895– 1919(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2002). 13.RegardingJapaneseuseofinternationallawtolegitimateJapan’sempire,see AlexisDudden,Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,2004). 14.HumantributebeganduringtheYüandynasty.Thenumberofchildrenrequisitioned wassmall,andtheyweretakenonanirregular basis.Thegirlswere selectedfromdaughtersoflow-tomiddle-gradeofficials.DonaldN.Clark,“Sino- KoreanTributaryRelationsundertheMing,”The Ming Dynasty, 1398–1644,part2, ed.DenisTwitchettandFrederickW.Mote,The Cambridge History of China,vol.8 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998). 15. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism(London:Verso,1983),77. 16.YunCh’i-ho,Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi(Seoul:Kuksapy’ŏnchanwiwŏnhoe,1973–1989), entryforOctober14,1893,3:187–88. 17.SeeUdaySinghMehta,Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth Century British Liberal Thought(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999).
noTes To inTroDuCTion
18.Myargumentherehasanaffinitytothehistoricaltrajectoriessuggestedby KimYong-sŏp.Seebelow,andnote30inchapter2. 19.Seenote60inchapter2,myreferencetoPaulRicoeur’sThe Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning of Language(Toronto:University ofTorontoPress,1975). 20.SeeRossKing,“WesternProtestantMissionariesandtheOriginsofKorean LanguageModernization,”Journal of International and Area Studies11,no.3(2004). 21.ReyChow,Women and Modernity: The Politics of Reading between East and West (Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1991),xv. 22.TheSŏkkuramisoneofSouthKorea’snationaltreasuresandrecognizedby unEscOasaWorldHeritagesite.Itwasconstructedinthemid-eighthcenturyon Mt.T’ohamnearKyŏngju. 23.SeeHyungIlPai,Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State-Formation Theories (Cambridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,2000). 24.SeeJunUchida,Brokers of Empire: Japanese Settler Colonialism in Korea, 1876– 1945 (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2011). See also Uchida Jun, “Ch’ongnyŏkjŏnsigichae-ChosŏnIlboninŭi‘NaeSŏnIlch’e’chŏngchaeketaehan hyŏmnyŏk,”Asea yŏn’gu51,no.1(2008),andMicahAuerback,“‘Ch’in-IlPulgyo’ yŏksahakŭichae’go:ChosŏnPulgyodankwa1920-nyŏndaeChosŏnesŏŭisŭngryŏ kyŏlhonetaehannonjaeng,”Asea yŏn’gu51,no.3(2008). 25.SeeRebeccaKarl,Staging the World: Chinese Nationalism at the Turn of the Twentieth Century(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2002),5–7. 26.SeeKumeKunitake,“Nihonfukuinnoenkaku,”Shigakkai zasshi1(December 1889),andalsoStefanTanaka,Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pasts into History(Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1993),71–75. 27.FukudaTokuzō,“Kankokunokeizaisoshikitokeizaitani,”Keizaigaku kenkyū, (Tokyo:Dōbunkan,1904),147.MyEnglishtranslationisbasedonYiCh’ŏl-sŏng’s Koreanlanguagetranslation.SeeYiCh’ŏl-sŏng,“Singminjisigiyŏksainsikkwayŏksasŏsul,”Han’guksa23(Seoul:Han’gilsa,1994),129.SeealsoOwenMiller,“The IdeaofStagnationinKoreanHistoriography,”Korean Histories2,no.1(2010):4–5. 28.Bothwerewritten inJapanese andpublished inJapan toavoid themore stringentcensorshiplawsincolonialKorea. 29.Tanaka,Japan’s Orient. 30.W.W.Rostow,A Proposal: Key to an Effective Foreign Policy(NewYork:Harper andBrothers,1957),andThe Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1960).SeealsoTae-g yunPark,“DifferentRoads,CommonDestination:EconomicDiscoursesinSouthKoreaDuringthe 1950s,”Modern Asian Studies39,no.3(2005). 31.SeePakChi-hyangetal.,eds.,Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,vols.1and2 (Seoul:Ch’aekSesang,2006). 32.BruceCumings,“TheKoreaWar:WhatIsItThatWeAreRememberingto Forget?,”Ruptured Histories: War, Memory, and the Post–Cold War in Asia,ed.Sheila
173
174
noTes To ChapTer one
Miyoshi Jager and Rana Mitter (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 283–84. 33.Paketal.,“Taedam,”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,vol.2. 34.MichaelHardtandAntonioNegri,Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire(NewYork:PenguinBooks,2004),212.
1.SovereigntyandImperialism 1.Thesourceofthischapter’sepigraph,CarlSchmitt’s1933lecture,wasrepublishedinPositionen und Begriffe andcitedinG.L.Ulmen’sintroductiontoCarl Schmitt,The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum(NewYork:TelosPress,2003),18–19. 2.TheofficialEnglishtranslationquotedheresuitablymakesuseoftheroyal “We.”FortheKoreantext,seeKojong sillok,32-kwŏn,31-nyŏn(1894),12/12,first article.Kuksapyŏnch’anwiwŏnhoe:http://sillok.history.go.kr/main/main.jsp.The thirty-firstyearofKojong’sreignwas1894.ButDecember12(1894)bythelunar calendarwasJanuary7,1895,intheGregoriancalendar. 3.IsabellaL.Bird,Korea and Her Neighbours(1897;Boston:kPi,1985),247. 4.Grandsacrificialrites(chongmyo cherye)wereconductedeachyearinJanuary,April,July,andOctober.Specialriteswerealsoperformedonauspiciousoccasionsordifficulttimes.TheHallofEternalPeace(yŏngnyŏngjŏn),locatedabout fiftymeterssouthwestoftheMainHall(chŏngjŏn),issmallerandhousesthespirit tabletsofthefourancestorsofKingT’aejo,short-reignedkings,queens,andconsorts.BoththeMainHallandtheHallofEternalPeacestandontwo-tieredstone terraces,eachenclosedbyasquarewall.GreatofferingsattheAltarsofLandand Harvest(sajikdan)wereconductedthreetimesayear. 5.IntheOath,KingKojongusedthetermkukka:“Onlyasanindependentruler canWemakeourcountry[a-kukka]strong.”Thetermkukkareferreddirectlyto thedynasticstateandwasusedlongbeforethenineteenthcentury.Mid-Chosŏn thinkerslikeYiI(pennameYulgok,1536–84),forexample,usedthetermtodenote the dynastic state, as in ch’ung ŏ kukka (loyalty to the dynastic state). See MartinaDeuchler,“ThePracticeofConfucianism:RitualandOrderinChosŏnDynastyKorea,”Rethinking Confucianism: Past and Present in China,Japan,Korea,and Vietnam,ed.BenjaminA.Elman,JohnB.Duncan,andHermanOoms(LosAngeles:uclAAsianPacificMonographSeries,2002). 6.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatforscholarslikeChŏngYag-yong(1762–1836) therewasafundamentaldistinctiontobemadebetweentheRoyalAncestralTemple andthesajikdan:unliketheRoyalAncestralTemple,whichservedasashrinetothe spiritsofdeceasedancestors,thesajikdanwasashrinetoheavenlydeities.Thus,unliketheRoyalAncestralTemple,thesajikdanisashrinewithatranscendentstatus: theAltarsofLandandGraindonotbelongtoaparticulardynasty,andtheyshould notbetorndownorreplacedwhenanewdynastycomestopower.SeeKŭmChang- t’ae,“Tasanŭisajikjewach’ejekojŭng,”Chongkyohak yŏn’gu16(1997).
noTes To ChapTer one
7.Nobiwerenotorganizedinfamilialorlineagekinshipgroups;afterall,adult aswellasadolescentnobiwereboughtandsold,andtheycouldnotperformmortuaryrituals.JamesPalaisestimatesthatnobiofallkindstogethermadeupnearly one-thirdofthepopulationthroughouttheChosŏnperiod.SeeJamesB.Palais, Confucian Statecraft and Korean Institutions: Yu Hyŏngwŏn and the Late Chosŏn Dynasty(Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,1996),208–70. 8.DuringKingSejong’sreign(1418–50)aseparateannex,theHallofEternal Peace(yŏngnyŏngjŏn),wasconstructedtohousethespirittabletsoftheancestors ofKingT’aejoaswellasshort-reignedkingsandtheirqueens.In1545,theyear KingMyŏngjongtookthethrone,fourkanwereaddedtotheeastendofchŏngjŏn. In1592,thefirstyearofHideyoshi’sinvasionofKorea,boththeMainHallandthe HallofEternalPeacewerecompletelydestroyed.TheMainHallwasrebuiltasan eleven-kanstructurein1608,andtheHallofEternalPeacein1668.In1726the MainHallchŏngjŏnwasexpandedtoafifteen-kanstructure,andin1834expanded againtoitscurrentsizeofnineteenkan.SeeDong-UkKim,“Chongmyo,”Korea Journal40,no.3(2000). 9.InhisTenInjunctions,T’aejoreferstotheKhitanas“beasts,”anditwasnot until960,afterthefirstKhitaninvasion,thatKoryŏacceptedthesuzeraintyofthe Liao.Koryŏsa,kwŏn-2,sega-2,T’aejo15-nyŏn(932),5/3.(Kuksap’yŏnch’anwiwŏnhoe)http://db.history.go.kr/KOREA/. 10.SeeRoMyoung-ho(NoMyŏng-ho),“TongmyŏngWangpyŏnkwaYiKyu-bo ŭitawŏnjŏkch’ŏnhakwan,”Chindan hakbo83(1997),and“Koryŏsidaeŭitawŏnjŏk ch’ŏnhakwankwaHaedongCh’ŏnja,”Han’guksa yŏn’gu,no.105(1999). 11. In terms of Koryŏ rulers personally conducting the sacrifice to Heaven (chech’ŏnnye),theKoryŏsamentionsonlyfourteeninstances. 12. Remco E. Breuker, “Koryŏ as an Independent Realm: The Emperor’s Clothes?,”Korean Studies27(2004),53. 13.Thisfolksongmostlikelyoriginatedpriortotheperiodofmilitaryrule,that is,before1170.IntheKoryŏsa,aseditedbytheNationalInstituteofKoreanHistory(Kuksap’yŏnchanwiwŏnhoe),thefirststanzaispunctuatedinsuchaway thatche(帝,emperor)andpul(佛,Buddha)appearasacompound,agenericterm forBuddha:海東天子,當今帝佛,補天助敷化來.Koryŏsa,kwŏn-71,chi-25.Basedon otherreferencestotheemperorinboththelyricsandmanyothertextsfromthis period,RoMyoung-hoarguesthatcheandpuldonotformacompoundandthat thestanzashouldbepunctuatedthus:海東天子,當今帝,佛補天助敷化來.SeeRo, “TongmyŏngWangpyŏnkwaYiKyu-boŭitawŏnjŏkch’ŏnhakwan.” 14.TheJurchenreferredtoKoryŏastheir“fatherandmother,”andintheKoryŏsa the Wan-yen clan refers to Koryŏ as taebang (great country). Cited in Breuker, “KoryŏasanIndependentRealm,”27n34. 15.Ro,“Koryŏsidaeŭitawŏnjŏkch’ŏnhakwankwaHaedongCh’ŏnja.”Theakji sectionoftheKoryŏsaincludesthreetypesofmusic:aak,ritualmusicinthe“authentic”style;tangak,musicoriginatingfromTangandSong;andsogak,folksongs sometimesreferredtoashyangak.
175
176
noTes To ChapTer one
16.Inthatsense,theChineseemperorwashaesŏ ch’ŏnja,theemperoroftheWest (oftheSea).Ch’uMyŏng-yŏp,Han’guksa yŏn’gu,no.129(2005). 17.SemVermeersch,The Power of the Buddhas: The Politics of Buddhism During the Koryŏ Dynasty(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,2008),83–84. 18.SeeYiPyŏng-do,Koryŏ sidae ŭi yŏn’gu: T’ŭkhi chiri toch’am sasang ŭi palchŏn ŭl chungsim ŭro(1954;Seoul:Aseamunhwasa,1980),citedinBreuker,“Koryŏasan IndependentRealm,”83n121. 19.AtthebeginningoftheChosŏndynasty,similargeomanticconsiderations promptedYiSŏng-g yetomovethecapitalfromKaesŏngtopresent-daySeoul. 20.Breuker,“KoryŏasanIndependentRealm,”78n73. 21.Ro,“Koryŏsidaeŭitawŏnjŏkch’ŏnhakwankwaHaedongCh’ŏnja,”14–16. 22. As the crown prince, Ch’ungnyŏl was married to a daughter of Khubilai Khan,thefounderoftheYüandynasty.OnKoryŏasason-in-lawstate,seeHyŏn- kuMin,“KoryŏPoliticsunderMongolControl:DynasticContinuityDuringthe PeriodofRoyalAbsence,”International Journal of Korean History1(2000). 23.AmongChosŏndynastymonarchs,SejowastheonlykingtopersonallyconductsacrificestoHeavenatthewŏndan.InthecaseofotherearlyChosŏnmonarchs,duringtimesofseveredroughtthesadaebuacquiescedonlytotheextentof allowingthekingtosendoneofthestatecouncilorstoofferprayersatthewŏndan. PokeeSohn,Social History of the Early Chosŏn Dynasty: The Functional Aspects of Governmental Structure(Seoul:Jisik-sanupPublications,2000). 24.ChoChun-ha,“Urinaraŭichesamunhwawachongmyotaeje,”Han’guk sasang kwa munhwa12(2001),320. 25.Thiswŏndanseemstohavebeenlocatedinpresent-dayHannam-dong,in Seoul. 26.Hwanggung’u,thestructurethatremainstoday,wasbuiltin1899tohouse thetabletsusedinsacrificestoHeaven. 27. T’aejo sillok, 1-kwŏn, 1-nyŏn (1392), 8/11, second article. Kuksa pyŏnch’an wiwŏnhoe:http://sillok.history.go.kr/main/main.jsp. 28.Tan’gunnamedthestatehefounded(purportedlyintheareaaroundPyongyang)Chosŏn.HistorianstodayrefertothisstateasAncientChosŏn,butthere isinsufficientarchaeologicalevidencethatAncientChosŏnactuallyexisted.On Tan’gunandKijaworship,seeHanYoung-woo,“KijaWorshipintheKoryŏand Early Yi Dynasties: A Cultural Symbol in the Relationship between Korea and China,”The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea,ed.W.M.TheodoredeBaryandJaHyunKimHaboush(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1985).Thebestknown accountofTan’gunappearsintheSamguk yusa(MemorabiliaoftheThreeKingdoms)writtenbytheBuddhistmonkIryŏn(1206–89).IryŏnwritesthatinthefiftiethyearoftheEmperorYao,Tan’gunestablishedawalledcityatPyongyangand calledhiscountryChosŏn.HethenmovedthecapitaltoAsadal,whereheruled for1,500years.WhenthekingofZhouenfeoffedJizi(K:Kija)toChosŏn,Tan’gun wentintothemountainsandbecameamountaingodattheageof1,908.SeeIryŏn, Samguk yusa(Seoul:SŏjŏngSihak,2009).
noTes To ChapTer one
29.ChoPakmemorialized,“BecausewŏndanisasacrificialritualtoHeaventhat [only]theSonofHeavenconducts,werequestthatthisritualbestopped.”T’aejo sillok,1-kwŏn,1-nyŏn(1392),8/11,secondarticle. 30.AccordingtoJohnDuncan,thecapital-basedscholar-officialswhohelped bringYiSŏng-g yetopowerconstitutedacentralaristocracythathaddevelopeda consciousnessofthemselvesasadistinctclasstowardtheendoftheKoryŏperiod. Usingself-identifyingtermslikesadaebu,sajok,andyangban,thisscholar-official class was very conscious of the fact that their power and prestige flowed from theirstatusasofficialsofthedynasticbureaucracy.TheChosŏnsettlementthus dismantled Koryŏ’s hyangni-based territorial status system by curtailing hyangni participationinthecentralbureaucracyandbyputtinganendtotheKoryŏmonarchicpracticeofdelegatingpowertoforeignretainers,slaves,andeunuchs.John Duncan,The Origins of the Chosŏn Dynasty(Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress, 2000). 31.ChoChun-ha,“UamSongSi-yŏlŭichuch’eŭisik,”Han’guk sasang kwa munhwa 42(2008). 32.OnthequestionofhowSongSi-yŏlcametobeidentifiedasthecentralfigure behindPunishtheQing,seeImPu-yŏn.“Yuggyoŭiryehwaŭichŏngchihak:MandongmyowaTaebodanŭrchungsimŭro,”Chonggyo munhwa pip’yŏng15(2009), 159–84. 33.Adam Clarence Immanuel Bohnet, “Migrant andBorder Subjects inLate Chosŏn,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 2008, 184–86. As Bohnet pointsout,thislineofargument—thatMingloyalistritualismaimedtoelevate theChosŏndynasticstate,notChinaorthedefunctMingdynasty—appearsmost forcefullyinChŏngOkcha,Chosŏn hugi Chosŏn Chunghwa sasang yŏn’gu(Seoul:Ilchisa,1998). 34.GariLedyard,“HongTaeyongandHisImpressionsofChinaintheYear1766: A Korean Intellectual’s Appraisal,” lecture given at the University of Michigan, November2,2000.Also,GariLedyard,“HongTaeyongandHisPeking Memoir,” Korean Studies6(1982). 35.JamesHeviamakesuseoftheconceptsofdeterritorializationandreterritorializationtoexplainhowandtowhatextentBritishimperialisminnineteenth- centuryChinawasaboveallapedagogicproject.AstheorizedbyGillesDeleuze andFélixGuattariinAnti-Oedipus,deterritorializationreferstohowOedipalcapitalismtransgressesanddestroysterritoriallimits,thecentralizingpolity,andfeudalhierarchicalchannelsandsetsadriftdesire.Reterritorializationreferstohow productionischanneledintocommodityform,anddesireisconcentratedintoa neurotic(privatized)father-mother-me.Similarly,fromthewhippingofKorean criminals (until 1920) to the implementation of bureaucratic rationality, Japanesecolonialismwasatransgressiveand“pedagogic”effortthatsoughttochanneldesireandobtainasufficientdegreeofacquiescencefromthecolonized.See JamesL.Hevia,English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteenth-Century China(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2003).
177
178
noTes To ChapTer one
36.KurodaKiyotakawastheambassadorplenipotentiaryatthetime,andInoue Kaoruwastheviceenvoy.SeeMartina Deuchler,Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys: The Opening of Korea,1875–1885(Seattle:UniversityofWashington Press,1977). 37.SeeYur-bokLee,“EstablishmentofaKoreanLegationintheUnitedStates, 1887–1890,”Illinois Papers in Asian Studies3(1983).Intreatiesandotherlegaldocuments,andascitedhere,sokkukorsokbangistranslatedasdependency.Elsewhere, Itranslatesokkukorsokbangasvassal state. 38.QuotedinDeuchler,Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys,119. 39.AlexisDudden,“Japan’sEngagementwithInternationalTerms,”Tokens of Exchange:The Problem of Translation in Global Circulations,ed.LydiaH.Liu(Durham: DukeUniversityPress,1999).SeealsoAlexisDudden,Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,2005). 40.LewisLancasterremindsusthat“China”ofthefourthcenturycEwasdominatedbytheHaninthesouth,butnorthern “China”wasdominated byTurkic nomadickingdoms.LewisR.Lancaster,introductiontoBuddhism in Koryŏ:A Royal Religion,ed.LewisR.Lancaster,KikunSuh,andChai-ShinYu(1996;Fremont, Calif:AsianHumanitiesPress,2002). 41.Vermeersch,The Power of the Buddhas,42. 42.EvenduringtheChosŏnperiod,whenBuddhistinstitutionsnotonlylost statepatronagebutweredrivenfromthecapitalandotherurbancenters,BuddhisminKorearetaineditshoguk pulgyo(literally,safeguard-the-stateBuddhism) character.SeeRobertBuswell,“BuddhisminKorea,”Buddhism and Asian History, ed.JosephM.KitagawaandMarkD.Cummings(NewYork:Macmillan,1989). 43.Buswell,“BuddhisminKorea.”IryŏnrecordedintheSamguk yusa(MemorabiliaoftheThreeKingdoms)that“Hwanin,theCelestialEmperor(Hwaninmeans Chesŏk),sentdownhisson,Hwanung,tothepeakofT’aebaeksanwiththreeheavenlysealsandthreethousandfollowerstoruleoverthepeople.”Inwritingthe Samguk yusa,IryŏndrewfromearlierhistorieslikeTan’gun kogi,butthoseearlier historiesarenotextant. 44. The inscription was for Kŭngyang (878–956), the founder (kaesanjo) of Paengŏm-sa.See“Pongam-saChŏngjintaesapimyŏng(965),”Yŏkchu namal yŏcho kŭmsŏngmun,ed.Han’gukyŏksayŏn’guhoe(Seoul:Hyean,1996),270,translated bySemVermeerschandcitedinThe Power of the Buddhas,265. 45.Vermeersch,The Power of the Buddhas,265. 46. My discussion of Confucian ritual and the disavowal of Buddhism in the Chosŏn period is indebted to Martina Deuchler’s seminal work The Confucian Transformation of Korea:A Study of Society and Ideology(Cambridge:CouncilonEast AsianStudies,HarvardUniversity,1992).Onaffectiverelations,seeJahyunKim Haboush,“FilialEmotionsandFilialValues:ChangingPatternsintheDiscourseof FilialityinLateChosŏnKorea,”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies55,no.1(1995). 47.Ledyard,“HongTaeyongandHisImpressionsofChinaintheYear1766.” 48. Andre Schmid, “Tributary Relations and the Qing-Chosŏn Frontier on
noTes To ChapTer one
MountPaektu,”The Chinese State at the Borders,ed.DianaLary(Vancouver:ubc Press,2008),132. 49.AndreSchmid,Korea between Empires, 1895–1919(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2002),206–11. 50.Che-gaPak,“Chonjuron,”Pukhak ŭi, oep’yŏn, Chŏngyugak chŏnjip,2(Seoul: Yŏgang ch’ulp’ansa, 1986), 463–66, translated by Martina Deuchler, Sources of Korean Tradition,ed.YŏnghoCh’oeetal.(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress, 2000),2:102. 51.Si-yŏlSong,Songja taejŏn,vol.5,citedinTae-yongHuh,“ACriticalReviewon theIssueofProto-NationalismDuringLateChosŏn,”International Journal of Korean History12(August2008),97. 52. Huh, “A Critical Review on the Issue of Proto-Nationalism during Late Chosŏn,”98. 53.Therequisitionofboysandgirlsastributewasapracticethatbeganwiththe Yüan. 54.SeePeterYun,“RethinkingtheTributeSystem:NortheastAsianInterstate Relations,600–1600,”Ph.D.dissertation,uclA. 55.WidelyreportedcasesofcannibalismindicatethemagnitudeofhumansufferingandphysicaldestructionwroughtbytheHideyoshiinvasions(ImjinWars, 1592–98)andtheextenttowhichChosŏn’spoliticalandsocialsystemsofcontrol hadcollapsed.Witharablelandreducedtoone-thirdtheareaofthepre–ImjinWar period,duemostlytoconscriptionofmenandthedisplacementofpeoplefromthe land,thereducedyieldsinharvestedgrainsimplycouldnotsupportthearmies andthepopulation.Sŏnjo sillokrecordscasesofpeopleeatingthefleshofthose whohadstarvedtodeath(includingreportsofnumerousbodiesinthestreetsof thecapitalwiththeirfleshhackedaway)andactivecannibalism,“evencasesof fatherandsons,andbrothers,killingandeatingeachother.”Sŏnjo sillok,49-kwŏn, 27-nyŏn(1594),3,citedinYiChang-hŭi,“Oeranchungŭisahoesang,”Han’guksa (Seoul:Kuksap’yŏnchanwiwŏnhoe,1995),29:145–47.DuringthefirstHideyoshi invasion,afterKingSŏnjo(r.1567–1608)andhisministersfledthecapitaltothe jeersoftheresidents,slaves(nobi)inthecapitalseizedtheopportunitytoburn theslaveregisters(andperhapstheRoyalAncestralTemplestoo).Therewerea numberofotherslaverevoltsduringtheImjinWars.Moreovermanypeasantsin KyŏngsangProvincewhoaidedtheHideyoshiarmiesseemedtohaveagreedwith thecharge thattheir king was tyrannical, andtheparticipation ofanumberof RighteousArmycommandersinrebellionsledbySongYu-jinandYiMong-hakto overthrowtheChosŏndynastysuggesthowmucheffortthedynastyhadtoexert toreestablishcontrolandlegitimacyafterthesewars.The“Confucianization”of Chosŏnsocietyduringtheseventeenthcenturymustbeunderstoodinthiscontext.ThedenunciationofuxorilocalresidenceandthereorganizationofChosŏn societyonthebasisofthepatrilinealdescentgroup(thatis,theattempttoreestablishmasculineidentityintheformofConfucianpatriarchy)werepartandparcel ofthefranticbutconcertedandsustainedattemptsonthepartoftheYimonarchy
179
180
noTes To ChapTer one
andtheyangbaninthecountrysidetoreestablishcontroloverlife(andmemory), labor,andlanguage—especiallydiscoursesthatwewouldrecognizeasdidactic narrativesonmasculineaswellasfeminineidentity. 56.OnthedifferentintellectualreactionstoMing’sdemise,seeJaHyunKimHaboush,“ConstructingtheCenter:TheRitualControversyandtheSearchforaNew IdentityinSeventeenth-CenturyKorea,”Culture and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea, ed.JaHyunKimHaboushandMartinaDeuchler(Cambridge:HarvardUniversity AsiaCenter,1999). 57. After the general breakdown of political and social control following the Hideyoshi(latesixteenthcentury)andManchu(earlyseventeenthcentury)invasions,theliteratiinthecountryside(sarim)hadtoorganizelocalstructuresthat couldmaintaintheirownstatusidentityandself-disciplineandprovidewelfarefor andmoralleadershipoverbothcommonersandslavesthroughtheestablishment ofcommunitycompacts(hyangyak),communalgranaries,rostersoflocalresidents (hyangan),andsoon. 58.AccordingtoMichaelRogers,theconceptofKoreaasa“SmallChina”first appearedduringtheKoryŏperiod. 59.PakChi-wŏn’sYŏrha ilgiisarecordoftheembassythatPakaccompanied totheseventiethbirthdaycelebrationsoftheQianlongemperorinhissummer palace.Thisbookisacompositeandcontainsessaysonreligion,science,andphilosophy.SeePakChi-wŏn,Yŏrha ilgi,translated(intocontemporaryKorean)and editedbyKimHyŏl-cho(Kyŏnggi-doP’asju-si:Tolbegae,2009). 60.AlthoughHongTae-yongwasbornintoaprestigiousyangbanfamilyatthe centerofpower(Noron),hedisputedtheorthodoxviewthatscienceandtechnologyweremarginalbranchesofknowledge.HongratedWesternscienceand technologysuperiortoanythingcreatedduringtheTangorSungperiods.Hetook adeepinterestinstudiesoftheearth’srotation,eclipses,andmathematicstoo. SeeHongTae-yong,Sinp’yŏn kugyŏk Hong Tae-yong Tamhŏnsŏ(Kyŏnggi-doPaju-si: Han’gukHaksulChŏngbo,2008). 61.In1876InouewasthedeputyenvoysenttoChosŏntonegotiatetheKanghwaTreaty,Korea’sfirst“modern”treaty.In1882,aftertheemeuteduringwhich mutinous Korean soldiers killed forty Japanese residents and burned down the Japanese legation, it was Inoue who supervised the conclusion of the Treaty of Chemulp’othatgaveJapantherighttostationacompanyofsoldiersinthecapital. In1884,afterthefailureoftheKapsincoupattemptinwhichKorean“reformers” withtiestoJapantriedtoseizepower,InouepersonallysignedtheTreatyofSeoul, whereinKoreahadtosendaletterofapologytoJapanforthedeathsofJapanese whowerekilledintheaftermathofthefailedcoupattempt.Koreawasalsomade topay110,000yeninindemnities.In1884Japanwasunwillingtogotowarwith ChinaoverKorea,andfortenyears,1885–94,ChineseinterferenceinKoreaincreasedtoalevelnotseensincetheearlyyearsoftheQingdynasty(1644–1912). InouealsosponsoredtheConventionofTientsin,signedin1885byLiHongzhang andItōHirobumi,thatbecamethebasisoftheSino-Japanesecooperationforade-
noTes To ChapTer one
cade,from1885to1894.ItissignificantthatintheConventionofTientsin,Liwas notabletoinduceItōtoacknowledgeChina’ssuzeraintyoverthepeninsula. 62. See Young Ick Lew, “Minister Inoue Kaoru and the Japanese Reform Attempts in Korea During the Sino-Japanese War, 1894–1895,” Journal of Asiatic Studies27,no.2(1984). 63. Lew, “Minister Inoue Kaoru and the Japanese Reform Attempts in Korea DuringtheSino-JapaneseWar,”163. 64.YiT’ae-jinarguesthatinthe1870s,KingKojongadoptedareformistvision exemplifiedbytheconceptKunminilch’e(therulerandhispeopleasonebody). Kojong’shistoricalmodelwasKingChŏngjotheGreat(1776–1800),andevenduringtheyearsofYuanShikai’sdominance(1882–94),Kojongsteadilypursuedmodernizingreforms.SeeYiT’ae-jin,Kojong sidae ŭi chae-chomyŏng(Seoul:T’aehaksa, 2000). 65.Shin,Yong-ha.“TheRevolutionaryMovementoftheTonghakPeasantArmy of1894:Seenvis-à-vistheFrenchRevolution,”Korea Journal29,no.10(1989). 66.Historically,becausethesadaebu(oryangban)checkedthepowerofthemonarchyateveryturn,Chosŏnmonarchstendedtofavormoreegalitarianpolicies, policiesthatwouldsafeguardthethronewhileweakeningthepowerandprivilege oftheyangbanclass. 67. It can be argued that the de-centering of China, as described by Andre Schmid,wasthedenouementofanti-Chinesesentimentsthathadbeenaccumulatingsince1882.SeeSchmid,Korea between the Empires.AsfortheSino-Japanese War,YiT’ae-jinarguesthatitwasatthebiddingofYuanShikaithatKingKojong formally requested military assistance from China to pacify the Tonghak insurgents,allowingprimeministerItōHirobumiandforeignministerMutsuMunemitsutosendJapanesetroopstoKorea.SeeYi,Kojong sidae ŭi chae-chomyŏng. 68. Yu Kil-chun, Sŏyu kyŏnmun: Chosŏn chisigin Yu Kil- chun, Sŏyang ŭl pŏnyŏk hada,translatedintocontemporaryKoreanbyHŏKyŏng-jin(Seoul:Sŏhaemunjip,2004).Inthespringof1881,attheageoftwenty-six,YuKil-chunaccompanied theInspectionMissiontoJapan(chosa sach’aldan)andwiththepermissionand supportoftheChosŏncourtstayedbehindtostudyatFukuzawaYukichi’sKeio Gijuku.Hewas,inthatsense,thefirstKoreanstudentinJapan.AtKeioGijuku, YureadFukuzawa’sSeiyo jijo(ConditionsintheWest,1867).ReturningtoKorea in1883,YucontinuedtocorrespondwithFukuzawaandInoueKaoru.HetranslatedFukuzawa’sMoji no oshie,atextonkanjireform.HehelpedestablishHansŏng sunbo,Korea’sfirstnewspaper.In1884heaccompaniedthefirstdiplomaticmission KingKojongsenttotheUnitedStates.Heagainstayedbehindtostudy,firstwith E.S.MorseandthenattheGovernorDummerAcademyandBostonUniversity. HetraveledinEurope,SoutheastAsia(SingaporeandHongKong),andJapanand returnedtoKoreainDecember1885.Underhousearrest,hewroteSŏyu kyŏnmun inmixedscript.Begunin1887,themanuscriptwascompletedin1889;itwaspublishedbyaJapanesepressin1895.Releasedfromdetentionin1892,YuheldanumberofhighofficesduringtheKaboreforms,includingministerofhomeaffairs.In
181
182
noTes To ChapTer one
1896,afterKingKojongtookrefugeattheRussianLegation,Yu,implicatedinthe murderofQueenMin,wasforcedintoexile. 69. “Nonsŏ Il-choyak kaejŏngan” (A Proposal for Revising Our Treaty with Japan),saŭi(opinion),Hanyang chubo,May24,1886. 70. See Joshua John Van Lieu, “Divergent Visions of Serving the Great: The EmergenceofChosŏn-QingTributaryRelations,”Ph.D.dissertation,Universityof Washington,2010. 71.Intheseventeenthcentury,evenwhentheChosŏncourtandmuchofthe scholar-officialclassentertainedhopesof“punishing”theManchuswhohadoverthrowntheMing,theydidsowiththeideaofrestoringtheMingtopower.Until Japan’svictoryinthefirstSino-JapaneseWar,thevastmajorityofChosŏnscholar- officialswouldhavefoundithardtoimagineKoreacompletelyseparated,politicallyandculturally,fromChina. 72.Thefollowingday,aswascustomary,Kojongmadethesamepledgeatthe Altars of Land and Harvest. George A. Lensen, in an otherwise carefully documentedhistoryofimperialistrivalryinlatenineteenth-centuryKorea,mistakenly statesthatKingKojonginauguratedthenewpolicy(ofindependence)onJanuary7atthe“ancestraltombs,”andthatherepeatedtheoathsatthe“shrineofhis ancestors”thefollowingday.LensenalsodescribestheJanuary7Oathasa“festive declaration”butdoesnotcitehissource.SeeGeorgeAlexanderLensen,Balance of Intrigue: International Rivalry in Korea and Manchuria, 1884–1899(Tallahassee:UniversityPressofFlorida,1982),2:522. 73. See Kim To-hyŏng, “Han’guk kŭndaesa ŭi chaju, tongnip ŭi ŭimi,” Yŏksa pip’yŏng29(May1995),179.Article1oftheTreatyofKanghwa,signedin1876by representativesoftheChosŏnandMeijigovernments,statedthatKoreawasan independentstatewiththesamesovereignrightsasJapan.Butthisdidnotsever Chosŏn’stributarytiestoChina. 74.IntheChosŏn wangjo sillokthewordtongniptypicallyreferredtoaperson whostandsalone,orisabletostandalone,keepinghisowncounsel,asin“tongnippulgutunsepulmin”(tostandalonewithoutfear,shunningtheworldwithout anxiety).SeeSukjong sillok,10-kwŏn,6-nyŏn(1680),8/14,firstarticle.Sometimes tongnipimpliedbeingdifferent,orisolated.See,forexampleSŏngjong sillok,104- kwŏn,10-nyŏn(1479),5/5,thirdarticle;Chungjong sillok,21-kwŏn,9-nyŏn(1514), 10/3, third article; and Yŏngjo sillok, 53-kwŏn, 17-nyŏn (1741), 5/22, first article. Tongnipcouldalsobeusedinreferencetoalocaladministrativeunit,likeacounty seat,thatis,tomakeitaseparateunit.SeeKwanghae’gun ilgi,25-kwŏn,2-nyŏn (1610),2/7,sixtharticle. 75.Lew,“MinisterInoueKaoruandtheJapaneseReformAttemptsinKoreaDuringtheSino-JapaneseWar,”163. 76. Having “stolen the jewel” (the Meiji emperor), restoration activists like ŌkuboToshimichididnotenvisageEmperorMeiji’spoliticalauthorityasgoing beyondtheconsensusofthosewholedthestruggleagainstthebakufu.Therealm (Japan as a whole) belonged to the emperor, but it was to be “publicly admin-
noTes To ChapTer one
istered” by those who had led the anti-bakufu struggle. Participation in politics wouldbeexpanded,andyet,asanethicalandsacredduty,allsubjectswereto submitvoluntarilytothewilloftheemperor.Suchanarrangementwouldprovide theleadersoftherestorationmovementwithmaximumpoliticalauthorityand justificationforsuppressingoppositiontothenewregime.SeeH.D.Harootunian, Toward Restoration: The Growth of Political Consciousness in Tokugawa Japan(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1970). 77. Mutsu Munemitsu, Kenkenroku: The Memoirs of Count Mutsu Munemitsu, trans.GordenM.Berger(Tokyo:UniversityofTokyoPress,1982),29–30. 78.ForanEnglishtranslationoftheOath,seeSpencerJ.Palmer,ed.,KoreanAmerican Relations: Documents Pertaining to the Far Eastern Diplomacy of the United States,vol.2,The Period of Growing Influence, 1887–1895 (Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1963),350–51. 79.TheotherpublicholidayswereSundays,NewYear’sEve,andthefirstthree daysoftheyear. 80.DiplomaticpracticeswerelargelystandardizedattheCongressofVienna (1814–15). 81.F.H.Hinsley,Sovereignty,2ndedition(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1986),26. 82.AnthonyGiddens,The Nation-State and Violence(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1987),263. 83.StephenD.Krasner,Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy(Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress,1999). 84.Krasner,Sovereignty,24. 85.OneinequalitythatirkedWesterndiplomatsinHanyang(especiallyonrainy days)wasnotbeingabletorideinasedanchairwithinthewallsofthemainpalace, astheChineseministerdid.Westerndiplomatsagainandagaindemandedthat theytoobeallowedtorideonsedanchairswithinthepalacewalls.Muddyboots notwithstanding,itissafetosaythatWesterndiplomatswereobsessedwithrituals andsymbolsofequalityamongthemselvesandinrelationtoChina’spowerover Korea.OneofthefirstKaboreformsthatpassedwaslegislationthatallowedWesterndiplomatstorideinsedanchairswithinthepalacewalls,whilediscouraging allKoreansfromridinginsedanchairsatall. 86.ThiswasaconsistentthemeinFukuzawa’sGakumon no Susume(AnEncouragementofLearning),publishedinseventeenvolumesbetween1872and1876. SeeYukichiFukuzawa,An Encouragement of Learning,trans.DavidA.Dilworthand UmeyoHirano(Tokyo:SophiaUniversityPress,1969). 87.AccordingtoYoungIckLew,InoueKaoruprobablygaveuponthisplanto abolishtheKoreanlegationintheUnitedStatesoutoffearthattheUnitedStates wouldseethisstepasaconspiracy,asthefirststeptowardtransformingKoreainto aJapaneseprotectorate.SeeLew,“MinisterInoueKaoruandtheJapaneseReform AttemptsinKoreaDuringtheSino-JapaneseWar,”165. 88.JohnM.B.Sill,U.S.legationinSeoul,lettertothesecretaryofstate,Janu-
183
184
noTes To ChapTer one
ary4,1895,inKorean-American Relations: Documents Pertaining to the Far Eastern Diplomacy of the United States,vol.2,ed.SpencerJ.Palmer(Berkeley:University ofCaliforniaPress,1963),259.MaintaininganembassyinWashington,D.C.,and having Korean ambassadors received byU.S. officials were more thanjust hallmarks ofsovereign status. King Kojong (and Inoue Kaoru) knew very well that diplomaticpracticespeculiartoWesterndiplomacy(forexample,ballroomdancing)themselvesproducepowerrelations.LikeChosŏndynasticrituals,maintaininganembassyinWashingtonandhavingChosŏndiplomatsrecognizedassuch wereindispensabletoconstitutingKingKojongasKorea’ssovereigninthenation- statesystem.OnthetopicofWesterndiplomats’fixationonrituals,seeJamesL. Hevia,Cherishing Men from Afar: Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of 1793 (Durham:DukeUniversityPress,1995). 89.TheBritishwere,atthistime,backersoftheQinggovernment.Becausethey enjoyedparamountinfluenceovertheChinesegovernment,itwaslogicalforthe BritishtosupportChineseactionsinKorea—andthistheydiduntiltheoutbreakof theSino-JapaneseWar,whentheystoodbywatchingtheChineseArmyandNavy getdecimated. 90.SeeDeuchler,Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys,109–27. 91. Commodore Shufeldt saw himself as replicating the feat of Commodore Perry,who“openedup”Japandecadesearlier.ThetreatyitselfwassignedinKorea atChemulp’o(nowInch’ŏn). 92. Kwŏn Hyŏk-su, 19-segi mal Han-Chung kwan’gyesa yŏn’gu (Seoul: Paeksan charyowŏn,2000). 93.In1887KingKojongappointedPakChong-yangasministerplenipotentiary totheUnitedStates,eveninthefaceofYuanShikaiandLiHongzhang’scensure. PakpresentedhiscredentialstoPresidentGroverClevelandonJanuary17,1888. King Kojong knew well that maintaining a diplomatic presence in Washington wouldminimizeChina’sclaimofsuzeraintyoverKoreaandbolster“international” recognitionofhissovereignstatus. 94.SeeDeuchler,Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys,118–19.TheTreaty ofAmityandCommercein1882grantedtheUnitedStatesextraterritoriality,low tariffs,andtherighttoestablishalegationinthecapital. 95. In the Taft-Katsura secret protocol, the United States recognized Japan’s paramountpolitical,military,andeconomicinterestsinKorea,whileJapanrecognizedAmerica’scontroloverthePhilippines.AlthoughtheAmericanlegationwas recalled,Americanmissionaries,Americaninvestment,andAmericaninstitutions (hospitals, schools) remained, and according to inclination and circumstance, AmericansofferedbothendorsementandcensureofJapanesecolonialpolicies. 96.ItisrelevanttorecallHarryHarootunian’sobservationaboutMeijiJapan, thatthatkindofexpertiseandcompetencecoulddolittletomediatethegapbetweenimperialauthorityandtheworldsofcommunallife,tutelarydeities,andancestors.SeeHarryHarootunian,Things Seen and Unseen: Discourse and Ideology in Tokugawa Nativism(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1988),405–406.
