Upload
duke-university-press
View
146
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Surveying histories of Korea written during the twentieth century, Henry H. Em examines how the project of national sovereignty shaped the work of Korean historians and their representations of the country's past.
Citation preview
The Great enterpriseSovereignty and Historiography
in Modern Korea
Henry H. em
The GreaT enTerprise
AsiA-PAcific Culture, Politics, and Society
Editors:ReyChow,MichaelDutton,H.D.Harootunian,andRosalindC.Morris
The
Great enterpriseSovereignty and Historiography
in Modern Korea
Henry H. em
Duke universiTy press
Durham anD LonDon
2013
© 2013 Duke universiTy press
All rights reservedPrinted in the United States of America on acid- free paper ♾Designed by C. H. WestmorelandTypeset in Whitman with Franklin Gothic display by Tseng Information Systems, Inc.Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication DataEm, 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 2013951.90072—dc232012033723
이 저서는2007년도 정부(교육과학기술부)의 재원으로
한국학중앙연구원의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(Aks-2007-cd-4001)ThisworkwaspublishedwithapublicationsubsidyawardedbytheAcademyofKoreanStudiesGrant,whichisfundedbytheKoreangovernment(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 161Appendix 2. Character List 165Notes 171Bibliography 229Index 247
aCknowLeDGmenTs
Thisbookhastakenalongtimetowrite,andovertheyearsithasevolvedindirectionsIdidnotforesee.AfteraninitialeffortathistoricizingKoreannationalismandnationalisthistoriography,itbecamecleartomethatmystudyofmodernKoreanhistoriographywouldhavetoprovideamorecom-prehensiveaccountoftherelationshipbetweenimperialismandnational-ism.Thatrealizationledmetofocusonsovereigntyandthesovereignsub-ject(chuch’e)asconceptsandassociatedpracticesthatweretransformedbyEuro-Americanimperialism.Ittookalongtimetofigureouthowsover-eignty,andtheassumedequalitythatonegainsbybecoming“sovereign,”becameasfoundationalastheconceptofnation(minjok)totheprojectofmodernityandhistorywritinginKorea. Intheearly1980s,justoutofcollege,IspentninemonthsinthePhil-ippinesworkingonhumanrightsissues.ItwastherethatIreceivedmyeducationinanti-imperialistrevolutionarymovements.Severalyearslater,fromanothereighteenmonthsworkingonhumanrightsandlaborissuesat theUrban Industrial Mission in Inchŏn,SouthKorea, I learnedhowtheexperienceofpartitionandtheKoreanWarcontinuetoreverberatepowerfullyforsomany.Thoseexperiencesalsotaughtmethatthesenseofindividualagencyemergesfromcommunitiesofsolidarity.IamgratefultoPatriciaPattersonandMichaelHahmforthoselife-changingexperiences. IcouldnothaveimaginedabookprojectlikethiswithoutthetrainingIreceivedfrommyteachersattheUniversityofChicago.Startingasanundergraduate,IlearnedfromTetsuoNajitaandHarryHarootunianhowhistorianscanandshouldposequestionsaboutideasthatseemnaturalandcommonsensical.IamgratefultoTetsandHarryforturningmyintereststohistoryandtocriticalmodesofhistorywriting.AgraduateseminaronnationalismtaughtbyPrasenjitDuarashapedmyearlyworkonnational-ismandnationalisthistoriography.MygreatestdebtistoBruceCumings,myfriendandteacher,whosescholarshipandpoliticalstancehaveinspiredmyworkoverthesemanyyears.
x aCknowLeDGmenTs
IfirstpresentedmyworkonnationalismandnationalisthistoriographyataconferenceorganizedbyGi-WookShinandMichaelRobinson.Thatwasanimportantconferenceforme,andinthecourseofpreparingmyarticlefortheireditedvolume,Colonial Modernity in Korea,Iwasforcedtograpplewithmyriadquestionsregardingthemodernityofthenationform.JohnDuncan,myfriend,colleague,andmentoratuclA,willinglyengagedmeinmanyhoursofconversationaboutKoreanhistoryandhistoriogra-phy.Johnhelpedmetosharpenmyargument,andIremaindeeplygratefulforhisincomparablegenerosity. Intheearly1990s,ChoiJang-jipintroducedmetothedebatesoverhis-tory following liberation in1945.MydebtstoProfessorChoicontinuedwhenIreturnedtoKoreaasaFulbrightSeniorScholar,andagainin2007–8,whenItaughtintheDepartmentofKoreanHistoryatKoreaUniver-sity.ItwaswithhissupportthatIwasabletoorganizeaninternationalconferenceonthecolonialperiod,affordingmetheopportunitytolearnfromaremarkablegroupofscholarsworkingonthecolonialperiod,in-cludingMicahAuerback,TakashiFujitani,ToddHenry,KenKawashima,HelenLee,JinheeLee,JohnLie,SerkbaeSuh,JunUchida,JanetPoole,andTheodoreJunYoo.IamgratefultothemanycolleaguesatKoreaUni-versityfromwhomIlearnedagreatdeal,especiallyProfessorsChoKwangandKangMan-gil,whoallowedmetositinontheirlecturesandseminarsonKoreanhistoriography. In1998KimDong-chooninvitedmetopresentmyworkonSinCh’ae-hoandpostnationalismatYŏksamunjeyŏn’guso.ThatprovidedtheoccasionforconversationsovertheyearswithKoreanhistoriansofmygeneration,especiallyParkChan-seung. In2000AlainDelissen invitedmetoParistospendamonthattheCentredeRecherchessurlaCorée,EHEss.IamgratefultoAlainandKoendeCeusterfortheircommentsandquestionsonthepapersIpresentedonSinCh’ae-hoandPaekNam-un.In2007,aspartoftheOxfordHistoryofHistoricalWritingproject,AxelSchneiderinvitedmetoaconferenceatLeidenUniversityonthewritingofhistoryintwentieth-centuryEastAsia.ThatprovidedtheoccasionformetomapoutcertaintrajectoriesinhistorywritinginmodernKorea.In2009Jae-JungSuhinvitedmetosAis-JohnsHopkinsUniversityforaworkshoponmybookmanuscript.Astheinvitedrespondent,StefanTanakaprovidedvaluablecommentsandcounsel.In2010AndreSchmidinvitedmetotheUniversityofTorontoforanotherworkshop,andIreceivedveryhelpful
xiaCknowLeDGmenTs
commentsfromJanetPooleandKenKawashima.AndresharesmyinterestinKoreanhistoriography,andhiscarefulreadingandcritiqueofmymanu-scriptwereimmenselyhelpful. Iwould like to thank theAcademyofKoreanStudies forprovidingapublicationsubsidy.Noneofthechaptersinthisbookisareprintofearlierpublications,butmaterialsfromearlierpublicationshavebeenincorpo-rated into various chapters. Those earlier publications include “‘Over-coming’Korea’sDivision:NarrativeStrategiesinRecentSouthKoreanHis-toriography,”positions: east asia cultures critique1,no.2(1993);“MinjokasaModernandDemocraticConstruct:SinCh’ae-ho’sHistoriography,”Colo-nial Modernity in Korea,ed.Gi-WookShinandMichaelE.Robinson(Cam-bridge:HarvardUniversityAsiaCenter,1999);and“HistoriansandHistoryWritinginModernKorea,”Oxford History of Historical Writing:vol.5,His-torical Writing Since 1945,ed.AxelSchneiderandDanielWoolf(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2011). Iamhappyforthisopportunitytoacknowledgeotherfriendsandcol-leaguesnotyetmentionedandwithwhomIhaveworked,whoencouragedandhelpedmeovertheyears:CharlesArmstrong,RobertBuswell,ChoEun-su,ChoeMin,ChungmooChoi,MichaelChwe,AlexisDudden,HanSuk-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-DeukOak,Se-MiOh,LesliePincus,ElizabethShim,RyuSi-hyun,J.T.Takagi,Meredith Jung-En Woo, Lisa Yoneyama, Marilyn Young, and JonathanZwicker. Icouldnothavefinishedthisbookwithoutthesupportofatrulywon-derfulgroupoffriendswhoreadpartsofthemanuscript,suggestedfur-therreadings,andprovidedcriticalcomments.ToChristineHong,MonicaKim,SuzyKim,NamheeLee,Jae-JungSuh,andYoungjuRyu,thankyou.MyeditorsatDukeUniversityPresswereadeptandunfailinglysupportive.Twoanonymousreadersprovidedextraordinarilypreciseandknowledge-ablecritiques.Asformistakesandshortcomings,thoseremainmyrespon-sibility.ToGraceKyoungwonEm,andtoChangbinandAerie,whogrewupwaitingforthisbooktobepublished,Icanfinallysay:it’sdone.Thankyouforyourloveandpatience.Withgratitude,IdedicatethisbooktobothKyoungwon’sparentsandmine.