noTes To ChapTer one
97.Mutsu,Kenkenroku,111. 98.MutsuwroteKenkenrokuinthemonthsimmediatelyfollowingtheconclusionoftheSino-JapaneseWar(1894–95),whenthegovernmentcameunderferociouspubliccriticismthatweakdiplomacyhadlostwhatwasgainedonthebattlefieldsofChosŏnKorea.InKenkenroku,Mutsudefendedthegovernment’sdecision toacceptthe“advice”ofRussia,Germany,andFrance(theTripleIntervention)to retrocedetheLiatungPeninsula. 99.Mutsu,Kenkenroku,111–12. 100.Amongotherrestrictions,KingKojongshouldhaveabstainedfromsexfor severaldays.Inthatsense,thesacrificetoancestorsinvolves“givingup,”inthe formofritualrestrictions,asmuchas“givingto.” 101.TheghostsofdeadChosŏndynastykingsandqueensenterthechŏngjŏn throughthesoutherngate(sinmun)andproceedupthecentralstonepathwayor stairway.Thetwostoneterraces(woldae)aretogether150meterslongand100 meterswide.Thetwoorchestrasperformseparately.Bothorchestrashaveaset ofbells,asetofL-shapedstonechimes,asetofmetalchimes,abambooflute,a tangp’iri(similartoanoboe),achanggu(hourglassdrum),achuk(woodenboxmortar),andapak(woodenclapper).Theorchestraontheupperwŏldaewouldalso havetheajaeng(bowedzither)andchŏlgo(drum),whiletheorchestraonthelower wŏldaewouldhavethet’aepyŏngso,haegŭm(two-stringinstrument),andchingo(a differentbarreldrum). 102.Thecentralgateinthesouthwall(sinmun)isonlyforthedead.Noteventhe kingcanpassthroughit. 103.TheclassicwritingsofanthropologistslikeMaryDouglas,CliffordGeertz, andVictorTurneragreeonthenotionthatritualsarecommunicativeandexpressive.InhisessayontheBalinesecockfight,forexample,Geertzstressedthatthe cockfight is not a depiction of “how things literally are among men, but, what isalmostworse,ofhow,fromaparticularangle,theyimaginativelyare.”Clifford Geertz,“NotesontheBalineseCockfight,”The Interpretation of Cultures(NewYork: BasicBooks,1973),446. 104.ItshouldbenotedthatatthebeginningoftheChosŏnperiodtherewas widespreadresistancetotheregulationofdomesticrituallife.Aspartofaconcertedattempttorectifyritualpracticesamongthesadaebu,scholar-officialswere orderedtoestablishancestralshrinesintheirhomesandtoeschewBuddhistor shamanisticrituals.SeeDeuchler,The Confucian Transformation of Korea,182. 105.Thatistosay,thekingandthesadaebusoughttomonopolizetheproduction ofideas,values,andmores,justastheycontrolledrituallifeinChosŏnKorea. 106.Thisinsightconcerningtheambiguityofauthorshipinritualactioncomes from Caroline Humphrey and James Laidlaw, The Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of Worship (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).BuildingonMauriceMerleau-Ponty’sargumentthatnormalhumanaction isintrinsicallyintentional(everymovementis,indissolubly,movementandconsciousnessofmovement)andthatthesubjectisapprehendedasbothsubjectand
185
186
noTes To ChapTer Two
object(one“sees,”“suffers,”andalsoapprehendsoneselfasseeingandsuffering), HumphreyandLaidlawarguethatactorsinritualare,andarenot,theauthorsof theiracts. 107.Tomakesuchamomentousoath,traditiondictatedthatKingKojongvisit thedynastictempleontheWinterSolstice,thetwenty-fifthdayoftheeleventh monthinthelunarcalendar,orDecember22,1894. 108.SeeKojong sillok,32-kwŏn,31-nyŏn(1894),11/26,firstarticle. 109.Thisshort-livedempiretookitsname,Han,fromthethreeHanregions (Mahan, Chinhan, and Pyŏnhan) of the pre–Three Kingdoms period, an area roughlycoterminouswithmodernSouthKorea,onthepresumptionthattheseancestors,organizedinsmallpolitiesruledbyhereditarychiefs,hadmaintainedtheir independenceduringtheperiodwhenHanChinesecommandarieshadcontrolled muchofManchuriaandthenorthernhalfofthepeninsula—Xuantu(K:Hyŏndo), Lelang(K:Nangnang),Lintun(K:Imdun),andChenfan(K:Chinbŏn). 110.PrasenjitDuaramakesasimilarargumentinSovereignty and Authenticity: Manchukuo and the East Asian Modern (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003).
2.ImperialismandNationalism 1. The source of this chapter’s epigraph is The Chicago Record’s History of the World’s Fair(Chicago:ChicagoDailyNewsCo.,1893),224. 2.KingKojong’squerieswerequiteinteresting:Howmanycountriesparticipated?HowlargewastheKoreanpavilioninmeters?HowdidthefairgoersrespondtotheKoreangoodsthatweredisplayed,andwhatwastheirvalueinU.S. dollars?Unabletoprovidethemeasurementsinthemetricsystem,Commissioner ChŏngrepliedthattheKoreanpavilionwassixtosevenkanacross(thatis,about twentymetersacross).SeeKojong sillok,30-kwŏn,30-nyŏn(1893),11/9,firstarticle. TheU.S.TreasuryDepartmentvaluedtheKoreanproductsat$506.SeeYoungna Kim,20th Century Korean Art(London:LaurenceKing,2005),61n20. 3.Arrivingin1884,HoraceNewtonAllenwasthefirstAmericanmissionaryin Korea.In1887heaccompaniedKorea’sdiplomaticmissiontoWashington,D.C.For theWorld’sFairinChicago,KingKojongaskedAllentohelpwiththearrangements andtoescorttheKoreanCommission.ItcouldwellbethatAllenwastheauthor (ortranslatororeditor)ofthesignovertheKoreaExhibit. 4.SarahWhatmoreoffersasuccinctaccountofhowtheautonomoussubject came tobeprivileged intheWest: John Locke regarded theindividual good as theresultofvoluntarytransactionsbetweenindependentagents;afterImmanuel Kant,thefigureoftheautonomoussubjectbecamecentraltothesocialcontract traditionofethics.Inthistradition,socialinstitutionsofcontract(market)and rights(law)formedthebasisforestablishinguniversal(impartial)“lawsofreason” asthepreconditionforethicalagency.AsWhatmorepointsout,thisautonomous subjectconstitutedasarights-bearingcitizenpossessingethicalagencywasmas-
noTes To ChapTer Two
culineinconception.CitingCarolePateman,Whatmorewrites,“Thishastranslated at different time-places into the dispossession of women, poor, and black peopleofpoliticalandethicalagencyintheirownright,throughtheir‘contractual’ guisesaswives,servants,andslaves.”SarahWhatmore,“DissectingtheAutonomousSelf:HybridCartographiesforaRelationalEthics,”Geographic Thought: A Praxis Perspective,ed.GeorgeHendersonandMarvinWaterstone(NewYork:Routledge,2008),109–10.AsRaymondWilliamshaspointedout,“Individualoriginally meantindivisible.”RaymondWilliams,“Individual,”Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society(London:Fontana,1983).Individualpositsdistinctionfromothers, whileindivisibilityisacornerstoneofthenotionofsovereignty;thustherelationshipbetweenindividuality,sovereignty,andethicalagency. 5.SeeChongWhaPyun(PyŏnChong-hwa),“TheVisitoftheKoreanMission toBostonin1883andtheBeginningofScientificandTechnologicalInteractions betweenKoreaandtheUnitedStates,”Han’guk kwahak sahakhoeji4,no.1(1982). FrederickF.LowservedastheAmericanadvisortothisgoodwillmission.In1871 Low,asthenewlyappointedU.S.ambassadortoChina,alongwithRearAdmiral JohnRodgers,ledfiveheavilyarmedwarshipscarrying1,230marinesandsailors inwhatcametobecalled“America’sWarwiththeHermits.”BothLowandRodgers staunchlysupportedthemovementtorestrictChinese(Asian)immigrationinto theUnitedStates.SeeGordonH.Chang,“Whose‘Barbarism’?Whose‘Treachery’? RaceandCivilizationintheUnknownUnitedStates–KoreaWarof1871,”Journal of American History89,no.4(2003). 6.SeeKirkW.Larsen,Tradition, Treaties, and Trade: Qing Imperialism and Chosŏn Korea, 1850–1910(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,HarvardUniversity Press,2008),37,176–89. 7.BenedictAnderson,Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism(London:Verso,1983). 8.LydiaLiu,“TheDesirefortheSovereignandtheLogicofReciprocityinthe FamilyofNations,”Diacritics29,no.4(1999). 9.HardtandNegripointoutthatitwasHegel’sconceptionofsovereigntythat broughttogethertheHobbes-RousseautheoryofsovereigntyandAdamSmith’s theoryofvalue.Withthat,modernEuropeansovereigntybecamecapitalistsovereignty,“aformofcommandthatoverdeterminestherelationshipbetweenindividualityanduniversalityasafunctionofthedevelopmentofcapital.”SeeMichael HardtandAntonioNegri,Empire(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2000), 83–87. 10.ForaconciseoverviewoffivecenturiesofEuro-Americancolonialism,see JūrgenOsterhammel,Colonialism,trans.ShelleyFrisch(Princeton:MarkusWiener, 2005).SeealsoHardtandNegri,Empire,87;DavidB.Abernethy,The Dynamics of Global Dominance(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2002),12–15.Accordingto Abernethy,atthetimeofthepublicationofhisbook,two-thirdsofUnitedNations memberstateswereoncegovernedbyEuro-Americans,andifChina’streatyports areincluded,three-fifthsoftheworld’spopulation.
187
188
noTes To ChapTer Two
11. Richard Hughes Seager, The World’s Parliament of Religions: The East/West Encounter, Chicago, 1983 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 11. On December2,1893,thePhiladelphia InquirerreportedthatHoraceAllen,viceconsul generaloftheUnitedStatesinKorea,informedtheU.S.StateDepartment,“The KingofKoreahasrecentlypurchasedinAmericaanincandescentelectriclight plant,whichisnowbeinginstalledandwillbeusedforlightingtheKing’spalace andsurroundinggrounds.” 12.WilliamCronon,Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West(NewYork: W.W.Norton,1992),42. 13.YunCh’i-hoseemstohaveexpectedtheKoreanExhibittobedismal.About amonthbeforearrivinginChicagohevisitedtheKoreanLegationinWashington,D.C.TherehesawaphotooftheKoreanCommissionattheWorld’sFairin Chicago.“OnoneoftheparlorwallsthereishungagrouppictureoftheCorean Commission to the World’s Fair. I was shocked and disgusted with their looks ofsupremestupidityandbeastlysensuality.WithsadheartIlefttheroom.”Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi(Seoul:Kuksapy’ŏnchanwiwŏnhoe,1973–1989),3:146–47,August14, 1893. 14. To avoid antagonizing conservatives, the mission was organized and dispatchedinsecrecy.Twelvemidlevelofficialsandtheiraides,interpreters,andservantstraveledseparatelytoPusan,andfromtheretookashiptoNagasaki.Inoue Kaoruarrangedtheiritinerary,whichincludedKobe,Osaka,Yokohama,andTokyo. Organizing themselves into different teams, the officials spent seventy days in Japan,methigh-rankingofficials,inspectedgovernmentministries,shipyards,arsenals,schools,industries,hospitals,mints,prisons,andsoon,andsubmittedextensiveanddetailedreportsupontheirreturn. 15.YunCh’i-hohadgrownupinrelativeprosperitybutwithsomewhatambiguousyangbanstatus.Hisfather,YunUng-ryŏl,wasamilitaryofficialbutofsŏŏlstatus (thatis,asonofasecondarywife).In1880YunUng-ryŏlhadgonetoJapanwith KimHong-jiptoseekadvisorstotrainaneliteguard(pyŏlgigun)forthepalace.Yun Ch’i-hoseemstohavebeenintellectuallyprecocious.AccordingtoLeeKwang-Rin, aftersixmonthsinJapanYunCh’i-howasabletowritefreelyinJapanese.While studyingJapaneseatDōjinsha,healsohelpededitBungaku zasshi,ajournalthat publishedfourofhisessays,twowritteninliteraryChineseandtwowrittenin Japanese.SeeLeeKwang-Rin(YiKwang-nin),“YunCh’i-hoŭiIlbonyuhak,”Tongbang hakji59(1988).InoueKaoru,theJapaneseforeignminister,hadarrangedfor YunCh’i-hotostudyatNakamuraMasanao’sDōjinsha. 16.InanessaypublishedinTonga ilboonJanuary11,1930,YunCh’i-howould writethatitwasKimOk-kyunwhoconvincedhimtostudyEnglishbecauseknowledgeofEnglishwouldenableKoreansto“directlyimportWesterncivilization.” QuotedinLeeKwang-Rin.“YunCh’i-hoŭiIlbonyuhak.” 17.MinisterFoote’sfulltitlewasAmericanenvoyextraordinaryandminister plenipotentiary. 18.Inhopesofinstitutingdrasticreforms,KimOk-kyun,PakYŏng-hyo,Hong
noTes To ChapTer Two
Yŏng-sik,SŏKwang-bŏm,andSŏChae-pilstagedacouponDecember4,1884, withsupportfromJapanesetroopsstationedinthecapital.Theyseizedthepalace, killed a number of ministers, formed a new government, and proclaimed a reformplatformthatwouldabolishclassdistinctions,restructurethegovernment onthemodelofJapan’sMeijistate,andestablishindependenceforKoreabyendingChina’sinterference.Thecoupendedafterthreedays,whenChinesesoldiers intervened.ThecoupleaderswhosurvivedfledtoJapan.YunCh’i-ho’sfather,Yun Ung-ryŏl,wasbanishedtoNŭngju. 19.DuringhisyearandahalfatVanderbilt,YunCh’i-horeadGibbon,Macaulay, and Carlyle. In 1893 he graduated with a master’s degree from Emory College. SeeVipanChandra,Imperialism, Resistance, and Reform in Late Nineteenth-Century Korea(Berkeley:InstituteofEastAsianStudies,UniversityofCalifornia,1988). 20.TomokoMasuzawapointsoutthattheemergenceoftheconceptofmultiple worldreligionshadtodowithpreservingthestatusofChristianityasuniqueand superior.Theideaofworldreligionsandthelogicofclassificationitpromotedhad adeterminingeffectonthestudyofreligion.SeeTomokoMasuzawa,The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). Though quite inclusive,thisWorldParliamentofReligionsdidnotextendinvitationstoSikhs,Native Americanreligiousfigures,andahostofotherreligionists. 21.SeeJudithSnodgrass,Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West: Orientalism, Occidentalism, and the Columbian Exposition(ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,2003). 22.Yun,Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,entryforSeptember26,1893,3:176. 23.JohnP.Burris,Exhibiting Religion: Colonialism and Spectacle at International Expositions(Charlottesville:UniversityofVirginiaPress,2002),155. 24.Yun,Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,entryforSeptember27,1893,3:177. 25.Burris,Exhibiting Religion,155. 26.Yun,Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,entryforSeptember27,1893,3:178.SwamiVivekananda introducedHinduismtotheWorldParliamentofReligionsandalsospokeonthe themeofreligioustolerance:“TheChristianisnottobecomeaHinduoraBuddhist,noraHinduoraBuddhisttobecomeaChristian....Ifanybodydreamsof theexclusivesurvivalofhisown[religion]andthedestructionofothers,Ipityhim fromthebottomofmyheart.”QuotedinJamesEdwardKetelaar,Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1990).KetelaarcitesJohnHenryBarrows,ed.The World’s Parliament of Religions,2vols.(Chicago:TheParliamentPublishingCompany,1893),1:170–71. VirachandRaghavGandhi(1864–1901)wontheSilverMedalattheWorldParliamentofReligions.HewasacontemporaryofSwamiVivekanandaandalsoafriend ofMahatmaGandhi. 27.InhisentryofSeptember24,YunCh’i-hodescribes,inemotionalterms,a joiningofhandsbetweenJohnHenryBarrows,chairmanoftheWorldParliament ofReligions,andBishopBenjaminW.ArnettoftheAfricanMethodistEpiscopal
189
190
noTes To ChapTer Two
Church.“Dr.Burrows[sic].WhenIsawtheeminentCatholicdivinejoinhandswith theeloquentNegroBishop,Icouldnothelpsayinginmyheart‘WhatGodhath joined,letnomanpart.’”Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,entryforSeptember24,1893,3:170–71. 28. JohnHenry Barrows (1847–1902) was also head of the First Presbyterian ChurchofChicagoandaprofessorofreligionattheUniversityofChicago.Accused of“coquettingwithfalsereligions,”henotedthattheApostlePaul“wascarefulto findcommongroundforhimselfandhisGreekauditorsinAthens....[And]asany wisemissionaryinBombayorMadraswouldbegladtogatherbeneaththeshelterofhisroofthescholarlyandsincererepresentativesoftheHindureligions,so ChristianAmericainvitestotheshelterofherhospitablerood,athergrandFestivalofPeace,thespiritualleadersofmankind”Barrows,ed.The World’s Parliament of Religions,1:3,27–28.SeealsoKetelaar,Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan, 139–41. 29.Yun,Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,entryforOctober14,1893,3:187–88. 30.Myargumentherehasanaffinitywiththehistoricaltrajectoriessuggested byKimYong-sŏp:relativelymoreegalitarianandautonomousroutestomodernityfrombelow,withpeasantrebellionsprovidingthemainimpetusforprogressivechange;moreexploitative,dependentpathstomodernityfromabove,ledby eliteslikeYunCh’i-ho,whowouldultimatelycapitulatetoimperialistdemands. ThusWesternizedandWesternizingelitesinlatenineteenth-centuryKoreacan belocatedonahistoricaltrajectorythatbeginsintheculturalandpoliticalworld ofthelandedclassinlateChosŏn,throughWesternizingeffortsinthelatenineteenthcenturyandearlytwentieththatleadtocollaborationandsupportforthe Japaneseempire,andthenfrom1945onwardpartnershipwiththeAmericanempire.Inotherwords,Iamsuggestingagenealogythatconnects(Christian)liberal- bourgeois subjectivity in the late nineteenth century with the anticommunist, liberal-bourgeois subjectivity that formed an important political, religious, and classaxisaroundwhichtheSouthKoreanstatewasestablishedinU.S.-occupied southernKorea.YunCh’i-hofirstmentionscommunistsinSeptember1896,while studyingFrenchinParis(Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,4:291).OnChristiansandtheKoreanProductionMovement(mulsan changnyŏ undong),seeMichaelE.Robinson,Cultural Nationalism in Colonial Korea, 1920–1925(Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress, 1988).SeealsoPangKie-chung(PangKi-jung),“1930-nyŏndaemulsanchangnyŏ undongkwaminjokchabonjuŭikyŏngjesasang,”Tongbang hakji115(2002).Onthe ProtestantChurch,critiqueofbothMarxandthelandlordsystem,andtheprivilegingofsmallfarms(thatis,self-cultivatinghouseholdsandcapitalistagriculture), seeKie-chungPang(PangKi-jung),“YiHun-gu’sAgriculturalReformTheoryand NationalistEconomicThought,”Seoul Journal of Korean Studies19,no.1(2006).On AmericanmissionariesandtheProtestantdenominations’supportfortheestablishmentofaseparatestateinsouthernKorea,seeAnChong-ch’ŏl,“Munmyŏng kaehwaesŏpan’gongŭro:YiSŭng-mankwakaesinkyoŭikwankyeŭipyŏnhwa, 1912–1950,” Tongbang hakji 145 (2009). Regarding Christian anticommunist reactiontotheuprisinginTaeguinOctober1946,seeChŏngT’ae-sikandYiCh’ŏl-u,
noTes To ChapTer Two
“Mi’gunchŏnggiwaTaegu10-wŏlhangjaengesŏŭikidokkyochonggyochidojadŭl ŭisahoechŏngch’ijŏkhwaldongkwayŏkhalŭitaehanilkoch’al,”Chiyŏk sahoe yŏn’gu 14,no.4(2006). 31.RobertRydell,All the World’s a Fair(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress, 1984),49–50.TheChinesevillagewasbuiltbyaprivatecompany;MaeNgaisuggestsitmayhaveservedasanearlyprototypeforChineseAmericaneffortstodevelopurbanChinatownsastouristdestinations.Ngaipointsoutthatthe“marketingof‘Chineseculture’wasoneofafewspheresofcommercialactivityavailableto ChineseAmericansduringtheexclusionera.”MaeM.Ngai,“Transnationalismand theTransformationofthe‘Other’:ResponsetothePresidentialAddress,”American Quarterly57,no.1(2005). 32.TheculturalhistorianGailBedermancontraststhespatialconfigurationof theWhiteCityandtheMidwayPlaisance:“WheretheWhiteCityspreadoutinall directionsfromtheCourtofHonor,emphasizingthecomplexityofmanlycivilization, the Midway’s attractions were organized linearly down a broad avenue, providingalessoninracialhierarchy.”GailBederman,Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1984),35. 33.HubertHoweBancroft,quotedinRydell,All the World’s a Fair,60. 34.Rydell,All the World’s a Fair,63,67. 35.TheMeijigovernmentspentabout$650,000tobuildanexhibitpavilionon thenorthendofWoodedIsland.Itseemsthishigh-profilelocationwassetaside forJapaninreturnforitsearlyandsubstantialcontributiontotheChicagoorganizers.AccordingtoTrumbullWhite,theMeijigovernmentcontributed$630,000, morethananyothercountry.SeeTrumbullWhite,The World’s Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893(Philadelphia:P.W.Ziegler,1893),542.Theexhibitpavilionbuilt onWoodedIslandwasanimitationofthePhoenixHallintheByōdō-inTemple, locatedinUji,nearKyōto.Thelumberforthewoodenstructurewaspreparedin Japan and put together in Chicago. The Japanese pavilion was more than forty timeslargerthantheKoreanExhibit. 36. Louis G. Perez, “Mutsu Munemitsu and the Revision of the ‘Unequal’ Treaties,”Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofMichigan,1986,citedinSnodgrass,Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,19. 37.SeeSnodgrass,Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,19. 38.Snodgrass,Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,19,179–80. 39. Chicago’s population had changed dramatically. In 1890 the number of foreign-bornnearlyequaledtheentirecity’spopulationofadecadeearlier.Inthe mid-1890smorePoles,Croatians,Slovakians,Lithuanians,Greeks,Swedes,Norwegians, Dutch, and Danes immigrated to Chicago than to any other U.S. city. Thelargestpercentageofforeign-bornremainedIrishandGerman.SeeReidBadger,The Great American Fair: The World’s Columbian Exposition and American Culture (Chicago:N.Hall,1979),34. 40.Badger,The Great American Fair,38.
191
192
noTes To ChapTer Two
41. Ferdinand L. Barnett, The Reason Why the Colored American Is Not in the World’s Columbian Exposition,editedbyRobertW.Rydell(1893;Chicago:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1999),xlii.IdaB.Wells,themainforcebehindthepublication ofthispamphlet,wasalsotheleaderofaninternationalcampaignagainstlynching.BarnettandWellsmarriedin1895,afterworkingtogetherintheboycottand protestagainsttheColumbianExposition. 42.SeeCronon,Nature’s Metropolis,42,349.SeealsoAlanTrachtenberg,The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age(NewYork:Hilland Wang, 1982), 213. The Exposition directors took great care in public relations. PhotographsoftheExpositiondonotshowfarmingandworking-classfamilies; thecrowdisdecidedlymiddleclass. 43.Yun,Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,entryforSeptember24–28,1893,3:168–80.Writing aboutinternationalexpositions,RobertRydellandothershavepointedoutthat theseexpositionspopularizedthenotionofprogress,conceivedas“willednational activitytoadetermined,utopiangoal”(All the World’s a Fair,2,46). 44. Euro-American imperialism and the articulation of sovereignty created a complexdynamicwithinEastAsia,rangingfrompronouncementsofPan-Asian (racial)solidaritytonewformsofracism.Afterwitnessingawhitemaninsulting aJapaneseman,YunCh’i-hoobserved,“ThemiseryisthatJapaneseandChinese getmaltreatedbyAmericansandEuropeansandthengoanddolikewisetothe wretchedandslavishCoreans”(Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,entryforOctober29,1893,3:194). 45.Afterfinishinghisstudies,YunCh’i-hogaveatotalof$230toWarrenCandler, presidentofEmoryCollege,withtherequestthatitbeusedformissionaryworkin Korea—the$30representingone-tenthofhisearningsduringthesummerof1893. 46.YunCh’i-hofatheredtwelvechildren,andthey,alongwithhismanynephews, nieces,sons-in-law,andgrandchildren,wereextraordinarilysuccessful,achieving high-profile careers as politicians, academics, entrepreneurs, artists, and musiciansinSouthKorea(andtosomeextentintheUnitedStates).InShanghai,while teachingEnglishattheAnglo-ChineseCollege,YunmarriedNoraMa(馬愛芳),an assistantmusicteacherattheMcTyeireHomeandSchoolforGirls.WithNora,he hadfourchildren:Laura(Pong-hŭi),Allen(Yŏng-sŏn),Candler(Kwang-sŏn),and Helen(Yong-hŭi).WhenNoradiedin1905,hemarriedPaekMae-ryŏ,withwhom hehadeightmorechildren.In1950,whenlandreformwastogetunderway,Allen Yŏng-sŏnYunwasSouthKorea’sministerofagriculture.YunPo-sŏn,presidentof SouthKoreafromAugust1960toMarch1962,wasYunCh’i-ho’snephew. 47.OnMarch28,1894,KimOk-kyun,oneoftheleadersofthecoupattemptin 1884,wasassassinatedinShanghai.YunCh’i-hohadmethimthedaybefore.Inhis diaryentryforMarch28,Yunwrote,“Asforthewhyofthething[KimOk-kyun’s assassination]itisneedlesstosaythatK.O.Q.wasbaitedoverheretobegotten ridof.”Aweeklater,accompaniedbyProfessorW.B.BonnelloftheAnglo-Chinese College,YunwenttotheU.S.ConsulatetoseeifhecouldbenaturalizedasaU.S. citizen.Hecouldnot.SeeYun,Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,3:302. 48.InApril1896YunCh’i-howasappointedprivycouncilorandaccompanied
noTes To ChapTer Two
MinYŏng-hwantoMoscowforthecoronationofTsarNicholasII.Hestayedin ParisforseveralmonthsandreturnedtoKoreainJanuary1897. 49.TheAnglo-ChineseCollegewassponsoredbytheAmericanMethodistEpiscopalChurch,South.YunCh’i-hoconvertedtoChristianityinMarch1887. 50.InShanghai,whenYunCh’i-hoswitchedfromliteraryChinesetoKorean, hestilldatedhisentriesaccordingtothelunarcalendarwiththeQingdatingsystem(useoftheQingemperor’sreigntitle)andthenanalphabetnotationforthe Romanweekdays.InNashville,whenYunswitchedtoEnglish,healsoswitched hisprimarydatingsystemtotheGregoriancalendaranddroppedtheQingdating system.HecontinuedtorecordlunardatesandnotationsfortheRomanweekdays. 51.AsSidonieSmithandJuliaWatsonpointout,thisnotionofthesovereign subjectemergedfromanumberofsocialandphilosophicalshiftsthattookplace in Europe after the eighteenth century, including the privileging of the liberal- humanist subject, revolutionary movements that pressed for democratization, radicalindividualismcelebratedbyRomanticmovements,socialDarwinismand itsemphasisonsurvivalofthefittest,theIndustrialRevolutionanditsmythofthe self-mademan,historywritingcenteredonthegreatman,analyticalmethodsused inpsychoanalysistoorganizeself-reflection,andtheriseofliteracy.SidonieSmith andJuliaWatson,Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting Life Narratives,2nd edition(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2010),194. 52.WilliamE.Griffis,A Modern Pioneer in Korea: The Life Story of Henry G. Appenzeller(NewYork:FlemingH.Revell,1912),189. 53.In1881YuKil-junwenttoJapan,metFukuzawaYukichi,andstudiedfora yearatKeioGijuku.WhileinJapan,hepublishedanarticleinFukuzawa’sJiji sinpo onthepowerofnewspapers,andin1883hehelpedwiththepublicationofKorea’s firstnewspaper,Hansŏng sinbo.AsRossKingpointsout,Yuiscreditedwithestablishingthekukhanmunstyleofwriting(mixedSino-Koreanscript),drawingonthe ŏnhae-bontraditionofannotatingConfucianandBuddhisttexts.Yualsowrotethe firstgrammarofKorean,aworkhebeganin1895.SeeRossKing,“Nationalism andLanguageReforminKorea:TheQuestione della LinguainPrecolonialKorea,” Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity,ed.PaiHyung-IlandTimothyR. Tangherlini (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, 1998).YuwasalsothefirstKoreantostudyintheUnitedStates;in1884hestudied attheGovernorDummerAcademyandalsowithEdwardSylvesterMorse,who hadtaughtatTokyoImperialUniversityfrom1887to1880. 54.TheEnglishnameofthenewspaperwastheIndependent. 55.TodaytheKoreanalphabetisreferredtoashan’gŭl.Butwiththeinstallation oftheKaboreformcabinetin1894,theKoreanalphabetcametobedesignatedas Korea’snationalscript:kungmun.After1910,whenJapanannexedKorea,thenationalscriptincolonialKoreawasJapanese.Thusnational script(kokubun)referred towrittenJapaneseduringthecolonialperiod,andtoavoidconfusionKoreanintellectualsbegantorefertotheKoreanalphabetashan’gŭl. 56.SŏChae-pilactuallyestablishedTongnip sinmunfirst.HeorganizedtheInde-
193
194
noTes To ChapTer Two
pendenceClubinJuly1896.YunCh’i-howasatfirstskepticaloftheIndependence Club,callingit“afarce.”Buthesoonbecameanenthusiasticsupporterandin1898 becameitspresident.Thatsameyear,whenSŏreturnedtotheUnitedStates,Yun tookovermanagementofTongnip sinmun.SeeKennethM.Wells,New God, New Nation: Protestants and Self-Reconstruction Nationalism in Korea, 1896–1937(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,1990),57–58. 57.SŏChae-pilandYunCh’i-hodecidedtopublishthenewspaperthreetimesa weekintabloidform:threepagesinKoreanandoneinEnglish.TheKoreansection wasnamedTongnip sinmun,theEnglishsectiontheIndependent.YunleftforRussiaonApril1,1896,beforethefirstissuewaspublished.SeeChandra,Imperialism, Resistance, and Reform in Late Nineteenth-Century Korea,106. 58. Sŏ Chae-pil [Philip Jaisohn]. “Nonsŏl,” Tongnip sinmun (April 7, 1896), in Tongnip sinmun nonsŏljip(Seoul:Songjaemunhwachaedanch’ulp’anbu,1976),1–2. 59.SŏChae-pilacquiredU.S.citizenshipin1888,thefirstKoreantodoso.Sŏ Kwang-bŏmwasthesecond.LikeSŏChae-pil,SŏKwang-bŏmsoughtasyluminthe UnitedStatesafterthefailedcoupattemptin1884.In1883SŏKwang-bŏmhadaccompaniedMinYŏng-ik’sdiplomaticmissiontotheUnitedStates.Hewasthefirst Koreantotravelaroundtheworld,returningtoKoreain1884viaEuropeonthe U.S.navalshipTrenton.SŏKwang-bŏmeventuallyfoundemploymentinWashington,D.C.,asatranslatorwiththeBureauofEthnologyintheOfficeofEducation (todaytheU.S.DepartmentofEducation).BecauseofhisworkwiththeU.S.government,SŏKwang-bŏmwasabletoobtainU.S.citizenshipin1892. 60.IamdrawingonPaulRicoeur’sdiscussionofsemanticinnovation,butnotat allinatechnicalorpreciseway.Iconsidersemanticinnovationsimplyasaworkof synthesisthatredescribesreality,creatinganew“intelligibility.”Productiveimaginationdrivestheworkofsynthesisbothatthelevelof“semanticpertinence”and narrative,butitdoesnotdosowillfully,asawriter(translator)pleases.SeePaul Ricoeur,The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning of Language(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1975). 61.Idonotthinkitisnecessarytolisthereallthepointsofdifferencebetween my analysis of how capitalist sovereignty gets articulated in late nineteenth- centuryKoreaandHardtandNegri’soverallargumentinEmpire; Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire(NewYork:PenguinBooks,2004);andCommonwealth(Cambridge:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2009).Sufficeitto saythatwhenIrefertosovereigntyasamachine,myanalyticalfocusisonimperialism,theformofrulethatprecededempire,thatis,capitalistsovereigntyrather than imperial sovereignty that is postnational and nonlocalizable. I am sympathetictoHardtandNegri’sdeep-rootedbeliefinthepoliticalpotentialitiesofthe multitude—thusmyfocuson“productiveimagination,”historiography,historical agency,andsubjectformation—and,Imightadd,thenotionthatlaughterandhappinessinthefaceofhistoryareappropriateforoppositionalpolitics.Thequoteis fromEmpire,87. 62.Seenote60regardingRicoeur’sThe Rule of Metaphor. 63.IhaveborrowedthisphrasefromYeounsukLee,The Ideology of Kokugo: Na-
noTes To ChapTer Two
tionalizing Language in Modern Japan,trans.MakiHiranoHubbard(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,2010),2. 64.ŎnmunwastheChosŏnliterati’sdesignationforvernacularwritingusingthe Koreanalphabetcreatedin1443.TheydenigratedtheKoreanalphabetasŏnmun (諺文)becauseitwasusedtorecordwhattheyconsideredvulgarspeech.Ŏnhanmunreferstotheuseofŏnmunandhanmuninŏnhae-bonannotationsofConfucian andBuddhisttexts.IdumunreferstotheuseofcertainChinesecharactersandtheir abbreviationstophoneticallyrenderKoreanwordsorparticleswithinabasically hanmuntext.HanmunisClassicalChinese.SeeKing,“NationalismandLanguage ReforminKorea,”35–36. 65.HyanggawerewrittendownintheKoryŏperiodinhyangch’al,avernacular stylethatusedChinesecharactersforboththeirmeaningandsound.Hyangch’alis consideredasubsetofidumun. 66.YasudaHiroshi,“KindaiNihonniokeru‘minzoku’kannennokeisei,”Shisō to gendai 31 (September 1992), cited in Kevin Doak, “Ethnic Nationalism and Romanticism in Early Twentieth-Century Japan,” Journal of Japanese Studies 22, no.1(1996).Inthisarticle,DoakalsocitesYunKŏn-ch’a,“Minzokugensōnosatetsu:‘Nihonminzoku’toiujikoteiji,”Shisō,no.834(December1993).Contraryto Yasuda,Yunarguesthatethnicconsciousness(minzoku ishiki)wasnotfullyestablishedinJapanuntiltheturnofthetwentiethcentury.Forfurtherdiscussiononnationalnarrativesandtheethnicimaginationintwentieth-centuryJapan,seeKevin Doak,“WhatIsaNationandWhoBelongs?,”American Historical Review102,no.2 (1997). 67.SinIl-ch’ŏlmakesthispoint:“Itmustbekeptinmindthat[theword]‘minjok,’asitiscommonlyusedinourcountry,isnotcongruenttoeither‘nation’or ‘race’inEnglish.Rather,itisanalogousto‘Volk’or‘Volkschaft’inGerman.”Having attainedethnichomogeneityquiteearlyinitshistory,Sinargues,theKoreanminjokorkyŏreinpremoderntimesconstitutedachunminjokjŏk kongdongch’e(aproto- nationalcommunity)comparabletotheVolkschaft,ortothenarodnostiasconceptualizedinStalin’slaterwritingsonthenationalquestion.Inaninterestingtwist, Sinarguesthattheemergenceofmodernnationalism(Gesellschaft)inKoreawas madedifficultpreciselybecausetraditionalsocietyinKoreahadsuchastrongcommunity(Gemeinschaft)consciousness.SinIl-ch’ŏl,“SinCh’ae-hoŭikŭndaekukkakwan,”Sin Ch’ae-ho,ed.KangMan-gil(Seoul:Koryŏtaehakkyoch’ulp’anbu,1990), 1–3.SeealsoJosephStalin,Marxism and Linguistics(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1951). 68.Withasimilarmeaning,kyŏngjewasalsoacontractionofkyŏngguk chese (經國濟世,managethestateandsavemankind).Ascholar-officialmightreceive praiseforbeingcompetentatkyŏngje,orstatecraft.See,forexample,theeulogy forPakŬninSejong sillok,18-kwŏn,4-nyŏn(1422),10/12,secondarticle.Inother words,therewas“public”recognitionofthefactthatthestateanditsofficialswere directlyinvolvedintheprocessofsurplusextraction—intheformoftaxes,tribute inkind,andmobilizationofcorvéelabor—andinrescuingthepeople. 69.SeeWolfgangLippert,“TheFormationandDevelopmentoftheTerm‘Politi-
195
196
noTes To ChapTer Two
calEconomy’inJapaneseandChinese,”Mapping Meanings: The Field of New Learning in Late Qing China,ed.MichaelLacknerandNataschaVittinghoff(Boston:Brill AcademicPublishers,2004). 70.JustinRosenbergpointsoutthatAdamSmith’steacher,FrancisHutcheson, includedmarital,parental,andmaster-servantrelationsundertheheading“Principles of Economics.” In that sense, Rosenberg argues, “there is nothing in the earlieruseoftheword(unlessitbethehintofaprivatesphere)whichaccounts forwhyitshouldhavecometoreferexclusivelytomarketrelations.Andnothing isexplainedthereforebyusingtheterm‘economic’initsmodernsenseunlessone alreadyassumes(consciouslyorotherwise)thecapitalistrelationsofproduction whichcreateitsobject.”JustinRosenberg,The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations (London:Verso,1994),84,124–26.I thankMonicaKimforreferringmetothisbook. 71. In their memorial to King Sejong, the first objection to ŏnmun raised by Chiphyŏnjŏn(HallofWorthies)scholarshadtodowithanxietyabouthowChosŏn wouldbeperceivedinChinaonceitbecameknownthattheyhadbegunusing ŏnmun.SeeSejong sillok,103-kwŏn,26-nyŏn(1444),2/20,firstarticle. 72.Thetermnational language(C:guoyu,K:kuk’ŏ)presentsadifferentcase.In KingSejong’sHunmin chŏngŭm,languagespokeninChosŏnKoreaisreferredtoas kukji ŏŭm(國之語音),thecountry’sspeech-sound.Sejong sillok,113-kwŏn,28-nyŏn (1446),9/29,fourtharticle.AccordingtoJerryNorman,duringmuchoftheQing dynastythetermnational languagereferredtoManchuandnottheBeijing-based guanhua (officials’ language or Mandarin, 官話): “Historically, the term guoyu seemsmainlytohavebeenemployedbydynastieswhoserulerswerenotChinese, butsomenortherngroupliketheTabgach,theJurchens,ortheMongols.”In1909 China’sMinistryofEducationbegantopromotetheteachingandstudyofguanhua, andin1910guanhuawasdesignatedasguoyu:thatis,Mandarinasthenationallanguage,renderingallotherlanguagesnonnational,andeventually“non-Chinese.” Butinthisperiod,asNormanpointsout,guoyuwasseenasalanguageofschool andadministrationbutnotofliterature.JerryNorman,Chinese(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988),133–34. 73.ButweshouldnotinferfromthisthattheKoreanliteratiacceptedwithout questiontheSinocentricworldview,theworldconceptualizedasT’ien-hsia,all- under-Heaven, presided over by the emperor of China, the Son of Heaven. The Koreanliteratide-centeredChinainmanyways,especiallywhenChinacameto beruledby“barbarians.”WhentheMingdynastywasconqueredbytheManchus (Ch’ingdynasty)in1662,theKoreanliteratiimaginedKoreatobethelastbastionof civilization,andsuchself-identificationcontinuedintothelateeighteenthcentury. 74.SeekingatributaryrelationshipandinvestiturefromtheMing,YiSŏng-g ye, thefounderoftheChosŏndynasty,hadrequestedtheMingemperortochoose between Hwaryŏng (和寧)and Chosŏn for the nameof the newdynastic state. TheHongwuemperorchosethenameChosŏnforitshistoricalassociationwith China—thatis,ChiTzu(K:Kija)Chosŏn(箕子朝鮮).Chosŏn,ofcourse,alsore-
noTes To ChapTer Two
ferredtothe“firstKoreanstate”intheTan’gunnarrative.HwaryŏngwasYiSŏng- gye’sbirthplace,butitalsoevokedKarakorum(喀喇和林),thecapitalofnorthern Yuan,itsshortenednamebeing和林or和寧.HwaryŏngsuggestedthatYiSŏng-g ye couldallywiththeMongolsifMingdidnotsupporthim.Ininternaldocuments, ChosŏnofficialsreferredtotheircountryasTae-Chosŏn’guk,orGreatChosŏn. 75.SeeAndreSchmid,Korea between Empires, 1895–1919(NewYork:Columbia UniversityPress,2002).SeealsoKai-wingChow,“NarratingNation,Race,and NationalCulture:ImaginingtheHanzuIdentityinModernChina,”Constructing Nationhood in Modern East Asia,ed.Kai-wingChow,KevinM.Doak,andPoshekFu (AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,2001).BycallingKoreasemicolonial,I amreferringtocompetingcolonialismsinKorea,notjustJapanese. 76. Between 1895 and 1936 the British Bible Society distributed 18,079,466 BiblespublishedinKorean.Between1910(whentranslationoftheentireBiblewas completed)and1960,some30millionBiblesweredistributedinKorea,amountingtooneBibleperperson.SeeKimYun-g yŏng,Han’guk muncha kŭp ŏhaksa(1934; Seoul: Kyŏngin munhwasa, 1987) and Ch’oe Hyŏn-bae, “Kidokkyo wa Han’gŭl,” Sinhak nondan,7(1962).BotharecitedinRossKing,“WesternProtestantMissionariesandtheOriginsofKoreanLanguageModernization,”Journal of International and Area Studies11,no.3(2004).Standardizingthewritingsystemtoproducewhat istodaycalledhan’gŭl(inSouthKorea)isstillongoing,andasKingpointsout,until 1910theroleandcontributionsofWesternmissionariesinKorea(especiallyAnglophoneProtestantmissionariesfromBritain,Canada,andtheUnitedStates)cannot bedismissed. 77.ReyChow,Women and Modernity: The Politics of Reading between East and West (Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1991),xv. 78.ThisisdrawnfromNaokiSakai’scritiqueofsuchpresumedunity:“Aslong asweconsider‘Japanesepeople,’‘Japaneselanguage,’and‘Japaneseculture’asthe threeinherentattributesofaunity,wearenotabletoimagineanydifferentwaya societycanexist.”SakaiNaoki(1996),citedinLee,The Ideology of Kokugo,xvi. 79.InitiallyonlythreehundredcopiesofTongnip sinmunwereprinted.By1898 circulationhadincreasedtothreethousandcopies,publishedsixdaysperweek ratherthanthree.SeeWells,New God, New Nation,57–58.Asidefrom“printcapitalism,”theclock,telegraph,electricstreetlights,theGregoriancalendar,thecreationofnewpublicspaces—allthesehavetobeconsidered.SeeMinSuhSon, “EnlightenmentandElectrification:TheIntroductionofElectricLight,Telegraph andStreetcarsinLateNineteenthCenturyKorea,”Reform and Modernity in the Taehan Empire,ed.KimDong-no,JohnB.Duncan,andKimDo-hyung(Seoul:Jimoondang,2006).Forcomparison,seealsoStefanTanaka,New Times in Modern Japan (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2006). 80. Rebecca Karl makes the important point that nationalism in places like Chinaattheturnofthetwentiethcentury“mustbeseenaspartofthegeneral globalproblematicinwhichitwasembedded,lesttheinquirybecome...merely acatalogofthereactivereplicationinChinaofgloballyexistinginstitutionalforms
197
198
noTes To ChapTer Two
andideologies.”WhileImostlyagreewiththispoint,itseemstomethatthephrase “thegeneralglobalproblematic”isnottoodifferentfromhowIseesovereignty functioninggloballyasbothpoliticalpowerandpolicepower.Atthishistorical juncture,whatTongnip sinmunhelpedestablishisalogicofequivalencebasedon aracialgeographyoftheworld.Whilethislogicwouldlaterenablearticulationof politicalsolidaritywithothercolonizedpeoples,Idonotthinkitisusefultorefer to“anon-Euro-Americanconsciousnessofglobality.”SeeRebeccaKarl,Staging the World: Chinese Nationalism at the Turn of the Twentieth Century(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2002),5–7. 81.PhilipJaisohn’slatereditorialsderidingthebarbarismoftheChinese,includingChineseinAmerica,illustrateanotherofthewayshearticulatedthiscivilizationalandracialhierarchy.SeeSchmid’schapter“DecenteringtheMiddleKingdom”inKorea between Empires.Adecadelater,SinCh’ae-hoexplainedthe“sudden respect”giventokungmunquitesimply:literaryChinese(hanmun)hadperpetrated agreatdealofharm;kungmunhadnot.SinCh’ae-ho,“Kukhanmunŭikyŏngjung,” reprintedinSin Ch’ae-ho yŏksa nonsŏljip,translatedintocontemporaryKoreanby ChŏngHae-yŏm(Seoul:Hyŏndaesilhaksa,1995),278. 82.Intermsoflaw,formalpoliticalinequalitywassignificantlyreducedbythe reformlegislationof1894.TheKaboreformsof1894abolishedslaveryandthe socialstatussystem.Intherecruitmentofofficials(men),thedistinctionbetween yangbanandcommonerwasdroppedandthecivilexaminationsystemabolished. Widowswereallowedtoremarry;Buddhistmonkswereallowedtoenterthecapital.Intheeconomicrealm,theIndependenceClubandTongnip sinmunsupported freetrade;thatis,theyopposedhighertariffsthatwouldhaveprotectednativeproducersandindustries.TheyalsosoughttomaintainKorea’ssovereigntythrough thegrantingofconcessionstodifferentimperialpowers,hopingthatbalancing competinginterestsamongtheimperialpowerswouldallowforKoreanneutrality andprotectionfrombecomingcolonizedbyoneoftheimperialpowers.Theyalso didnotcallforrenegotiationofunequaltreatiesoranendtoextraterritoriality, judgingsuchdemandstobepremature. 83.RheeSyngman,Tongnip chŏngsin,inIhwajang sojang Unam Yi Sŭngman munsŏ (Seoul:Kukhakcharyowŏn,1998),1:7–8.IhavereferredtotheEnglishtranslation inThe Spirit of Independence: A Primer of Korean Modernization and Reform,translated,annotated,andwithanintroductionbyHan-kyoKim(Honolulu:University ofHawaiiPress,2001).Butthetranslationhereismyown,basedontheversion ofTongnip chŏngsinpublishedinUnam Yi Sŭngman munsŏ.AccordingtoRobertT. Oliver,thefirstthirty-four“chapters”werewrittenwhileRheewasinprison,and thelasteighteenchapterswerewrittenlater.Tongnip chŏngsinwaspublishedinLos Angelesin1910.SeeThe Spirit of Independence,n1;RobertT.Oliver,Syngman Rhee: The Man behind the Myth(NewYork:Dodd,Mead,1954),56,339.Themeaningof chŏngsininTongnip chŏngsin(獨立精神),translatedasspirit,isclosertothemeaningoftheGermanwordGeist. 84.RheeSyngman,立國以敎化爲本,Okjung chapki,citedinYi Sŭng-man yŏn’gu, ed.LewYoung-Ick(YuYŏng-ik)(Seoul:YonseiUniversityPress,2000),37.
noTes To ChapTer Two
85.Rheearguesagainstthenotionthatpoliticaldissentweakensthestate. 86.Tongnip sinmun,editorial,March9,1897,inTongnip sinmun nonsŏljip, 1896.4– 1899.12(Seoul:Songjaemunhwachaedan,1976),184. 87.Rhee,Tongnip chŏngsin,1:8. 88.Rhee,Tongnip chŏngsin,1:45. 89.ThefirstassemblyonMarch10,onChongno,amainthoroughfare,drewa crowdofabouteightthousandpeople.AspeechbyRheeSyngmanwasimpressiveandwellreceived.SeeChandra,Imperialism, Resistance, and Reform in Late Nineteenth-Century Korea,167.ThetopicsetfordiscussionintheassemblyinApril 1898waswhetheraparliament(ŭihoewŏn)shouldbeestablished.WhenPhilipJaisohnwaspressuredtoreturntotheUnitedStatesinMay,YunCh’i-hobecame presidentoftheIndependenceClub.Astheseassembliesdrewthousandsofpeople fromallthesocialclasses,Yunbecamewary.OneofthewayshetriedtomaintaincontrolovertheproceedingswasbytranslatinganddisseminatingHenryM. Robert’s Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies,published in 1894.SeeYiHwang-jik,“KŭndaeHan’gukŭich’ogikongnonjanghyŏngsŏngmit pyŏnhwaekwanhanyŏn’gu,”Sahoe iron32(2007). 90.TheOctoberassemblywasatwo-daymeeting.CosponsorshipandparticipationbyreformistofficialsintheManminkongdonghoewasledbyPakChŏng-yang. ThefirstspeakertoaddresstheassemblywasPakSŏng-ch’un,apersonofpaekjŏng (白丁)status,theloweststatusgroup. 91.AsKennethWellspointsout,YunCh’i-ho“opposedthedemandsofthe‘radicals’likeSyngmanRheefordirectpoliticalconfrontation.”BothPhilipJaisohnand Yunwereunwillingtofomentacoupagainstthemonarchy.Wells,New God, New Nation,60. 92.InOctober1897,toclaimequivalencewiththeimperialpowers,including ChinaandJapan,KingKojongproclaimedKoreatobeanempire,andhimselfan emperor.PakYŏng-hyohadbeeninvolvedinthecoupattemptin1884,andin1894 hehadbeenthehomeministeruntilhewasforcedintoexileforplottingagainst QueenMin. 93.Whileinprisonfrom1899until1904,Rheewasabletoconvincethedirectoroftheprisontoestablishasmalllibrarythere,andhebeganaschoolforthe inmates.Rheealsotranslatedanumberoftexts,includingbooksandessaysonthe historyoftheSino-JapaneseWar,worldhistory,Methodism,andEnglishgrammar.HetranslatedtheWaeber-Komuramemorandumsignedin1896,theLobanov- Yamagataprotocolinthesameyear,andtheTreatyofAlliancebetweenBritainand JapansignedinLondonin1902.RheealsobeganworkingonanEnglish-Korean dictionarybutstoppedaftercompletingone-thirdoftheprojecttowriteTongnip chŏngsin.WhileastudentatPaejaeBoys’HighSchool,hehadcomeundertheinfluenceofSŏChae-pil(PhilipJaisohn).Ithasbeensuggestedthatmanyofthetopics takenupinTongnip chŏngsinRheefirstlearnedfromSŏ’slecturesonhistoryand geography. 94.PresidentTheodoreRooseveltwasawardedtheNobelPeacePrizein1906 forhisroleinnegotiationsthatledtotheTreatyofPortsmouth.
199
200
noTes To ChapTer Two
95. For Rhee Syngman’s political activism in relation to other independence activistsintheUnitedStates,seeBong-YounChoy,Koreans in America(Chicago: Nelson-Hall,1979).SeealsoRichardKim,The Quest for Statehood: Korean Immigrant Nationalism and U.S. Sovereignty, 1905–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press,2011). 96.Rhee,Tongnip chŏngsin,1:73–74. 97.SeeUdayMehta’sdiscussionofJohnLocke’sThoughts Concerning Education andSecond Treatise.UdayMehta,Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth Century British Liberal Thought(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999),46–76. SeealsoLocke,Some Thoughts Concerning Education,ed.JohnW.andJeanS.Yolton (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1989);andSecond Treatise of Government,ed. C.B.Macpherson(Indianapolis,Ind.:HackettPub.Co.,1980). 98.AsPrasenjitDuarapointsout,understandingtheprocessbywhichnarrativesgettransmittedovertimerequiresthatweunderstandhownarrativesbreak downovertime:“Transmissionofatraceoranarrativeispremiseduponrepression,contestation,andnegotiationofother,dispersedtracesandnarratives.For thehistorian,itismethodologicallynecessarytograspthisbifurcationofhistory aslineartransmissionanddispersion;onlythencanwekeepinviewtheheterogeneityofthepastuponwhichbothourhistoricalnarrativesandtherepresentations fromthepast—thetraces,oursources—havebeenconstructed.”PrasenjitDuara, “BifurcatingLinearHistory:NationandHistoriesinChinaandIndia,”positions1, no.3(1993).Inotherwords,itisonlythroughtheviolenceofhistoriography(both premodernandmodern)that“Koreanhistory”(oranyothernationalhistory)can beunderstoodasasinglecoherentnarrative. 99.Dependingonthecontext,Iwilltranslateminjokaspeople,asKoreans,oras anethnicallydefinednation.InthosecasesinwhichIemploythewordnationfor minjok,IdomeantoconveytheideaofcommonbloodtiesassuggestedintheLatin nounnatio(fromwhichthewordnationisderived).Ontheetymologyofwordslike nationandethnicity,andtheconflationofthewordsstateandnation,seeWalker Conner,“ANationIsaNation,IsaState,IsanEthnicGroup,Isa....,”Ethnic and Racial Studies1,no.4(1978),379–88. 100.AndreSchmid,“RediscoveringManchuria:SinCh’aehoandthePoliticsof TerritorialHistoryinKorea,”Journal of Asian Studies56,no.1(1997).Schmidcites two sources on how the term minzoku was appropriated by Chinese intellectualsintheearlyyearsofthetwentiethcentury:HanJinchunandLiYinfun,“Hanwen‘minzu’yicichuxianjiqichujishiyongqingkuang,”Minzu yanjiu,no.2(1984), 36–43;andPengYingming,“Guanyuwoguominzugainianlishidechubukaocha,” Minzu Yanjiu,no.2(1985),5–11. 101.Suchamodel—whichimpliesthat“awordinlanguageAmustequalaword oraphraseinlanguageB;otherwiseoneofthelanguagesislacking”—willlead theobservertoformmistakenopinionsaboutotherpeoplesand,conversely,about theobserver’sowntotalizedidentity.SeeLydiaH.Liu,Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity, China, 1900–1937(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1995),4.
noTes To ChapTer Two
102. Son Chin-t’ae, Chosŏn minjoksa kaeron (Seoul: Ŭryu munhwasa, 1948). ThequotationisfromhisintroductionandcanbefoundinYŏkdae Han’guksa nonsŏn,compiledbyYiKi-baek(Seoul:Saemunsa,1993),241.Son’sintroductionto Chosŏn minjoksa kaeron(OutlineofKoreanNationalHistory)waswritteninthe postliberationcontextofdividedoccupation(Sovietforcesnorthofthe38thparallel,U.S.forcestothesouth)andtheviolentstrugglebetweentheLeftandthe Rightthatledtotheestablishmentofseparatestates(DPRKandROK)in1948. Asananticommunist,SonnonethelessextendedhighpraisetotheMarxisthistoriographyofPaekNam-un,butthencriticizedhimfordiscoveringonlyapartof “ourselves”(uri chasin).Son’sprivilegingoftheminjokasthetotalityof“ourselves” thattranscendsclassdivisionsatteststohowthecategoryofminjokwasimplicated inideologicalstrugglesduringandafterthecolonialperiod.SonbecameSouth Korea’s vice minister of education in 1950, and he was forcibly taken to North KoreaduringtheKoreanWar. 103.ChoTong-gŏl,“Kŭndaech’ogiŭiyŏksainsik,”Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksa insik,ed.ChoTong-gŏl,HanYŏng-u,andPakCh’an-sŭng(Seoul:Ch’angjakkwa pip’yŏngsa,1994),2,19. 104.EugenWeber,Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1976).ErnestGellnermakesasimilarargument:“[Nationalism]claimstodefendfolkculturewhileinfactitisforging ahigh[i.e.,yangban]culture;itclaimstoprotectanoldfolksocietywhileinfact helpingtobuildupananonymousmasssociety;...itpreachesanddefendscontinuity,butoweseverythingtoadecisiveandunutterablyprofoundbreakinhuman history[thedevelopmentofindustrialsociety].”ErnestGellner,Nations and Nationalism(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1983),124–25. 105.AsFujiyaKawashimahasshown,bytheeighteenthcenturytheyangban eliteinthecountrysidehadsucceededinconstructingdiverselocalculturesbased onConfucianethics,aculturethatstructuredthedailylivesofnotjustyangbanbut alsochungin,commoners,andslaves.This“culturallocalism”wasupheldasbeing universalinthatConfucianethicsandmoralitywereapplicabletoeveryoneeverywhere,evenasitaccentuatedasharedsenseofself-discipline,self-rule,andself- sufficiency.Butthissharedlocalculturedidnottransgressstatusdistinctions.This cultureassumedthatthesocialhierarchyseparatingthedifferentstatusgroups (myŏngbun)wasnaturalandcommonsensical.FujiyaKawashima,“CulturalLocalismintheLateChosŏnDynastyandItsSignificanceinModernKorea,”Bulletin of Hiroshima Jogakuin University,no.45(December1995). 106.CarterEckert,Offspring of Empire: The Koch’ang Kims and the Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism, 1876–1945(Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,1991), 226–27. 107.AlthoughChinesedynastiesviewedtheirinteractionwithpeoplesandkingdomsbeyondtheirbordersintermsofthe“tributesystem,”PeterYunpointsout thatthissystemencompassedawiderangeofpoliticalrelationships,fromtotal subjugationtovirtualequality.Yunarguesthatfromthefourthcenturyuntilthe Mongolconquestofthewholeregioninthethirteenthcentury,atriangularbal-
201
202
noTes To ChapTer Two
anceofpoweramongChina,Manchuria,andKoreaprevailedinNortheastAsia.By destroyingthistriangularbalanceofpower,theMongolsforthefirsttimeforced Korea(Koryŏ)toperformallthedutiesofa“modeltributary.”Itwasnotuntilthe sixteenthcentury,however,thatKoreanConfucianelitesdevelopedastrongideologicalcommitmenttothemoralcorrectnessofthetributesystem.SeePeterYun, “RethinkingtheTributeSystem:NortheastAsianInterstateRelations,600–1600.” Ph.D.dissertation,uclA,1998. 108.Thereare,ofcourse,otherfactorsbehindChosŏn’sremarkablelongevity. See, for example, James Palais, “Stability in Chosŏn Dynasty Korea,” Occasional Papers on Korea3(June1975),1–18. 109.Anderson,Imagined Communities,1–18. 110.Ascommonlydefinedinpresent-daySouthKorea,thecategoriesof“nationalisthistorians”and“nationalisthistoriography”forthecolonialperiodencompass awiderangeofhistoricalwritingbywriterswhoembracedquitedifferent,sometimesopposingphilosophical,political,andmethodologicalpositions.Bynationalisthistoriography,Imeanhistorieswrittenasanarrativeofresistancetocolonial rule,devotedtocounteringtheperniciouseffectsofcolonialisthistoriographyand toempoweringKoreanstojointhestruggleforKorea’sindependence,byhistorians suchasSinCh’ae-ho,PakŬn-sik,AnChae-hong,MunIl-p’yŏng,andChŏngIn-bo. Weshouldbecarefultodistinguishbetweennationalhistoriography(minjok sahak) andnationalisthistoriography(minjokjuŭi yŏksahak).Almostallhistorieswritten todayarenationalhistories(forexample,historiesofKoreanwomen,religion,literature,music,art—nottomentionpolitics),butnotallhistoriesarenationalist histories. 111.SinCh’ae-howasbornin1880inSouthCh’ungch’ŏngProvince.Hereceived aclassicaleducationfromhisgrandfatherandattheageofeighteenenteredthe Sŏnggyun’gwan, the government-run Confucian academy. In 1905 Sin received hispaksadegreeandattheinvitationofChangChi-yŏnjoinedtheeditorialstaffof theHwangsŏng sinmun(CapitalGazette).WhentheJapaneseauthoritiesforcedthe Hwangsŏng sinmuntoclose,hemovedtotheTaehan maeil sinbo(KoreaDailyNews) and became its editor in chief. In 1907, with the intention of inspiring Korean youth to become heroes themselves, Sin translated Liang Qichao’s (Liang Ch’i- ch’ao)biographicalsketchesofMazzini,Garibaldi,andCavour(Itali kŏn’guk samgŏljŏn)andinthefollowingyearwrotebiographicsketchesoftheKoguryŏgeneral ŬlchiMundŏkandChosŏnadmiralYiSun-sin.In1907healsohelpedorganizethe Sinminhoe(NewPeople’sAssociation,aclandestinenationalistorganization),and inhiseditorialspublicizedSinminhoeviews.Untilannexationin1910,SinpublishedKajŏng chapchi(FamilyMagazine),amagazineforwomen,andwroteessays onnationalism,Koreanlinguistics,Koreanhistory,andpoetry.HeleftKoreajust beforeannexationtocontinuehisnationalistactivitiesabroad,andwiththeexceptionofabrieftriphomein1916,heneversetfootinKoreaagain.In1919,whenthe MarchFirstMovementeruptedinKorea,SintookpartinorganizingtheKorean provisionalgovernment(kPg)inShanghai.By1920,however,hewassodisgusted
noTes To ChapTer Two
withthediplomaticandgradualiststrategiesadvocatedbyRheeSyngmanandAn Ch’ang-hothatheturnedhisbackonthekPg.Althoughactiveinrevolutionary nationalistpolitics,Sinalsoimmersedhimselfinhistoricalstudy.Hiswritingsin theearlytwentiethcenturywereinfluencedbyLiangQichao’shistoricalmethodology and by Chinese anarchist intellectuals. In 1923 he wrote “Declaration of KoreanRevolution”fortheKoreanrevolutionaryorganizationŬiyŏldan.By1925 hehadbecomeananarchist.In1927hejoinedtheEasternAnarchistAssociation, andinthefollowingyearhewasarrestedbytheJapanesemilitaryinconnection withaforgeryschemetoraisefundsforanarchistactivities.In1936hediedina JapaneseprisoninPortArthur. 112.TheTan’gunlegendisaprototypicalfoundationmythwhichexplainsthe creationofthepeople,thestate,andthecultureofancientChosŏn.Asnarrated by Iryŏn in the Samguk yusa, Hwanin, the Supreme Spirit, sent down his son, Hwanung, to the peak of T’aebaeksan. A bear and a tiger, which lived together inacave,prayedtoHwanungtobetransformedintohumanform.Hwaninthen gavethemmugwortandgarlictoeatandtoldthemnottoseelightforonehundreddays.Thetigercouldnotenduretheordeal;thebearperseveredandbecame awoman.Hwanungmarriedher,andsheboreasonwhowascalledTan’gunwanggŏm. Iryŏn goes on to say that in the fiftieth year of the Emperor Yao, Tan’gun establishedacityatPyongyangandcalledhiscountryChosŏn.Thiswoulddate theestablishmentofAncientChosŏnto2306bcE,buttheTan’guncalendartraditionallybeginswithTan’gun’sbirth,whichissaidtohaveoccurredin2333bcE. SeeSamguk yusa,trans.Tae-HungHaandGraftonK.Mintz(1972;Seoul:Yonsei UniversityPress,2004). 113.HomerB.Hulbert,“IntroductoryNote,”Korea Review(1901). 114.Startinginthe1920s,withmoresophisticatedapproachestothestudyof religionandwaysofreadingmyth,newsemanticvaluewasgiventothetermmyth, asfablebutalsoassacredtraditionandrevelationofbeginnings.InKoreatoday theTan’gunmythholdsbothoftheseaspects:asfictionthatneverthelessnarrates Korea’sorigininthetimeofbeginnings. 115. Although no longer extant, state histories were compiled by each of the ThreeKingdoms:YiMun-jinforKoguryŏ(600);KohŭngforPaekche(375;and asnotedbyPeterLee,judgingfromquotationsintheNihon shoki,otherPaekche historiesmusthaveexisted);andKŏch’ilbu(fl.545–76)forSilla.PeterLeeetal., eds.,Sourcebook of Korean Civilization:vol.1,From Early Times to the Sixteenth Century(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1993),119.ItisthoughtthatSamguksa (HistoryoftheThreeKingdoms),writtenatthebeginningoftheKoryŏperiodbut nolongerextant,didmentiontheTan’gunlegend.ButaccordingtoHanYŏng-u, theSamguksaprobablywasnotasophisticatedConfucianhistoryandwasprobablynotwrittenintheannalbiography(kijŏnch’e)style.SeeHanYoung-Woo(Han Yŏng-u),“Urinarayŏksahakŭihŭrŭm,”Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,ed.Cho Tong-gŏletal.(Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1994),1:15. 116.ABuddhistmonkversedingeomancy,Myoch’ŏng(?–1135)contendedthat
203
204
noTes To ChapTer Two
thetopographicalvigorofKaegyŏng(Kaesŏng,thecapitalofKoryŏ)wasdepleted. Myoch’ŏng’s proposal to move the capital to Sŏgyŏng (Pyongyang) would have weakenedthepowerofaristocraticfamiliesentrenchedinKaegyŏngandwould haveinstatedamoreaggressivepolicytowardtheJurchenJininthenorth.ConservativeslikeKimPu-sikopposedMyoch’ŏng’splanbecausemovingthecapital toamore“propitious”areawouldhavealsosanctionedanextensive(andexpansive)programofreconstructingthephysicalandsocialorder.In1135,afteryears offruitlesspolemic,Myoch’ŏngraisedanarmyinrevolt,whichendedindefeatto forcesledbyKimPu-sik.AccordingtoSongKi-ho,thecoreofParhae’srulingclass wasmadeupofKoguryŏémigrésandthesubjectpopulationwasmostlyMalgal people.“Unified”SillaregardedParhaeasastatefoundedbythedescendentsof Koguryŏ,and,initsdealingswith“Japan,”ParhaereferredtoitselfasKoryŏ(that is,Koguryŏ).TherearepassagesintheSamguk sagiandinCh’oeCh’i-wŏn’swritings(857–?;ascholar-officialoflateSilla)whichrefertoParhaeas“theNorthernState”(pukguk),andSonginfersthatParhaemighthaveregardedSillaas“the SouthernState”(namguk).SongthenreasonsthatParhaeandSillasawthemselves asformingasingleethnicgroup.SeeSongKi-ho,“SillachungdaesahoewaParhae,”Han’guksa t’ŭkgang,ed.Han’guksat’ŭkgangp’yŏnchanwiwŏnhoe(Seoul:Sŏul taehakkyoch’ulp’anbu,1990),67–81.Ithinkitisentirelypossiblethat,whenconvenient,thatis,forpoliticalreasons(toseekasylum,orasjustificationforterritorialambitions),therulingclassesofParhaeandSillamighthavearticulatedtheir relationshiptooneanotherintermsofclientshipandkinshipties.ButIthinkitis doubtfulthattheyeventhoughtabouttheirownsubjects(peoplefromwhomthey extractedtributeandlabor)intermsofadeep,horizontalcomradeshipthatisthe hallmarkoftheethnicnation. 117.Traditionaldates:Koguryŏ,37bcE–668cE;Paekche,18bcE–660cE;and Silla,57bcE–935cE.“Unified”Sillais668–935. 118.Han,“Urinarayŏksahakŭihŭrŭm,”14–17. 119.TheTan’gunlegendinSamguk yusamighthavebeenbasedonmuchearlier sources,suchastheWei shuandTan’gun kogi.TheTan’gunlegendalsoappearsin later(Chosŏn)court-sponsoredworksliketheŬngjesi chu(CommentaryonPoems WrittenatRoyalCommand)byKwŏnNam(1416–65),themonographongeographyintheSejong sillok,andtheTongguk yŏji sŭngnam(1481). 120.Ki-baikLee(YiKi-baek),A New History of Korea,trans.EdwardW.Wagner (Cambridge:Harvard-YenchingInstitute,1984),167. 121.AsPeterYun(“RethinkingtheTributeSystem”)pointsout,successiveKoryŏ kingshadprincessesoftheYüanimperialhouseastheirprimaryconsorts,andthe thronewasreservedfortheprincesborntoMongolqueens. 122.Iryŏnwrites,“Itiswritteninanoldbook,‘Inancienttimes,Hwanung,the sonofHwanin(thismeansChesŏk),desiredtodescendfromHeavenandtolive amongstmen....Togetherwithhisministersofwind,rain,andcloud,Hwanung instructedmankindaboutagriculture,thepreservationoflife,thecuringofdisease,punishments,thedifferencebetweenrightandwrong.’”Thistranslationby
noTes To ChapTer Two
JamesH.GraysoncanbefoundinKorea: A Religious History(NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress,1989),282.SeealsoPeterLee’stranslationinSourcebook of Korean Civilization,1:4–7.ForIryŏn,KoryŏwasthelandwhereintheBuddhadwells(thus culturallysuperiortotheMongols),anditwasBuddhismthatcouldsafeguardthe landandthepeople.ThiswaswhyheequatedHwanin,theRulerofHeaven,with Chesŏk,arenderingofIndra,oneofthethreegreatdeitiesofVedicHinduism. 123.Therewerehistorieswrittenintheepicstyle,mostnotablythevernacular translationoftheSanguozhi tongsu yanyi(RomanceoftheThreeKingdoms;K:Samgukji t’ongsok yŏnŭi).Confucianhistoriansconsideredsuchpopularhistoriesfiction ratherthanhistoryproper.Butmuchtotheirdismay,Samgukji t’ongsok yŏnŭiwas widelyreadinlateChosŏn.AsEmanuelPastreichpointsout,YiIk(1681–1763),for example,lamentedthefactthattheSamgukji t’ongsok yŏnŭiwasbeingreadaloud ineveryhomeandevenquotedinthecivilserviceexaminationquestions.The earliestcomplaintonrecordseemstobeamemorialwrittenbythescholarKiTae- sŭngtoKingSŏnjoin1569inwhichherebukesthekingfordrawingareference fromSamgukji t’ongsok yŏnŭi.Withouthavingtoreadit,Kiwasabletocompare itsextremeludicrousnesstobooksonastrology.Pastreicharguesthattheliterary styleofSamgukji t’ongsok yŏnŭisetsomeofthebasicconventionsforthevernacular novelinlateChosŏn.SeeEmanuelPastreich,“TheReceptionofChineseVernacular Narrative in Korea and Japan,” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1997, 49–52.Butitisnotclearwhatinfluence,ifany,literaryconventionsinlateChosŏn vernacularliteraturehadonhistorywritinginthemodernperiod.Inthecaseof SinCh’ae-ho,ThomasCarlyle’sOn Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History andLiangQichao’sbiographicalsketchesofMazzini,Garibaldi,andCavour(which Sintranslatedin1907asItali kŏn’guk samgŏljŏn)stimulatedhimtowritebiographic sketchesoftheKoguryŏgeneralŬlchiMundŏk(mid-sixthcenturytoearlyseventh century)andYiSun-sin(1545–98).(Ŭlchi Mundŏkwaspublishedasabookletin 1908andYi Sunsin-jŏnwasserializedintheTaehan maeil sinbointhesameyear.) AsMichaelRobinsonpointsout,Sin’smotivesforwritingthesebiographieswasto exhortKoreanyouthtoemulatethepurityofspiritandpatrioticexampleofthese militaryheroesinKoreanhistory.MichaelRobinson,“NationalIdentityandthe ThoughtofSinCh’aeho,”Journal of Korean Studies5(1984),134. 124.Privatehistoriesweresometimesfreeofsomeoftherestraintsthatinhibitedofficialhistoriography.However,becausetheauthorswereeitherpotentialor actualofficeholders,therewasastrongsimilarityinoutlookbetweenprivatehistoriographyandofficialhistoriography. 125.Inaninterviewin1984,YiPyŏng-do(1896–1989)recalledhowhesawthe Chosŏn wangjo sillokforthefirsttimeinthehomeofIkeuchiHiroshi,aprofessor ofKoreanhistoryatTokyoImperialUniversity.Thiswasduringhisstudentdaysat WasedaUniversity(1916–19).DuringtheChosŏnperiod,copiesoftheSillokwere keptatfourseparatearchivesinremotemountainousareasinadditiontothecentralarchiveinSeoul.TheSillokkeptbyIkeuchiwasdestroyedduringtheTokyo earthquakeof1923.Duringthecolonialperiod,YiPyŏng-doworkedonandofffor
205
206
noTes To ChapTer Three
theChōsenshihenshūkai(SocietyfortheCompilationofKoreanHistory),and afterliberationhetaughtintheHistoryDepartmentatSeoulNationalUniversity. AmongKoreanhistorians,Yiwasthemostinfluentialinthepositivistschool(silchŭng sahak).Theinterview,conductedbyChŏngHong-jun,appearsinChindan hakhoe,ed.,Yŏksaga ŭi yuhyang(Seoul:Ilchogak,1991),264–76. 126.Sinminhoewasasecretsocietyorganizedin1907byAnCh’ang-ho,withYi Tong-hwi,YangKi-t’ak,YiKap,YiSung-hun,ChŏnTŏk-ki,AnT’ae-guk,YiTong- nyŏng,SinCh’ae-ho,andothers(SinCh’aewroteitsprospectus,“Chwijimun”).It consistedofpatriots,eachofwhomcommittedhislifeandpropertytotheorganizationinthecauseofpromotingnationalistconsciousness,Koreanindependence, andpopularsovereignty.Atonepointthemembershipgrewtoabouteighthundredmen,manyofwhomwerejournalists,religiousleaders,militarymen,and businessmen.Topromoteeducation,theSinminhoefoundedschoolsinPyongyang and Chŏngju; topromote modern industry, itestablished a ceramics factory in Pyongyang;andtopromotenationalistpoliticsinthepublicsphere,itestablished thebilingualnewspaperTaehan maeil sinbo(KoreaDailyNews). 127.ThisparallelshistoricaltrendsamongWesternimperialpowers,wherethe maintenanceandexpansionofimperialstructuresrequired,amongandforitsown citizens, greater participatory democracy, higher levels of education, and more attentionpaidtohealthandwelfare. 128.HanYoung-WooidentifiesSinCh’ae-hoastheinitiator(sŏnch’angja)ofmodernnationalisthistoriographyinKorea.AccordingtoHan,SinCh’ae-ho’s“Toksa sillon,”writtenin1908,wasapioneeringworkinmodernnationalisthistoriography because its epistemology was informed by three tenets: nation (minjok), democracy(minju),andscience(kwahak).HanYoung-Woo(HanYŏng-u),Han’guk minjokjuŭi yŏksahak(Seoul:Ilchogak,1994),4,6. 129. Sin Ch’ae-ho, “Chosŏn yŏksasang ilch’ŏnnyŏnlae cheil taesakkŏn” (The MostDisastrousEventinthePastOneThousandYearsofKoreanHistory),Tonga Ilbo(October1924throughMarch1925).Thehistoricalcontextforthispolemic hadtodowithSin’sdenunciationofthoseKoreanswhowerelobbyingforan“independentdomesticadministration”(naejŏng tongnip),“participatorygovernment” (ch’am chŏngkwŏn),or“self-rule”(chach’i)withincolonialKorea.Sinunderstood thesemovesascapitulationtoJapan’sclaimoverKorea,acapitulationthatemanatedfromthementalityofsubserviencebegunbyKimPu-sik. 130.IthankChristineHongforthisformulationandherreadingofYunCh’i- ho’snarrativeabouthisexperiencesintheUnitedStatesasanarrativeofdisavowal throughatemporaldisplacement.