inTroDuCTion
InanessaypublishedinTongkwanginSeptember1932,KimKi-rimcalledon“MissKorea”tocutherhair.“Someoneoncedescribedthemodernastheeraofthe3S’s(sports,speed,sex),butIwillinsteadcallthefirstthirtyyearsofourcentury theeraof the shorthair.As typifiedby ‘Nora,’ the‘Bob’ (shorthaircut) is theultimate symbolof liberationandofwomenventuringoutside....Cuttingyourhairannouncesyourdeparturefromthat‘harem’towhichyouhavebeenshackledforthousandsofyears;itisthesignthatyouhavecomeoutunderthebluesky.”1InKim’sdiscourseon modernity, he set aside the purportedly familiar characterization ofmodernityassports,speed,andsextofocusonbobbedhair,feministsastypifiedbyHenrikIbsen’sNora,andwomenofstatusventuringoutsideindaytimeunconstrainedbymarriageandmotherhood.Indeedbythe1930sonecouldhaveseenincolonialKoreabaseballgames,beautypageants,exhibitions,displaywindowsfrontingthenewdepartmentstores,street-cars,streetlights,andcafésthatenabledcrowdwatching.Startingaboutadecadeearlier,Kim’sreaderswouldhaveseenandfeltnotjusttherapidityofchangeinthephysical,spatial,andculturalorderingofcolonialSeoul,aconstantlyself-negatingtemporaldynamic,butalsotheincreasingrateofchange itself.As for sex,Kimbeganhisessaybyacknowledging thatinKoreainthe1930sthebobhaircutwasstillassociatedwith(feminine)eroticism,alongwithbrightred lipstick, thesideglance(kyŏnnuntchil),andothervulgarpracticesthatbelongedtotheworldofcaféwaitressesanddancegirlsinThe Threepenny Opera.2Heimaginedthatifheweretosug-gesttoacoed,“Goon,whydon’tyoucutyourhair?,”shemightturnredintheface,furious,asthoughhehaddamagedherdignity. InaddressingyoungKoreanwomen(“MissKorea”),Kimtriedtosubsti-tutethosestillprevalentassociationsbydrawingcontrastshedefinedintermsoftemporalityandcivilizationasmeasuredbythestatusofwomen:womenshackledforpastmillenniaincontrasttoliberatedwomenofthetwentieth century. He granted that their neatly braided hair was, well,neat.Buttiedtothatneatlybraidedhairhung“thedreamsofabackward
inTroDuCTion2
feudalera.”Hewanted“MissKorea”tolookathersistersinChinawhohadkickedawaythebarbariccustomoffootbinding:Lookattheirstronglegsrunningtotheanti-imperialistfront(“t’adoXXjuŭiroXsŏnŭltalryŏ”).3Heurged“MissKorea”tolookattheirshorthair,andheendedhisessaywiththequestion,“Deepinyourheart,don’tyouwanttodefendtheBobcutthatissovilified?”Bytitlinghisessay“‘MissKorea’CutYourHair,”KimwasabletoaddressyoungKoreanwomenasiftheystoodontheworld’sstage,onviewasinbeautypageantsthatareconsciouslyorganizedforbothnationalandinternationalaudiences.HisagitationforKoreanwomentoliberatethemselvesandtoparticipatein(colonialKorea’s)socialandpoliti-callife,offeredinapedagogictoneandwithoutreferencetopatriarchy,wasacommonrhetoricalstrategyformalewriterswhowereasked,fre-quently,towriteaboutwomenandwomen’sissuesincolonialKoreainthelate1920sandearly1930s. Publishedwithoutattribution,KimKi-rim’sessaywasthethirdofthreeessays on Korean women and short hair, coming after an essay by KimHwal-lan,aprofessorandviceprincipalatEwha(Women’s)College,andasecondessayby“K.Y.,”astudentat“XWomen’sSchool”whohadcutherhair.Until1939EwhaCollegewastheonlywomen’scollegeincolo-nialKorea,andinheressayKimHwal-lannotedthatEwhaCollegehadtwoorthreestudentswithshorthair.4Sheequatedshorthairwithconve-nienceandpredictedthatthenumberofstudentswithshorthairwould“naturally”increaseovertime.KimHwal-lan,whohadreceivedherPh.D.ineducationfromColumbiaUniversityin1931,letitbeknownthatsheneither encouraged her students from cutting their hair nor preventedthemfromdoingso.K.Y.hadmoretosayinheressay.Shebeganwiththedeclarationthatshehadgainedmanythingsaftershecutherhair.Shenoted,however,thatpeoplewhovoicedallkindsofopinionsaboutthebobhaircutdidsoonlyfromathirdperson’sperspective.Shealsonotedthatshecouldnotshakeoffthefeelingthatmen,whethertheyarguedfororagainstthebob,continuedtolookatwomenasvisualobjectsfortheirplea-sureandenjoyment. ApointofdepartureforthisbookisKimKi-rim’sobservationthatthetwentiethcenturywastheeraoftheshorthaircut:thatthecuttingofhairsignifiedthetriumphofreasonoverunreason,therealizationofindividualautonomy,andtheemergenceofthemodernpoliticalsubjectthatestab-lished the anti-imperialist front. Kim Ki-rim’s exhortation arose from a
inTroDuCTion 3
romanticinfatuationthatisthesubjectofthisbook,a“romanceofsov-ereignty,”accordingtoAchilleMbembe,thatarticulates“acertainideaofthepolitical,thecommunity,[and]thesubject.”Itwas(andis)aromancethat“restsonthebeliefthatthesubjectisthemasterandthecontrollingauthorofhisorherownmeaning...[andonthebeliefthat]theexerciseofsovereignty,inturn,consistsinsociety’scapacityforself-creation.”5AsK.Y.observed,sovereigntyaspedagogyalsosoughttoreproducegender,racial,class,andcivilizationalhierarchiesandwascomplicitwithpower.Still,K.Y.madeitclearthatshelikedherhairshort:“Intruth,Ilikeit.ItwaswhenIcutmyhairthatIlearnedsomethingabout[thepowerof]so-cialconventions,andpeople’semotionsandrationality.”6Thegeneralaimofthisbookistoexaminethistruthandthepleasuresthatderivefromtheideaofbeingsovereign,possessingasubjectivewill(chuch’esŏng)capableofreconstitutinglife,language,andlabor.Thisbookexaminesthehistoricityofsovereignty(chukwŏn),itscomplicitywithpower,anditscreative,pro-ductivecapacity,andalsotheconventions,rationalities,andsubjectivitiesthatsovereigntyelicited. PartIfocusesonthehistoricityofsovereignty:howsovereigntyfunc-tionedaspedagogyforimperialismandcolonialismandhowitbecametheparamountsignifierforKorea’smodernera,productiveofdesireandsub-jectivity.Chapter1examinessovereigntyasalegalconceptthatstructuresthemodernnation-stateandrelationsbetweenempiresandnation-states.SovereigntywasnotfullyarticulatedbythePeaceofWestphaliaandthenextendedtoEurope’speriphery.TheEuropeanconceptionofsovereignty—thatis,equalsovereignty—hasamorecomplicatedhistory.SovereigntyandinternationallawwereimprovisedoutofthecolonialencounterandgivenvariousarticulationsbyEuropeancolonizersinconditionsofhege-moniccontestationwithothercolonialpowerstodeclarewhowassover-eign,whowasnot,andwhy.7Thatistosay,colonialismwascentraltotheconstitutionofsovereignty,andonespecificaimofthisbookistoexplorethehistoricityofsovereigntyinmodernKoreaanditsdeepcomplicitywithbothJapaneseandEuro-Americanempiresandcolonialprojects. AsahistoryofhistoricalwritinginmodernKorea,partIIexaminessov-ereignty’s creative, productive power, calling on Korean historians whowouldprivilegeanddeploy,fortheirownpurposes,theconceptofequalsovereigntyastheconditionforrewritingKorea’spast.Koreanhistoriansdidtheimagining,butitwassovereigntythatmadeitpossibletoimagine