3.NationalizingKorea’sPast 1. Sin Ch’ae-ho, “Toksa sillon,” Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip (Seoul: Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-hosŏnsaengkinyŏmsaŏphoe,1987),1:471–72. 2.YanagiSōetsu’sfirstlongessayonanAsianartworkwasabouttheSŏkkuram
noTes To ChapTer Three
Grotto,publishedin1919justaftertheMarchFirstUprising.ForYanagi,theglory oftheSillacapitalofKyŏngjuwascomparabletothegoldenageofTangChinaand TenpyōJapan.SeeJanetPoole,chapter3of“ColonialInteriors:ModernistFiction ofKorea,”Ph.D.dissertation,ColumbiaUniversity,2004. 3.KimTae-sik,“IljekangjŏmgiKyŏngjuchiŏkmunhwajeŭisuripokwŏnsare,” Kyŏngju Silla yujŏk ŭi ŏje wa onŭl: Sŏkkuram, Pulguksa, Namsan(Seoul:Sungkyunkwantaehakkyopangmulkwankihoegchŏnsisil,2007).SekinoTadashi’sfieldof expertisewasBuddhistarchitecture,andin1902hehadalreadyconductedastudy ofPulguksa. 4.ThephotosweretakenbyTokioShunzo,probablyinthefallof1909when ResidentGeneralSonewenttoviewSŏkkuram.ThereweretwophotosofSŏkkuram,andthesewerepublishedinabookonKoreanarttitledChōsen bijutsu taikan(Keijō[Seoul]:Chōsenkoshokankōkai,1910).UnderthedirectionofSekino Tadashi,theOfficeoftheGovernorGeneralofChōsen(ChōsenSotokufu)began in1915topublishtheresultsofexcavating,identifying,photographing,andclassifyingsignificantsitesandartifactsthroughoutKorea.SeeChōsen koseki zufu(ArchaeologicalSurveyofKorea),15vols.(Seoul:ChōsenSotokufu,1915–35). 5.Su-youngHwang,“SŏkkuramGrottoShrine,”Koreana6,no.4(1992). 6.Theremayhavebeenten“windows,”invisiblefromwithin,thatallowedair andindirectlightintotherotunda.SeeChun-wooNahm,“DiscoveriesofHitherto ForgottenSciencesinSŏkkuramTemple,”Chindan hakbo32(1969). 7.Severaleffortsweremadetofixtheproblem,butwithoutsuccess. 8.Mail sinbo,September12,1913. 9.InMeijiJapan,alongwithpreservationguidelines,theMinistryofInterior alsoregulatedtheappointmentofchiefabbotsandrequiredthereportingofall templeaffairs,includingtheissuanceofpermitstoholdpublicreligiousevents. SeeHyungIlPai,“TheCreationofNationalTreasuresandMonuments:The1916 JapaneseLawsonthePreservationofKoreanRemainsandRelicsandTheirColonialLegacies,”Korean Studies25,no.1(2001),79. 10.SeeStefanTanaka,“ImagingHistory:InscribingBeliefintheNation,”Journal of Asian Studies53,no.1(1994). 11.ErnestFenollosabeganteachingatTokyoImperialUniversityin1878.He washiredtoteachphilosophy,buthesoondevelopedapassionforJapaneseart, andin1887hewasappointedprofessorofestheticsandarthistory.Thefollowing year,bothFenollosaandOkakurawereappointedtotheTokyoImperialMuseum, FenollosaservingontheadministrativeboardandOkakuraasheadoftheartsection.SeeF.G.Notehelfer,“OnIdealismandRealismintheThoughtofOkakura Tenshin,”Journal of Japanese Studies 16,no.2(1990),320,326.In1890Fenollosa becamethecuratoroftheDepartmentofOrientalArtoftheBostonMuseumof FineArts.HehelpedselectartpiecesfortheJapaneseExhibitattheColumbian ExpositioninChicagoin1893. 12.ThishallcametobereferredtoasYumedono(HallofDreams)startingin theHeianperiod,withthevenerationofPrinceShōtoku,basedontheclaimthat
207
208
noTes To ChapTer Three
Nichira, a nobleman from Paekche, had worshipped the prince as early as 583. According to the Kamakura-period text Shōtoku taishi den shiki (1238), Shōtoku studiedBuddhistscripturewiththeKoreanmonkHyeja.SeeLucieR.Weinstein, “The Yumedono Kannon: Problems in Seventh-Century Sculpture,” Archives of Asian Art42(1989). 13.SuikoreferstoEmpressSuiko(554–628).TheGuzeKannonissaidtobea representationofPrinceShōtoku.ErnestF.Fenollosa,Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art: An Outline History of East Asiatic Design(NewYork:FrederickA.Stokes, 1911),501–51.ThebulkofthetextquotedhereisalsoquotedinTanaka,“Imaging History.” 14.TheKannonseesandhearsthesufferingoftheworld,thusthecompassionateBodhisattva.TheGuzeKannonwaslockedawaywithintheoctagonalhallasa hibutsu,animagetoosacredtoview.AccordingtoLucieWeinstein,fromthethirteenthcenturyuntil1884thereislittleindicationthattheKannonwaseveron view(“TheYumedonoKannon,”29). 15.OkakuragraduatedfromTokyoImperialUniversityin1880.Startinginthe fallof1881,heworkedintheartsectionoftheMinistryofEducation.Thefirst tourofimperialartcommissionersoccurredin1882,whenOkakuraandFenollosajoinedKukiRyūichionatriptotheKyoto-Naraarea.ThereafterOkakuraand FenollosawentonaseriesoftripstosearchoutandidentifyJapan’snationaltreasures.SeeNotehelfer,“OnIdealismandRealismintheThoughtofOkakuraTenshin,”324. 16.KakuzōOkakura,The Awakening of the East(1938;Tokyo:Seibun-kaku,1940), 54–55.AccordingtoF.G.Notehelfer,OkakurawroteThe Awakening of the EastduringhisstayinIndiafromNovember1901toOctober1902.In1906hebecamecuratoroftheChineseandJapaneseDepartmentoftheBostonMuseum,anduntilhis deathin1913hespenthalftheyearintheUnitedStatesandhalftheyearinJapan. NotehelfercommentsthatOkakura“neverwroteaspowerfullyorasbeautifullyin JapaneseashewroteinEnglish.NodoubtthiswasthereasonwhyallofhisimportantbookswerewritteninEnglish”(“OnIdealismandRealismintheThoughtof OkakuraTenshin,”317,330,347). 17.DuringhisstayinIndiafrom1901to1902,OkakuraformedadeepfriendshipwithRabindranathTagore.Ontheirfriendship,seeRustomBharucha, Another Asia: Rabindranath Tagore and Okakura Tenshin(NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress,2009).BharuchasumsupthedifferencebetweenOkakuraandTagore thisway:whilebothwerecosmopolitan,OkakuralivedhalfwaybetweenEastand West;Tagore,ontheotherhand,thoughtofBengalashishome,theplace“where theworldfindsitshomeinonenest”(126). 18.KakuzōOkakura,Ideals of the East with Special Reference to the Art of Japan (London:JohnMurray,1903),5,7. 19.Okakura,Ideals of the East,235. 20.Okakura,Ideals of the East,7–8,207. 21.SekinoTadashi.Chōsen bijutsushi(Keijō:Chōsenshigakkai,1932).
noTes To ChapTer Three
22.SongCh’an-sŏp,“Iljeŭisingminsahak,”Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,2, ed.ChoTong-gŏletal.(Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1994). 23.ShigenoYasutsugu,KumeKunitake,andHoshinoHisashiwereallonthefacultyofTokyoImperialUniversity.NumataJirō,“ShigenoYasutsuguandtheModernTokyoTraditionofHistoricalWriting,”Historians of Japan and China,ed.W.G. BeasleyandE.G.Pulleyblank(London:OxfordUniversityPress,1961),281.Itcan bearguedthatthis“tradition”wasreproducedincolonialKoreabyhistorianslike YiPyŏng-doandthepositivistschool(silchŭng sahak). 24.HatadaTakashi,Nihonjin no chōsenkan(Tokyo:ChikumaShobō,1969). 25.Archaeologicalevidencesuggestsacomplexdynamicbetween“Japan”and “Korea”duringtheThreeKingdomsperiod.ÉmigrésfromKoguryŏ,Paekche,and Sillaplayeddecisiveroles(culturalandpolitical)intheformativeperiodof“Japanese”history;forexample,oneoftheearlyemperors,Ōjin,wasprobablyamember ofthePuyŏrulinghouseofPaekche. 26.AsAndreSchmidhaspointedout,HyŏnCh’ae’s“translation”neverraised theissueofwhetherJapanesegarrisonswereestablishedontheKoreanpeninsula, orwhetherKoreankingdomssenttributetoJapan.AndreSchmid,Korea between Empires, 1895–1919(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2002),154. 27.BesidesHyŏnCh’ae,KimT’ae-yŏng’sTongsa chipnyak(1902)andevenChang Chi-yŏninhisTaehan kangyŏk-korepeatedthecolonialistclaimsaboutMimana (Kaya). In 1901 Hayashi published the sequel Chōsen kinseishi, which covered Koreanhistoryupto1895.ThisworkmoreexplicitlyadvocatedJapan’scontrolof Korea. 28.WhenPaekNam-unwroteChōsen shakai keizaishi(TheSocialEconomicHistoryofKorea,1933),hispolemicaltargetwasFukudaTokuzōandthe“stagnation theory”thenprevalentinJapanesehistoriographyonKorea.Paekstudiedatthe TokyoCollegeofCommerce(todayHitotsubashiUniversity)from1919to1924, whereFukudahadpreviouslytaughteconomics. 29.StefanTanaka,Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pasts into History(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1993),4. 30.ShiratoriKurakichiwasaprofessoratTokyoImperialUniversityfrom1904 to1925andthescholarprimarilyresponsiblefortheformationandformulationof tōyōshiasanacademicfieldofstudy.SeeTanaka,Japan’s Orient,4. 31.CitedinAndreSchmid,Korea between Empires,57. 32.OnecouldperhapslocatetheemergenceofJapan’sOrientalismintheearly yearsoftheMeijiperiod,whenFukuzawaYukichiarguedthatJapanmust“leave Asia” (Datsu-A). But this ideological system really established itself in Japanese populardiscoursearoundtheturnofthecentury—especiallyafterJapan’svictory overRussia—whenanarmyofcartoonists,novelists,andpunditsconceptualized EastAsiaasTōyō,andChinanotasChūgokubutasShina,anamenowconnoting backwardnessandcorruption. 33.Tanaka,Japan’s Orient,47. 34.Tanaka,Japan’s Orient,17.
209
210
noTes To ChapTer Three
35.Forthelistofhistorytextbooksusedinthisperiod,seeHanYoung-Woo(Han Yŏng-u),Han’guk minjokjuŭi yŏksahak(Seoul:Ilchogak,1994),43.Itisnotclearto whatextentSinCh’ae-hohaddirectaccesstoJapanesewritingsonKorea.Butin otheressays,hedoesciteanumberofJapanesetexts,forexample,Chōsen no ichi (Korea’sPosition).See“Tongyangitaeli(TheItalyoftheOrient),”Tanjae Sin Ch’aeho chŏnjip,4:184. 36.KimHan-kyo’stranslationofthissentencereads,“Ifthisweretrue,ourrelativelysmalllandwouldbeapandemoniumwithbarbariansfromnorthandsouth millingaround,andtheaccomplishmentsoffourthousandyearswouldbewhat variousforeignnationshadofferedatauction.”ButaccordingtotheKug-hanmun textinTanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,vol.1,thegeographicsizeofKoreaisdepictedas “ourlandwhichencompassesseveraltensofthousandsofli”(thatis,notjustthe Koreanpeninsula)andshouldnotbetranslatedas“ourrelativelysmallland.”See theEnglishtranslationinLeeetal.,Sourcebook of Korean Civilization,2:424.Several tensofthousandsofliwouldencompassnotjusttheKoreanpeninsula,butmuch ofManchuria—whichisexactlywhatSinCh’ae-hoisarguingforin“Toksasillon.” LiangandCh’uwere“Chinese”statesintheWarringStatesperiod. 37.Sin,“Toksasillon,”Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,1:482. 38.VipanChandracontraststhiswiththesituationinChinaandJapan:“Unlike China,whererevolutionistscoulddrawon‘Hannationalism’against‘alien’Manchurule,orJapan,wheretheMeijiRestorationists...couldpainttheshogunateas ausurperofimperialsovereignty,Koreaofferednosuchrationaleforradicalactivists.”VipanChandra,Imperialism, Resistance, and Reform in Late Nineteenth-Century Korea: Enlightenment and the Independence Club(Berkeley:InstituteofEastAsian Studies,1988),215. 39.SeetheprefaceinKangMan-gil,“Iljesidaeŭipan-sigminsahaknon,”Han’guk sahaksa ŭi yŏn’gu,ed.Han’guksayŏn’guhoe(Seoul:Ŭlyumunhwasa,1985),231–32. 40. But as noted in chapter 1, Yu Tŭk-kong wrote Palhaego to reinforce the notionofChosŏnasthelastbastionofcivilization,thatis,forculturalandpolitical aimsquitedifferentfromthatofSinCh’ae-hointheearlytwentiethcentury.See Tae-yongHuh,“ACriticalReviewontheIssueofProto-NationalismduringLate Chosŏn,”International Journal of Korean History12(August2008). 41.InSouthKorea,YiU-sŏnghasbeenthestrongestpromoterofthisterm.For anoverviewofhistoriographicalissuessurroundingParhae,seeSongKi-ho,“Silla chungdaesahoewaParhae,”Han’guksa t’ŭkgang,ed.ChoTong-gŏletal.(Seoul: Sŏultaehakkyoch’ulp’anbu,1990),67–81;andhisessayonYuTŭk-konginHan’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,ed.ChoTong-gŏletal.(Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa, 1994),2:296–309. 42.SeeAndreSchmid,“RediscoveringManchuria:SinCh’aehoandthePolitics ofTerritorialHistoryinKorea,”Journal of Asian Studies56,no.1(1997),27. 43.ThereferenceistoKumeKunitake,“Nihonfukuinnoenkaku,”Shigakkai zasshi1(December1889–February1890).AccordingtoStefanTanaka,inmaking theargumentthatJapanbeforeJinmu(themythicalfirstemperor)wasasortof
noTes To ChapTer Three
thalassocracyencompassingKyūshū,Korea,andsoutheasternChina,Kumeused passagesfromtheNihon shokiandKojikinotasactualfactsbutasallegoricaldata thatdescribehistoricalevents.SeeTanaka,Japan’s Orient,71–75. 44.Thatis,twoyearsafterhis“Nihonfukuinnoenkaku”essay.SeeNumata, “ShigenoYasutsuguandtheModernTokyoTraditionofHistoricalWriting,”272. 45.AsSchmidpointsout,thedepictionofKoreaasencompassingnearlyall ofManchuriarevealsanirredentisminSinCh’ae-ho’sthoughtthathasnotbeen adequatelyaddressed—especiallysinceirredentismloomslargeinpresent-day imaginationsofright-wingnationalistsinSouthKoreawhodreamaboutreclaiming Korea’s “ancestral lands” (kut’o hoebok). See Schmid, “Rediscovering Manchuria.” 46.ParthaChatterjee,Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1986). 47.IthankSuzyKimforthisinsight. 48.ElieKedourie,Nationalism(London:Hutchinson,1960),71–81. 49.PrasenjitDuara,Rescuing History from the Nation(Chicago:UniversityofChicago,1995),4. 50.Bythemid-Koryŏperiod,however,Duncanarguesthattheformationofa homogeneous,kingdomwideeliteclasswaswellunderway.Moreoverheargues thatweshouldnotruleoutthepossibilitythatstate-organizedcorvéeandmilitary servicecouldhavecreatedawidersenseofidentificationwiththestate,“however negativethatmayhavebeenattimes,”andacertainhomogenizingofthepopulace. JohnB.Duncan,“Hyanghwain:MigrationandAssimilationinChosŏnKorea,”Acta Koreana3(July2000). 51.SeeEtienneBalibar,“TheNationForm:HistoryandIdeology,”Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities,ed.EtienneBalibarandImmanuelWallerstein(New York:Verso,1991),86. 52.Thereasonforthediscrepancy isquitesimple:thekingdomofKoguryŏ, andsubsequentlyParhae,encompassednorthernKoreaandsouthernManchuria, whereas “Unified” Silla (after causing Koguryŏ’s collapse with the aid of Tang China)encompassedthesoutherntwo-thirdsoftheKoreanpeninsula.“Unified” Silla’snorthernboundarywithParhaeraneastalongtheTaedongRivertotheBay ofWŏnsan. 53.SeeBalibar,“TheNationForm,”88. 54.InHan’guk kodaesa sanch’aek,theauthorsbegintheirnarrativewithanadmissionofuncertainty:“WhendidpeoplebegintoliveintheKoreanpeninsula? Andwhoareourancestors?Thesequestionsengrossmanypeople,butthereader cannotexpectclear-cutanswers.Andthissituationwillremainthesame.Clear- cutanswerswillnotbeforthcomingbecauseitwassolongago,andbecausethere issuchadearthofhistoricalevidence....Habituallycallingourselvesahomogeneousnation[tanil minjok],thereisatendencytostressthepurityofourbloodline.ButthebloodlineofcontemporaryKoreanswasnothomogeneousnorconstantfromthebeginning.”SeeHan’gukYŏksaYŏn’guhoeKodaesaPunkwa,Mundap
211
212
noTes To ChapTer Three
ŭro yŏkkŭn Han’guk kodaesa sanch’aek(Seoul:Yŏksapip’yŏngsa,1994),11,15.As thisbooksuggests,theessentialist,totalizingstrategydoesgetproblematizedby Koreanhistorians.Butitseemstomethatthisundertakingneedstobetheorized inamorerigorousway. 55. See Prasenjit Duara, “Rescuing History from the Nation-State,” Working Papers and Proceedings of the Center for Psychosocial Studies (Chicago:Centerfor PsychosocialStudies,1991),7. 56.Kuksakyojaep’yŏnch’anwiwŏnhoe,Han’guksa kaesŏl(Seoul:T’amgudang, 1983),15. 57. See Son Yŏng-jong et al., Chosŏn t’ongsa (Pyongyang: Sahoe kwahak ch’ulp’ansa,1991),1:2. 58.IamindebtedtoTheodoreHughesforhisdiscussionofNaisenIttai.Hughes writes,“Japanas‘inside’(nae[J:nai])revealsitsambivalentpositionassubjectin relationtoacolonialother(sŏn[J:sen]).Sŏnbecomesaparticularized,geographicallymarkedsupplementthatenablesauniversalistinside(nae[J:nai])evenasthe phraseequatesnaeandsŏn(asonebody).”SeeTheodoreHughes,Literature and Film in Cold War South Korea: Freedom’s Frontier(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity Press,2012),51.Foradiscussionofracismnotasan“expression”ofnationalism butasits“supplement,”seeEtienneBalibar,“RacismandNationalism,”inBalibar andWallerstein,Race, Nation, Class. 59. Contemporary South Korean historians usually divide historiography in thecolonialperiodintofourdifferentcategories.(1)Theultimatepoliticalaimof colonialisthistoriographywastojustifyJapan’sannexationofKorea;itportrayed Koreanhistoryasbeingstagnantanddeterminedbyexternalforces.(2)Nationalisthistoriographywasanarrativeofresistance,devotedtocounteringtheperniciouseffectsofcolonialisthistoriographyandtoempoweringKoreanstojointhe struggleforKorea’sindependence;representativehistoriansareSinCh’ae-ho,Pak Ŭn-sik,AnChae-hong,MunIl-p’yŏng,andChŏngIn-bo.(3)Empiricisthistoriographyclaimedtotakeanobjective,positivistapproachtohistoriography,butits chiefpractitionerswereusuallyemployedbythecolonialstate—YiPyŏng-do,for example.(4)MarxisthistoriographysoughttonarrateKoreanhistoryaspartof worldhistory,unfoldinginaccordancewithhistoricallawsandbywayofuniversal stagesofdevelopment;representativehistoriansarePaekNam-unandYiCh’ŏng- wŏn.Thereareproblemswithcreatingatypologysuchasthis,abasicshortcoming beingthatanumberofhistoriansandtheirworkdonotfitintoanyofthesecategories,forexample,HaeWŏn,HwangŬi-don,Ch’oeNam-sŏn,AnHwak,Kwŏn Tŏk-kyu,andChangTo-bin. 60.BythisImeanstarvationalongsideplenty,brutaloppressionalongsidenew formsofpleasureandnewobjectsofdesire(madepossiblebyanewpopularand consumerculture).Thesecontradictions,experiencedinradicallydifferentways byKoreansandJapaneseresidentsofKorea,endlesslyreproducedthepoliticsof identityanddifference. 61. Military advantage, conventionally thought to be crucial to hegemony,
noTes To ChapTer Three
merelylocksinhegemonyforalimitedperiod.Ratherthanmilitaryadvantage, thecriticalelementinmaintaininghegemonyisproductiveadvantage,whichconditionstheothertwoelements—commerceandfinance.Butproductiveadvantage isephemeral—thustheriseandfalloftheBritish(andAmerican)Empire.See TerenceK.HopkinsandImmanuelWallerstein,“PatternsofDevelopmentofthe ModernWorld-System,”Review1,no.2(1977),120–21,citedinBruceCumings, “Archaeology,Descent,Emergence:JapaninBritish/AmericanHegemony,1900– 1950,”Japan in the World,ed.MasaoMiyoshiandH.D.Harootunian(Durham: DukeUniversityPress,1993),102. 62.Seehisessay“TheConstructionofPeoplehood,”inBalibarandWallerstein, Race, Nation, Class. 63.Cumings,Japan in the World,87. 64.Cumings,Japan in the World,86. 65.BalibarandWallerstein,Race, Nation, Class,89. 66.BalibarandWallerstein,Race, Nation, Class,90. 67.BalibarandWallerstein,Race, Nation, Class,84. 68.RobertYoungsuggeststhatifpoststructuralismwastheproductofasingle historicalmoment,thenthatmomentwasprobablynotMay1968butratherthe AlgerianWarofIndependence.Thatistosay,thereisalinkbetweensubversive tendencies in poststructuralism and resistance to colonialism in the periphery (Algeria).YoungnotesthatSartre,Althusser,Derrida,andLyotard,amongothers, werealleitherborninAlgeriaorpersonallyinvolvedwiththeeventsofthewar. SeeRobertYoung,White Mythologies: Writing History and the West(NewYork:Routledge,1990),1. 69.ChōsenshihenshūkaibeganasChōsenshihensaniinkaiandwasrenamedin 1925.SeeYiMan-yŏl’schapteron“colonialisthistoriography”inhisHan’guk kŭndae yŏksahak ŭi ihae(Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1981). 70.TheseriesbeganinJune1931andendedinOctoberofthesameyear.Sin Ch’ae-ho probably wrote the introduction to Chosŏn sanggosa in Beijing around 1924.WhenChosŏn sanggosawaspublishedintheChosŏn ilbo,itwasentitled“Chosŏnsa.”AfterLiberation,itwasrepublishedasamonograph(in1948). 71.BeforegraduatingfromWasedaUniversityin1914,AnChae-hongtraveled toChinaandmetSinCh’ae-hoinShanghai.ThepowerlessnessoftheKoreanindependencemovementinChina(especiallyitsweakfinancialbase)intheearly twentiethcenturyseemstohavepersuadedhimnottogointoexile.AfterreturningtoKorea,AnservedastheviceprincipalofChungangMiddleSchoolandorganizedtheTaehanch’ŏngnyŏnoegyodan(KoreanYouthDiplomaticCorps),for whichhespentthreeyearsinjail.In1924hebecamethechiefeditorofChosŏn ilbo. WhentheSin’ganhoewasorganizedin1927,hebecameitssecretaryandwasjailed foreightmonths.In1931heopposedthesocialists’callforthedissolutionofthe Sin’ganhoe,andafteritsbreakuphealignedhimselfwithmoderateandconservativenationalists.Afterliberation,Antriedtocreatealeft-rightcoalition,butwhen thiseffortfailed,heacceptedthepositionofchiefciviladministratorintheU.S.
213
214
noTes To ChapTer Three
ArmyMilitaryGovernmentinKorea.ThereafterhealliedhimselfwithanticommunistforceswhoarguedforthecreationofaseparatestateinsouthernKorea. DuringtheKoreanWar,AnwastakentoNorthKorea,andhediedinPyongyang in1965. 72.Intranslatingtheseparagraphs,IhaveconsultedJ.MichaelAllen’stranslationin“IntheBeginning:NationalOriginsandNationalIdentityinKorea,”apaper hepresentedattheconferenceKorea’sMinjungMovementinBloomington,Indiana(November1989).SinCh’ae-ho,Chosŏn sanggosa,Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip, 1:31–32. 73.SinCh’ae-howrites,“Neitherindividualsnorsocietiespossessanintrinsic self-identity[chasŏng:inneressence,truenature]....Self-identitycomestobe constitutedbywayoftheenvironment[hwankyŏng]andtheepoch[sidae].”IntroductiontoChosŏn sanggosa,Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,1:70. 74.Young,White Mythologies,3. 75. According to Shin Yong-ha, Yu Cha-myŏng’s anarchist ideas were influencedbyLiShizengandWuZhihui.SeeShinYong-ha,“SinCh’ae-hoŭimujŏngbujuŭitongnipsasang,”Sin Ch’ae-ho,ed.KangMan-gil(Seoul:Koryŏtaehakkyo ch’ulp’anbu,1990),106.LiShizengandWuZhihuiwereamongthedoyensofChineseanarchism.TheywereimportantmembersoftheGuomindang,andaccordingtoArifDirlik,bothplayedimportantrolesinanarchistanticommunisminthe early1920s.ArifDirlik,Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution(Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1991),12–14.AlthoughIdon’tknowofanyevidenceofadirectrelationshipbetweenSinCh’ae-hoandtheChineseanarchistthinkersLiShizengand WuZhihui,itisclearthatanarchistidealswerebroadlydiffusedinradicalcirclesin BeijingandShanghaiintheearly1920s.Oneveryapparentcommonalitybetween Li,Wu,andSinwastheiradmirationofPyotrKropotkin.Inhisessay“Nanggaek ŭisinnyŏnmanp’il”(1925),SincalledonKoreanyouthto“becomebaptized”with Kropotkin’sessay“AnAppealtotheYoung.”SeeSin Ch’ae-ho yŏksa nonsŏljip(Seoul: Hyŏndaesilhaksa,1995),350. 76.SinCh’ae-ho,IntroductiontoChosŏn sanggosa,Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip, 1:31–32. 77.SinCh’ae-ho,“Chosŏnhyŏngmyŏngsŏnŏn,”Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,3:35– 46.Seealsothehan’gŭltextinSin Ch’ae-ho yŏksa nonsŏljip,329–39. 78.Unlikeotherconservativenationalistintellectuals,ShinYong-haacknowledgesSinCh’ae-ho’sturntowardanarchism.AccordingtoShinYong-ha[SinYong- ha],SinCh’ae-hoturnedtoanarchismbecauseofhisestrangementfromthenationalistsintheKoreanProvisionalGovernmentandbecausehewaspersuaded byKropotkin’scritiqueofsocialDarwinism.ForKropotkin,mutualaid(thatis, cooperation)wasascentraltoanimalandhumanevolutionasthestruggleofthe fittest.InSinCh’ae-ho’searliernationalistwritings,therewasatensionbetween hisprogramofstrengtheningnationalpowerandhiscritiqueofJapaneseimperialism.Thatis,ifsurvivaldependedonnationalpower,whatcouldbetheethicalbasis forcriticizingimperialism?AsShinYong-hanotes,thistensionemanatedfrom
noTes To ChapTer Four
socialDarwinistassumptionsthatemphasizedcompetitionbutnotmutualaid. InKropotkin,then,SinCh’ae-hofoundamoreethicalwaytounderstandhuman evolution.Repelledbytheanticsofnationalistpoliticians,heturnedtoanarchism, whichplacedsomuchfaithonthecooperativespiritoftheminjungwhileatthe sametimetakingdirectactionagainstimperialism.ShinYong-ha,“SinCh’ae-hoŭi mujŏngbujuŭitongnipsasang,”78–147. 79.Inalaterdeclaration(“Sŏnŏnmun,”Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,3:47–50), SinCh’ae-houses“propertylessmasses”(musan taejung),“propertylessminjung” (musan minjung),andminjunginterchangeably. 80.SinCh’ae-ho,“Chosŏnhyŏngmyŏngsŏnŏn,”3:44. 81.SinIl-chŏlsuggeststhatanarchismwasameretoolforSinCh’ae-ho’snationalistgoals;seehisSin Ch’ae-ho ŭi sahoe sasang yŏn’gu(Seoul:Han’gilsa,1984),328. ThedismissalofSinCh’ae-ho’sanarchismisdifficulttofathominlightofthetextualevidence.ShinYong-ha,whoacknowledgesSinCh’ae-ho’sturntoanarchismin themid-1920s,arguesthatSinwouldhaveabandonedhisanarchismafterKorea’s liberationfromJapanesecolonialrule.Butthisisjustanotherwayoferasingthe tensionbetweenSinCh’ae-ho’searlierwritingsonminjokandhislateremphasison minjung.Byerasingthistension,whatisbeingrepressedistheradicallyegalitarian, anti-authoritarian,andopen-endedcharacterofhislaterwritings. 82.SinCh’ae-ho,“Chosŏnhyŏngmyŏngsŏnŏn,”3:43–44.
4.UniversalizingKorea’sPast 1.PaekNam-un,“Chosŏn sahoe kyŏngjesach’ulp’anetaehansogam,”Chungang (November1933),Paek Nam-un chŏnjip,trans.HaIl-sik(Seoul:Ironkwasilch’ŏn, 1994), 4:87. See also Pang Kie-chung, Han’guk hyŏndae sasangsa yŏn’gu (Seoul: Yŏksapip’yŏngsa,1992). 2.VigilanteslookedforcertainphysicalfeaturesthatJapaneseassociatedwith Koreanphysiognomy—forexample,aflatbackofthehead.Thosesuspectedof beingKoreanweremadetosayJapanesewordsthatmanyKoreanshaddifficulty pronouncing.SomeJapanesestudentsfromKyūshūhaddifficultyconvincingthe vigilantes that they were Japanese, and were also killed. See Jinhee Lee, “The EnemyWithin:Earthquake,RumoursandMassacreintheJapaneseEmpire,”Violence: “Mercurial Gestalt,”ed.TobeLevin(NewYork:Rodopi,2008).SeealsoLee Jinhee, “Kwandong taejijin ŭl ch’udoham: Ilbon cheguk ŭi ‘pulyŏng sŏnin’ kwa ch’udoŭichŏngch’ihak,”Asea yŏn’gu51,no.1(2008). 3.SeeRobertA.ScalapinoandChong-sikLee,Communism in Korea:vol.1,The Movement(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1972),51–93. 4.RegardingtheroleofthepoliceincolonialKorea,seeChulwooLee,“Modernity, Legality, and Power in Korea under Japanese Rule,” Colonial Modernity in Korea,ed.Gi-WookShinandMichaelRobinson(Cambridge:HarvardUniversity AsiaCenter,1999),34–35. 5.SeeMicahAuerback,“‘Ch’in-Ilpulgyo’yŏksahakŭichaego:ChosŏnPulgyo-
215
216
noTes To ChapTer Four
dankwa1920-nyŏndaeChosŏnesŏŭisŭngnyŏkyŏlhonetaehannonjaeng,”Asea yŏn’gu51,no.3(2008). 6.AccordingtoChulwooLee,duringthefirstdecadeafterannexationin1910, thecolonialefforttodisciplineandtransformKoreansinto“docilebodies”focused oncoercivemeasuresrangingfromfloggingtomilitaryaction.Thefloggingtook placeinaclosedcell,ostensiblyinthepresenceofaphysicianandanumberof officials.Thecolonialgovernmentjustifiedthis“rationalized”formoffloggingon thegroundsthatmanyKoreanslackedthecapacitytoreason,andanywaydestituteKoreanswouldnotfeelanypainfromimprisonment.AyearaftertheMarch Firstdemonstrationsof1919,floggingwasabolished.Lee,“Modernity,Legality, andPowerinKoreaunderJapaneseRule.”OnthereasonsforabolishingtheCorporationLawandthepoliticalcalculusbehindthatdecision,seeCarterEckert, Offspring of Empire: The Koch’ang Kims and the Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism, 1876–1945(Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,1991). 7. Sinsaenghwal and Shinch’ŏnji were shut down in November 1922; Kaebyŏk, theleadingintellectualmagazineoftheday,wasshutdowninJuly1926.Korean materialsthatwereconfiscatedbecamethepropertyofthecolonialstate,while Japanesematerialswerereturnedtothepublisher.Japanesepublisherscouldsell magazinesonasubscriptionbasis,butKoreanpublisherscouldnot.SeeMichael Robinson, “Colonial Publication Policy and the Korean Nationalist Movement,” The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945,ed.RamonH.MyersandMarkR.Peattie (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1984). 8.Ithastobesaidthatbetween1924and1931,Tonga ilbo,andespeciallyChosŏn ilbo, devoted significant space to socialist and communist ideas. See Robinson, “ColonialPublicationPolicyandtheKoreanNationalistMovement.” 9.Bornin1891,KimSŏng-sugraduatedfromWasedaUniversityin1914.In1919 hefoundedtheKyŏngsŏngSpinningandWeavingCompany,andin1920theTonga ilbo,withSongChin-uasitspresident.Inmanyways,Kimwasthepowerbehind Song.Twoyearsolder,SongalsostudiedinJapan(atWasedaandMeiji).In1919 SongwasimprisonedforayearinconnectionwiththeMarchFirstMovementand uponhisreleasebecamethepresidentofTonga ilbo,aposthekeptuntiltheJapaneseclosedthenewspaperin1940.Afterliberation,SongopposedYŏUn-hyŏng andralliedtheconservativeforcesinsouthernKorea,buthewasassassinatedby KimKu’smenforsupportingAmericanplansforplacingKoreaunderatrusteeship. OnKimSŏng-su,seeEckert,Offspring of Empire. 10.Foraconciseoverviewofhowanascenthomerulemovementprompted theformationoftheSin’ganhoe,seeParkChan-seung(PakCh’an-sŭng),Han’guk chŏngch’i sasangsa yŏn’gu(Seoul:Yŏksapip’yŏngsa,1992),330–55. 11. An Chae-hong studied at Waseda, graduating in 1914 from the College of PoliticalScienceandEconomy.In1913hewenttoShanghaiandmetSinCh’ae-ho. DisheartenedbytheweaknessoftheKoreanindependencemovementinChina atthetime,especiallyitsweakfinancialbase,AnchosenottojointheindependencestruggleinexileandreturnedtoKoreaafterfinishinghisstudies.Beginning
noTes To ChapTer Four
in1919,whenhewasfirstimprisonedforundergroundactivitiesinsupportofthe KoreanprovisionalgovernmentinShanghai,Anwasimprisonedninetimesover thecourseofthecolonialperiodforatotalofsevenyearsandthreemonths. 12. As Scalapino and Lee succinctly put it, in practice the “correct position” couldbedefinedonlyaftertheevent:tosteerbetweentheScyllaofright-wing opportunismandtheCharybdisofleft-wingextremismwastremendouslydifficult (Communism in Korea,1:62). 13.Seethechapter“TheCantonCommune,”inNymWalesandKimSan,Song of Ariran: A Korean Communist in the Chinese Revolution(1941;SanFrancisco:RampartsPress,1972). 14.SeePark,Han’guk kŭndae chŏngch’i sasangsa yŏn’gu,305–65. 15.From1919to1924PaekNam-unstudiedinJapanatTōkyōKōshō(today,HitotsubashiUniversity)andreturnedtoKoreatoteachatYŏnhŭichŏnmun(today, YonseiUniversity).HewroteChōsen shakai keizaishi(1933)andChōsen hōken shakai keizaishi(1937)inJapaneseandhadthempublishedinJapantoavoidthemore stringentcensorshiplawsincolonialKorea. 16.From1898to1901FukudaTokuzōstudiedunderK.BücherinLeipzigand L.BrentanoinMunich.FukudaTokuzō,“Kankokunokeizaisoshikitokeizaitani,” Keizaigaku kenkyū(Tokyo:Dōbunkan,1904). 17.PaekNam-untooksomelibertiesinthispolemic.Bythemid-1920sSinCh’ae- hohadbecomeananarchist,andwhilehemayhavereferredtoAncientChosŏnas ifitformedaunique“mikrokosmus,”henolongerwroteabouttheethnicnation (minjok)asanundifferentiatedtranshistoricalsubject.Insteadhisfocushadturned totheexploitedmasses(minjung).AsforCh’oeNam-sŏn,hehadjoinedthecolonial governmentorganChōsenshihenshūkai(SocietyfortheCompilationofKorean History)in1928,andheoftendidtreatwhathecalledtheKorea-centeredPurham culturalsphereasifitformedaunique“mikrokosmus.”ButCh’oealsomadeadistinctionbetweenculturewhichwas“global”fromthestart(butactuallyregional, asinculturalspheres),andethnic-nationaloriginswhichareparticular.Thus,for Ch’oe,KoreaandJapancouldshareacommon(shamanistic)culture,andyethave distinctethnic-nationalorigins.SeeRyuSi-hyun,Ch’oe Nam-sŏn yŏn’gu: cheguk ŭi kŭndae wa singminji ŭi munhwa(Seoul:Yŏksapip’yŏngsa,2009),221–23. 18.CitedinChoHyŏn-sŏl,“KŭndaekyemonggiTan’gunsinhwaŭital-sinhwawa chaeinhwahwa,”Minjok munhaksa yŏn’gu32(2006). 19.RogerL.Janelli,“TheOriginsofKoreanFolkloreScholarship,”The Journal of American Folklore99,no.391(1986). 20.SeeChizukoT.Allen,“NortheastAsiaCenteredaroundKorea:Ch’oeNamsŏn’sViewofHistory,”Journal of Asian Studies49,no.4(1990);“Ch’oeNamsŏn attheHeightofJapaneseImperialism,”Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies5, no. 1 (2005); and “Early Migrations, Conquests, and Common Ancestry: Theorizing Japanese Origins in Relation with Korea,” Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies8,no.1(2008).ForCh’oeNam-sŏn,thestudyofTan’gunwasthecentral, mostimportanttopicofresearch.Throughoutthe1920sandupuntiltheKorean
217
218
noTes To ChapTer Four
War,hecontinuedtoresearchandwriteaboutTan’gun.SeeYiP’il-yŏng.“Tan’gun yŏn’gusa,”Tan’gun,ed.YunI-humetal.(Seoul:Seoultaehakkyoch’ulp’anbu,1994). Forafull-lengthstudyofCh’oeNam-sŏn’slifeandworkseeRyuSi-hyun,Ch’oe Nam-sŏn yŏn’gu. 21.Paek,Chōsen shakai keizaishi,1:33.PaekNam-unmightalsohavebeenthinkingaboutTaejonggyo(ReligionoftheGreatProgenitor),anewreligionorganized in1909asarevivalofareligiouspracticethatTaejonggyoadherentstracedback tothetimeofTan’gun.In1915theJapanesecolonialgovernmentforcedTaejonggyotodisband,chargingitasananti-Japaneseorganizationoperatingunderthe guiseofareligion.ForTaejonggyoadherentsthestoryofTan’gunwasnotamyth. Asanationalistchurch,TaejonggyoprofessedHanin(Hwanin,Godascreator), Hanung(Hwanung,Godaseducator),andHan’gŏm(Tan’gun,Godasruler)asa Trinity. 22. For a refutation of Morgan’s claims about the consanguineous collective, communalfamilysexrelationsinPolynesia,seeE.S.CraighillHandyandMaryKawenaPukui,The Polynesian Family System in Ka-u, Hawai’i(Rutland,Vt.:CharlesE. Tuttle,1972).SeealsoThomasTrautmann,Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1987);PaulVanderGrijp,“PioneerofUntaughtAnthropology:RecontextualizingLewisH.MorganandHisKinshipPerspective,”Dialectical Anthropology22(1997),103–36. 23.Paek,Chōsen shakai keizaishi,1:56,67. 24.LewisHenryMorgan,Ancient Society(NewYork:HenryHolt,1878),7–8,3. 25.FrederickEngels,The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State:In the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan(1884;NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1942). 26.TherewereMarxistcriticstoo.YiCh’ŏng-wŏn,forexample,attackedChōsen shakai keizaishiasamechanicalapplicationofJapaneseMarxist(Kōza-ha)historiographytoKoreanhistory. 27.PaekNam-un,“Chosŏnt’ŭkyuŭisahoechedo”(1934),Paek Nam-un chŏnjip, 4:98. 28.AcampaignledbytheTonga ilbosuccessfullypreventedabankauctionof YiSun-sin’sgravesite.SeeYiChi-wŏn,“1930-nyŏndaeminjokjuŭikyeyŏlŭikojŏk pojŏnundong,”Tongbang hakchi,June1993. 29.YiKwang-su,Tonga Ilbo. 30.YiKwang-su,Tonga Ilbo. 31.Paek,Chōsen shakai keizaishi,1:20–21. 32.SeeSerk-BaeSuh,“TheWanpaoshanIncidentandtheAnti-ChineseRiotsin ColonialKorea,”unpublishedpaper,7,10. 33.UntiltheestablishmentofManchukuoin1932,thequestionofcitizenship forKoreans(thatis,jurisdictionoverKoreans)inManchuriaremainedanimportantissueinSino-Japaneserivalry. 34.Anti-Chinesefeelingscanbetracedtoanumberofsources:thesuccessof ChinesemerchantsincolonialKorea,competitionbetweenunskilledKoreanand
noTes To ChapTer Four
Chineseworkers,andtheoperationofracialandethnichierarchiesincolonialand imperialcultures.Aftertheriots,Chosŏn ilbopublishededitorialsurgingKoreans nottoresort toviolence toprotesttheChineseoppression ofKoreans inManchuria. 35.AnChae-hongwasjailedonchargesofdivertingpublicfundsandcouldnot returntohispositionatChosŏn ilbo. 36.T’aejo sillok,inthefoundingyearoftheChosŏndynasty,recordsamemorial submittedbyChoPakoftheBoardofRitesdefiningthedistinctivestatustobeaccordedtoTan’gunandKijainstaterituals.BecauseTan’gunwasthefirstrulerto receivetheMandateofHeaveninKorea(tongbang)andKijawasthefirstrulerto bringcivilizationtofruitioninKorea,themagistrateinPyongyangwasinstructed to conduct sacrifices to them at appropriate times. T’aejo sillok, 1-kwŏn, 1-nyŏn (1392),8/11,secondarticle. 37.ShimJae-hoonhasarguedthatKijashouldnotbeassociatedwithChosŏnat all.AccordingtoShim,KijadoesseemtobeanoblemanofShanganddidgoeast. ButapoliticalentitycalledChosŏnshouldbedatedmuchlater:itwasnotuntilthe HandynastythatsourcesclearlyassociatedKijawithChosŏn.ShimJae-Hoon,“A NewUnderstandingofKijaChosŏnasaHistoricalAnachronism,”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies62,no.2(2002). 38.Koreanhistorianscriticalofpositivistandcritical-textualhistoriographyin twentieth-centuryKoreapositabreakbetweenthemunhŏn kojŭng sahak(文獻考 證史學)oftheChosŏnperiodandthepracticeofcritical-textualhistoriographyin thecolonialperiod.Thesehistorians,forreasonsthatareatleastpartiallypolitical,readilyconcurwithJapanesehistorians’claimthatcritical-textualhistoriographyintwentieth-centuryJapandevelopedoutofthekōshōgakutraditionofthe Tokugawaperiod,transitioningto“modern”historiographythroughtheinfluence ofRankeanhistoriography.Suchagenealogyhighlightscritical-textualhistoriography’sintellectualandinstitutionaloriginstoJapaneseimperialistpoliticsand colonialinstitutions. 39. There were other, smaller academic associations organized around disciplines:theSocietyofKoreanLanguageResearch(Chosŏnŏhakhoe,established in1931),theKoreanLanguageandLiteratureSociety(Chosŏnŏmunhakhoe,organizedin1931byChoYun-jaeandothergraduatesoftheDepartmentofKorean LanguageandLiterature,KeijōImperialUniversity),theKoreanFolkloreSociety (Chosŏnminsokhakhoe,establishedformallyin1933bySonChin-tae),andthe SocietyforKoreanEconomicHistoryResearch(Chosŏnkyŏngjehakhoe,establishedin1933).MembershipinChosŏnminsokhakhoeincludedsuchprominent JapanesescholarsasAkibaTakashi,amemberofthefacultyatKeijōImperialUniversitywhosestudiesonKoreanshamanismwereenormouslyinfluential. 40.TheChindanSocietypublishedthefirstissueofitsjournal,Chindan hakbo, inNovember1934.Untilpressuredtostoppublicationin1943,theChindanSocietypublishedfourteenissuesofChindan hakboduringthecolonialperiod.From October1942toMarch1943,asthemomentumofthewarinthePacificswung
219
220
noTes To ChapTer Four
towardtheUnitedStates,dozensofpeoplewerearrestedandtorturedinconnectionwiththeKoreanLinguistsAssociationincident,includingseveralChindan hakhoemembers.Until1943YiPyŏng-dohadcontributedanarticleforeveryissue ofChindan hakbo,includingessaysonSamhaninthepre–ThreeKingdomsperiod, geomantic thought during the Koryŏ period, and Confucianism in the Chosŏn period. 41.RemcoE.Breuker,“ContestedObjectivities:IkeuchiHiroshi,KimSanggi andtheTraditionofOrientalHistory(Tōyōshigaku)inJapanandKorea,”East Asian History29(2005). 42.Ch’oeNam-sŏnwasthefirsttostudyhistoryinJapan,butthetimehespent at Waseda was relatively short. Yi Pyŏng-do is thus considered the first Korean historiantobetrainedinhistoriographyataJapaneseuniversity.In1932,after tenyearsofwork,Chōsenshihenshūkaipublishedthefirstfivevolumesofwhat becamethethirty-eight-volumeChōsenshi(KoreanHistory),alongwiththethree- volumeChōsen shiryō shushin(CollectionofKoreanDocuments)andthetwenty- one-volumeChōsen shiryō sōkan(ArchiveofKoreanDocuments). 43.SeeStefanTanaka,Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pasts into History(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1993). 44.SeeHanYoung-Woo(HanYŏng-u),“YiPyŏng-do,”Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,ed.ChoTong-gŏletal.(Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1994),2:255. 45.SeeChoTong-gŏl,Hyŏndae Han’guk sahaksa(Seoul:Nanamch’ulpan,1998), 219. 46.KimT’ae-junwasamemberoftheCentralCommitteeoftheSouthKorean Workers’Party. 47.AnChae-hongandotherswouldhavepreferredkukhak(nationalstudies) overChosŏnhak(Koreanstudies),butkukhak(J:kokugaku)wouldhavebeenconfusedwith“Japanesestudies.” 48.PaekNam-un,“ChŏngTasanŭisasang,”Paek Nam-un chŏnjip,4:113–21. 49.Paek,Chōsen shakai keizaishi,1:22. 50.InChinatooMarxistintellectualswerehostiletotheconceptofanAsiatic modeofproductionandattractedtotheideathatallsocietiestravelthesameroad. 51.Themostwell-knowncasesareYiKwang-suandCh’oeNam-sŏn.Itshould benoted,however,thatAnChae-hongandChŏngIn-bodidnotcompromisetheir nationaliststance.ThesamecannotbesaidofKimSŏng-su.SeeCarterEckert,Offspring of Empire. 52.TheinfluenceofKōza-hatheoryisclearlyevidentinPaek’seconomichistoriography. According to Pang Ki-jung, Paek also benefited from reading Guo Moruo’sZhongguo guudai shehui yaniu(ResearchonAncientChineseSociety);the firsteditionwaspublishedin1929.PangKie-chung(PangKi-jung),“PaekNam-un yŏn’guI,”Yŏksa pip’yŏng7(Summer1989),198. 53.YiCh’ŏng-wŏn,Chosŏn sahoesa tokbon(Tokyo:Paekyangsa,1936),1–2. 54.IntheprefacetoChōsen shakai keizaishiPaekexpressedwarmgratitudeto Chŏng In-bo. After liberation and the establishment of North and South Korea
noTes To ChapTer Five
in1948,ChŏngbecameSouthKorea’sfirstinspectorgeneral,whilePaekwentto NorthKorea. 55.Paek,“Chosŏnt’ŭkyuŭisahoechedo,”4:95. 56.Paek,“Chōsen shakai keizaishich’ulp’anetaehansogam,”4:87. 57.Paek,Chōsen shakai keizaishi,1:373.
5.DividedSovereignty 1.ThewritersmetatPonghwanggakinUi-dong,builtbySonPyŏng-hŭiin1912 as a training center for Ch’ŏndogyo (and independence) activists. As the third leaderoftheTonghakfaith,SonhadchangedthenameofthereligiontoCh’ŏndogyo(ReligionoftheHeavenlyWay).Sonwasoneofthethirty-threesignersof thedeclarationofindependencein1919,andthusPonghwanggakhadsomeassociationwiththeindependencemovement.Thesourceforthischapter’sepigraphis Inmin yesul2(October1946),reprintedinHaebang 3-nyŏn ŭi pip’yŏng munhak,ed. SinHyŏng-gi(Seoul:Segye,1988),79–85. 2.InwhatcametobeknownastheAugustThesis,whichbecametheplatform oftheKoreanCommunistPartywhenitwasreconstitutedsoonafterliberation, PakHŏn-yŏngalsoreferredtoKoreansas“havingarrivedatthemomentwhenthey havetoengageinself-criticism.”ParkTaeGyun(PakT’ae-g yun),“HaebangchŏnggaekPakHŏn-yŏngkwa8-wŏlt’eje,”Obsŏbŏ8(2002). 3.KimYun-sik,“Haebanggongganŭimunhak,”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,ed. KangMan-giletal.(Seoul:Han’gilsa,1985),2:449. 4.TheKoreanCommunistPartywasreconstitutedinSeoulinSeptember1945 undertheleadershipofPakHŏn-yŏng.InSeoulinDecember1946,thekcPinthe SouthmergedwiththeSouthKoreanNewDemocracyParty(Nam-Chosŏnsinmindang),whichincludedPaekNam-uninitsleadership,andtheKoreanPeople’s Party(Chosŏninmindang),ledbyYŏUn-hyŏng,toformtheSouthKoreanWorkers’ Party(Nam-Chosŏnnodongdang).InSeptember1945KimNam-ch’ŏnandImHwa organizedtheChosŏnmunhakkŏnsŏlponbu(HeadquartersforConstructionof KoreanLiterature),andHanSŏl-yaandYiKi-yŏngorganizedtheChosŏnp’ŭlollaetaeriamunhaktongmaeng(KoreanFederationforProletarianLiterature),explicitlycommittedto,assuggestedbytheorganization’sname,proletarianliterature. HongHyo-mintracesthereasonfortheformationoftwoseparategroupsimmediatelyafterliberationtopoliticaldifferencesthatgobacktothecolonialperiodand theKoreaArtistaProletaFederatio(1925–1935).HongHyo-min,“Yesulyŏn’gam,” 1947,citedinPakCh’an-mo,“HaebangchikhuŭiHanHyoŭimunhakpip’yŏng koch’al,”Hyŏndae munhak iron yŏn’gu27(2006).AccordingtoPak,oneexplanation forwhyHanSŏl-yaandYiKi-yŏngwentnorthhadtodowiththismerger,asthe ChosŏnmunhakgatongmaengadoptedtheplatformofMunhakkŏnsŏlponbuand, morebroadly,thatofPakHŏn-yŏng’s(KoreanCommunistParty)bourgeoisdemocraticrevolution. 5.LawyersfortheusAMgikputitthisway:theusAMgikdidnotclaimsover-
221
222
noTes To ChapTer Five
eigntyover(southern)Koreabutdidtakeuntoitselfallsovereignpowersformerly heldbytheJapanesecolonialgovernment,untilsovereigntycouldbeassumedby alegallyconstitutedKoreangovernment.SeeUnitedStates,OfficeoftheProvost MarshalGeneral,“IntroductionandOrientation,”History of Military Government Training,vol.1,1945(microfilm).Theestablishmentofamilitarygovernmentis predicatedonastateofexception,torestoreorderoverahostilepopulationto secureareasbehind(anadvancing)frontline.TheU.S.ArmyMilitaryGovernment woulddecidewhenandhowa“legallyconstitutedgovernment”tookitsplace. 6.KimSa-ryangenteredtheDepartmentofGermanLiterature atTokyoImperialUniversityin1936andfinished“Hikarinonakani”soonaftergraduatingin 1939.“Hikarinonakani”waspublishedinBungei shutoin1939.Inadditiontothe reprintpublishedbyKodanshain1999,IalsoconsultedtheKoreantranslationKim Saryang chakp’umjip,ed.ImHŏn-yŏng(Seoul:Chisikŭlmandŭnŭnchisik,2008). 7.KimSa-ryang’snamewaspronouncedKinShiryō. 8.ThisforumandanearlieroneonDecember12served,inpart,aspreparation andconsolidationwork,includingqualificationformembership,forthemerger that formally took placeon December 13, 1945, to form the Chosŏn munhakga tongmaeng(FederationofKoreanWriters).KimNam-ch’ŏn,whoalsoheadedthe CommunistYouthLeague,playedacentralroleinthemerger. 9.See“Munhakjaŭichakipip’an,”Inmin yesul,October1946,reprintedinSin, Haebang 3-nyŏn ŭi pip’yŏng munhak,79–85. 10.AmongpositivisthistoriansYiSang-baekperhapstookthemostinterestin theoreticalquestions.EmbracingtheidealistunderpinningsofRanke’spositivist historiography, Yi understood historiography’s aim to be comprehension of the universalmeaningimmanentinparticularhistoricalfacts.SeeKimP’il-dong,“Yi Sang-baek,”Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,vol.2,ed.ChoTong-gŏletal.(Seoul: Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1994). 11.ArepresentativehistorianwouldbeYiSŏn-gŭn,avirulentanticommunist who taught Korean history to President Park Chung Hee and became the first presidentofChŏngsinmunhwayŏn’guwŏn,todaytheAcademyofKoreanStudies. 12.Therewassomeprecedentforthis.AsidefromPaekNam-un’sstatureasa historianandintellectual,hehadattemptedsomethingofthiskindin1936,when hesetouttoorganizeachungang akademi(centralacademy).TheChosŏnhaksulwŏnPaekestablishedin1945washeavilytiltedtowardscholarsinthesocialsciencesandthenaturalsciences.SeeChoTong-gŏl,Hyŏndae Han’guk sahaksa(Seoul: Nanamch’ulp’an,1998),323. 13. See Pang Kie-chung (Pang Ki-jung), “Haebanghu kukka kŏnsŏl munje wa yŏksahak,”Han’guksa insik kwa yŏksa iron(Seoul:Chisiksanŏpsa,1997),84. 14.ChindanhakhoewasformallyreconstitutedonAugust31,1945. 15.OrganizedonChristmasDay1945,theKoreanHistoricalAssociation(Yŏksa hakhoe)includedhistoriansacrossthepoliticalspectrum,inthefieldsofarthistory as well as European, Asian, and Korean history. It was organized with the specificintentofbridgingtheLeft-Rightdivide.DuringtheKoreanWaranother
noTes To ChapTer Five
organizationwiththesamenamewasestablished,buttheassociationestablished in1952didnotclaimanylinktotheearlierassociation,perhapsbecausetheearlier onehadincludedmanyleftistscholars. In1946astudentgroupwiththesame namewasformedunderthesponsorshipofYiIn-yŏng,thenafacultymemberof theDepartmentofHistoryatKyŏngsŏngUniversity(SeoulNationalUniversity). SeeCho,Hyŏndae Han’guk sahaksa,328–29. 16. Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1968; Oxford: Benediction Classics,2009),4–5.SeealsoAlexisdeTocqueville,The Old Regime and the French Revolution,trans.JohnBonner(NewYork:HarperandBrothers,1856),39–49. 17.AccordingtoPangKie-chung,itwasprobablyYiSang-baekwholedtheinitiativetojointheCommitteeonScience(chŏnmunwiwŏnhoe)withintheDemocraticNationalFront.Pang,“Haebanghukukkakŏnsŏlmunjewayŏksahak,”87. 18. Pang Kie-chung suggests that, immediately after liberation and until just priortothesecondU.S.-SovietJointCommissiontalksin1947,therewasclosecoordinationbetweenSonChin-t’ae,ChoYun-jae,andotherswithAnChae-hong. Pang, “Haebanghu kukka kŏnsŏl munje wa yŏksahak.” See note 57 below, and workscitedinnote2. 19.YiPyŏng-do’sworkonChōsenshihadtodowiththecompilationofvolumes thatdealtwith“Unified”SillaandKoryŏperiods. 20.YiPyŏng-do’sself-defensedidnotnearlymatchtheintricacyandambivalenceofYiKwang-su’sself-defenseandself-critique:YiKwang-sudidnotthink Japanwouldlose,andwhathedidhedidforthewelfareoftheKoreanpeople. 21.SeeShinJuBaek(SinChu-baek),“PerceptionofAugust15Rememberedin andForgottenfromKoreanTextbooks,”Review of Korean Studies8,no.1(2005), 51–84. 22.Thislevelofuniversityautonomycameontheheelsofacasein1914,when thefacultyoftheSchoolofLawatKyotoImperialUniversitysuccessfullyresisted theattemptbytheuniversitypresident,atthattimeappointedbytheMinistryof Education,tofiresevenfacultymembers.Itshouldbesaid,ofcourse,thatinstitutionalizationofacademicself-governanceinthe1920sdidnotensureacademic freedom,especiallyinthe1930s.ByronK.Marshall,“TheTraditionofConflictin theGovernanceofJapaneseImperialUniversities,”History of Education Quarterly 17,no.4(1977). 23.TheseincludedKimSang-gi,YiSang-baek,SonChin-t’ae,YiIn-yŏng,andYu Hong-ryŏl.FollowingliberationtherewerecallswithinChindanhakhoetoexpel “pro-Japanese”scholars.Itwasnotuntil1954,whenextremeanticommunismsuppressedalltalkofcollaborationduringthecolonialperiod,thatYiPyŏng-doagain tookoverleadershipofChindanhakhoe. 24.ItislikelythatAnChae-hong’swithdrawalofsupportforthekPRwasalso influencedbytheusAMgik’srefusaltorecognizethekPRasagovernment. 25.DuringtheKoreanWar,nationalisthistorianslikeAnChae-hong,SonChin- t’ae,andYiIn-yŏngweretakentotheNorth.SeeCho,Hyŏndae Han’guk sahaksa. 26.SeeKimDong-Choon,chapteronmassacres,Chŏnjaeng kwa sahoe: uri ege
223
224
noTes To ChapTer Five
Han’guk chŏnjaeng ŭn muŏt iŏnna(Seoul:Tolbaegae,2000),ortheEnglish-language publicationThe Unending Korean War: A Social History(Larkspur,Calif:TamalVista Publications,2009).SeealsoHee-KyungSuh,“AtrocitiesBeforeandDuringthe KoreanWar,”Critical Asian Studies42,no.4(2010). 27.Bornin1924,YiKi-baekgraduatedfromOsanMiddleSchool,whereheread SinCh’ae-ho’sChosŏnsa yŏn’gu ch’o.Inearly1945YiwasastudentintheHistory DepartmentatWasedawhenhewasdraftedintotheKwantungArmy.HewascapturedbytheSovietRedArmyandheldasaprisonerforashorttime.Heentered SeoulNationalUniversity’s(previouslyKeijōImperialUniversity)Departmentof Historyin1946andgraduatedinoneyear.Atsnu,hestudiedunderYiPyŏng-do. 28.YiKi-baekattributedhistoricaltransformationanddynasticchangetothe emergenceofanew(ruling)classorgroup.Narratinghistoricalprogressinterms ofnewlyemergingforces,hearguedthat,overtime,thearistocraticclassinKorea transformeditselffromasmalleliteminoritytoaubiquitousforceinsociety. 29.YiKi-baek,“Sahoekyŏngjesahakkwasilchŭngsahakŭimunje,”1971,Yŏksa wa minjok(Seoul:Ilchogak,1997),34. 30.KimYong-sŏp’sthesisregardingtwopathstomodernityrestedonamore generalargumentaboutthebreakdownoffeudalstructuresinlateChosŏn.He drewattentiontotheemergenceofwhathecalledwealthymanagerialfarmers (kyŏngyŏnghyŏng pu’nong),eighteenth-andnineteenth-centuryChosŏn’sequivalentoftheEnglishyeomanfarmer,wholeasedasubstantialamountofland,employedwagelaborers,engagedincommoditytrade,accumulatedsurpluses,and establishedacapitalistwayoffarming.AccordingtoKim,thiskindoflarge-scale commercialfarminganddifferentiationofthepeasantclassgaveevidenceoffeudalstructuresbreakingdowninlateChosŏn. 31.ThefirstvolumeofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insikwaspublishedin1979,thesixth volumein1989.Eachvolumewasorganizedaroundoneormorethemes,withthe authoroftheleadessaymakingthecentralhistoriographicargumentswhichgave eachvolumeitsdistinctiveness. 32.AsSongKŏn-hopointsout,enormousconsequencesresultedfromJapan’s surrenderingonlytotheUnitedStates.BecauseitwasnotKoreanswhohaddefeated the Japanese but American blood, treasure, and technology, the United StatescoulddivideKoreaintotwo,withSovietagreement,andrefusetorecognize eithertheKoreanProvisionalGovernmentbasedinChinaortheKoreanPeople’s Republic(ChosŏnInminKonghwaguk)thathadformedjustbeforethearrivalof U.S.troopsin1945.SongKŏn-ho,Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,vol.1,revisededition (Seoul:Han’gilsa,1989). 33.IncollaborationandSouthKoreanhistoriography,seeKoendeCeuster,“The NationExorcised,”Korean Studies25,no.2(2001). 34.Forahistoryofthedemocracymovement,seeNamheeLee,The Making of Minjung: Democracy and the Politics of Representation in South Korea(Ithaca:Cornell UniversityPress,2007). 35.Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,alongwithdozensofotherbooks,wasbanneddur-
noTes To ChapTer Five
ingthemartiallawperiodfollowingtheassassinationofParkChungHeein1979 bythedirectoroftheKoreanCentralIntelligenceAgency.Whenthebanwaslifted intheearly1980s,Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insikbecamethepreeminentbest-seller amongsocialsciencebooks. 36.OnMay17,themartiallawcommandledbyChunDoo-hwaninducedPresidentChoiKyu-hwatoextendmartiallawthroughoutSouthKorea.Allpoliticalactivitiesandstrikesweretocease,allnewsorganizationsweretobecensored,and universitiesweretogointorecess.WhenthestudentsinKwangjucontinuedtheir protestagainstmartiallaw,paratroopersweresentintoputastoptothedemonstrations.Thebrutalityoftheparatroopersenragedtheentirecity,andonMay20 busandtaxidriversblockedthemainthoroughfares,thecityhallwastakenover, andacitizen’sarmyorganized.OnMay27ROKgovernmenttroops,releasedby GeneralJohnWickhamfromtheJointCommandstructure,retookthecity.The exactnumberofpeoplekilledbythemilitaryhasyettobeestablished;estimates rangefromseveralhundredtonearlyathousand. 37.AfterthebloodyexperienceofKwangjutherewasadecisiveshifttowardreconstitutingthemovementasarevolutionarymovementonthebasisofMarxism asascience.InonewingofthestudentmovementfamiliaritywithDPRK’sChuch’e Thoughtbecamederigueur,whiledozensofmaster’stheseswerebeingwrittenon therevolutionarynationalist(communist)movementbeforeandduringtheliberationperiod,theseswhichwerealmostunanimouslycriticaloftheAmericanrolein theliberationperiod. 38. It took courage to write critically about history after 1945. In 1980 Kang Man-gilwasforcedtoresignfromthefacultyatKoreaUniversity.(Hewasable toreturntohispositionthefollowingyear.)WhenChoiSang-ryong(Ch’oeSang- yŏng),Kang’scolleagueinthePoliticalScienceDepartment,returnedtoKoreain theearly1970s,theKoreanciAreadoutloudpassagesfromhisTokyoUniversity Ph.D.dissertationwhiletorturinghim.SeeBruceCumings,“TheKoreaWar:What IsItThatWeAreRememberingtoForget?,”Ruptured Histories: War, Memory, and the Post-Cold War in Asia,ed.SheilaMiyoshiJagerandRanaMitter(Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress,2007). 39.ChoiJang-jipandChŏngHae-gu,“Haebang8-nyŏnsaŭich’ongch’ejŏkinsik,” Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik, vol. 4, ed. Choi Jang-jip and Chŏng Hae-gu (Seoul: Han’gilsa,1989). 40.Accordingtoapublicopinionpollofeightthousandpeopletakenin1946by theusAMgik,insouthernKorea70percentsupportedsocialism,10percentcommunism,and13percentcapitalism.SeeTae-GyunPark,“DifferentRoads,CommonDestination:EconomicDiscoursesinSouthKoreaDuringthe1950s,”Modern Asian Studies39,no.3(2005),661–82. 41.BruceCumings’sOrigins of the Korean War,vol.1,firstmadeanimpactafter undergroundtranslationscirculatedinthemid-1980s.AccordingtoPakMyŏng- lim,“Inthe1980s,ProfessorCumingswasforyoungintellectualsinSouthKorea both intellectual guide and inspiration for committed scholarship; at the same
225
226
noTes To ChapTer Five
time,hisworkwasanintellectualhurdletobeovercomebyscholarstrainedin Korea.”PakMyŏng-lim,“BruceCumingsŭiHan’guk chŏnjaeng ŭi kiwŏnetaehan hanaŭinonp’yŏng,”unpublishedpaper,1992.SeeBruceCumings,The Origins of the Korean War:vol.1,Liberation and the Emergence of Separate Regimes, 1945–1947 (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1981). 42.Chong-SikLee(YiChŏng-sik)madeasimilarargumentinKorean Workers’ Party: A Short History(Stanford:HooverInstitutionPress,1978),73–75. 43.OnJanuary12,1950,inaspeechattheNationalPressClub,Secretaryof StateDeanAchesonincludedJapanintheU.S.defenseperimeterbutleftSouth KoreaandTaiwanoutsideofthatperimeter.ReferringobliquelytoSouthKorea, Achesonadded,“theinitialreliancemustbeonthepeopleattackedtoresistitand thenuponthecommitmentsoftheentirecivilizedworldundertheCharterofthe UnitedNationswhichsofarhasnotprovedaweakreed.”DeanAcheson,Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department(NewYork:Norton,1969),354–58. AchesonhadnotsaidthattheUnitedStateswouldnotcometoSouthKorea’sdefense.Nevertheless,withSouthKoreaplacedoutsideoftheAmericanlineofdefense,theentrapmentthesisarguesthatNorthKoreainvadedSouthKorea,gamblingthattheUnitedStateswouldnotintervene.Acheson’sstrategicthinkingwas not fixated on Korea; Europe was his primary concern. But when North Korea launched a general military offensive across the 38th parallel, Acheson did not hesitateincommittingU.S.forces.nsc68,completedonApril14,1950,wasa comprehensivestatementofwhatUnitedStatesnationalsecuritypolicyshould be.UntiltheoutbreakoftheKoreanWaronJune25,topofficialsinWashington debatednsc68’scallformorethanathree-foldincreaseintheU.S.militarybudget.Inhis1948Presidentialcampaign,PresidentTrumanhadstatedcategorically thattheU.S.economycouldnotaffordmilitaryspendinginexcessof$15billiona year.SeeSamuelF.Wells,Jr.,“SoundingtheTocsin:nsc68andtheSovietThreat,” International Security4,no.2(1979),123.Themilitaryappropriationfor1950had been$13billion,andsupportersofnsc68thoughttheycouldrealisticallyexpect anadditional$3billion.AftertheoutbreakoftheKoreanWar,however,President Trumanapprovednsc68andbyMay1951theU.S.militarybudgetswelledto$48 billion.SeeDavidT.Fautua,“The‘LongPull’Army:nsc68,theKoreanWar,and theCreationoftheColdWarU.S.Army,”The Journal of Military History61,no.1 (1997).TherecanbenodisagreementthattheKoreanWarconvincedPresident Trumantosignnsc68(onSeptember30,1950)andCongresstoapprovethemassiveincreaseinthemilitarybudget.Asnsc68pointedout,“Itgoeswithoutsaying thattheideaof‘preventive’war—inthesenseofamilitaryattacknotprovokedby amilitaryattackuponusorourallies—isgenerallyunacceptabletoAmericans.” UnitedStatesDepartmentofState,Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950,vol.1, p.281.Accordingtotheentrapmentthesis,NorthKoreawalkedintoatrapinthe sensethatitsattackacrossthe38thparallelprovidedtheoccasionforrallyingthe Americanpeople,andfornsc68tobecomethefoundationforU.S.nationalsecuritypolicy.
noTes To ChapTer Five
44.ForamorecomprehensivediscussionofthemultivolumeHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,see Henry Em, “‘Overcoming’ Korea’s Division: Narrative Strategies in RecentSouthKoreanHistoriography,”positions: east asia cultures critique1,no.2 (1993). 45.Writingin2000,KangMan-gilwrylynotesthat,from1960throughtheend ofthe1980s,peoplereferredtoas“conservatives”inthe1990susedtobecalled antidemocrats(pan-minju insa).“Posup’achach’ŏhannŭnKimsŏnsaengkke,”Hankyŏre sinmun,January23,2000,8. 46.PakChi-hyangetal.,eds.,Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik(Reconsiderationof LiberationHistory),vols.1and2(Seoul:Chaeksesang,2006).RohMoo-hyun(No Mu-hyŏn)becamepresidentinFebruary2003;histermendedinFebruary2008. Duringhisinauguralspeech,PresidentRohreferredtojusticebeingdefeatedand opportunismhavingprevailedinmodernKoreanhistory.TheeditorsofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsikinterpretedthisasRoh’sdisavowingtheverylegitimacyof SouthKorea.YiYŏng-hunnotesthatthegenerationthatstudiedHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insiknowformRoh’scoreadvisors.SeetheleadarticlebyYiYŏng-hun,“Waetasi haebangchŏnhusain’ga,”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,vol.1. 47.SeeCumings,“TheKoreaWar:WhatIsItThatWeAreRememberingtoForget?,”283–84. 48.AnumberofcontributorstoHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsikweretakenaback byhowtheirworkwasframedintheintroductionanddistancedthemselvesfrom theeditors’polemicalstance. 49.YuIn-ho’sessayinHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insikwascriticaloftheimpactof landreformthatfinallygotunderwayin1950.Ofthe1.4millionhectaresinwet paddiesanddryfields,upto874,000hectares(61percent)oflandthatshould havebeentargetedforlandreformwassoldtotenantfarmers,itsownershipwas transferredtofamilymembers,oritwasflooded(toevadecompliance)priortoimplementationoflandreform.YuIn-ho,“Haebang-hunongjikaehyŏkŭichŏn’gaekwajŏngkwasŏnggyŏk,”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,vol.1.ChangSi-wŏn’sessayin Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,originallypublishedin1995,arguesthattheaverage salepriceofthoselandssoldtotenantfarmersbefore1950wasroughlyequivalent topricesmandatedbythelandreformlaw.Landlords,anticipatingthepassageof thelandreformbill,soldtheirlandtotenantfarmersatpricesthetenantfarmers wouldhavehadtopayanyway.SeeChangSi-wŏn,“Nongjikaehyŏk:chijujehaech’e wachagaknongchejeŭisŏngnip,”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,vol.2. 50.LeeChong-Sik(YiChŏng-sik),“Naengjŏnŭichŏn’gaekwajŏngkwaHanbandopundanŭikoch’akhwa,”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,vol.2. 51.PakChi-hyang,KimChŏl,KimIl-yŏng,andYiYŏng-hun,“Taedam,”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,vol.2. 52.OnAugust15,2004,ayearbeforethefiftiethyearmarkingKorea’sliberation fromJapanesecolonialrule,PresidentRohMoo-hyunhadspokenofthenecessity foracomprehensivesettlementofpastwrongs.In2005theSouthKoreanNational AssemblypassedtheFrameworkActthatestablishedtheTruthandReconcilia-
227
228
noTes To ChapTer Five
tionCommission,RepublicofKorea(tRck).tRck’smandatewasbroadenough toencompassmostwrongdoingscommittedbytheSouthKoreanstatepriorto 1992.Butitdidnothaveprosecutorialauthority:itcouldnotpunishperpetrators evenwhentheywereidentified.ThetRck’sinvestigativeauthoritywasalsocurtailedinthatstateinstitutionsliketheBureauofPolice,theMinistryofDefense, andtheNationalIntelligenceService(formerlythekciA)couldrefusetRck’sdemandsfordocumentsiftheydeemedthosedocumentstobepotentiallydamaging tonationalsecurity.ThetRckwasestablishedwithsuchlimitationsbecausethe statedgoalofreconciliationmadeitnecessaryfortheFrameworkActof2005to bepassedbytheNationalAssemblywithsupportfromboththeliberalandconservativeparties.Inspiteofsuchlimitations,duringthetwoyearsthatthetRck pursueditsinvestigationsundertheRohMoo-hyunadministration,thetRckpresentedanimpressiverangeoffindingsandrecommendationsthatthreatenedconservatives.Forexample,tRckfindingsincludedfactsaboutmassacresofcivilians, inSouthKorea,committedbyUnitedStatesandSouthKoreanforcesduringthe KoreanWar,andfindingsthatcontrovertedjudicialrulingsinvolvingmomentous national securitycases. Forexample, tRck recommended that the government issueanofficialapologyinthecaseofChoPong-am.SeeDong-ChoonKim[Kim Tong-ch’un],“TheLongRoadTowardTruthandReconciliation:UnwaveringAttemptstoAchieveJusticeinSouthKorea,”Critical Asian Studies42,no.4(2010). Inthesamevolume,seealsoJae-Jung Suh,“TruthandReconciliation inSouth Korea.”In1956,ChoPong-amhadorganizedtheProgressiveParty(Chinbodang) andranasaPresidentialcandidateonaplatformthatcalledforresponsiblereform, anon-exploitativeplannedeconomy,anddemocraticpeacefulreunificationwith NorthKorea.Hereceived30percentofthevoteinthatelection.InJanuary1958, afewmonthsbeforetheNationalAssemblyelections,ChoPong-amwasarrested onchargesofspyingforNorthKorea,receivingfundsfromNorthKoreaduringthe 1956Presidentialelection,andfomentingsubversion.HewasexecutedonJuly31, 1959.OnJanuary20,2011,theSouthKoreanSupremeCourtfoundChoPong-am innocentofthecharges. 53.SeeYiYŏng-hun,Taehan Min’guk iyagi(Seoul:Kip’arang,2007). 54.AccordingtoKangMan-gilinaseminaratKoreaUniversityin1998,historiansshouldlookforwardtothedaywhennationalismcanbedispensedwith.But solongasKorearemainsdivided,nationalisthistoriographyisnecessary. 55.Inthisquestion,seethetwo-volumeanthologyKŭndae rŭl tasi ignŭnda,ed. Yun Hae-dong et al. (Seoul: Yŏksa pip’yŏngsa, 2006). See also essays in Kuksa ŭi sinhwa rŭl nŏmŏsŏ,ed.LimJie-Hyun(ImChi-hyŏn)etal.(Seoul:Humŏnistŭ, 2004). 56.SeeAlainBadiou,Ethics: an Essay on the Understanding of Evil,translatedby PeterHallward(NewYork:Verso,2001). 57.SeeLaurenBerlant’sIntroduction,inCruel Optimism(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2011).