inTroDuCTion4
theKoreanethnicnation(minjok)andtoimagineitasaself-sameunitythatevolved(ordeveloped)throughlineartime.Asnationalisthistoriansren-deredtheethnicnationasthesovereignsubject(chuch’e)ofKoreanhistory,theylocatedKoreainglobaltimeandhelpedcreateademocraticlogic,lim-itedbynationalboundaries,thatinvitedallKoreans—maleandfemale,oldandyoung,high-bornandoflowstatus—tobecomesovereignsubjectsofnationalhistory. Torecognizesovereignty’scomplicitywithimperialismandcolonialism,itshouldberecalledthatJapaneseauthoritieshadforcedKingKojongtoissuearoyaldecree(tanbalryŏng)thatorderedalladultmentocutofftheirtopknots.8BeforetheroyaldecreewasissuedonDecember30,1895,YuKil-chun,thehomeminister,flankedbyJapanesetroops,hadpressuredKingKojongandthecrownprincetohavetheirowntopknotscut.9Formostadultmeninlatenineteenth-centuryKoreaandChina,thecuttingofhairwasassociatedwithhumiliationandviolenceagainstthebody,sev-eringone’s ties toparents, ancestors, andacivilizationalorder.10 In thedecadesbeforeandaftertheturnofthetwentiethcentury,one’shairandclothesbecameintenselyvisiblesignsofpoliticalandculturalallegiance.Outragedbythetopknotdecree,fromJanuarytoApril1896localliteratiledRighteousArmiesinarmedinsurrectionagainstofficialswhoenforcedthetopknotdecree.FortheJapanese, theavowedobjectivesbehindthetopknotorderhadtodowithhygieneandwithconveniencewhileworking.Intheroyaldecree,however,publishedbytheHomeOffice,KingKojongassociatedtopknotcuttingwiththegoalofachievingequalstandinginthenation-statesystem:“We, incuttingOurhair,aresettinganexampletoOursubjects.Doyou,themultitude,identifyyourselveswithOurdesign,andcausetobeaccomplishedthegreatenterprise[taeŏp]ofestablishingequalitywiththenationsoftheearth.”11Cuttingthetopknotmademani-festone’sdecisiontorejectthe“cruelty”and“backwardness”thatdifferen-tiatedKoreafromthecivilizednationsoftheworld.Thediscardedtopknotsignaledaseveringofthefuturefromthepast,becausethepastcouldnolongerbeinstructiveforactioninthepresent.Thetopknotorderwasoneamongmanyactsofundoinginlatenineteenth-centuryKorea,anditwasEuro-Americanimperialism,withsovereigntyfunctioningbothaspoliti-calpowerandpolicepower,whichequatedsuchactsofdeterritorializa-tionandreterritorializationwiththegreatenterpriseofembracingWest-erncivilizationandattainingequalstandingwithothersovereignnations.
inTroDuCTion 5
Thegreatenterprise,tobecarriedoutbyKoreans,requiredthatkindofdefinitiveseveringsothatKoreacouldstandautonomousandfree,asanequal.12ThusthereisnoironyinthefactthatJapaneseauthoritieshadtoforcesovereigntyonKingKojong.Sovereigntyandinternationallawweremorethanjustcomplicitinimperialistprojects.KingKojong’sdeclarationofindependencefromChinaonJanuary7,1895,forcedonhimbyInoueKaoru,laidthelegalbasisforincreasingJapan’scontroloverKorea.13Asareminderofthatwhichexistedpriortosovereigntyandprecolonialhis-tory,chapter1explainswhythestate-nessofChosŏnKoreawasnotmarredintheeyesoftheChosŏnscholar-officialsbytheirmonarch’ssubordinateritualstatustotheMingemperoror,bytheeighteenthcentury,eventotheQing(Manchu)emperor.Tobesure,Ming-ChosŏnandQing-Chosŏnrelationswereneitherpredeterminednorstatic,andthenotionofChosŏnKoreaasamodel tributaryobscuresperiodsof severe tensionandcon-flict,forexample,duringearlyMing-Chosŏnrelations(especiallybetween1408and1433),whentheChineseimperialcourtdemandedhumantrib-ute(girlsfortheimperialharemandboystobeeunuchs),orduringearlyQing-ChosŏnrelationswhenManchuarmiestwiceinvadedKorea,in1627and1636,toforcetheKoreancourttoacceptvassalstatus.14TheManchuinvasionof1636wasespeciallydevastating,andsubmissiontotheQingwashumiliating;formanyyearsafter1636ChosŏnofficialskeptusingtheMing calendar in internal documents, and they never adopted Manchuclothingorhairstyle.Buttributeboughtnoninterference,andformuchofitshistoryChosŏnKoreasuccessfullymaintaineditsautonomyaswellastraderelationsbywayofthisrituallysubordinaterelationshiptoChina.Moreover,whenrelationswiththeimperialcourtimproved,theChosŏnliteraticouldarguethatitwasKorea’sinclusioninaChina-centeredworld,andtheirownfiercecommitmenttothebasiccategoriesthatdefinedthatworldintermsofinnerandouter,civilizationandbarbarism(hwaandyi)thatendowedChosŏnwithitsdistinctiveandcivilizedstate-ness.Thatistosay,itwasoftenthroughengagementwiththatChina-centeredworldthatChosŏnscholar-officialsimaginedKoreancivilization(soChunghwa)realiz-ingitsfullpotentiality,itscosmicmeaning. TheimportanceandvaluefortheChosŏncourtofreceivinginvestiturefromtheMingorQingimperialcourtrevolvedarounddomesticpolitics,andtheChosŏncourttimeandagaindisplayedamultifacetedpersonainitsrelationswithChina;formuchoftheChosŏnperiod,Koreanscholar-
inTroDuCTion6
officialscouldreadilyacknowledgethatacentralfacetofthestate-nessofChosŏnKoreaderivedfromitssubordinateinclusioninaChina-centeredtributarysystem,andatthesametimeidentifyTan’gun,whostoodout-sidetheChinesegenealogy,astheprogenitoroftheKoreanstate.Korea’sChina-centeredsovereigntywasnotabsolutesovereignty,andcertainlynotequalsovereignty. Its ritualsandprotocolswereverydifferent fromtheritualsandprotocolsofpost-Westphaliansovereigntybasedonthenotionofequal,separate,andindivisibleauthorityandidentity.Inthelatenine-teenthcentury,KingKojong’sdefault strategywas toutilize tobestad-vantage theprotocolsof theChina-centered tributarysystemaswellastheprotocolsof thesovereignty-basednation-statesystem.Itwashege-moniccontestation—specificallyJapan’svictoryoverChinaintheSino-JapaneseWar—thatprovidedtheoccasiontoeliminatethisambiguity,aswellasthespaceformaneuverthat ithadafforded.WhileInoueKaorumighthaveforcedKingKojong’s“declarationofindependence,”thekingandthegreaterpartofreform-mindedofficialsshouldbeseenascoauthorsoftheIndependenceOathtakenattheRoyalAncestralTemple.Chapter1presentshistoricalsubstantiationof thisclaimandprepares thegroundfordiscussionoftherelationshipbetweenimperialismandnationalismbylookingattherelationshipbetweenauthorship(aclaimofsovereignty)andritualaction. Inthesensethattheking’sritualperformanceonJanuary7,1895,wasdoublyprescribed (not justby ritualmanualsdatingbackcenturiesbutalsobyInoueKaoru),itcouldbesaidthatKingKojong—asChosŏnKorea’ssupremesacerdotalauthority,itsmonarchandbearerofthedynasticmis-sionandHeaven’smandate(ch’ŏnmyŏng)—was,andwasnot,theauthorofhisactions.ItwasunderstoodbyallthatonlyKingKojong’stakingtheOathbeforehisancestorscouldmakeKorea’sindependence(fromChina)inviolable.ItisinthatsenseofKingKojongascoauthorofhisownritualperformancethatchapter2takesupthequestionofhowsovereigntyasanationformcouldbereplicatedacrosstheglobe,chieflyamongandbynewlyemergingbourgeoisies,forBenedictAnderson“thefirstclassestoachievesolidaritiesonanessentiallyimaginedbasis.”15 Chapter2beginswiththeargumentthatbeforetheSino-JapaneseWar,andbeforeKingKojong’sdeclarationofKorea’s“independence,”materialanddiscursiveconditionsalreadyexistedwithinKoreathatwouldallowforthedisseminationofnotjusttheideaofnationalsovereigntybutalso
inTroDuCTion 7
thepresumptionthatrecognitionofKorea’ssovereigntybytheWesternim-perialpowerswasanecessaryconditionforavoidingcolonization.Towardthisend,intellectualslikeYunCh’i-hotookitforgrantedthatKoreahadtodemonstratecommitmenttoEuropeancivilization,asmeasuredbyspe-cific“reforms”ofpolitical,economic,andculturalinstitutionsandprac-tices (such as sumptuary laws), and also to participate in internationaleventssuchastheColumbianExpositioninChicagoin1893.Theproblem,asYunsawit,wasthatKorea’scommitmenttothegreatenterprisewasassecond-rateanddismalastheKoreaExhibit,somuchsothathefoundhim-selfunabletowalkawayfromit. TotheextentthattheKoreaExhibitattheColumbianExpositionfunc-tionedforYunasasynecdocheofKorea’sabjection,itispossibletounder-standthesadnessaswellasgenocidalcontemptthatYunfeltatthesightofNativeAmericansintheAmericanWestcongregatingaroundrailroadsta-tionsalongtheCentralPacificRailroad:“Indianswereseenatalmosteverystation.Someofthempaintedtheir facesredandmosthadredorblueblanketswrappedaroundtheirbodies.Asadandsomewhatcontemptiblesight:sadbecauseoftheirpasthistory,butcontemptiblebecauseoftheinabilitytoimprovetheircondition.Aracethatfails,fromvoluntarylazi-nessandignorance,toavailitselfoftheadvantagesofcivilizationbroughtsoclose to itsreach isn’tworthwhile to live.”16Yun,aprogenitorof theKorean (Christian) bourgeois class that would emerge under Japanesecolonialrule,sawNativeAmericansintermsofavisualregimethatparal-leledtheobjectifyinganddiscipliningoperationsofdiscourseson“civili-zation.” IfNativeAmericansdidnotavail themselvesofEuro-Americancivilization—iftheyvoluntarilychosetoliveinignoranceand“degradedhumanity”—thentheydidnotdeservetolive.ForYun,thedecisiontoem-braceEuro-Americancivilizationwas,initself,proofofapeople’scapacityforrationalityandautonomy.Hisprivilegingoffreedom,andruminationsonwhycertainpopulationsdonotdeserve to live,point tonot just theinclusionarypretensionsofliberaltheoryandtheexclusionaryeffectsofliberalpractices,butalsotoliberalism’sessentiallinktoimperialismandcolonialism.17Hisprivilegingof freedomalsopoints to thecentralityofviolenceintheconstitutionof(Christian)liberal-bourgeoissubjectivityinearlytwentieth-centuryKoreaanditspermutationsthroughthecolonialperioddowntopostcolonialanticommunistSouthKorea.18 Itmustbesaidthattheviolenceofsovereigntywasveryproductive.In
inTroDuCTion8
language,sovereigntyasaformofcommandpromptedKoreanintellectu-als,aswriters,historians,andtranslators,toproducenewmeaningsandnewnarrativesthroughsemanticinnovation.Inthetranslationofsover-eigntyinitsnationform,chapter2focusesontheunavoidableaccommo-dationtoEuro-Americanmodernityandonsemanticinnovationthroughbothproductiveimaginationandthelegislativerationalityofcapitalistsov-ereignty.19Attentionpaidtothelegislativerationalityofcapitalistsover-eigntygoesagainstthegrainofscholarshipthatwantstoportraymoder-nityandnationinKoreaasKorea’sowncreation,withKoreanintellectualsselecting,translating,andtherebycreatingtheirownmodernityfromtheWesternarchive.Ifthatwerethecase,themodernitythuscreatedwouldbesovereigntoKorea,dynamic,andongoing:Korea’smodernityasanincom-pleteprojectthatisbothparticularanduniversal.HistorianswouldthenhaveafirmbasisforwritingthehistoryofKorea’smodernityuntaintedbyimperialismandcolonialism;historiansneedonlytakedueaccountofthehistoricalandpoliticalcontextand“thelimitationsofhistime.”Thiskindofscholarship(also)emergesfromdesirecreatedbysovereigntyitself. Intermsoflanguage,itwasthetranslationofcapitalistsovereigntyinthelatenineteenthcenturythatproducedthediachronicidentityofnationallanguage (kuk’ŏ), discernible in the poetry (hyangga)of the Silla perioddowntothelanguageofscholar-officialsinlatenineteenth-centurySeoul.