BiBLioGraphy
SourcesinJapaneseandKorean AnChae-hong.Minse An Chae-hong sŏnjip.8vols.Seoul:Chisiksanŏpsa,1981– 2004. AnChong-ch’ŏl.“Munmyŏngkaehwaesŏpan’gongŭro:YiSŭng-mankwakaesinkyoŭikwankyeŭipyŏnhwa,1912–1950.”Tongbang hakji145(2009). Auerback,Micah.“‘Ch’in-IlPulgyo’yŏksahakŭichae’go:ChosŏnPulgyodankwa 1920-nyŏndaeChosŏnesŏŭisŭngryŏkyŏlhonetaehannonjaeng.”Asea yŏn’gu 51,no.3(2008). ChangSi-wŏn.“Nongjikaehyŏk:Chijujehaech’ewachagaknongchejeŭisŏngnip.”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,vol.2.Seoul:Chaeksesang,2006. Chindanhakhoe,ed.Yŏksaga ŭi yuhyang.Seoul:Ilchogak,1991. ChoChun-ha.“UamSongSi-yŏlŭichuch’eŭisik.”Han’guk sasang kwa munhwa42 (2008). ———.“Urinaraŭichesamunhwawachongmyotaeje.”Han’guk sasang kwa munhwa12(2001). ChoHyŏn-sŏl.“KŭndaekyemonggiTan’gunsinhwaŭit’al-sinhwawachae- sinhwahwa.”Minjok munhaksa yŏn’gu32(2006). ChoTong-gŏl.Hyŏndae Han’guk sahaksa.Seoul:Nanamch’ulpan,1998. ———.“Kŭndaech’ogiŭiyŏksainsik.”Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksa insik,vol.2, ed.ChoTong-gŏletal.Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1994. ChoTong-gŏletal.Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,vols.1(sang)and2(ha). Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1994. Ch’oeHyŏn-bae,“KidokkyowaHan’gŭl,”Sinhak nondan,7(1962). Ch’oeNam-sŏn.Yuktang Ch’oe Nam-sŏn chŏnjip.15vols.Seoul:Hyŏnamsa,1973–75. ———.Yuktang Ch’oe Nam-sŏn chŏnjip.14vols.Seoul:Yŏngnak,2003. ChoiJang-jipandChŏngHae-gu.“Haebang8-nyŏnsaŭich’ongch’ejŏkinsik.”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,vol.4,ed.ChoiJang-jipetal.Seoul:Han’gilsa,1989. ChŏnSŏk-dam.Chosŏn kyŏngjesa t’amgu.Seoul:Pŏmusa,1990. ChŏngOkcha.Chosŏn hugi Chosŏn Chunghwa sasang yŏn’gu.Seoul:Ilchisa,1998. ChŏngT’ae-sikandYiCh’ŏl-u.“Mi’gunjŏnggiwaTaegu10-wŏlhangjaengesŏŭi kidokkyochonggyochidojadŭlŭisahoechŏngch’ijŏkhwaldongkwayŏkhalŭi taehanilkoch’al.”Chiyŏk sahoe yŏn’gu14,no.4(2006). ChōsenSotokufu. Chōsen koseki zufu,15vols.Seoul:ChōsenSotokufu,1915–35. Ch’uMyŏng-yŏp,Han’guksa yŏn’gu,no.129(2005). FukudaTokuzō.“Kankokunokeizaisoshikitokeizaitani.”Keizaigaku kenkyū. Tokyo:Dōbunkan,1904.
230
BiBLioGraphy
HanYoung-Woo[HanYŏng-u].Han’guk minjokjuŭi yŏksahak.Seoul:Ilchogak, 1994. ———.“Urinarayŏksahakŭihŭrŭm.”Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,vol.1,ed. ChoTong-gŏletal.Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1994. ———.“YiPyŏng-do.”Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,vol.2,ed.ChoTong-gŏl etal.Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1994. Han’gukYŏksaYŏn’guhoeKodaesaPunkwa.Mundap ŭro yŏkkŭn Han’guk kodaesa sanch’aek.Seoul:Yŏksapip’yŏngsa,1994. Han’guksayŏn’guhoe,ed.Han’guk sahaksa ŭi yŏn’gu.Seoul:Ŭryumunhwasa, 1985. HatadaTakashi.Nihonjin no chōsenkan.Tokyo:ChikumaShobō,1969. HongTae-yong.Sinp’yŏn kugyŏk Hong Tae-yong Tamhŏnsŏ.Kyŏnggi-doPaju-si: Han’gukHaksulChŏngbo,2008. ImChong-guk.Sillok ch’inilp’a.Seoul:Tolbegae,1991. ImPu-yŏn.“Yuggyoŭiryehwaŭichŏngchihak:MandongmyowaTaebodanŭr chungsimŭro.”Chonggyo munhwa pip’yŏng15(2009). Iryŏn.Samguk yusa.Seoul:SŏjŏngSihak,2009. KangMan-gil.“Iljesidaeŭipansigminsahaknon.”Han’guk sahaksa ui,ed. Han’guksayŏn’guhoe.Seoul:Ŭryumunhwasa,1985. ———.“Posup’achach’ŏhannŭnKimsŏnsaengkke,”Hankyŏre sinmun,January23,2000,8. ———.Pundan sidae ŭi yŏksa insik.Seoul:Ch’angjakkwaPip’yŏngsa,1978. ———,ed.Sin Ch’ae-ho.Seoul:Koryŏtaehakkyoch’ulp’anbu,1990. KangMan-giletal.Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,vol.2.Seoul:Han’gilsa,1985. KangTong-il.NamHan eso ŭi chuch’e sasang.Seoul:Palgun’gul,1989. KimDong-Choon[KimTong-chun].Chŏnjaeng kwa sahoe: uri ege Han’guk chŏnjaeng ŭn muŏt iŏnna.Seoul:Tolbaegae,2000. KimHwal-lan.“Nanŭntanbalŭlirrŏkkyeponda.”Tongkwang,no.37(September 1932). KimKi-rim.“‘MissŭKoria’tanbalhasio.”Tongkwangno.37(September1932). KimNam-siketal.Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,vol.5.Seoul:Han’gilsa,1989. KimP’il-dong,“YiSang-baek,”Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,vol.2,ed.Cho Tong-gŏletal.Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1994. KimSa-ryang.Kim Saryang chakp’umjip,ed.ImHŏn-yŏng.Seoul:Chisikŭl mandŭnŭnchisik,2008. KimTae-sik.“IljekangjŏmgiKyŏngjuchiŏkmunhwajeŭisuripokwŏnsare.” Kyŏngju Silla yujŏk ŭi ŏje wa onŭl: Sŏkkuram, Pulguksa, Namsan.Seoul:Sungkyunkwantaehakkyopangmulkwankihoegchŏnsisil,2007. KimTo-hyŏng.“Han’gukkŭndaesaŭichaju,tongnipŭiŭimi.”Yŏksa pip’yŏng29 (May1995). ———.Taehan Chegukki ŭi chŏngch’i sasang yŏn’gu.Seoul:ChisikSanŏpsa,1994. KimYong-min.Han’guk munhak pip’yŏng nonjaengsa.Seoul:Han’gilsa,1992. KimYong-sŏp.Chosŏnhugi nongŏpsa yŏn’gu.2vols.Seoul:Ilchogak,1970–71.
BiBLioGraphy
KimYun-g yŏng,Han’guk muncha kŭp ŏhaksa.1934.Seoul:Kyŏnginmunhwasa, 1987. KimYun-sik.“Haebanggongganŭimunhak.”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,vol.2, ed.KangMan-giletal.Seoul:Han’gilsa,1985. ———.Han’guk hyondae munhaksaron.Seoul:Hansem,1988. ———.Han’guk kundae munhak sasangsa.Seoul:Han’gilsa,1984. KimYun-siketal.Haebang konggan ŭi munhak undong kwa munhak ŭi hyonsil insik. Seoul:Han’ul,1989. Kuksakyojaep’yŏnch’anwiwŏnhoe.Han’guksa kaesŏl.Seoul:T’amgudang,1983. Kuksap’yŏnch’anwiwŏnhoe.Chungjong sillok.http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.Kojong sillok.http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.Koryŏsa.http://db.history.go.kr/KOREA/ ———.Kwanghae’gun ilgi.http://silok.history.go.kr ———.Sejong sillok.http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.Sŏngjong sillok.http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.Sŏnjo sillok.http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.Sukjong sillok.http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.T’aejo sillok.http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.Yŏngjo sillok.http://sillok.history.go.kr KŭmChang-t’ae.“Tasanŭisajikjewach’ejekojŭng.”Chongkyohak yŏn’gu16(1997). Kume,Kunitake.“Nihonfukuinnoenkaku.”Shigakkai zasshi1(December1889– February1890). KwŏnHyŏk-su.19-segi mal Han-Chung kwan’gyesa yŏn’gu.Paeksancharyowŏn, 2000. K.Y.“Tanbalhankamsang.”Tongkwang,no.37(September1932). LeeChong-Sik[YiChŏng-sik].“Naengjŏnŭichŏn’gaekwajŏngkwaHanbando pundanŭikoch’akhwa.”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,vol.2.Seoul:Chaek sesang,2006. LeeJinhee.“Kwandongtaejijinŭlch’udoham:Ilbonchegukŭi‘pulyŏngsŏnin’ kwach’udoŭichŏngch’ihak.”Asea yŏn’gu51,no.1(2008). LeeKwang-Rin[YiKwang-nin].Yu Kil-chun.Seoul:Tongailbosa,1992. ———.“YunCh’i-hoŭiIlbonyuhak.”Tongbang hakji59(1988). LewYoung-Ick[YuYŏng-ik],ed.Yi Sŭng-man yŏn’gu.Seoul:YonseiUniversity Press,2000. LimJie-Hyun[ImChi-hyŏn]etal.Kuksa ŭi sinhwa rŭl nŏmŏsŏ.Seoul:Humŏnistŭ, 2004. PaekNam-un.Chōsen hōken shakai keizaishi.Tokyo:Kaizōsha,1937. ———.Chōsen shakai keizaishi.Tōkyō:Kaizōsha,1933. ———.“Chosŏn sahoe kyŏngjesach’ulp’anetaehansogam,”Chungang(November 1933). ———.Paek Nam-un chŏnjip,trans.HaIl-sik.Seoul:Ironkwasilch’ŏn,1991–94. PakCh’an-mo.“HaebangchikhuHanHyoŭimunhakpip’yŏngkoch’al.”Hyŏndae munhak iron yŏn’gu27(2006).
231
232
BiBLioGraphy
PakChi-hyangetal.,eds.Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,vols.1and2.Seoul: Ch’aekSesang,2006. ———etal.,“Taedam,”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,vol.2.Seoul:Ch’aekSesang,2006. PakChi-wŏn,Yŏrha ilgi,trans.anded.KimHyŏl-cho.Kyŏnggi-doP’aju-si:Tolbegae,2009. PangKie-chung[PangKi-jung].“1930-nyŏndaemulsanchangnyŏundongkwa minjokchabonjuŭikyŏngjesasang.”Tongbang hakji115(2002). ———.“Haebanghukukkakŏnsŏlmunjewayŏksahak.”Han’guksa insik kwa yŏksa iron.Seoul:Chisiksanŏpsa,1997. ———.Han’guk hyŏndae sasangsa yŏn’gu.Seoul:Yŏksapip’yŏngsa,1992. ———.“PaekNam-unyŏn’guI.”Yŏksa pip’yŏng7(summer1989). ParkChan-seung[PakCh’an-sŭng].Han’guk chŏngch’i sasangsa yŏn’gu.Seoul: Yŏksapip’yŏngsa,1992. ParkHyon-ch’aeetal.Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,vol.3.Seoul:Han’gilsa,1987. ParkTaeGyun[PakT’ae-g yun].“HaebangchŏnggaekPakHŏn-yŏngkwa8-wŏl t’eje.”Obsŏbŏ8(2002). RheeSyngman[YiSung-man].Ilminjuui kaesol.Seoul:Ilminjuuipoguphoe,1949. ———.Tongnip chŏngsin,inIhwajang sojang Unam Yi Sŭngman munsŏ.Seoul: Kukhakcharyowŏn,1998. ———.Yi Sŭng-man yŏn’gu,ed.LewYoung-Ick.Seoul:YonseiUniversityPress, 2000. RoMyoung-ho[NoMyŏng-ho].“Koryŏsidaeŭitawŏnjŏkch’ŏnhakwankwaHaedongCh’ŏnja.”Han’guksa yŏn’gu,no.105(1999). ———.“TongmyŏngWangpyŏnkwaYiKyu-boŭitawŏnjŏkch’ŏnhakwan.”Chindan hakbo83(1997). RyuSi-hyun,Ch’oe Nam-sŏn yŏn’gu: cheguk ŭi kŭndae wa singminji ŭi munhwa. Seoul:Yŏksapip’yŏngsa,2009. SekinoTadashi.Chōsen bijutsushi.Keijō:Chōsenshigakkai,1932. ShimJi-yon,ed.Haebang chŏngguk nonjaengsa.Seoul:Han’ul,1986. ShinYong-ha[SinYong-ha].“SinCh’ae-hoŭimujŏngbujuŭitongnipsasang,”Sin Ch’ae-ho,ed.KangMan-gil.Seoul:Koryŏtaehakkyoch’ulp’anbu,1990. SinCh’ae-ho.Sin Ch’ae-ho yŏksa nonsŏljip,trans.ChŏngHae-yŏm.Seoul:Hyŏndae silhaksa,1995. ———.Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,vols.1–4.Seoul:TanjaeSinCh’ae-hosŏnsaengkinyŏmsaŏphoe,1987. ———.Tanje Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip.10vols.ChungnamChŏnan-si:TongnipKinyŏmgwanHan’gukTongnipUndongsaYŏn’guso,2007. SinHyŏng-gi,ed.Haebang 3-nyŏn ŭi pip’yŏng munhak.Seoul:Segye,1988. SinIl-ch’ŏl.“SinCh’ae-hoŭikŭndaekukkakwan.”Sin Ch’ae-ho,ed.KangMan-gil. Seoul:Koryŏtaehakkyoch’ulp’anbu,1990. ———.Sin Ch’ae-ho ŭi sahoe sasang yŏn’gu.Seoul:Han’gilsa,1984. SŏChae-pil[PhilipJaisohn].“Nonsŏl,”Tongnip sinmun(April7,1896),inTongnip sinmun nonsŏljip.Seoul:Songjaemunhwachaedanch’ulp’anbu,1976.
BiBLioGraphy
SonChin-t’ae.Chosŏn minjoksa kaeron.1948.Yŏkdae Han’guksa nonsŏn,ed.YiKi- baek.Seoul:Saemunsa,1993. ———.Son Chin-tae sŏnsaeng chŏnjip.6vols.Seoul:T’aehaksa,1981. SonYŏng-jongetal.Chosŏn t’ongsa.P’yŏngyang:Sahoekwahakch’ulp’ansa,1991. SongCh’an-sŏp.“Iljeŭisingminsahak.”Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,vol.2, ed.ChoTong-gŏletal.Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1994. SongKi-ho.“SillachungdaesahoewaParhae.”Han’guksa t’ŭkgang.Seoul:Sŏultaehakkyoch’ulp’anbu,1990. ———.“YuTŭk-kong.”Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,vol.2,ed.ChoTong-gŏl etal.Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1994. SongKŏn-hoandKangMan-gil,eds.Han’guk minjokjuuiron.Seoul:Ch’angjakkwa pip’yŏngsa,1982. SongKŏn-hoetal.Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,vol.1.Revisededition.Seoul: Han’gilsa,1989. ———.Han’guk hyondae inmulsa ron.Seoul:Han’gilsa,1974. SŏultaehakkyoinmuntaehakHan’gukhyŏndaesayŏn’guhoe.Haebang chŏngguk kwa minjok t’ongil chŏnsŏn.Seoul:Segye,1987. Tongnip sinmun.http://www.kinds.or.kr/(Han’gukŏllonchinhŭngchaedan). Tongnip sinmun nonsŏljip.Seoul:Songjaemunhwajedan,1976. UchidaJun.“Ch’ongnyŏkjŏnsigichae-ChosŏnIlboninŭi‘NaeSŏnIlch’e’chŏngchaeketaehanhyŏmnyŏk.”Asea yŏn’gu51,no.1(2008). Yasuda,Hiroshi.“KindaiNihonniokeru‘minzoku’kannennokeisei,”Shisō to gendai31(September1992). YiChang-hŭi.“Oeranchungŭisahoesang.”Han’guksa,vol.29.Seoul:Kuksa p’yŏnchanwiwŏnhoe,1995. YiChi-wŏn.“1930-nyŏndaeminjokjuŭikyeyŏlŭikojŏkpojŏnundong.”Tongbang hakchi,June1993. ———.“AnChae-hong.”Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,vol.2,ed.ChoTong- gŏletal.Seoul:Ch’angjakkwaPip’yŏngsa,1994. YiCh’ŏl-sŏng.“Singminjisigiyŏksainsikkwayŏksasŏsul,”Han’guksa23.Seoul: Han’gilsa,1994. YiCh’ŏng-wŏn,Chosŏn sahoesa tokbon.Tokyo:Paekyangsa,1936. YiHwang-jik.“KŭndaeHan’gukŭich’ogikongnonjanghyŏngsŏngmitpyŏnhwae kwanhanyŏn’gu.”Sahoe iron32(2007). YiKi-baek.Han’guk sahak ŭi panghyang.Seoul,Ilchogak,1978. ———.Han’guksa sillon.Seoul:Ilchogak,1967. ———.Kuksa sillon.Seoul:T’aesŏngsa,1961. ———.“Sahoekyŏngjesahakkwasilchŭngsahakŭimunje.”1971.Yŏksa wa minjok.Seoul:Ilchogak,1997. YiKi-mun.“Han’gulŭiyŏn’guwapogup.”Han minjok tongnip undongsa,vol.2. Seoul:Kuksap’yŏnch’anwiwŏnhoe,1987. YiKyun-yong.Singanhoe yŏn’gu.Seoul:Yoksapip’yŏngsa,1993. YiMan-yŏl.Han’guk kŭndae yŏksahak ŭi ihae.Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa, 1981.
233
234
BiBLioGraphy
YiP’il-yŏng.“Tan’gunyŏn’gusa.”Tan’gun,ed.YunI-humetal.Seoul:Seoultaehakkyoch’ulp’anbu,1994. YiPuk-man.Yijo sahoe kyongjesa.Seoul:TaesangCh’ulp’ansa,1948. YiPyong-ch’on,ed.Pukhan hakgye ŭi Han’guk kundaesa nonjaeng: Sahoe sŏngkyŏk kwa sidae kupun.Seoul:Ch’angjakkwapip’yŏngsa,1989. YiPyŏng-do.Chosŏnsa taegwan.Seoul:Tongjisa,1948. ———.Koryŏ sidae ŭi yŏn’gu: T’ŭkhi chiri toch’am sasang ŭi palchŏn ŭl chungsim ŭro.1954.Seoul:Aseamunhwasa,1980. ———.Yŏksaga ŭi yuhyang,ed.Chindanhakhoe.Seoul:Ilchogak,1991. YiT’ae-jin.Kojong sidae ŭi chae-chomyŏng.Seoul:T’aehaksa,2000. YiU-songandKangMan-gil,eds.Han’guk ŭi yoksa insik.Seoul:Ch’angjakkwa pip’yŏngsa,1976. YiYŏng-hun.Taehan Min’guk iyagi.Seoul:Kip’arang,2007. ———.“Waetasihaebangchŏnhusainga.”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,vol.1. Seoul:Chaeksesang,2006. YuIn-ho.“Haebang-hunongjikaehyŏkŭichŏn’gaekwajŏngkwasŏnggyŏk.”Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,vol.1,ed.SongKŏn-hoetal.Seoul:Han’gilsa,1979. YuKil-chun.Sŏyu kyŏnmun: Chosŏn chisigin Yu Kil-chun, Sŏyang ŭl pŏnyŏk hada, trans.anded.HŏKyŏng-jin.Seoul:Sŏhaemunjip,2004. YunCh’i-ho.Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi.Seoul:Kuksapy’ŏnchanwiwŏnhoe,1973–1989. YunHae-dongetal.Kŭndae rŭl tasi ignŭnda: Han’guk kŭndae insik ŭi saeroun p’aerŏdaim ŭl wihayŏ.Seoul:Yŏksapip’yŏngsa,2006. YunKŏn-ch’a,“Minzokugensōnosatetsu:‘Nihonminzoku’toiujikoteiji,”Shisō, no.834(December1993).
SourcesinEnglish Abernethy,DavidB.The Dynamics of Global Dominance.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2002. Allen,ChizukoT.“Ch’oeNamsŏnattheHeightofJapaneseImperialism,”Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies5,no.1(2005). ———.“EarlyMigrations,Conquests,andCommonAncestry:TheorizingJapaneseOriginsinRelationwithKorea,”Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies8, no.1(2008). ———.“NortheastAsiaCenteredaroundKorea:Ch’oeNamsŏn’sViewofHistory.”Journal of Asian Studies49,no.4(1990). Anderson,Benedict.Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.London:Verso,1983. Anghie,Antony.Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2004. Arendt,Hannah.The Origins of Totalitarianism.1968.Oxford:BenedictionClassics,2009. Armstrong,Charles.The North Korean Revolution, 1945–1950.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2003.
BiBLioGraphy
Badger,Reid.The Great American Fair: The World’s Columbian Exposition and American Culture.Chicago:N.Hall,1979. Badiou,Alain.Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil,translatedbyPeter Hallward.NewYork:Verso,2001. Bailey,AnneM.,andJosepR.Llobera,eds.The Asiatic Mode of Production: Science and Politics.London:Routledge,1981. Balibar,Etienne,andImmanuelWallerstein,eds.Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities.NewYork:Verso,1991. Barnett,FerdinandL.The Reason Why the Colored American Is Not in the World’s Columbian Exposition,ed.RobertW.Rydell.1893.Chicago:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1999. Barrows,JohnHenry,ed.The World’s Parliament of Religions.Vol.1.Chicago:The ParliamentPublishingCompany,1893. Beasley,W.G.,andEdwinG.Pulleyblank.Historians of China and Japan.London: OxfordUniversityPress,1961. Bederman,Gail.Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1984. Berlant,Lauren.Cruel Optimism.Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2011. Bernstein,GailLee.Japanese Marxist: A Portrait of Kawakami Hajime, 1879–1946. HarvardEastAsianSeries,no.86.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1976. Bharucha,Rustom.Another Asia: Rabindranath Tagore and Okakura Tenshin.New DelhiandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2009. Bird,IsabellaL.Korea and Her Neighbors.Boston:kPi,1985.(1897) Bohnet,AdamClarenceImmanuel.“MigrantandBorderSubjectsinLate Chosŏn.”Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofToronto,2008. Breuker,RemcoE.“ContestedObjectivities:IkeuchiHiroshi,KimSanggiandthe TraditionofOrientalHistory(Tōyōshigaku)inJapanandKorea.”East Asian History29(2005). ———.“KoryŏasanIndependentRealm:TheEmperor’sClothes?”Korean Studies27(2004). Burris,JohnP.Exhibiting Religion: Colonialism and Spectacle at International Expositions.Charlottesville:UniversityofVirginiaPress,2002. Buswell,Robert.“BuddhisminKorea.”Buddhism and Asian History,ed.JosephM. KitagawaandMarkD.Cummings.NewYork:Macmillan,1989. Ceuster,Koende.“TheNationExorcised.”Korean Studies25,no.2(2001). Chandra,Vipan.Imperialism, Resistance, and Reform in Late Nineteenth-Century Korea.Berkeley:InstituteofEastAsianStudies,UniversityofCalifornia,1988. Chang,GordonH.“Whose‘Barbarism’?Whose‘Treachery’?RaceandCivilizationintheUnknownUnitedStates–KoreaWarof1871.”Journal of American History89,no.4(2003). Chatterjee,Partha.The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1993. ———.Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1986.
235
236
BiBLioGraphy
ChicagoDailyNews,The Chicago Record’s History of the World’s Fair.Chicago:ChicagoDailyNewsCo.,1893. Choe,Yŏngho,etal.,eds.Sources of Korean Tradition,vol.2.NewYork:Columbia UniversityPress,2000. Choi,Jang-jip.“PoliticalCleavagesinSouthKorea.”State and Society in Contemporary Korea,ed.HagenKoo.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1993. Chou,EvanShan.“‘AStoryaboutHair’:ACuriousMirrorofLuXun’sPre- RepublicanYears.”Journal of Asian Studies66,no.2(2007). Chow,Kai-wing.“NarratingNation,Race,andNationalCulture:Imaginingthe HanzuIdentityinModernChina.”Constructing Nationhood in Modern East Asia,ed.Kai-wingChow,KevinM.Doak,andPoshekFu.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,2001. Chow,Rey.Women and Modernity: The Politics of Reading between East and West. Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1991. Choy,Bong-Youn.Koreans in America.Chicago:Nelson-Hall,1979. Clark,DonaldN.“Sino-KoreanTributaryRelationsundertheMing.”The Ming Dynasty, 1398–1644,part2,ed.DenisTwitchettandFrederickW.Mote.The Cambridge History of China,vol.8.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1998. Conner,Walker.“ANationIsaNation,IsaState,IsanEthnicGroup,Isa....” Ethnic and Racial Studies1,no.4(1978). Cronon,William.Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West.NewYork:W.W. Norton,1992. Cumings,Bruce.“Archaeology,Descent,Emergence:JapaninBritish/AmericanHegemony,1900–1950.”Japan in the World,ed.MasaoMiyoshiandH.D. Harootunian.Durham:DukeUniversityPress,1993. ———.“TheKoreaWar:WhatIsItThatWeAreRememberingtoForget?”Ruptured Histories: War, Memory, and the Post–Cold War in Asia,ed.SheilaMiyoshi JagerandRanaMitter.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2007. ———.The Origins of the Korean War:Vol.1,Liberation and the Emergence of Separate Regimes, 1945–1947.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1981. ———.The Origins of the Korean War:Vol.2,The Roaring of the Cataract, 1947– 1950.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1990. DeBary,W.M.Theodore,andJahyunHaboushKim.The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1985. Degras,Jane.The Communist International, 1919–1943.3vols.London:OxfordUniversityPress,1956–65. Deleuze,GillesandFelixGuattari.Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. 1977.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1983. Deuchler,Martina.Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys: The Opening of Korea, 1875–1885.Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,1977. ———.The Confucian Transformation of Korea:A Study of Society and Ideology. Cambridge:CouncilonEastAsianStudies,HarvardUniversity,1992.
BiBLioGraphy
———.“ThePracticeofConfucianism:RitualandOrderinChosŏnDynasty Korea.”Rethinking Confucianism: Past and Present in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam,ed.BenjaminA.Elman,JohnB.Duncan,andHermanOoms.Los Angeles:uclAAsianPacificMonographSeries,2002. Dirlik,Arif.Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press,1991. Doak,Kevin.“EthnicNationalismandRomanticisminEarlyTwentieth-Century Japan.”Journal of Japanese Studies22,no.1(1996). ———.“WhatIsaNationandWhoBelongs?”American Historical Review102, no.2(1997). Duara,Prasenjit.“BifurcatingLinearHistory:NationandHistoriesinChinaand India.”positions1,no.3(1993). ———.Rescuing History from the Nation.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress, 1995. ———.Sovereignty and Authenticity: Manchukuo and the East Asian Modern.Lanham,Md.:RowmanandLittlefield,2003. Dudden,Alexis.Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,2004. ———.“Japan’sEngagementwithInternationalTerms.”Tokens of Exchange:The Problem of Translation in Global Circulations,ed.LydiaH.Liu.Durham:Duke UniversityPress,1999. Duncan,JohnB.“Hyanghwain:MigrationandAssimilationinChosŏnKorea.” Acta Koreana3(July2000). ———.The Origins of the Chosŏn Dynasty.Seattle:UniversityofWashington Press,2000. Eckert,Carter.Offspring of Empire: The Koch’ang Kims and the Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism, 1876–1945.Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,1991. Eckert,Carter,etal.Korea, Old and New: A History.Cambridge:KoreaInstitute, HarvardUniversity,1990. Em,Henry.“CivilAffairsTrainingandtheU.S.MilitaryGovernmentinKorea.” Chicago Occasional Papers on Korea,ed.BruceCumings.Chicago:SelectPapers No.6,CenterforEastAsianStudies,UniversityofChicago,1991. ———.“HistoriansandHistoryWritinginModernKorea.”Oxford History of Historical Writing:Vol.5,Historical Writing Since 1945,ed.AxelSchneiderand DanielWoolf.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2011. ———.“MinjokasaModernandDemocraticConstruct:SinCh’ae-ho’sHistoriography.”Colonial Modernity in Korea,ed.Gi-WookShinandMichaelE.Robinson.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,1999. ———.“‘Overcoming’Korea’sDivision:NarrativeStrategiesinRecentSouth KoreanHistoriography.”positions: east asia cultures critique1,no.2(1993). Engels,Frederick.The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State:In the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan.1884.NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1942.
237
238
BiBLioGraphy
ErnestF.Fenollosa.Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art: an Outline History of East Asiatic Design.NewYork:FrederickA.Stokes,1911. Fogel,JohuaA.“TheDebatesovertheAsiaticModeofProductioninSovietRussia,China,andJapan.”American Historical Review93,no.1(1988). Fukuzawa,Yukichi.An Encouragement of Learning,trans.DavidA.Dilworthand UmeyoHirano.Tokyo:SophiaUniversityPress,1969. Geertz,Clifford.“NotesontheBalineseCockfight,”The Interpretation of Cultures. NewYork:BasicBooks,1973. Gellner,Ernest.Nations and Nationalism.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1983. Giddens,Anthony.The Nation-State and Violence.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1987. Grayson,JamesH.Korea: A Religious History.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress, 1989. Griffis,WilliamE.A Modern Pioneer in Korea: The Life Story of Henry G. Appenzeller. NewYork:FlemingH.Revell,1912. Haboush,JaHyunKim.“ConstructingtheCenter:TheRitualControversyand theSearchforaNewIdentityinSeventeenth-CenturyKorea.”Culture and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea,ed.JaHyunKimHaboushandMartinaDeuchler. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,1999. ———.“FilialEmotionsandFilialValues:ChangingPatternsintheDiscourse ofFilialityinLateChosŏnKorea.”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies55,no.1 (1995). Han,Hong-koo.“WoundedNationalism:TheMinsaengdanIncidentandKimIl SunginManchuria.”Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofWashington,1999. Han,Young-woo.“KijaWorshipintheKoryŏandEarlyYiDynasties:ACulturalSymbolintheRelationshipbetweenKoreaandChina,”The Rise of NeoConfucianism in Korea,ed.W.M.TheodoredeBaryandJaHyunKimHaboush. NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1985. Handy,E.S.Craighill,andMaryKawenaPukui.The Polynesian Family System in Ka-u, Hawai’i.Rutland,Vt.:CharlesE.Tuttle,1972. Hardt,Michael,andAntonioNegri.Commonwealth.Cambridge,Mass.:Belknap PressofHarvardUniversity,2009. ———.Empire.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2000. ———.Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire.NewYork:Penguin Books,2004. Harootunian,HarryD.Things Seen and Unseen: Discourse and Ideology in Tokugawa Nativism.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1988. ———.Toward Restoration: The Growth of Political Consciousness in Tokugawa Japan.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1970. Harootunian,HarryD.,andTetsuoNajita.“JapaneseRevoltagainsttheWest.” The Cambridge History of Japan,vol.6,ed.PeterDuus.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,1988. Hevia,JamesL.Cherishing Men from Afar: Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of 1793.Durham:DukeUniversityPress,1995.
BiBLioGraphy
———.English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteenth-Century China. Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2003. Hinsley,F.H.Sovereignty.2ndedition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1986. Hobsbawm,E.J.Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990. HomerB.Hulbert.“IntroductoryNote,”Korea Review(1901). Hopkins,TerenceK.,andImmanuelWallerstein.“PatternsofDevelopmentofthe ModernWorld-System.”Review1,no.2(1977). Hughes,Theodore.Literature and Film in Cold War South Korea: Freedom’s Frontier. NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2012. Huh,Tae-yong.“ACriticalReviewontheIssueofProto-NationalismduringLate Chosŏn.”International Journal of Korean History12(August2008). Humphrey,Caroline,andJamesLaidlaw.The Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of Worship.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1994. Hwang,Su-young.“SŏkkuramGrottoShrine.”Koreana6,no.4(1992). IhwaYŏksagwan.Ewha Old and New: 110 Years of History (1886–1996).Seoul:Ewha Woman’sUniversityPress,2005. Iryŏn.Samguk yusa,trans.Tae-HungHaandGraftonK.Mintz.Seoul:YonseiUniversityPress,2004. Jaisohn,Philip.My Days in Korea and Other Essays.Seoul:YonseiUniversityPress, 1999. Jameson,Fredric.The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1981. Karl,Rebecca.Staging the World: Chinese Nationalism at the Turn of the Twentieth Century.Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2002. Kawashima,Fujiya.“CulturalLocalismintheLateChosŏnDynastyandItsSignificanceinModernKorea.”Bulletin of Hiroshima Jogakuin University,no.45 (December1995). Kedourie,Elie.Nationalism.London:Hutchinson,1960. Ketelaar,JamesEdward.Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1990. Kim,Dong-Choon[KimTong-chun].“TheLongRoadTowardTruthandReconciliation:UnwaveringAttemptstoAchieveJusticeinSouthKorea,”Critical Asian Studies42,no.4(2010). ———.The Unending Korean War: A Social History.Larkspur,Calif.:TamalVista Publications,2009. Kim,Dong-Uk.“Chongmyo.”Korea Journal40,no.3(2000). Kim,Key-Hiuk.“TheAimsofLi’sPoliciestowardsJapanandKorea,1870–1882.” Chinese Studies in History24,no.4(1991). ———.The Last Phase of the East Asian World Order: Korea, Japan, and the Chinese Empire, 1860–1882.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1980. Kim,KyuHyun.“ReflectionsontheProblemsofColonialModernityand‘Col-
239
240
BiBLioGraphy
laboration’inModernKoreanHistory.”Journal of International and Area Studies 11,no.3(2004). Kim,Richard.The Quest for Statehood: Korean Immigrant Nationalism and U.S. Sovereignty, 1905–1945.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2011. Kim,Youngna.20th Century Korean Art.London:LaurenceKing,2005. King,Ross.“NationalismandLanguageReforminKorea:TheQuestione della LinguainPrecolonialKorea.”Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity, ed.PaiHyung-IlandTimothyR.Tangherlini.Berkeley:InstituteofEastAsian Studies,UniversityofCalifornia,1998. ———.“WesternProtestantMissionariesandtheOriginsofKoreanLanguage Modernization.”Journal of International and Area Studies11,no.3(2004). Koselleck,Reinhart.Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time,trans.Keith Tribe.Cambridge:MitPress,1985. Koskenniemi,Martti.The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001. Krasner,StephenD.Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1999. Kwon,Insook.“FeministsNavigatingtheShoalsofNationalismandCollaboration:ThePost-ColonialKoreanDebateoverHowtoRememberKimHwal- lan.”Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies27,no.1(2006). Laclau,Ernesto,andChantalMouffe.Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.London:Verso,1985. Lancaster,LewisR.IntroductiontoBuddhism in Koryŏ:A Royal Religion,ed. LewisR.Lancaster,KikunSuh,andChai-ShinYu.1996;Fremont,Calif.: AsianHumanitiesPress,2002. Larsen,KirkW.Tradition, Treaties, and Trade: Qing Imperialism and Chosŏn Korea, 1850–1910.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,HarvardUniversity Press,2008. Ledyard,Gari.“HongTaeyongandHisPeking Memoir,”Korean Studies6(1982). Lee,Chong-Sik.Korean Workers’ Party: A Short History.Stanford:HooverInstitutionPress,1978. ———.Revolutionary Struggle in Manchuria.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press,1983. Lee,Chulwoo.“Modernity,Legality,andPowerinKoreaunderJapaneseRule.” Colonial Modernity in Korea,ed.Gi-WookShinandMichaelRobinson.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,1999. Lee,Jinhee.“TheEnemyWithin:Earthquake,RumoursandMassacreintheJapaneseEmpire.”Violence: “Mercurial Gestalt,”ed.TobeLevin.NewYork:Rodopi, 2008. Lee,Ki-baik[YiKi-baek].A New History of Korea,trans.EdwardW.Wagner.Cambridge:Harvard-YenchingInstitute,1984. Lee,Namhee.The Making of Minjung: Democracy and the Politics of Representation in South Korea.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2007.
BiBLioGraphy
Lee,Peter,etal.,eds.Sourcebook of Korean Civilization:vol.1,From Early Times to the Sixteenth Century.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1993. ———etal.,eds.Sourcebook of Korean Civilization:vol.2,From the Seventeenth Century to the Modern Period.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1996. Lee,Yeounsuk.The Ideology of Kokugo: Nationalizing Language in Modern Japan, trans.MakiHiranoHubbard.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,2010. Lee,Yur-bok.“EstablishmentofaKoreanLegationintheUnitedStates,1887– 1890.”Illinois Papers in Asian Studies3(1983). Lensen,GeorgeAlexander.Balance of Intrigue: International Rivalry in Korea and Manchuria, 1884–1899,vol.2.Tallahassee:UniversityPressesofFlorida, 1982. Lew,YoungIck.“AnAnalysisoftheReformDocumentsoftheKaboReform Movement,1894.”Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities40(December 1974). ———.“TheConservativeCharacterofthe1894TonghakPeasantUprising:A ReappraisalwithEmphasisonChonPong-Jun’sBackgroundandMotivation.” Journal of Korean Studies7(1990). ———.“Korean-JapanesePoliticsbehindtheKabo-ŬlmiReformMovement.” Journal of Korean Studies3(1981). ———.“MinisterInoueKaoruandtheJapaneseReformAttemptsinKorea DuringtheSino-JapaneseWar,1894–1895.”Journal of Asiatic Studies27,no.2 (1984). ———.“OnTwoEnglishDocumentsRelatedtoPakYong-hyo’sReforms,1895.” Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities42(December1975). ———.“TheReformEffortsandIdeasofPakYong-hyo,1894–1895.”Korean Studies1(1977). ———.“YuanShih-k’ai’sResidencyandtheKoreanEnlightenmentMovement, 1885–94.”Journal of Korean Studies5(1984). Lippert,Wolfgang.“TheFormationandDevelopmentoftheTerm‘PoliticalEconomy’inJapaneseandChinese.”Mapping Meanings: The Field of New Learning in Late Qing China,ed.MichaelLacknerandNataschaVittinghoff.Boston:Brill AcademicPublishers,2004. Liu,Lydia.“TheDesirefortheSovereignandtheLogicofReciprocityinthe FamilyofNations.”Diacritics29,no.4(1999). ———.Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity. China, 1900–1937.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1995. Locke,John.Second Treatise of Government,ed.C.B.Macpherson.Indianapolis, Ind.:Hackett,1980. ———.Some Thoughts Concerning Education,ed.JohnW.andJeanS.Yolton. NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1989. Marshall,ByronK.“TheTraditionofConflictintheGovernanceofJapaneseImperialUniversities.”History of Education Quarterly17,no.4(1977). Masuzawa,Tomoko.The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Universal-
241
242
BiBLioGraphy
ism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism.Chicago:UniversityofChicago Press,2005. Mbembe,Achille.“Necropolitics,”Public Culture15,no.1(2003). Mehta,UdaySingh.Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth Century British Liberal Thought.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999. Miller,Owen.“TheIdeaofStagnationinKoreanHistoriography,”Korean Histories 2,no.1(2010). Min,Hyŏn-ku.“KoryŏPoliticsunderMongolControl:DynasticContinuityDuringthePeriodofRoyalAbsence.”International Journal of Korean History1 (2000). Moore,Barrington.Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World.Boston:BeaconPress,1966. Morgan,LewisHenry.Ancient Society.NewYork:HenryHolt,1878. Mutsu,Munemitsu.Kenkenroku: The Memoirs of Count Mutsu Munemitsu,trans. GordenM.Berger.Tokyo:UniversityofTokyoPress,1982. Myers,RamonH.,andMarkR.Peattie,eds.The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895– 1945.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1984. Nahm,Chun-woo.“DiscoveriesofHithertoForgottenSciencesinSŏkkuram Temple,”Chindan hakbo32(1969). Ngai,MaeM.“TransnationalismandtheTransformationofthe‘Other’:Response tothePresidentialAddress.”American Quarterly57,no.1(2005). Norman,Jerry.Chinese.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988. Notehelfer,F.G.“OnIdealismandRealismintheThoughtofOkakuraTenshin.” Journal of Japanese Studies16,no.2(1990). Numata,Jirō.“ShigenoYasutsuguandtheModernTokyoTraditionofHistoricalWriting.”Historians of Japan and China,ed.W.G.BeasleyandE.G.Pulleyblank.London:OxfordUniversityPress,1961. Okakura,Kakuzō.Ideals of the East with Special Reference to the Art of Japan.London:JohnMurray,1903. ———.The Awakening of the East[1938].Tokyo:Seibun-kaku,1940. Oliver,RobertT.Syngman Rhee: The Man behind the Myth.NewYork:Dodd, Mead,1954. Osterhammel,Jūrgen.Colonialism,trans.ShelleyFrisch.Princeton:Markus Wiener,2005. Pai,HyungIl.Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State-Formation Theories.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,2000. ———.“TheCreationofNationalTreasuresandMonuments:The1916JapaneseLawsonthePreservationofKoreanRemainsandRelicsandTheirColonialLegacies.”Korean Studies25,no.1(2001). Pak,Che-ga.“Chonjuron,”Sources of Korean Tradition,trans.MartinaDeuchler, ed.YŏnghoCh’oeetal.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2000. Palais,JamesB.Confucian Statecraft and Korean Institutions: Yu Hyŏngwŏn and the Late Chosŏn Dynasty.Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,1996.
BiBLioGraphy
———.Politics and Policy in Traditional Korea.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press,1975. ———.“StabilityinChosŏnDynastyKorea,”Occasional Papers on Korea3(June 1975). Palmer,SpencerJ.,ed.Korean-American Relations: Documents Pertaining to the Far Eastern Diplomacy of the United States,vol.2.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press,1963. Pang,Kie-chung[PangKi-jun].“YiHun-gu’sAgriculturalReformTheoryand NationalistEconomicThought.”Seoul Journal of Korean Studies19,no.1 (2006). Pang,Kie-chung,andMichaelD.Shin,eds.Landlords, Peasants, and Intellectuals in Modern Korea.CornellEastAsiaSeriesNo.128,Ithaca:CornellUniversity Press,2005. Park,Tae-Gyun.“DifferentRoads,CommonDestination:EconomicDiscoursesin SouthKoreaDuringthe1950s.”Modern Asian Studies39,no.3(2005). Pastreich,Emanuel.“TheReceptionofChineseVernacularNarrativeinKorea andJapan.”Ph.D.dissertation,HarvardUniversity,1997. Perez,LouisG.“MutsuMunemitsuandtheRevisionofthe‘Unequal’Treaties,” Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofMichigan,1986. Poole,Janet.“ColonialInteriors:ModernistFictionofKorea,”Ph.D.dissertation, ColumbiaUniversity,2004. Pyun,ChongWha.“TheVisitoftheKoreanMissiontoBostonin1883andthe BeginningofScientificandTechnologicalInteractionsbetweenKoreaandthe UnitedStates.”Han’guk kwahak sahakhoeji4,no.1(1982). Rhee,Syngman.The Spirit of Independence: A Primer of Korean Modernization and Reform,translated,annotated,andwithanintroductionbyHan-kyoKim. Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,2001. Ricoeur,Paul.Lectures on Ideology and Utopia,ed.GeorgeH.Taylor.NewYork: ColumbiaUniversityPress,1986. ———.The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning of Language.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1977. Robinson,MichaelE.“ColonialPublicationPolicyandtheKoreanNationalist Movement.”The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945,ed.RamonH.Myersand MarkR.Peattie.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1984. ———.Cultural Nationalism in Colonial Korea, 1920–1925.Seattle:Universityof WashingtonPress,1988. ———.“NationalIdentityandtheThoughtofSinCh’aeho.”Journal of Korean Studies5(1984). Rosenberg,Justin.The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations.London:Verso,1994. Rostow,W.W.A Proposal: Key to an Effective Foreign Policy.NewYork:Harperand Brothers,1957. ———.The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1960.
243
244
BiBLioGraphy
Rydell,Robert.All the World’s a Fair.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1984. Scalapino,RobertA.,andChong-SikLee.Communism in Korea.2vols.Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1972–73. Schmid,Andre.Korea between Empires, 1895–1919.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2002. ———.“RediscoveringManchuria:SinCh’aehoandthePoliticsofTerritorial HistoryinKorea.”Journal of Asian Studies56,no.1(1997). ———.“TributaryRelationsandtheQing-ChosŏnFrontieronMountPaektu.” The Chinese State at the Borders,ed.DianaLary.Vancouver:ubcPress,2008. Schmitt,Carl.The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.NewYork:TelosPress,2003. Seager,RichardHughes.The World’s Parliament of Religions: The East / West Encounter, Chicago, 1983.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1995. Shim,Jae-Hoon.“ANewUnderstandingofKijaChosŏnasaHistoricalAnachronism.”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies62,no.2(2002). Shin,Gi-Wook,andMichaelE.Robinson,eds.Colonial Modernity in Korea.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,1999. Shin,JuBaek[SinChu-baek].“PerceptionofAugust15RememberedinandForgottenfromKoreanTextbooks.”Review of Korean Studies8,no.1(2005). Shin,MichaelD.IntroductiontoLandlords, Peasants and Intellectuals,ed.Pang Kie-chungandMichaelD.Shin.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2005. Shin,Yong-ha.“TheRevolutionaryMovementoftheTonghakPeasantArmyof 1894:Seenvis-à-vistheFrenchRevolution,”Korea Journal29,no.10(1989). Sill,JohnM.B.Lettertothesecretaryofstate,January4,1895,inKoreanAmerican Relations: Documents Pertaining to the Far Eastern Diplomacy of the United States,Vol.2,ed.SpencerJ.Palmer.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press,1963. Smith,Sidonie,andJuliaWatson.Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting Life Narratives.2nded.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2010. Snodgrass,Judith.Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West: Orientalism, Occidentalism, and the Columbian Exposition.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolina Press,2003. Sohn,Pokee.Social History of the Early Chosŏn Dynasty: The Functional Aspects of Governmental Structure.Seoul:Jisik-sanupPublications,2000. Son,MinSuh.“EnlightenmentandElectrification:TheIntroductionofElectric Light,TelegraphandStreetcarsinLateNineteenthCenturyKorea.”Reform and Modernity in the Taehan Empire,ed.KimDong-no,JohnB.Duncan,and KimDo-hyung.Seoul:Jimoondang,2006. Stalin,Joseph.Marxism and Linguistics.NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1951. Suh,Hee-Kyung.“AtrocitiesBeforeandDuringtheKoreanWar,”Critical Asian Studies42,no.4(2010). Suh,Jae-Jung.“TruthandReconciliationinSouthKorea,”Critical Asian Studies 42,no.4(2010).
BiBLioGraphy
Suh,Serk-Bae.“TheWanpaoshanIncidentandtheAnti-ChineseRiotsinColonial Korea,”unpublishedpaper. Tanaka,Stefan.“ImagingHistory:InscribingBeliefintheNation.”Journal of Asian Studies53,no.1(1994). ———.Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pasts into History.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1993. ———.New Times in Modern Japan.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 2006. Tocqueville,Alexisde.The Old Regime and the French Revolution,trans.JohnBonner.NewYork:HarperandBrothers,1856. Trachtenberg,Alan.The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age.NewYork:HillandWang,1982. Trautmann,Thomas.Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship.Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1987. Uchida,Jun.Brokers of Empire: Japanese Settler Colonialism in Korea, 1876–1945. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,2011. UnitedStates,OfficeoftheProvostMarshalGeneral.History of Military Government Training,vol.1.1945.Microfilm. VanderGrijp,Paul.“PioneerofUntaughtAnthropology:Recontextualizing LewisH.MorganandHisKinshipPerspective.”Dialectical Anthropology22 (1997). VanLieu,JoshuaJohn.“DivergentVisionsofServingtheGreat:TheEmergence ofChosŏn-QingTributaryRelations.”Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofWashington,2010. Vermeersch,Sem.The Power of the Buddhas: The Politics of Buddhism During the Koryŏ Dynasty.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,2008. Wales,Nym,andKimSan.Song of Ariran: A Korean Communist in the Chinese Revolution[1941].SanFrancisco:RampartsPress,1972. Weber,Eugen.Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870– 1914.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1976. Weinstein,LucieR.“TheYumedonoKannon:ProblemsinSeventh-Century Sculpture.”Archives of Asian Art42(1989). Wells,KennethM.New God, New Nation: Protestants and Self-Reconstruction Nationalism in Korea, 1896–1937.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,1990. Whatmore,Sarah.“DissectingtheAutonomousSelf:HybridCartographies foraRelationalEthics.”Geographic Thought: A Praxis Perspective,ed.George HendersonandMarvinWaterstone.NewYork:Routledge,2008. White,Hayden.The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1987. White,Trumbull.The World’s Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893.Philadelphia: P.W.Ziegler,1893. Williams,Raymond.Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society.London: Fontana,1983.
245
246
BiBLioGraphy
Yi,T’ae-jun.Eastern Sentiments,trans.JanetPoole.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2009. Young,Robert.White Mythologies: Writing History and the West.NewYork:Routledge,1990. Yun,Peter.“RethinkingtheTributeSystem:KoreanStatesandNortheastAsian InterstateRelations,600–1600.”Ph.D.dissertation,uclA,1998.
inDex
Abernethy,David,187n10 Acheson,Dean,155,226n43 Adwaitism,92 Akiba,Takashi,219n39 Allen,HoraceN.,44,53,186n3,188n11 alphabet.SeeKoreanalphabet AltarsofLandandHarvest(sajik), 22–23,174n4,174n6,182n72 AltartoHeaven,26–27,176n26 AmericanMethodistEpiscopal Church,56,64,193n49 anarchists:Chinese,214n75.See also SinCh’ae-ho An,Chae-hong:andChosŏn ilbo,108, 117,123,126,213n71,219n35;education,216n11;imprisonment,216n11, 219n35;withInterimSouthKorean Government,147–48;andKorean CommunistParty,147,223n24;and Koreanstudies,131,220n47;nationalisthistoriographyof,126–27,131, 146,147–48,158,202n110,212n59, 220n51,223n18;andSin’ganhoe,117, 118,213n71;aswartimeabducteeto NorthKorea,213n71,223n25 An,Ch’ang-ho,110,111,203n111, 206n126 Anderson,Benedict,6,54,79 Anglo-ChineseCollege,63,192n47, 193n49 An,Hwak,99,212n59 Arendt,Hannah,145 Arikishi,Tadaichi,107 Armstrong,GeorgeBuchanan,65 Armstrong,Muriel,65 Arnett,BenjaminW.,189n27 Asiaticsociety,119,123,131–33,220n50 AssociationforKoreanHistoryRe-
search(Chosŏnsayŏn’guhoe),145, 149 Auerback,Micah,116 autonomoussubject.Seesovereign subject(chuch’e) Awakening of the East, The(Okakura), 91–92,208n16 Badiou,Alain,160 Balibar,Etienne,101,106 Bancroft,HubertHowe,59 Barnett,FerdinandL.,61,192n41 Barrows,JohnHenry,57–58,189n27, 190n28 Bederman,Gail,191n32 Beijing:incolonialera,106–07,109, 214n75;andKoryŏcourt,26 Benjamin,Walter,129 Berlant,Laurent,160 Bharucha,Rustom,208n17 Bird,Isabella,22 Breuker,Remco,24,26,128 Britain:andChosŏnKorea,30,37,44; colonialruleinIndia,10,57,88;and Egypt,30;andGreatGame,30;imperialisminChina,177n35,184n89 BronzeAge,102 Buchanan,James,65 Bücher,Karl,12,119 Buddhism:andChosŏndynasty, 32–34,178n42;andJapanesecolonialrule,9–10,115–16;andKorean originnarratives,32,178n43;and Koryŏdynasty,31–32;andThree Kingdomsperiod,93;andWorld ParliamentofReligions,60.See also GuzeKannon;Iryŏn;Sŏkkuram Burris,JohnP.,57
248
inDex
capitalism:global,17.See alsocapitalist sovereignty capitalistsovereignty,8,55,66,187n9, 194n61 Chandra,Vipan,210n38 Chang,Chi-yŏn,202n111,209n27 Chang,Si-wŏn,156–57 Chang,To-bin,99,212n59 CharterOathofMeiji,41–42,182n76 Chewang un’gi(RhymedRecordofEmperorsandKings;Yi),81 Chicago,Ill.:immigrants,60–61, 191n39.See alsoWorld’sColumbian Expositionof1893 China:andBritishimperialism, 177n35,184n89;decenteringofin Koreanhistoriography,36–37,96, 120,196n73;exclusionofChinese immigrantsfromU.S.,59,187n5, 191n31;andhaircutting,4,172n10; andJapaneseimperialism,171n3; MayFourthMovement,109;and nineteenth-centurysovereignty,43; tributaryrelationships,5–6,23–27, 28–30,34–36,37,39,40–41,43,45, 46,54,175n9,196n73–74,201n107, 204n121;andWorld’sColumbian Exposition,58–59,191n31.See also hanmun(Chinesewritingsystem); Koreandeclarationofindependence fromChina;Manchuria;Mingdynasty;Qing(Manchu)dynasty; Sino-JapaneseWar ChindanSociety(Chindanhakhoe): duringcolonialperiod,127–28,129; journalpublishedby,127–28,129, 219n40;andpositivisthistoriography,13,127,128,129;postcolonial reconstitutionof,14,145,146,147, 149,158,222n14,223n23.See alsoYi, Pyŏng-do ChineseExclusionActof1882,59 Ch’oe,Hyŏn-bae,128 Ch’oe,Nam-sŏn,107,119,121,127, 128,146,212n59,217n17,217n20, 220n42,220n51
Ch’oe,Rin,117 Choi,Jang-yip,154–55 Choi,Kyu-hwa,225n36 Choi,Sang-ryong,225n38 Ch’ŏndogyofaction,117,221n1 Chŏng,Hae-gu,154–55 Chŏng,In-bo,135,202n110,212n59, 220n51,220n54 Chŏngjo(Chosŏnmonarch),29, 181n64 Chŏng,Kyŏng-wŏn,53,186n2 chongmyo.SeeRoyalAncestralTemple (chongmyo) Chŏng,Pyŏng-ha,171n9 Chŏng,Tasan,131.See alsoChŏng,Yag- yong Chŏng,To-jŏn,33 Chŏng,Yag-yong,131,174n6 Chŏn,Sŏk-dam,148 Cho,Pak,27–28,177n29,219n36 Cho,Pong-am,228n52 Chōsen bijutsushi(Sekino),92–93 ChōsenBukkyōdan,115–16 Chōsen hōken shakai keizaishi(EconomicHistoryofKoreanFeudal Society;Paek),12,118–19,130,133, 173n28,217n15 Chōsenjin(Koreans),10–11,103,104– 05,212n60 Chōsen shakai keizaishi(ASocialEconomicHistoryofKorea;Paek),12, 114,117,118–19,120,121,130,133, 134–35,173n28,209n28,217n15, 218n26,220n52,220n54 Chōsenshi(HistoryofKorea;Hayashi), 95,210n35 Chōsenshi(KoreanHistory;sckH), 107,146,220n42,223n19 Chōsenshihenshūkai(Societyforthe CompilationofKoreanHistory), 128–29,146,217n17,220n42 Chōsen shiryō shushin(Collectionof KoreanDocuments;sckH),107, 220n42 Chōsen shiryō sōkan(ArchiveofKorean Documents;sckH),107,220n42
inDex
Chōshūdomain,41 Chosŏn,Ancient,32,80,176n28, 203n112 Chosŏnhaksulwŏn(KoreanAcademy ofSciences),14,144,145 Chosŏn ilbo(newspaper),17,108,116– 17,123,125,156,213n70–71,216n8, 219n34–35 ChosŏnKorea(1392–1910):Altarsof LandandHarvest,22–23,174n4, 174n6,182n72;AltartoHeaven, 26–27,176n26;andBuddhism, 32–34,178n42;capitalof,176n19; China-centeredtributarysystem,5–6,23–27,28–30,34–37, 39,40–41,43,45,46,196n73–74, 201n107;Christianmissionaries,9, 62,74,186n3,192n45;andcivilizationdiscourses,5,28–29,35,36,62, 180n58,196n73,210n40;collective identity,76–77,79;andConfucian ethics,33–37,44,179n55,180n57– 58,201n105;coupattemptof1884, 56,65,188n18,199n92;Deliberative Council,38,39–40;deterritorialization/reterritorialization,4–5,29, 50;diplomacywithWest,7,43–46, 54–55,183n85,186n3,187n5;Hallof EternalPeace,174n4,175n8;Hideyoshiinvasions,35,175n8,179n55, 180n57;InspectionMissionto Japan,56,181n68,188n14;Kaboreforms,38–40,42,68–69,193n55, 198n82;Manchuinvasions,5,36, 180n57;andMandateofHeaven,6, 21–22,24–25,26,27–28;national language,196n72;officialwritten language,67,69;asprotectorateof Japan,9,51,75,79;purgesofliteratiandfactionalstrife,12,94,150, 224n30;relationshiptoMingdynasty,5–6,27,28–29,35,172n14, 196n74,202n107;relationshipto Qingdynasty,5–6,28,29,34–35, 36,37,39,40–41,196n73,202n107; relationshipwithBritain,30,37,
44;relationshipwithRussia,30,37, 44,44–45;relationshipwithU.S., 29–30,37,40,44,45–46,54,178n37, 181n68,183n87,184n88,184n91, 184n93–94,186n3,187n5;ritual practices,37,47–51,185n100–106; slaves(nobi ),23,38,175n7,179n55, 180n57,198n82;socialstatussystem,23,72,78,83,177n30,198n82, 201n105;andsovereignty,5–7,23, 30–31,34,35,37,39,43–46,51, 184n88,184n93;Tan’gunfoundation myth,6,27–28,32,79–81,176n28, 196n74,203n112,203n114–115; TempletoHeaven,35,175n8;Tonghakrebellion,38,181n67;Treaty ofFriendshipandCommercewith U.S.,29–30,40,46,54,178n37, 184n94;TreatyofKanghwa,29, 180n61,182n73;tributarysystem withJurchen,35;useofChinese writingsystem,64–65;andwŏndan (RoundAltar),26–27,28,176n23, 176n25;andwŏn’gudan(RoundHill Altar),51,177n29;World’sColumbianExpositionexhibit,7,53–54, 55–56,61–62,186n2–3,188n13.See alsoKoreandeclarationofindependencefromChina;Koreanvernacular;RoyalAncestralTemple(chongmyo);sadaebu(scholar-officials) Chosŏn kŭl(Koreanscript),68,70 Chosŏnmunhakgatongmaeng(FederationofKoreanWriters),142, 221n4,222n8 Chosŏn sanggo munhwasa(CulturalHistoryofAncientKorea;Sin),108 Chosŏn sanggosa(HistoryofAncient Korea;Sin),99,107–09,213n70 Chosŏn wangjo sillok(Annalsofthe ChosŏnDynasty),172n11,182n74, 205n125 Chosŏn yŏksa(textbook),120 Cho,Tong-gŏl,77,129 Chow,Rey,9 Cho,Yun-jae,145,146,219n39,223n18
249
250
inDex
Christianity.SeeChristianmissionaries;liberal-bourgeois(Christian) class;WorldParliamentofReligions Christianmissionaries:andChosŏn Korea,9,62,74,186n3,192n45; distributionofBibles,197n76;and Koreanvernacular,9,70,197n76; andTan’gunlegend,80 chuch’e.Seesovereignsubject(chuch’e) Chumong,founderofKoguryŏ,25 Ch’u,Myŏng-ŏp,25 Chunghwa,36 Ch’ungjŏng(Koryŏmonarch),26 Ch’ungnyŏl(Koryŏmonarch),26, 176n22 Chu,Si-g yŏng,9,64,68,70,71 Chu,Yŏng-hŏn,99 Cleveland,Grover,184n93 colonialism:andsovereignty,3,4; U.S.presenceinPhilippines,10,75, 88,184n95;U.S.presenceinSouth Korea,14,16,150.See alsoBritain; Japanesecolonialrule Confucianethics:andChosŏnKorea, 33–37,44,179n55,180n57–58, 201n105;andKoryŏ,78,80–81.See alsoConfucianhistoriography Confucianhistoriography,80–82,99, 205n124 Confucius,28 Conner,Walker,77 Cumings,Bruce,17,105–06,154,156, 225n41 Davis,Linnie,62,83 Deleuze,Gilles,177n35 DemocraticPeople’sRepublicofKorea (dPRk):establishmentof,148.See alsoNorthKorea deterritorialization:definition,177n35; andEuro-Americanimperialism, 4–5,29,50,177n35 Deuchler,Martina,44,45 Dirlik,Arif,214n75 Douglass,Frederick,61 Duara,Prasenjit,100–101,200n98
Dudden,Alexis,30 Duncan,John,101,177n30,211n50 Eckert,Carter,78–79 economy.See kyŏngje(economy) empiricisthistoriography,212n59.See alsopositivisthistoriography Engels,Frederick,121,122,132 ethnicnation.See minjok(ethnic nation) Euro-Americanimperialism:citizen developmentunder,206n127;deterritorializationandreterritorializationin,4–5,29,50,177n35;andEast Asiansovereignty,31,79,192n44; andequality,4–5,31;asexample forJapanese,10;andKoreansovereignty,3,4–5,7,8,61–62,65–66, 67;world-widereach,55,105, 187n10.See alsoBritain Euro-Americanmodernity:accommodationofKoreanmodernityto,4–5, 65–66,67;influenceonKoreanvernacular,8,50,65–66,68,70,71;and NativeAmericans,7,58 Ewha(Women’s)College,2,171n4 fascism,107,118 Fenollosa,ErnestF.,63,90–91,92, 207n11,208n15 Foote,LuciusH.,45,56,188n17 France:FrenchRevolution,98;Triple Intervention,47,50–51,185n98; turningpeasantsintoFrenchmen,78 Fujiwaraperiod,96 Fukuda,Tokuzō,12,95–96,119,133, 209n28 Fukuzawa,Yukichi,44,181n68,193n53 futei senjin(malcontentKoreans),115 Gandhi,VirachandRaghav,57,189n26 Geertz,Clifford,185n103 Gellner,Ernest,201n104 Germany,TripleIntervention,47, 50–51,185n98 Giddens,Anthony,43 Godes,Mikhail,133
inDex
Gotō,Shinpei,103 “greatenterprise.”SeeKoreansovereignty;taeŏp(greatenterprise) GreatGame,30 GreatHanEmpire,51,186n109 GreatKantōEarthquake,115,215n2 Griffis,WilliamE.,64 Guattari,Félix,177n35 GuzeKannon,90–92,93,208n13–14 Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chae-insik(ReexaminationofKoreanHistoryBefore andAfterLiberation),17–18,156– 58,227n46,227n48 Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik(KoreanHistoryBeforeandAfterLiberation; Song),16,17,152–55,224n31–32, 224n35,227n46,227n49 Hae,Wŏn,212n59 haidong(haedong),25 haircutting:essayonbobhaircut,1–3, 11,171n1–3;Japanesetopknotdecree,4,5,171n9,172n11;assignifier ofmodernity,1–3,4,30;symbolism inChina,4,172n10 HallofEternalPeace,174n4,175n8 Handynasty,23,178n40 han’gŭl(modernalphabet),42,68, 193n55,197n76 Han,Hyo,138,142,143 Han,Kyu-sŏl,74 hanmun(Chinesewritingsystem):as classicalChinese,67,195n64;differentiatingfromKoreanvernacular, 72;Koreanuseof,9,64,67,69,72 Han,Paek-kyŏm,99 Han,Sŏl-ya,138,140,141,221n4 Hansŏng sinbo(newspaper),193n53 Hanyang(Seoul):RoyalAncestral Temple,23–24;andWesterndiplomats,183n85.See alsoSeoul Han,Yŏng-u(HanYoung-Woo),80, 203n115,206n128 Hardt,Michael,18,55,66,187n9, 194n61 Harootunian,Harry,184n96
Harrison,Benjamin,58–59 Hatada,Takashi,94,95 Hayashi,Taisuke,95,209n27,210n35 Hay,John,74 Hayti,Republicof,61 Hegel,GeorgWilhelmFriedrich,47, 108,109,187n9 hegemonies:andmilitaryadvantage, 212n61;andproductiveadvantage, 212n61;andWorldSystemtheory, 105–07.See alsoEuro-Americanimperialism;nation-statesystem He,Ruzhang,44 Hevia,James,177n35 Hideyoshiinvasions,35,175n8,179n55, 180n57 Hirai,RyugeKinzō,57 historiography:roleintendingtonation’sspirit,51;violenceof,200n98. See alsoConfucianhistoriography; Japanesecolonialhistoriography; Koreanhistoriography;Marxisthistoriography;nationalisthistoriography;positivisthistoriography;postcolonialhistoriography Hŏ,Hŏn,146 HolyRomanEmpire,42–43 Hong,Christine,206n130 Hong,Hyo-min,221n4 Hong,Tae-yong,36–37,180n60 Hong,Yŏng-sik,188n18 Hopkins,Terence,213n61 HōryūjiTemple,90–91 Hoshino,Hisashi,94 Huang,Zunxian,44–45 Hughes,Theodore,212n58 Huh,Tae-yong,35 Hulbert,HomerB.,80 Humphrey,Caroline,185n106 Hwang,Hyŏn,171n9 Hwangsŏng sinmun(CapitalGazette), 202n111 Hwang,Ŭi-don,212n59 Hwanin,32,121,178n43,203n112, 204n122
251
252
inDex
Hwanung,121,178n43,203n112, 204n122 hyangga(poetry),8,67,195n65 Hyŏn,Ch’ae,95,97,209n26 Ibsen,Henrik,1 Ideals of the East(Okakura),92 idumun(script),67,195n64–65 Ii,Naosuke,60 Ikeuchi,Hiroshi,128,205n125 Im,Hwa,138–39,142–43,160,221n4 ImjinWars,179n55.See alsoHideyoshi invasions imperialism:differentiatingfromnationalism,6,51–52;Euro-American sovereigntycomplicitin,3,5,43–44; andliberalism,7;violenceof,97.See alsoEuro-Americanimperialism Inaba,Iwakichi,120 IndependenceClub,64,74,193n56, 198n82,199n89 Independent, The(newspaper).See Tongnip sinmun(TheIndependent) India:Britishcolonialrule,10,57,88; andKoryŏKorea,32 inmin(people),76 Inoue,Kaoru:anddeterritorialization ofKorea,4–5,29,30,183n87;as envoytoChosŏnKorea,30,37–39, 44,56,65,180n61,181n68,183n87, 188n14,188n15;reformprogram, 38–39,42;andTreatyofKanghwa, 180n61.See alsoKoreandeclaration ofindependencefromChina InspectionMissiontoJapan,56, 181n68,188n14 Iryŏn,32,120,176n28,178n43, 203n112.See also Samguk yusa (MemorabiliaoftheThreeKingdoms;Iryŏn) Itō,Hirobumi,180n61,181n67 Jains,32 Jaisohn,Philip(Sŏ,Chae-pil):1884 coupattempt,65,188n18;andIndependenceClub,64,193n56,199n91;
asinfluenceonRhee,199n93;name change,65;andTongnip sinmun(The Independent),64,193n56,194n57, 198n81;U.S.citizenship,65,194n59; onuseofvernacularKorean,68,69, 70,71–72 Japan:annexationofKorea,9,27, 193n55;CharterOathof1868, 41–42,182n76;claimingofKorea asprotectorate,9,51,75,79;emperorsystem,47;ethnicconsciousness,67,195n66;fascism,107;Great KantōEarthquake,115,215n2;Guze Kannon,90–92,93,208n13–14; InspectionMissionto,56,181n68, 188n14;invasionofChosŏnKorea, 34;invasionofManchuria,107,115, 118,125,171n3;invasionofShanghai,171n3;andKoreanvernacular, 67;Meijireforms,30;MeijiRestoration,41,182n76;relationshipwith UnitedStates,29–30,44,46,47,60; Russo-JapaneseWar,46,51,74–75; asself-designatedcuratorforAsian art,9–10,89–93;andsovereignty discoursein19thcentury,43–44, 46–47;strategicinterestinKorea, 29–31;surrendertoU.S.,13–14,139, 224n32;Taft-KatsuraAgreement, 46,75,184n95;transformationof peasantsintokokumin,67–68,103; TreatyofKanghwa,29,180n61, 182n73;andWorld’sColumbianExpositionexhibit,60,191n35,207n11. See alsoInoue,Kaoru;Japanesecolonialrule;Japanesehistoriography (pre-colonial);Koreandeclaration ofindependencefromChina;Sino- JapaneseWar;TokugawaJapan Japanesecolonialhistoriography:complicityofKoreanhistorianswith, 10,12,13,94,95–96,123–25;four themescharacterizing,94;historiesofKorea,95–96,97–98;justificationsforcontrolofKorea,9,
inDex
10,12,13,14,87–88,89,92,93–94, 212n59;onKoreanannexationas restoration,11–12,93–94,95,100, 150,212n59;onKoreanfactionalism,12,94,150;Mansenshiframework,13,93,129,144;originsof, 94–95;onroleofexternalforces inKoreandevelopment,12,94,95, 150,212n59;onsharedancestryof JapaneseandKoreans,12,94,95, 150,210n43;stagnationtheory,12, 94,96,118–19,131,133,150,209n28, 212n59;andtōyōshi(Orientalhistory)framework,13,96–97,128, 129,209n30,209n32;violenceof, 97.See alsoJapanesehistoriography (pre-colonial);Sŏkkuram Japanesecolonialrule:annexationof Korea,9,27,100,193n55;andBuddhism,9–10,115–16;censorship laws,116,173n28;andcoercion, 10,87,103,216n6;constructionof hegemonicauthority,9–10,87–88, 105–07;creationofChōsenjinassubjects,10–11,103,104–05,212n60; creationofKoreannation-state, 10,102–05,115–16;disbandingof KoreanArmy,88;emergenceof Korean(Christian)bourgeoisclass, 7,58,62,75–76;forcedabdicationof KingKojong,88,115;forcedassimilation,103–04;GreatDepression, 115;heritage-managementlaws,90, 92,123,207n9;homerulemovement,117–18;Japanese-Koreanreconciliationproject,116;knowledge- productionasfunctionof,10,11,88, 89;KoreanCommunistParty,115, 118;Koreanindependencemovement,114–15,116,117,118,202n111, 213n71;Korean-languagepublications,116–17,216n7–9;Korean ProvisionalGovernment,109–12, 202n111,214n78,224n32;Korean studies,10,123–24,125–29,131,