“TheKoreanlanguage”cametobeimaginedassingular,aunityeveninitsgreatvariationsoverspaceandtime.Inanalyzingthisprocessoftrans-lation,intheliteralsense,chapter2drawsattentiontotheradicaltrans-formationsinlanguageandpoliticaleconomy,transformationsthatwereoverdeterminedbythelegislativerationalityofcapitalistsovereignty.OnekeyexampleisthewordforeconomyusedtodayinChina,Japan,andKorea:經濟 (C: jingji, J:keizai,K: kyŏngje).The lexicalunit kyŏngjewasa con-tractionofkyŏngse jemin(經世濟民):togoverntheworldandrelievethepeople.Thatistosay,priortothenineteenthcentury,kyŏngjereferredtoapoliticaleconomythatwasnecessarilyandovertlymoral,amoraleconomystructuredonobligationtothepeople’swelfare.WhenJapaneseintellectu-alstranslatedeconomyaskeizai,however,theyassociatedkeizaiwithpro-duction,consumption,andthewealthofnations,anintellectualapproachthatlinkedpublicinterestwithcompetitionandthepursuitofprivategain.Withkyŏngjerenderedaseconomy,theextractionofprofitwouldappearasaseriesofrelationsofexchangeratherthantributeextractedthrough
inTroDuCTion 9
politicaldomination:thepeople,asworkersandproducers,becameau-tonomousand“free”intheirpovertyandpropertylessness.Likecapitalism,then,thetermkyŏngjecould(anddid)takeapurelyeconomicform. In the late nineteenth century, Japanese intellectuals also created aseriesofneologismsinthecourseoftranslatingfromEuropeanlanguages,includingthewordfornation,minzoku(K:minjok).Itisimportanttonotethatwordslikeminjok([ethnic]nation)wereincorporatedintoKoreanasitwasbeingnationalized.Inotherwords,thenationalizationoftheKoreanlanguageoccurredwithinaprofoundlytransnational,translingualcontext.Christianmissionaries, especiallyProtestantmissionaries,helped trans-formtheKoreanalphabetintoaniconofKoreaandaniconfortheKoreannation.TheyinspiredandtrainedmanyprominentKoreanlinguistsandgrammarians,includingthebrilliantlinguistChuSi-gyŏng.MissionariessoughtandobtainedinternationalrecognitionforthescientificvalueoftheKoreanalphabet.TheypromotedrespectforandstandardizationoftheKoreanvernacularandfosteredaspiritofprotectingtheKoreanscript.20ItwaswithinthiscontextthatvernacularKoreanwrittenwithKingSejong’salphabet (created in 1443) was elevated to the status of national script(kungmun),whileliterary(classical)ChinesewasdemotedtomereChinesewriting.ButwhileinternationalrecognitiongiventoKoreanwritingmightseemtopayhomagetoKoreangenius,asReyChowhasargued,homagetotheWesthaslongbeenpaidintheformofwhatseemstobeitsopposite21:inthiscase,theradicalinsistenceonkungmun(Koreanwrittenvernacu-larasthenationalscript).Inthatsense,itwascapitalistsovereigntythatpromotedKorea’sdistinctionfromChinaandstandardizationoflanguagepracticesandpopulations,withKoreanandKoreansconstitutedasdistinctunitsthatidentifyeachother. Although Japanese authorities saw King Kojong’s declaration of sov-ereigntyasanecessarysteptowardtheimpositionofaprotectorateandeventualannexation,tojustifycolonizationtheyalsohadtoexplainwhyKoreawasneverreallysovereignandneverreallycapableofmaintaining“thesovereigntyJapanhadobtainedforKorea.”Chapter3,whichbeginspartIIofthisbook,showshow,outofancientruins,theJapanesecolo-nialstateconstructedanexplanationforwhycolonizationwasnecessary.SoonafterannexationtheJapanesecolonialstatepouredmoney,expertise,and concrete to restore Sŏkkuram, an astonishingly beautiful Buddhiststatueseatedwithinaman-madestonegrotto“discovered”byaJapanese
inTroDuCTion10
mailman.TheJapanesecolonialstatealsorestoredanumberofBuddhisttemplesnearKyŏngjuandbreathlesslyextolledSŏkkuramandtheBud-dhist art andarchitectureof theSillaperiodas the “culminationof thereligionandtheartoftheOrient.”22ThepedagogiclessonhadtodowithJapan’sself-designatedroleascuratorforAsia’sartandacoloniallessonontemporality.SŏkkuramandtheartandarchitectureoftheSillaperiodrep-resentedtheapexofKoreanculturalhistory,brilliantartisticachievementswhichstoodinstarkcontrasttothesqualorofKorea’spresent.ThestoryofSŏkkuram—itscreationandsubsequentslideintoobscurityandruin—wasthesadstoryofKorea:abeautifulandbrilliantculturalpastthatwasasmuchAsianasKorean,followedbyalongdownwardslide.ThecolonialauthoritiesdidnotjustteachKoreansabouttheirpast;theyhadtorestoreitforthem. Ultimatelycolonialruledependedoncoercivepower:thepowertosup-press protest and armed resistance. But Japanese colonialism could nothavebeensustainedwithjustcoercivepower.Toestablishsufficienthege-mony,Japanesecolonialismhadtobe,aboveall,apedagogicendeavorinwhichthecolonizedwouldcometorecognizetherelativesuperiorityofthecolonizer.RestoringSŏkkuramtoitsformerglorywaspartofthatpeda-gogiceffort,teachingabouttheworldandKorea’splaceinitasdefinedbyJapanandtheWest.Inthiscolonizingproject,theJapanesecolonialstatedrewheavilyonEuro-Americancolonialpractices.LiketheBritishinIndiaandAmericansinthePhilippines,theJapaneseallocatedmoneyandexper-tisetocarryoutexcavationsandsurveys,tostudyKorea’spast,andtore-storesomeculturalsites(butnotothers)inordertoestablishthecategoriesandnarrativestrategiesbywhichKoreaandKoreanswouldbeunderstood.Thustherewasaproliferationof(competing)discoursesonKoreanidentitythatemanatedfromtheJapanesecolonialstateaswellasKoreannationalistintellectualsandorganizations.Inthiscompetition,theJapanesecolonialstatewasmoresuccessfulintermsofproducingdetailedstudiesofKoreanart,customs, language, religion,andhistory.23For the Japanesecolonialstate, thegoaloftransformingcolonialKoreafor itsstrategicendswenthandinhandwiththeworkoftransformingpeasantsintoChōsenjin(Kore-ans).ThelogicofitsracistcolonialpolicycompelledtheJapanesecolonialstatetoreconstitute(disparate)KoreanidentitiesintoahomogeneousChō-senjinthatbecamebothabureaucraticandaderogatoryclassificationforallKoreansregardlessofgender,regionalorigin,orclassbackground.
inTroDuCTion 11
Contrary to conventional nationalist accounts which argue that Japa-nese colonial authorities pursued a consistent and systematic policy oferadicatingKoreanidentity,weshouldseethattheJapanesecolonialstateactuallyendeavoredtoproduceKoreansassubjects,subjectsinthesenseofbeingundertheauthorityoftheJapaneseemperorandinthesenseofhavingaseparateandinferiorsubjectivity.Thisinturnledtoabifurcateddiscourse,becauseKoreannationalisthistorians,incompetitionwiththeJapanesecolonialstate,wereengagedintheprojectofrecoveringorpro-ducinganautonomousandsovereignKoreansubjectivity.Nationalisthis-torianswouldfindevidenceofthissubjectivityinhistory,butinnecessarilyincompleteordisfiguredform;fornationalisthistorians,onlypoliticalin-dependencecouldrenderpossiblethefullrealizationoftrue(sovereign)Koreansubjectivity.AlthoughthepoweroftherepressiveandideologicalapparatusesoftheJapanesecolonialstatefarsurpassedthatoftheKoreannationalistmovement,Koreanintellectualsweremorethancapableofen-suringthatthediscourseonnationalandindividualsovereigntyremainedacontestedfieldthroughoutthecolonialperiod. IdonotmeantopresentasimplebinarybetweenKoreannationalistsandtheJapanesecolonialstate.Thehistoryoutlinedinthisbookhastodowithcompetingnationalisms,andreadersshouldbeawarethatJapanesesettlersandtheirorganizations,althoughIdonotdiscussthem,werealsoverymuchinvolvedinproducingknowledgeaboutKorea.ThisispointedoutbyJunUchida,whocautionsagainstsimpleidentificationofJapanesesettlerswiththeJapanesecolonialstate.Japanesesettlerswere“brokersof empire” in the sense that, as nonstate actors, they participated andintervened in the colonial project in complex ways that complementedbutalsocomplicated thegovernment-general’s rule.24Thus,andas sug-gestedbyK.Y.’sandKimKi-rim’sessaysonthebob,any“Korean”subjec-tivitycreatedundersuchconditionshadtoassume“aworldofsynchronictemporality”—that is,baseballgames,beautypageants,exhibitions,dis-playwindowsinthenewdepartmentstores,aswellashistorywriting,allunderstoodinsynchronic“world”time,andsubjectivityitselfconstitutedby“historicalidentificationandspatialproximity.”25 Colonial historians, for their part, represented Japan’s annexation ofKoreaalsoasarestoration.Basedonhisreadingoftheeighth-centurytextsKojikiandNihon shoki,KumeKunitakesuggestedthatJapanbeforeJinmu(themythicalfirstemperor)wasathalassocracyencompassingKyūshū,the
inTroDuCTion12
Koreanpeninsula,andsoutheasternChina.26Suchnarrativeswouldde-pictcolonizationofKoreaastherestorationofJapaneserule,JapanhavingruledsouthernKoreainancienttimes.ColonialhistoriansalsosuggestedthatJapaneseandKoreansweredescendedfromcommonancestors.Suchnarratives,however,createdanxietyforcolonialistsaswellasanticolonialKoreannationalists,ananxietyoversamenessorlackofessentialdiffer-ence between colonizer and colonized. Colonialist historiography cameintoitsfullnesswithnarrativestrategiesthatcouldaffirmsamenesswhileasserting colonial difference and colonial hierarchy, which were main-tainedthroughnarrativesaboutabsence,lack,andtemporality.Colonial-isthistoriographyarguedthatexternalforces—Chinese,Manchurian,andJapanese—haddeterminedKorea’shistoricaldevelopmentfromitsverybeginnings. Factionalism was deeply ingrained in the Korean politicalculture,asevidencedbysuccessivepurgesofliteratiandfactionalstrifeduringtheChosŏnperiod,preventingtheemergenceofaunifiedpoliti-calwill.Koreansocietypriortoannexationhadbeenutterlystagnant.Inotherwords,Koreanswerenotandcouldnotbecomesovereignsubjectsoftheirownhistory. Ofthese,stagnationtheorywasperhapsmosteffectiveinestablishingcolonialdifferenceintermsoftemporality.Drawingontheauthorityofthesocialsciences,specificallyKarlBücher’stheoriesonnonmarketeco-nomics,FukudaTokuzōarguedthat feudalismandprivateownershipoflandhadfailedtoemergeinKorea,andthusthelevelofdevelopmentinlate nineteenth-century Korea was comparable to that in tenth-centuryFujiwaraJapan.Basedonatwenty-daytriptoKoreain1902,FukudawasabletoconcludethatKoreans“wholackthecourageouswarriorspiritthatournation[minzoku]represents”mustlooktoJapan,whiletheJapanesehavenochoicebutto“acknowledgetheweightofourappointedtask,anaturalfateanddutyofapowerfulandsuperiorculturetoassimilateKoreaandKoreansbysweepingawaytheirutterlycorruptanddecayednationalparticularity.”27Itwasagainsttheassertionofsuperioritybasedontem-poral difference—a thousand-year gap between Japan and Korea—thatPaekNam-unwroteChōsen shakai keizaishi(1933)andChōsen hōken shakai keizaishi(1937).28Paek’saimwastoshowthatKoreansocietyandeconomyhaddevelopedinaccordancewithuniversalstagesofdevelopmentandasaresultofsocioeconomicforcesinternaltoKorea,thatis,Koreansassov-ereignsubjectsoftheirownhistory,ahistorythatwasasuniversalinitsdevelopmentasthatofEuropeorJapan.
inTroDuCTion 13
FocusingonPaekNam-un,chapter4examineshistorywritingasitbe-cameanacademicdisciplineincolonialKorea.AmongKoreanhistorianstrainedatJapaneseuniversities,especiallyWasedaandlaterKeijōImperialUniversity in colonial Seoul, many adopted the narrative framework ofcolonialisthistoriography,specificallyMansenshi,aManchuria-Koreaspa-tialconceptionthatnegatedKorea’shistoricalsovereigntybypresentinghistoryasamovement,inwaves,intoKorea,andmoregenerallythatofOrientalhistory(tōyōshi),whichpresentedJapanasuniquelycapable,incontrasttomoribundplaceslikeKoreaandChinathatweresaddledwithdebilitatingcustomsandalongtroubledpast.AsStefanTanakahasshown,tōyōshiprovidedjustificationforJapan’simperialexpansion,29andhisto-rianslikeYiPyŏng-do,thecentralfigureinpositivistandcritical-textualhistoriography,concededagreatdealtotōyōshi,toitsstatusasobjective,academic,anduniquelylegitimatinghistoricalscholarship.Thus,contem-poraneouswithPaekNam-un’swork,the1930ssawKoreanhistoriansco-alescingaroundthreecompetingschools:nationalisthistoriographyasitemerged inthefirstdecadeof thetwentiethcentury, itsclaims,centralthemes,andnarrativestrategyoutlinedbySinCh’ae-ho;socioeconomic(Marxist)historiography,withPaekNam-unsituatingKoreanhistoryinworldhistory,andKoreanhistoryunfoldinginaccordancewithhistoricallaws(andthusahistoriography“thatdoesnotknowdespair”);andpositiv-isthistoriography,asrepresentedbyYiPyŏng-doandtheChindanSociety,thataimedforanobjective,academicapproachtohistorywriting. Thereareanumberofproblemswithatypologysuchasthis.MuchofmodernKoreanhistoriographydoesnotfitneatly into thesecategories,andthecategoriesthemselvesdistortasmuchastheyexplain.Butthisty-pologydoesofferausefulstartingpointforunderstandinghowamajorityofSouthKoreanhistorians,untilquiterecently,thoughtabouttheirintel-lectualgenealogy, their relationship tocertainmodesofhistoricalwrit-ing,andtheirpoliticalandideologicalstance.OncetheJapaneseEmpirecollapsedin1945,thecommitmenttoobjectivityonthepartofpositivisthistoriansappearedaslittlemorethancomplicitywithcolonialism.ManyofthehistorianswhohadprivilegedobjectivityhadparticipatedactivelyininstitutionsestablishedbytheJapanesecolonialstateandhadhelpedproduce colonial narratives under the banner of academic rigor. In themonthsfollowingliberation(August15,1945),itwasMarxistintellectualslikePaekNam-unwhowereenergized,andtheybeganlayingthefounda-tionsforpostcolonialKorea’shigheracademicinstitutions.Thedayafter
inTroDuCTion14