219n39;MarchFirstMovement,116, 202n111;NaisenIttaipolicy,103,118, 212n58;nationalscriptof,193n55; andparticularism,124–25,133–34; PeacePreservationLawof1925, 114–15,131;resistancebyRighteous Armies,4,88,115;sumptuarylaws, 171n8;surrendertoU.S.,13–14,139, 224n32;topknotdecree,4,5,171n9, 172n11;WanpaoshanIncidentof 1931,124–25;Westerncolonialism asexamplefor,10,15–16,88,103. See alsoJapanesecolonialhistoriography;Sŏkkuram Japanesehistoriography(pre- colonial):shiftinnamesforChina, 96;spatialimaginingofgreater Japan,99–100,210n43;Tokyotradition,94;tōyōshi(Orientalhistory), 13,96–97,128,129,209n30,209n32; writingofnationalisthistory,94–95. See alsoJapanesecolonialhistoriography Jimmu,Emperor,11,120 Jindynasty,24,25,26,80 Jingū,Empress,95 Jurchens:andChosŏndynasty,35;and Koryŏdynasty,24–25,175n14 Kaegyŏng(Kaesŏng),26,176n19, 203n116 Kaesŏng,26,176n19,203n116 Kanda,Naibu,63 Kanga-kai(artsociety),92 Kang,Man-gil,15–16,98,151,153–54, 159,225n38,227n45,228n54 Kanō,Tessai,90,91 Kant,Immanuel,186n4 Karl,Rebecca,71,197n80 Katsura,Tarō,75.See alsoTaft-Katsura Agreement Kawashima,Fujiya,201n105 kcP.SeeKoreanCommunistParty (kcP) Kedourie,Elie,100,101
253
254
inDex
KeijōImperialUniversity,13,14,127, 130,147 Keizai yōroku(TheEssenceofEconomics;Satō),68 Kenkenroku(ARecordofArduous andSelflessServicetotheThrone; Mutsu),46,185n98 Khubilai,Khan,81,176n22 Kido,Kōin,41 Kija,27,126–27,219n36–37 Kim,Chŏng-ho,99 Kim,Chul,157 Kim,DaeJung,157 Kim,Dong-choon,149 Kim,Han-Kyo,210n36 Kim,Hong-jip,38,188n15 Kim,Hwal-lan,2,171n4 Kim,IlSung,148,155 KimIlSungUniversity,148 Kim,Ki-rim,1–3,11,171n1–3 Kim,Ku,154,216n9 Kim,Kwang-jin,148 Kim,Nam-ch’ŏn,138,142,221n4, 222n8 Kim,Ok-kyun,65,188n16,188n18, 192n47 Kim,Pu-sik,26,80,83,98–99, 204n116,206n129.See also Samguk sagi(HistoricalRecordoftheThree Kingdoms;Kim) Kim,Sang-gi,128,223n23 Kim,Sa-ryang,138,141,142,143, 222n6–7 Kim,Sŏk-hyŏng,148 Kim,Sŏng-su,117,118,216n9,220n51 Kim,T’ae-jun,129–30,220n46 Kim,T’aek-yŏng,97,209n27 Kim,Wŏn-bong,146 Kim,Yong-sŏp,15,151,159,190n30, 224n30 Kim,Yun-sik,30,45 King,Ross,67,193n53,197n76 Koguryŏkingdom:boundaries,211n52; andBuddhism,31;collapse,211n52; dates,204n117;andJapanesehis-
tory,209n25;andKoreanethnicnation,101;aspartofThreeKingdoms, 25;statehistories,35,203n115.See alsoThreeKingdoms Kojiki(RecordofAncientMatters), 11–12,94,95,210n43 Kojong(Chosŏnmonarch):conspiracy against,74;forcedabdication,88, 115;InspectionMissiontoJapan, 56,181n68,188n14;modernizingreforms,38,39,181n64,188n11;proclaimingofGreatHanEmpire,51, 186n109,199n92;reign,23;relationshipwithJapan,38–40,44;relationshipwithU.S.,45–46,183n87, 184n88,184n93;andtopknotdecree,4,5,171n9,172n11;andWorld’s ColumbianExposition,53,186n2–3. See alsoKoreandeclarationofindependencefromChina kokubun(Japanesenationalscript), 193n55 Kokushi gan(ASurveyofJapaneseHistory),94,95 Kŏmundo(islands),30 Kongmin(Koryŏmonarch),26 Korea.SeeChosŏnKorea;Japanese colonialrule;postcolonialKorea Korean(Christian)bourgeoisclass.See liberal-bourgeois(Christian)class Koreanalphabet:roleofChristian missionaries,9,70,197n76.See also han’gŭl(modernalphabet);Korean vernacular;kungmun(national script);script KoreanCommunistParty(kcP),115, 118,140,145,153,154,221n2,221n4 KoreanDailyNews(Taehan maeil sinbo),82,202n111,206n126 Koreandeclarationofindependence fromChina:Inoue’srolein,5,6, 22,38,40,42,44,49–50,183n87; Japan’sinterestin,5,6,9,22,37, 38–40,42,44,50;KingKojong’s role,5,6,9,21–22,27,37,38,40–41,
inDex
42,44,47–51,174n2,174n5,182n71– 72,183n79,185n100,186n107;ritual actions,6,21–22,40–41,47–51, 174n2,174n5,182n72,185n100–102, 186n107.See alsoKojong(Chosŏn monarch) KoreanHistoricalAssociation(Yŏksa hakhoe),145,222n15 Koreanhistoriography:decentering ofChina,36–37,96,120,196n73; emergenceof,66;historiesandtextbooksofKorea,95–96,97–98,101– 02,107,120,210n35,211n54;impact ofJapanesesurrenderon,13–14; andMansenshiframework,13,93, 129,144;andnationalism,76–84, 200n98,201n104;andpeoplehood, 70–76;andSŏkkuramnarrative, 10,94;andTan’gunlegend,79–81; threecompetingschoolsof,13; trainingofhistoriansatJapanese universities,13.See alsoMarxisthistoriography;nationalisthistoriography;positivisthistoriography Koreanlanguage.SeeKoreanvernacular Koreanliterati:asimpedimentto progress,72;onŏnmun,69,195n64, 196n71;purgesinChosŏnKorea, 12,94,150,224n30.See also sadaebu (scholar-officials) Koreanmodernity:accommodationto Euro-Americannorms,4–5,65–66, 67;emergenceof,66;hairbobas signifierfor,1–3;andsemanticinnovation,8,50,66–70;andsovereign subjectivity,66;andsovereignty, 3;andtopknotdecree,4,5,171n9, 172n11.See alsoKoreanalphabet Koreannationalism:developmentof nation-state,102–05;differentiating fromimperialism,6,51–52;andhistoriography,10,11,76–84,200n98, 201n104 KoreanPeople’sRepublic(kPR),147
KoreanProvisionalGovernment,109– 12,202n111,214n78,224n32 Koreansovereignty:accommodation toEuro-Americannorms,3,4–5,7, 8,61–62,65–66,67;andconcept ofpeoplehood,70–76;as“great enterprise,”4–5,7,18;andWorld’s ColumbianExposition,54,55,61. See alsoKoreandeclarationofindependencefromChina;minjok (ethnicnation) Koreanvernacular:articulationsof capitalistsovereigntyin,8–9,50, 67–70,194n61;andautonomous Koreansubjectivity,63–64;first vernacularnewspaper,64–65;influenceofEuro-Americanmodernityon,8,50,65–66,68,70,71; nationalizationof,9;andpatriotism,64;pre-modernwritingstyles, 67;roleofChristianmissionaries, 9,70,197n76;andself-presentation, 63,63–64,64;spoken,67.See also Koreanalphabet;semanticinnovations;Yun,Ch’i-ho KoreanWar,112,149,154,155,156, 223n25,226n43 Koryŏdynasty(936–1392):art,93; andBuddhism,24,31–32,175n13; capitalof,26,203n116;collective identity,76–77,78,79,211n50;and Confucianhistoriographicprinciples,80–81;eliteclass,211n50; founderandfounding,24,25,31, 80;historiographiesof,80–81, 203n115,204n121;imperialclaims andpractices,24–26,175n11,175n13, 176n16;Mongolinvasions,24,26, 81,176n22;music,24–25,175n13, 175n15;relationshipwithJin,24, 26,80;scholar-officials(sadaebu), 177n30;sovereignty,24–25,26–27; tributaryrelationshipwithChina, 24,26,175n9,204n121;tributary systemwithJurchen,24–25,175n14
255
256
inDex
Koryŏsa,24,175n9,175n11,175n13–15 Krasner,Stephen,43 Kropotkin,Pyotr,111,112,214n75, 214n78 kukhanmun(mixedscript),69,193n53 Kuksa kyobon(YiandKim),146–47 Kuksa sillon(ANewHistoryofKorea; Yi),14,150 Kume,Kunitake,11–12,94,99–100, 210n43 kŭndaehwa(modernization),14,15, 150,151 kungmun(nationalscript):designationasnationalscript,9,64,68–69, 193n55;andethnicnation,65–66; firstnewspapertouse,64–65;King Sejong’salphabetasbasisfor,9,64; andYun’sdiary,63.See alsoKorean alphabet;Yun,Ch’i-ho Kŭnŭhoe(nationalistwomen’smovement),171n4 Kuroda,Kiyotaka,178n36 Kwangjong(Koryŏmonarch),32 Kwangju,people’suprisingin,16,153, 159,225n36–37 Kwŏn,Hyŏk-su,45 Kwŏn,Kŭn,120 Kwŏn,Tŏk-kyu,99,212n59 K.Y.(anonymousstudent),2,3,11,160 kyŏngje(economy),8–9,68,195n68, 196n70 KyŏngsŏngUniversity,130 Kyūshū,11–12 Laidlaw,James,185n106 Lancaster,Lewis,31,178n40 language.SeeKoreanvernacular Ledyard,Gari,29 Lee,Chulwoo,115,216n6 Lee,Kwang-Rin,188n15–16 Lee,Peter,203n115 Lensen,GeorgeA.,182n72 Lew,YoungIck,183n87 Liang,Qichao,202n111,205n123 Liaodynasty,24,25,26,175n9
liberal-bourgeois(Christian)class: emergenceof,7;inclusionarypretensionsbutexclusionaryimpact, 7,58,75–76;linktoanticommunistliberal-bourgeoissubjectivity, 190n30;racismof,7,58,62 Li,Hongzhang,30,45,180n61 Li,Shizeng,214n75 Liu,Lydia,54,77,200n101 Locke,John,186n4 Low,FrederickF.,187n5 Lu,Xun,172n10 Maitreya,32 Manchuria:erasurefromKoreanhistory,80,83;inclusioninKorean nationalisthistory,98,99,100, 210n36,211n45;Japaneseinvasion of,107,115,118,125,171n3;Korean settlersin,124–25,218n33–34;and Koryŏcourt,79;powerbalancewith China,202n107;WanpaoshanIncidentof1931,124–25 Manchus:Chosŏninvasions,5,36, 180n57;overthrowofMingdynasty, 34,35,182n71.See alsoQing(Manchu)dynasty Manminkongdonghoe(People’sAssembly),74,199n89–91 Mansenshi(Manchuria-Koreaspatial conception),13,93,129,144 MarchFirstMovement,116,202n111 Marxisthistoriography:convergence withnationalisthistoriography,15, 151,159,228n54;critiqueofcolonialistandnationalisthistoriography,84,123,144–45.See alsoMarxistintellectuals;Paek,Nam-un Marxistintellectuals:andconceptof minjung,111–12;migrationtoNorth Korea,14,148;plansforpostcolonialacademicinstitutions,13–14, 144–45;inpostcolonialperiod, 144–45,148–49;onself-criticism, 140;undercolonialrule,115,117–18,
inDex
119.See alsoKoreanCommunist Party(kcP);Marxisthistoriography; Paek,Nam-un MarxistLeagueofScientists(Kwahakjatongmaeng),145 Marx,Karl,132 Masuzawa,Tomoko,189n20 MayFourthMovement,109 Mbembe,Achille,3 McKinley,William,46 Mehta,Uday,75 Meiji,Emperor,41,182n76 MeijiJapan.SeeJapan Mencius,28 Merleau-Ponty,Maurice,185n106 Millet,LizzieGoodhue,63 Mimana(Kaya),95,209n27 Mingdynasty:demandforhumantribute,5,35,172n14,179n53;overthrow byManchu,34,35,36,182n71, 196n73;relationshipwithChosŏn Korea,5–6,27,28–29,35,172n14, 196n74,202n107 minjok(ethnicnation):andautonomoussubjectivity,84;andcolonial rule,117,123–24,201n102;emergenceof,66,77;etymology,67–68, 77,195n67,200n99–100;innationalisthistoriography,3–4,13,51, 77–78,79–80,81–84,98,100–101, 215n81;aspoliticalconcept,4,76, 77;SinCh’ae-hoon,77–78,79–80, 81–84,98,215n81 minjung(people,thesubaltern):asautonomousnationalsubject,16,17, 76,117;SinCh’ae-hoon,98,107, 110–12,214n78,215n79,215n81 Min,Queen,21,182n68,199n92 Min,Yŏng-hwan,74,192n48 Min,Yŏng-ik,54,194n59 missionaries.SeeChristianmissionaries Miyazaki,Muryū,67 modernity:Kim’sdiscourseonKorean, 1–3;twopathsto,15,151–52,
190n30.See alsoEuro-American modernity;Koreanmodernity modernizationtheory,14,15,150,151 Mongols:Koryŏinvasions,24,26,81, 176n22.See alsoYüandynasty(Mongols) Morgan,LewisH.,121,122 Mun,Il-p’yŏng,202n110,212n59 Mutsu,Munemitsu,42,46,47,60, 181n67,185n98 Myoch’ŏng,25–26,80,83,203n116 Myŏngjong(Chosŏnmonarch),175n8 NagasakiPrefecture,35 NaisenIttaipolicy,103,118,212n58 Naka,Michio,120 nation.See minjok(ethnicnation); minjung(people,thesubaltern); nation-statesystem NationalAcademyofSciences (Chosŏnhaksulwŏn),14,144,145 NationalDemocraticFront,146 NationalGuidanceLeague,148–49 nationalisthistoriography:in1930s, 125–29;convergencewithMarxist historiography,15,151,159,228n54; creationofautonomousKoreansubjectivity,11,52,104–05;definitions of,202n110,212n59;distinguishingfromnationalhistoriography, 202n110;inclusionofManchuria, 98,99,100,210n36,211n45;KedourieandDuara’scritiqueof, 100–101;andleftistpolitics,16,116, 118,119–20;linkstoConfucianhistoriography,82;linktopatriotism, 98;Marxistcritiquesof,84,119,123, 124,125,133,134,144–45,151,158, 217n17;and“newnationalism,”126, 147–48,158;NewRightcritiques of,17,155–58,159,160;originsof, 98–99,206n128;andparticularism,119–20,124,125,133–34;and positivisthistoriography,13,14–15, 127–29;inSouthKorea,202n110;
257
258
inDex
nationalisthistoriography(continued) andTan’gunlegend,79–81,98,99, 100;andtextual-criticalhistoriography,13,14,127,128,129,150, 219n38;themesof,97.See also minjok(ethnicnation);postcolonialhistoriography;Sin,Ch’ae-ho nationalscript.See kungmun(national script) nation-statesystem:developmentof global,102;dominationbyWest,47, 55,82;andJapan,47;andKorea, 71,82;as“natural”formofpoliticalcommunity,102,110;andsovereignty,3,6;inWorldSystemsframework,105–07 NativeAmericans:atWorld’sColumbianExposition,59;Yun’scontempt for,7,58,62,84 Negri,Antonio,18,55,66,187n9, 194n61 NewRight,17,155–58,159,160 Ngai,Mae,191n31 Nihon shoki(TheChroniclesofJapan), 11–12,94,95,210n43 Noguchi,Zenshirō,60 Norman,Jerry,196n72 NorthKorea:establishmentof,148; historiography,101,148;migrationofintellectualsto,14,148;state nationalism,112 Notehelfer,F.G.,208n15–16 Numata,Jirō,94 Okakura,Kakuzō,90,91–92,93, 207n11,208n15–17.See also Awakening of the East, The(Okakura);Ideals of the East(Okakura) ŏnhae-bon(script),193n53,195n64 ŏnhanmun(script),67,195n64 ŏnmun(vulgarscript),68,69,195n64 Ōtori,Keisuke,37–38 PaejaeBoys’HighSchool,64,74, 199n93 Paekchekingdom:andBuddhism,31;
dates,204n117;andJapanesehistory,209n25;andKoreanethnic nation,101;aspartofThreeKingdoms,25;statehistory,203n115 Paek,Nam-un:critiqueofnationalistandcolonialisthistoriography, 84,119,124,125,133,134,151,158, 217n17;critiqueofstagnationtheory, 118–19,133;education,130,209n28, 217n15;imprisonment,131;on Koreanhistoricaldevelopment,12, 13,15,119,127,130–32,133,134–35, 136–37;andMarxisthistoriography,13,84,114–15,117,119,124,129, 131,134–35,136,137,160,201n102, 212n59;migrationtoNorthKorea, 14,15,148,220n54;plansforpostcolonialacademicinstitutions, 13–14,144–45,147,222n12;political activism,131,146,221n4;onPunaluafamilystructure,121–23,136, 158;recastingasnationalisthistorian,15,151;onTan’gunlegend,120, 121,218n21.See also Chōsen hōken shakai keizaishi(EconomicHistory ofKoreanFeudalSociety;Paek); Chōsen shakai keizaishi(ASocial EconomicHistoryofKorea;Paek) paeksŏng(commonpeople),72–74, 75 Pai,HyungIl,90 Pak,Che-ga,34 Pak,Chi-wŏn,34,35,36,180n59 Pak,Chong-yang,184n93,199n90 Pak,Hŏn-yŏng,146,147,153,221n2, 221n4 Pak,Mun-kyu,129 Pak,Myŏng-lim,225n41 Pak,Si-hyŏng,99,148 Pak,Sŏng-ch’un,199n90 Pak,Ŭn-sik,51,202n110,212n59 Pak,Yŏng-hyo,39,65,74,188n18, 199n92 Palais,James,175n7 Palhaego(Yu),35,210n40
inDex
Pang,Kie-chung,145,223n17–18 Parhaekingdom,35,80,83,98–99, 204n116,211n52.See alsoThree Kingdoms Park,ChungHee,150,222n11,224n35 particularism.Seenationalisthistoriography Pastreich,Emanuel,205n123 Paterman,Carole,187n4 PeaceofWestphalia,3,42–43.See also Westphaliansovereignty PeacePreservationLawof1925,114– 15,131 people.See futei senjin(malcontent Koreans);inmin(people);minjok (ethnicnation);minjung(people, thesubaltern);paeksŏng(common people);sovereignsubject(chuch’e) People’sAssembly(Manminkongdonghoe),74,199n89–91 Perry,CommodoreMatthewC.,60, 184n91 Philippines,andUScolonialrule,10, 75,88,184n95 positivisthistoriography:andMansenshiframework,13,129,144;mergingwithmodernizationtheory,14, 15,150,151;perceivedcomplicity withcolonialism,13,129,145–46; perceivedobjectivity,13,143–44;in postcolonialKorea,143–50;precursorsto,209n23;recastingasnationalisthistoriography,14–15,144,151; andtōyōshiframework,13,129,144. See alsoChindanSociety(Chindan hakhoe) postcolonialhistoriography:anticolonialnationalismandtwopathsto modernity,15–16,151–53,190n30; andmodernization(kŭndaehwa)theory,14,15,150,151;New Rightcritiqueofnationalisthistoriography,17,155–58,159,160; 1960–1980,150–55,158–59;post- liberationto1960,143–50,151,158,
202n110;postnationalisthistoriography,16–17,159–60;textbooksand academicstudies,14,129,146–47. See also minjung(people,thesubaltern);positivisthistoriography postcolonialKorea:academicinstitutions,13–14,144–45,147;partition of,14,140,148,152,153,224n32; self-criticism,138–43,160;U.S.- SovietJointCommissiontalks,152– 53,154,155.See alsoNorthKorea; positivisthistoriography;postcolonialhistoriography;SouthKorea; U.S.ArmyMilitaryGovernmentin Korea(usAMgik) Protestantmissionaries.SeeChristian missionaries Punaluafamilystructure,121–23,136, 158 “P’ungipsong”(folksong),24–25, 175n13 Pyongyang:asproposedKoryŏcapital, 26,203n116;Sino-JapaneseWar,39, 46;Yüancommanderiesin,26 Qing(Manchu)dynasty:andChosŏn Korea,5–6,28,29,34–35,36, 37,39,40–41,196n73,202n107; nationallanguage,196n72;overthrowofMingdynasty,34,35,36, 182n71,196n73.See alsoChina;Sino- JapaneseWar race:andsovereignty,3;assynonym fornation,77.See alsoracism racism:ofliberal-bourgeois(Christian)class,7,58,62;innineteenth- centuryU.S.,59,61,62,83–84, 192n44 Reiss,Ludwig,94 religion.SeeBuddhism;Christianity RepublicofKorea(ROk):establishmentof,148.See alsoSouthKorea reterritorialization:definition,177n35; andEuro-Americanimperialism, 4–5,29,50,177n35
259
260
inDex
Rhee,Syngman:critiquesofcommonpeople,72–74,75;critiques ofKoreanaristocracy,72,74,75, 199n89,199n91;education,74, 75,199n93;imprisonment,72,74, 199n93;andKoreanprovisionalgovernment,109,110–11,202n111;on Koreansovereignty,75;andliberalism(Christian),74,75–76;post- Russo-JapaneseWarnegotiations, 74–75;aspresidentofSouthKorea, 144,148,149,150,152–53;translationsby,199n93.See also Tongnip chŏngsin(SpiritofIndependence; Rhee) Ricoeur,Paul,194n60 RighteousArmies,4,88,115 ritualpractices:andauthorship,6,49, 51–52,185n106;culturalmeanings of,185n103.See alsoChosŏnKorea; Koreandeclarationofindependence fromChina;RoyalAncestralTemple Robinson,Michael,116,205n123, 216n7–8 RockefellerFoundation,149 Rodgers,John,187n5 Rogers,Michael,180n58 Roh,Moo-hyun,17,156,157,227n46, 227n52 Ro,Myoung-ho,24,175n13 Roosevelt,Theodore,46,74,199n94 Rosenberg,Justin,68,196n70 Rostow,W.W.,14 RoyalAncestralTemple(chongmyo): constructionandexpansion,23–24, 175n8;ritualpractices,22–23, 47–51,174n4,174n6,185n100–102. See alsoKoreandeclarationofindependencefromChina Russia:andChosŏnKorea,30,37, 44–45;andGreatGame,30;Triple Intervention,47,50–51,185n98.See alsoRusso-JapaneseWar Russo-JapaneseWar,46,51,74–75,106 Rydell,Robert,59,192n43
sadaebu(scholar-officials):ondeclarationofindependencefromChina, 6,182n71;limitationsonpower of,181n66;powerdynamicsof,28, 177n30;ritualpracticesandguidance,23,26–28,29,32–33,35–36, 176n23,185n104–105 Saitō,Makoto,107 Sakai,Naoki,197n78 ŚakroDevānāmIndra,32 Samguk sagi(HistoricalRecordof theThreeKingdoms;Kim),80,83, 98–99,204n116 Samguk yusa(Memorabiliaofthe ThreeKingdoms;Iryŏn),81,146, 204n119 samhan(Koguryŏ,Silla,andPaekche), 25 Satō,Nobuhiro,68 Schmid,Andre,34,77,95,96,98,99, 181n67,198n81,200n100,209n26, 211n45 Schmitt,Carl,21,174n1 sckH.SeeSocietyfortheCompilation ofKoreanHistory(sckH) Scranton,Mary,171n4 script.See Chosŏn kŭl(Koreanscript); idumun(script);kokubun(Japanese nationalscript);kukhanmun(mixed script);kungmun(nationalscript); ŏnhae-bon(script);ŏnhanmun (script);ŏnmun(vulgarscript) Seager,Richard,55 Sejo(Chosŏnmonarch),27,176n23 Sejong(Chosŏnmonarch):Hallof EternalPeace,175n8;andKorean alphabet,9,64,196n71;andnational language,196n72 Sekino,Tadashi,88–89,92–93, 207n3–4 semanticinnovations:asarticulations ofcapitalistsovereignty,8–9,50, 66–70,194n61;definition,194n60; fortheword“country,”69–70; fortheword“economy,”8–9,68,
inDex
195n68,196n70.See also minjok (ethnicnation) Seoul:asChosŏncapital,176n19;and Chosŏnwŏndan,176n25;andSino- JapaneseWar,62.See alsoHanyang (Seoul) SeoulNationalUniversity,14,130,147, 149 Shanghai,106–07,109,171n3,214n75 Shigeno,Yasutsugu,94 Shim,Jae-hoon,219n37 Shin,Yong-ha,214n75,214n78,215n81 Shiratori,Kurakichi,96,97,106,109, 120,209n30 Shōtoku,Prince,207n12–13 Shufeldt,Robert,45,184n91 Shun,28 SilkRoad,31 Sillakingdom:artandarchitecture, 93;boundaries,211n52;andBuddhism,31;castesystem,31;collectiveidentity,76–77,79,204n116; dates,204n117;andhaedong,25; andJapanesehistory,209n25;and Koreanethnicnation,101;linkto Parhae,98–99,204n116;aspartof ThreeKingdoms,25;poetry,8;and sovereignty,24–25;statehistory, 203n115;successorto,80.See also ThreeKingdoms Sill,JohnM.B.,44 Sin,Ch’ae-ho:anarchism,102,107–13, 214n73,214n78,215n81,217n17;biographicalwriting,202n111,205n123; critiqueofSamguk sagi(Kim),83, 206n129;critiquesofRhee,109, 110;education,202n111;exile,126; imprisonment,108;onKoreansovereignty,51;onkungmun,198n81; onminjok,77–78,79–80,81–84,98, 215n81;onminjung,98,107,110–12, 214n78,215n79,215n81;namesfor China,96,109;andnationalisthistoriography,13,26,35,51,77,79–80, 81–84,95,97–99,102,107–09,
160,202n110,202n111,205n123, 206n128,210n35,211n45,212n59, 214n78;andSinminhoe,206n126; onTan’gunlegend,79–80,81–82, 120;textbookcritiques,97–98, 210n35–36.See also Chosŏn sanggo munhwasa(CulturalHistoryofAncientKorea;Sin);Chosŏn sanggosa (HistoryofAncientKorea;Sin); “Toksasillon”(ANewWayofReadingHistory;Sin) Sinclair,Upton,61 Sin’ganhoe:dissolution,107,117,118, 123;founding,117,118,213n71 Sin,Il-ch’ŏl,195n66,215n81 Sinminhoe(NewPeople’sAssociation),82,202n111,206n126 Sino-JapaneseWar:Britain’sinvolvement,184n89;andChina-centered tributarysystem,46;engagements, 38,39,46,181n67;Japanesevictory overChina,6,46–47,106,184n89; mediaportrayalsofKorea,95;occupationofSeoul,62;reformspreceding,38;Tonghakrebellion,38, 181n67;TripleIntervention,47, 50–51,185n98 Sino-JapaneseWar,Second,134,220n51 Sin Taehan(newspaper),109 Sin,Yong-ha,111 Smith,Adam,187n9,196n70 Smith,Sidonie,193n51 Snodgrass,Judith,60 Sŏ,Chae-pil.SeeJaisohn,Philip SocietyfortheCompilationofKorean History(sckH),107.See also Chōsenshi(KoreanHistory;sckH); Chōsen shiryō shushin(Collectionof KoreanDocuments;sckH);Chōsen shiryō sōkan(ArchiveofKorean Documents;sckH) SocietyofKoreanLanguageResearch, 128 socioeconomic(Marxist)historiography.SeeMarxisthistoriography
261
262
inDex
Sŏkkuram:asapexofKoreanculturalhistory,10,87,90,93,173n22, 206n2;discoveryof,87,88;asJapanesecolonialproject,9–10,87, 88–90,93,103,207n4;original structure,89,173n22,207n6;restorationof,9–10,87,89–90,93,103; asstoryofKoreaitself,10,93–94;as WorldHeritagesite,87,173n22 Sŏ,Kwang-bŏm,39–40,65,188n18, 194n59 Son,Chin-t’ae,77,127,128,145,146, 149,158,201n102,219n39,223n18, 223n23,223n25 Sone,Arasuke,88 Song,Chin-u,117,118,123,216n9 Songdynasty,23,24,26 Sŏngjong(Chosŏnmonarch),37 Song,Ki-ho,204n116 Song,Kŏn-ho,16,152–53.See also Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik(KoreanHistoryBeforeandAfterLiberation; Song) Song,Si-yŏl,28–29,34,35 Sŏnjo(Chosŏnmonarch),205n123 Son,Pyŏng-hŭi,221n1 SouthKorea:academicinstitutions andposts,13–14,144–45,147,148, 223n22;anticommunistrepression, 7,14,148–49,157,190n30,213n71, 223n23;establishmentof,148;ideologicalhegemony,16,152–53;interimgovernment,147–48;Kwangju uprising,16,153,159,225n36–37; landreform,156–57,227n49;militarycoup,150;NationalGuidance League,148–49;Rheeregime,144, 148,149,150,152–53;Rohadministration,17,156,157,227n46,227n52; statenationalism,112;studentrevolutionof1960,144,149,150,158–59; TruthCommissions,157,227n52; andU.S.neocolonialism,14,16,150. See alsoKoreanWar;postcolonial historiography;postcolonialKorea;
SeoulNationalUniversity;U.S. ArmyMilitaryGovernmentinKorea (usAMgik) sovereignsubject(chuch’e):asauthor ofpersonalmeaning,3,6;andcolonialKorea,2–3,70–76,84;emergenceofidea,193n51;andKorean nationalism,11,52,104–05;and Koreanvernacular,63–64;and nationalisthistoriography,11,52, 104;andpeoplehood,70–76;privilegedinWest,6–7,186n4;andsovereignty,3,5,18,160.See also minjok (ethnicnation);minjung(people, thesubaltern) sovereignty:capitalist,8,55,66, 187n9,194n61;andcolonialism,3, 4;compromisesin,43;conceptual originsof,3,42–43;EastAsian, 31,79,192n44;Euro-American,3, 54–55;asexampleforJapaneseimperialism,3,43–44;andimperialism,3,4,194n61;asmachine,55, 67,194n61;andnation-statesystem,3;aspoliticalpowerandpolice power,4,55,198n80;productive capacityof,3–4;roleofdeterritorialization/reterritorialization,4–5, 29,50,177n35;violenceof,7–8; Westphalian,6,30,37,43.See also ChosŏnKorea;Koreansovereignty; PeaceofWestphalia;sovereignsubject(chuch’e) SovietUnion:andJointCommission talks,152–53,154,155;andNorth Korea,140,154–55,157;andsocialism,107 Spencer,Herbert,46 Spirit of Independence(Rhee).See Tongnip chŏngsin(SpiritofIndependence;Rhee) ŚrīMahādevī,32 subjectivity.Seesovereignsubject (chuch’e) SuiEmpire,35
inDex
Suiko,Empress,91,208n13 Sukchong(Chosŏnmonarch),29 T’aebaekmountainrange,34 Taehan maeil sinbo(KoreanDaily News),82,202n111,206n126 T’aejo,founderofChosŏndynasty (r.1392–1398),21,27,28,174n4, 175n8,176n19,177n30,196n74 T’aejo,founderofKoryŏdynasty (r.918–943),24,25,31,175n9 taeŏp(greatenterprise),4,31,172n11 Taewŏn’gun(regent),21,38 Taft-KatsuraAgreement,46,75, 184n95 Taft,WilliamHoward,75.See alsoTaft- KatsuraAgreement Tagore,Rabindranath,208n17 Tanaka,Stefan,13,96,97,100,210n43 Tangdynasty,23,24,25 TangTaizong,EmperorofChina,34 Tan’gunlegend:colonialistreadings of,120,121;contemporaryreading of,203n114;Iryŏnasnarrator,120, 203n112,204n122;asKoreanfoundationmyth,6,27–28,32,79–80, 176n28,196n74,203n112;asnarrativeofresistance,81,120,204n122; nationalistreadingsof,79–81,98, 99,100,120–21;Paek’sreadingof, 120,121;inSamguk yusa,176n28, 203n112,204n119;Sin’sreadingof, 79–80,81–82,120;andstaterituals, 219n36 Terauchi,Masatake,89 textual-criticalhistoriography:incolonialKorea,13,127,128,219n38;in postcolonialera,14,129,150 ThreeKingdomsperiod,25,31,80–81, 93,101,134,209n25.See alsoKoguryŏkingdom;Paekchekingdom; Sillakingdom Tibet,34 Tocqueville,Alexisde,145 T’oham,Mt.,87,88
“Toksasillon”(ANewWayofReadingHistory;Sin),79,81–82,83,87, 97–99,206n128,210n36 TokugawaJapan:linguistics,67,96; nativist(kokugaku)viewsonJapan’s origins,95,219n38;openingto Westerntrade,60;overthrow,41; traditionofevidentialresearch, 94–95,209n23 TokyoFineArtsAcademy,92 TokyoImperialMuseum,92,207n11 TokyoImperialUniversity,63,90,92, 94,97,128,207n11 Tonga ilbo(newspaper),83,116–17,118, 123–24,125,135–36,188n16,216n8– 9,218n28 Tongguk saryak(Hyŏn),95,210n35 Tonghakrebellion,38,181n67.See also Sino-JapaneseWar Tongkwang,1,171n1 tongnip,41,182n74 Tongnip chŏngsin(SpiritofIndependence;Rhee),72–74,75–76,198n83, 199n93 Tongnip sinmun(TheIndependent): circulation,197n79;oncivilizationalhierarchy,71,198n81;closing of,74;oncommonpeople,73;on decenteringofChina,96;English name,193n54,194n57;foundingof, 64,193n56;onfreetrade,198n82; andrepresentationsofunity,71,72, 197n80;anduseofKoreanvernacular,64–65,71–72,73 topknots:Japanesedecreeordering cuttingof,4,5,171n9,172n11;symbolismof,4 tōyōshi(Orientalhistory),13,96–97, 128,129,209n30,209n32 Trachtenberg,Alan,61 TreatyofFriendshipandCommerce of1882,29–30,40,46,54,178n37, 184n94 TreatyofKanghwa,29,180n61,182n73 TreatyofPortsmouth,74–75,199n94
263
264
inDex
TreatyofWestphalia.SeePeaceof Westphalia Truman,HarryS.,226n43 Tsuda,Sōkichi,128 Tsushima,35 Turkicnomadickingdoms,31,178n40 Uchida,Jun,11 Ŭiyŏldan,109,203n111 Ŭlchi,Mundŏk,101 UnitedStates:exclusionofChinese, 59,187n5,191n31;NewDeal,107; andPhilippines,10,75,88,184n95; post-waroccupationofKorea,140; relationshipwithChosŏnKorea, 29–30,37,40,44,45–46,54,178n37, 181n68,183n87,184n88,184n91, 184n93–94,186n3,187n5;relationshipwithJapan,29–30,44,46,47, 60;Taft-KatsuraAgreement,46,75, 184n95;TreatyofFriendshipand Commerceof1882,29–30,40,46, 54,178n37,184n94.See alsoKorean War;racism;SouthKorea;U.S. ArmyMilitaryGovernmentinKorea (usAMgik) U.S.ArmyMilitaryGovernmentin Korea(usAMgik),14,130,140, 146–48,154,221n5 Vermeersch,Sem,25,32 violence:inChristianliberal-bourgeois thought,7,58;ofcolonialisthistoriography,97;ofhistoriography, 200n98;ofimperialism,97;ofsovereignty,7–8 Vivekananda,Swami,189n26 Wallerstein,Immanuel,105,106, 213n61 Wang,Kŏn.SeeT’aejo,founderof Koryŏdynasty(r.918–943) WanpaoshanIncidentof1931,124–25 WasedaUniversity,13,127 Watson,Julia,193n51 Weber,Eugen,78
Weinstein,Lucie,208n14 Wells,IdaB.,192n41 Wells,Kenneth,199n91 Westernhegemony.SeeEuro- Americanimperialism;Euro- Americanmodernity Westphaliansovereignty,6,30,37,43. See alsosovereignty Whatmore,Sarah,186n4 White,Trumbull,191n35 Williams,Raymond,187n4 Wŏnjong(Koryŏmonarch),24 WorldParliamentofReligions,55, 56–58,60,189n20,189n26–27, 190n28 World’sColumbianExpositionof1893: Chineseexhibit,58–59,191n31; displaysandstructures,55,58–60, 191n32,192n42;Japaneseexhibit, 60,191n35,207n11;Koreanexhibit, 7,53–54,55–56,61–62,186n2–3, 188n13;NativeAmericanexhibits, 59;andracism,59,61,191n32, 192n41;visitors,60,192n42.See also WorldParliamentofReligions;Yun, Ch’i-ho WorldSystemstheory,105–06 Wu,KingofZhou,127 Wu,Zhihui,214n75 YaluRiver,34 Yanagi,Sōetsu,87,206n2 yangbanclass:asrulingelite,78, 177n30,181n66,201n105.See also sadaebu(scholar-officials) Yao,28,81 Yi,Ch’ŏk,CrownPrince,21,171n9 Yi,Chŏng-sik,157 Yi,Ch’ŏng-wŏn,131,134–35,148, 212n59,218n26 Yi,Hŭi-sŭng,128 Yi,Hwang(Toegye),28 Yi,I(Yulgok),28,174n5 Yi,In-yŏng,146,158,223n15,223n23, 223n25
inDex
Yi,Kang,74 Yi,Ki-baek,14,81,150,151,158–59, 224n27–28 Yi,Ki-yŏng,138,140–41,221n4 Yi,Kwang-su,117,123–24,146,220n51, 223n20 Yi,Nŭng-hwa,107 Yi,Pyŏng-do:appointmenttoSeoul NationalUniversity,14,147, 206n125;andChindanSociety,14, 127,128,145,147,149,219n40;and Chosŏn wangjo sillok,205n125;colonialhistoriography,13,127–28, 128–29,146,206n125,209n23, 223n19–20;education,220n42; postcolonial/SouthKoreanhistoriography,146–47,149–50 Yi,Sang-baek,222n10,223n17,223n23 Yi,Sŏng-g ye.SeeT’aejo,founderof Chosŏndynasty(r.1392–1398) Yi,Sŏn-gŭn,222n11 Yi,Sŭng-hyu,81 Yi,Sun-sin,135,202n111,205n123, 218n28 Yi,T’ae-jin,181n64,181n67 Yi,T’ae-jun,138,140,141–42,143 Yi,Wŏn-jo,138,143 Yi,Yŏng-hun,157,227n46 Yi,Yun-jae,128 Yŏksahakhoe(KoreanHistoricalAssociation),145,222n15 Yŏngjo(Chosŏnmonarch),29 Yŏnhŭichŏnmun,130,135,217n15 Young,Robert,109,213n68 Yŏ,Un-hyŏng,146,147,216n9,221n4 Yüandynasty(Mongols):defeatof Koryŏ,24,26,81,176n22;founder, 176n22;humantributedemands,
172n14,179n53;andKoreansovereignty,24 Yuan,Shikai,45,181n64,181n67, 184n93 Yu,Cha-myŏng,109,214n75 Yu,Hong-ryŏl,223n23 Yu,In-ho,227n49 Yu,Kil-chun,4,38,39,64,171n9, 172n11,181n68,193n53 Yulgok,28,174n5 Yumedono(HallofDreams),91, 207n12 Yun,Ch’i-ho:diary,57,61,62,63–64, 70,189n26–27,192n44,192n47, 193n50;discomfitedbyethnicnation,7,83–84;education,55–56,62, 188n15–16,189n19,192n45;family andbackground,188n15,188n18; governmentappointments,62, 192n48;andIndependenceClub, 64,74,193n56,199n89,199n91; andKoreanvernacular,63–64,64, 70,193n50;andliberal-bourgeois (Christian)influence,7,58,62, 83–84,188n16;marriagesandchildren,192n46;asmentortoKim Hwal-lan,171n4;onNativeAmericans,7,58,62,84;andTongnip sinmun(TheIndependent),64,74, 193n56,194n57;atWorldParliament ofReligions,56–58;andWorld’s ColumbianExposition,7,55–56, 58–59,61,84,188n13 Yun,Peter,201n107,204n121 Yun,Ung-ryŏl,188n15,188n18 Yu,Tŭk-kong,35,98,99,210n40 Zhu,Xi,28
265