Japan’ssurrender,PaekbeganorganizingtheChosŏnhaksulwŏn(KoreanAcademyofSciences),welcomingleadingprogressivescholarsacrossthedisciplines,fromengineeringtoliterature,science,andart.Buttheparti-tionofKoreaandU.S.militaryoccupationbelowthe38thparallelstoppedthisprocess.InAugust1946,whentheU.S.ArmyMilitaryGovernmentinKorea(usAMgik)announceditsplantomergeKeijōImperialUniversitywithnineexistingprofessionalschoolstoformSeoulNationalUniversity,Paekwasvocalinhiscriticismoftheplan:universityfacultywouldhavelittleautonomyfromtheusAMgik’sDepartmentofEducation,andaca-demicswhohadactivelycollaboratedinsupportoftheJapaneseEmpirewouldbeincludedinthefaculty.WithconservativesincontroloftheDe-partmentofEducation,however,theKoreanhistoriansappointedtothefacultyofSeoulNationalUniversityweremostlyChindanSocietymem-bers,includingYiPyŏng-do.AsU.S.occupationforcespreparedtocreateaseparateanticommuniststateinsouthernKorea,manyMarxistintellectu-als,includingPaek,wentnorth,pushedbyanticommunistrepressionandpulledbyoffersofemploymentandopportunitytotakeimportantrolesinthenationaldemocraticrevolutionunderwayontheothersideofthe38thparallel. Chapter5presentsabriefoutlineofhowpositivisthistoriographycametobereconstitutedasnationalisthistoriographyafter1945.In1961YiKi-baekpublishedKuksa sillon(ANewHistoryofKorea),writtenasahistorytextbookthat incorporatedthenarrativeofkŭndaehwa(modernization).EchoingW.W.Rostow’semphasisontheimportanceofcreatingnewso-cial groups—intellectuals, merchants, andmilitary personnel—foreco-nomicdevelopment in theThirdWorld,30Yi attributeddynastic changeandhistoricalprogressinKoreanhistorytotheemergenceofnewsocialclasses. In thus adopting modernization theory promoted by Americanacademicsandadvisors,Kuksa sillonpresentedanon-Marxistpostcolonialnarrativethatwasanti-JapanesebutuncriticalofAmericanintervention.This renovationof the textual-critical tradition, in the formofmodern-izationnarratives,quicklybecamethedominantmodeofhistorywritinginthecontextofthecoldwar.Chapter5makestheobservationthatthequestionofneocolonialism(theUnitedStatesinSouthKorea),suppressedbytheanticommuniststate,cametobesublimatedthroughdevelopmen-taltime:SouthKoreawasdevelopingwithAmericanassistancebutalsobyusing itsownsourcesofmodernity.Thebulkofchapter5,however,
inTroDuCTion 15
focusesonhowandwhyMarxisthistoriographyofthe1930swasrecon-figuredasnationalisthistoriographyinthe1970sand1980s.BecausePaekNam-unwenttoNorthKoreain1948,historiansinSouthKoreacouldnotcitehiswork,andtheonlywaytointegrateandengagehisworkwasbycastinghimasanationalisthistorian.Throughtheirempiricalstudiesoflandtenure,growthofcommerce(merchantcapital),andthedevelopmentofacommodity-monetaryeconomyinthelatterhalfofChosŏn,KimYong-sŏpandKangMan-gilrevivedandconfirmedPaek’sdisclosureoftheinter-naldynamicunderlyingKorea’shistoricaldevelopment,withclassstrugglecentraltothatprocess. Underanationalistcanopy,then,KimYong-sŏpandKangMan-gilre-established intellectual links toa formofhistorywriting thathadbeensuppressedinSouthKoreaaftertheKoreanWar.Theirviewofhistorywasbasedonananticolonial,oppositionalnationalism,andtheirhistoriogra-phycontributedgreatlytounderstandingthedynamicnatureofKorea’ssocialandeconomicdevelopment in lateChosŏn. Inthis limitedsense,KimandKangsharedcommongroundwithnationalisthistorianswhopre-ferredmodernizationtheory;theircommonagendawastowriteaKorea-centeredhistory.Buttheimplicationsoftheirhistoricalnarrativecouldnotbemoredifferent.Formodernizationhistorians,theoriginsofKorea’smodernityweretobefoundintheculturalandscientificdevelopmentsintheeighteenthcenturyandtracedforwardtoWesternizedandWestern-izingelitesofthenineteenthcenturyandtothenoncommunistnational-istsinthetwentiethcenturywhowouldeventuallyestablishSouthKorea.Kim,alongwithKang,laidthebasisfortheargumentthatthereweretwopossiblepathstomodernity:arelativelymoreegalitarianandautonomouspathfrombelow,withpeasantrebellionsprovidingthemainimpetusforprogressivechange,andamoreexploitative,dependentpathfromabove,ledbyeliteswhowouldultimatelycapitulatetoimperialistdemandsstart-inginthelatenineteenthcentury. KimandKanglocatedtheWesternizedandWesternizingeliteswithinahistoricaltrajectorythathadrootsintheculturalandpoliticalworldofthelandedclassinthelateChosŏnperiod,whosemodernizationeffortsfrom the late nineteenth century to the present reflected their narrowclassinterests,andforthatreasontendedtowarddependencyonoutsidepowers,thatis,collaborationwiththeJapaneseinthecolonialperiodandwiththeAmericansafter1945.Thiswasatrajectorythatpavedtheway
inTroDuCTion16
forKorea’scolonizationbyJapan,formationofseparatestatesin1948,anddictatorshipanddependentcapitalistdevelopmentinSouthKorea.Thisre-visionisthistoricalnarrativefoundabroadaudiencewiththepublicationin1979ofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik(KoreanHistorybeforeandafterLib-eration),editedbythecourageousintellectualandjournalistSongKŏn-ho.Thisbookpresentedapowerfulaccountofhow1945markedthebeginningofthemosthorrificchapterinmodernKoreanhistory.Itexposedthein-gloriousoriginsoftheSouthKoreanstateandnegatedcoldwarhistoriog-raphybypositingasnationalisttheresistancetotheun-sponsoredseparateelectionsin1948onwhichSouthKoreaclaimsitslegalbasis. Itwas thepeople’s uprising in thecityofKwangju in 1980,however,andthemassacreperpetratedbySouthKoreantroopsthatfinallybroketheSouthKoreangovernment’sideologicalhegemony.Themagnitudeofthestateviolencedrovestudentsandintellectualstosearchforthestruc-turalandhistoricaloriginsofSouthKorea’sdictatorship.Drawingonhis-toricalnarrativeslikethoseinHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,throughminjung(people’s)art,minjungtheology,andprotestmusicandperformance,stu-dentsandintellectualssoughttoconstitutetheminjung(thesubaltern)asanationalandnationalistsubject,asubjectivitythatcouldbeanalterna-tivetoandautonomousfromnationalistnarrativesauthorizedbyeithertheNorthKoreanortheSouthKoreanstate.ForKangMan-gil,thehistorian’smostpressingtaskwastowriteahistoryofmodernKoreafromaperspec-tiveunfetteredby“thestructureofdivision.”Suchaperspectiveisacces-sible,Kangargued,whenhistoriansunderstandthepoliticalstrugglesoftheimmediatepostliberationperiodnotsimplyasthedenouementofthecolonialexperiencebutalsoasastruggletoovercomenationaldivision. Since the 1980s, then, nationalist historiography in South Korea hasbeenassociatedwith leftistpolitics. In the lastdecadeof the twentiethcentury,withthecollapseofsocialiststatesinEasternEuropeandthedis-solutionoftheSovietUnion,whatmightbecalledpostnationalisthisto-riography began to gain ground inSouth Korea.Wearyof nationalism’stotalizingpower,anumberofliterarycritics,alongwithhistoriansoutsidethefieldofKoreanstudies,drewonpostcolonialtheoryandtookaimatmuchofmodernKoreanhistoriography(thatis,notjustnationalisthisto-riography),amongotherthingsforitsfixationonnarrativesoflinearde-velopment.Buttheprincipaltargetwasnationalisthistoriographyforitserasureofplurality,complexity,anddifference.Inaninterestingtwist,the
inTroDuCTion 17
so-calledNewRightwelcomedscholarshipinspiredbypostcolonialtheoryforitsrefusaltonarratethecolonialperiodastheManichaeanstruggleofacolonizingJapanthatwasracistandexploitative,opposedbyaresistingandenduringpeople,ornation(minjung, minjok).Withthis,theNewRightturnedtocriticismofnationalismingeneral,andnationalisthistoriogra-phyofthe1980sinparticular,attackingnationalisthistoriographyforques-tioningSouthKorea’slegitimacy. InHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik(ReexaminationofKoreanHistorybe-foreandafterLiberation),publishedinFebruary2006withenthusiasticcoveragefromconservativedailiesliketheChosŏn ilbo,theeditorschargedthatleftist-nationalisthistoriography,asepitomizedbyHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,wasresponsibleforthe“dangerouslydistorted”historicalperspec-tiveheldbyasizablesegmentofthepublic(mostlytheyoungergeneration)aswellasbytheleft-leaningRohMoo-hyunadministration.CompiledbyfourscholarsidentifiedwithpostmoderntheoryandtheNewRight,thetitleofthistwo-volumeanthologydeliberatelyevokedHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,signalingtheeditors’intentionofrestoringbalancetothehistoricalunderstandingofcolonialandpostcolonialhistory.TheeditorsofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsikarguedthattheleftist-nationalisthistoriographyofthe1980shadachievednearhegemonyinpolitics,inspiteoflaterresearchthatshouldhavecorrectedsuchaskewedview.Theyarguedthatleftist-nationalisthistoriographyremainedentrenched,discouragingthepubli-cationofmore“objective”scholarship.31TheNewRightwelcomedpost-colonialcritiquesofnationalismandnationalisthistoriographyasawaytoreassertthesovereigntyoftheindividual(!)andtoreaffirmthesovereigntyofSouthKoreaandthelegitimacyofitsanticommunistlegacy. AsintenselyanticommunistastheOldRightbutalsofiercelyliberalintermsoftheircommitmenttoindividualfreedomsandmarketcapitalism,theNewRightaccommodatedpostcolonialscholarshipasatacticalmove,whiletheirstrategictargetwasleftist-nationalisthistoriographyanditspo-liticalexpression.AsBruceCumingspointsout,whattheNewRightsawasa“dangerouslydistorted”historicalperspectiveappearedtimeandagaininclassifiedreportsauthoredbyAmericanmilitaryandintelligenceofficerswhowerecriticalofU.S.policy towardKorea.32 ItshouldalsobenotedthatanumberofcontributorstoHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,eitherim-plicitlyorexplicitly,tookissuewiththekindofuniversalismassumedbytheeditorsofHaebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik—auniversalismidentifiedas
inTroDuCTion18
“civilization”33—basedontriumphalistnotionsofprogressandneoliberalvaluesthatconvenientlyseparatedthepresentfromhistoriesofviolence,expropriation,exploitation,andcontrol.Whileitisevidentthatthereisnolongeran“outside”tothelogicsofglobalcapitalism,itisalsoevidentfromthehistoryofhistorywritingpresentedinthisbookthatglobalcapitalismcreatessurplusesthatrefusetobedisciplinedorregimented—specifically,knowledge,experience,andsubjectivity,surplusesthatconstituteaformofwealthtowhichnotjustintellectualsbutthemultitudealsohasaccess.AsMichaelHardtandAntonioNegrihaveargued,thepoorrevoltnotbe-causetheyhavenothingtolose,butbecausetheyarerich:“Deprivation...maybreedanger,indignation,andantagonism,butrevoltarisesonlyonthebasisofwealth,thatis,asurplusofintelligence,experience,knowl-edges,anddesire...notbecausethepoorareemptyandexcludedfromwealthbutbecausetheyareincludedinthecircuitsofproductionandfullofpotential,whichalwaysexceedswhatcapital and theglobalpoliticalbodycanexpropriateandcontrol.”34Inotherwords,thegreatenterpriseofsovereigntywaspotentfiction,afictionthatbecameaheadoverheelsromancethatallowedfortheproductionofthelanguageandthecoordi-natesforthecritiqueofsovereignty’scomplicitywithpower.Sovereigntyprovidedtheconceptuallanguageforwritingnationalhistories,butitalsoconstitutedthesiteforthecontinuousproductionofoppositionalsubjec-tivitiesandpoliticalalternatives.
noTes
Introduction
1.Sŭpotssŭ,sŭpidŭ,andsaeksŭ,alongwiththeexplanationforthebobhaircut,are in parentheses in the original. Other foreign words like Nora, the Bob, andharemareinquotationmarks.KimKi-rimwasamodernistpoetandliterarycritic.Hisessay“‘MissŭKoria’tanbalhasio”(“MissKorea,”CutYourHair)appearedinTongkwang,no.37(September1932)withoutattribution. 2.Thetextreferstosŏppun tchari ka’gŭk,KurtWeilandBertoltBrecht’sDie Drei-groschenoper,firstperformedinBerlinin1928. 3.X’swereinsertedtoavoidcensorship.TheKwantungArmyhadseizedMan-churiainSeptember1931andinvadedShanghaiinJanuary1932.ThuswhenKimKi-rimwrotetheessayanti-imperialismhadtakenprecedenceinChinesepolitics. 4.Establishedin1886byMaryScranton,Ehwabeganasamissionschoolforgirls.Intheearly1930sEwhaCollegeadmittedaboutahundredstudentseachyear.Ofthethirty-sevenfacultymembers,twenty-onewereKorean.KimHwal-lanwasagraduateofEwha,andin1922shehelpedorganizetheKoreanywcA.YunCh’i-ho,whofoundedtheyMcAinKorea,washermentor.ShewasalsoamemberoftheKŭnŭhoe,anationalistwomen’sorganizationfoundedin1927.Butsheresignedsoonafterward,unwillingtoworkwithwomenwhowereMarxistsandsocialists.KimHwal-lan,“Nanŭntanbalŭlirrŏkkyeponda,”Tongkwang,no.37(September1932).SeealsoIhwaYŏksagwan,Ewha Old and New: 110 Years of History (1886–1996)(Seoul:EwhaWoman’sUniversityPress,2005),andInsookKwon,“FeministsNavi-gatingtheShoalsofNationalismandCollaboration:ThePost-ColonialKoreanDe-bateoverHowtoRememberKimHwal-lan,”Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies27,no.1(2006). 5.AchilleMbembe,“Necropolitics,”Public Culture15,no.1(2003),13.IthankAlexisDuddenforreferringmetothisarticle. 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(Cam-bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001). 8.Therewereother,lessdramaticchangestosumptuarylaws,forexample,lawsthatregulatedthelengthofthepipeandthelengthandwidthofthesleeves. 9.AccordingtoHwangHyŏn,KingKojongturnedtoChŏngPyŏng-ha,anofficialwhowasborninthenonaristocraticchunginclass,andtoldhimtocutthetopknot.
noTes To inTroDuCTion172
YuKil-juncutthecrownprince’shair.CitedinLeeKwang-rin(YiKwang-rin),Yu Kil- chun(Seoul:Tongailbosa,1992),122–23. 10.AcrossEastAsia,writerswroteabouthair.InLuXun’s“Toufadegushi”(AStoryaboutHair,1920), forexample,astudentcuthisqueuewhenhewenttoJapantostudy.UponhisreturntoChinahepurchasedafakequeueinShanghai.Butitwas1910,andhewasridiculedforwearingafakequeue.HetookoffthequeueandputonaWesternsuit.Hewasjeeredinthestreets.HeputonthelongChinesegown,andhewasstillridiculed.Theprotagonistinthestory,N,finallylashedoutathistormentorswithhiscane,afterwhichhewasleftalone.Nsays,“It[hittingothers]mademefeelsorrowful.”Inanessaypublishedin1935,LuXunrevealedthat“Toufa”wasautobiographical.SeeEvanShanChou,“‘AStoryaboutHair’:ACuriousMirrorofLuXun’sPre-RepublicanYears,”Journal of Asian Studies66,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),andtherest(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,aswithotherannalsintheChosŏn wangjo sillok(AnnalsoftheChosŏnDynasty),thecitationbeginswiththeruler’stemplenameidentifyingtherecord(sillok),followedbyvolumenum-ber(kwŏn),thereignyear(nyŏn)withtheCommonErayearinparentheses,themonthanddaybylunarcalendar,andwhennecessarytheentry’slocationonthepage.November15bythelunarcalendar,32ndyearofKojong’sreign,wasDecem-ber30,1895,intheGregoriancalendar. 12.ThebestworkonthisperiodisAndreSchmid’sKorea between Empires, 1895–1919(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2002). 13.RegardingJapaneseuseofinternationallawtolegitimateJapan’sempire,seeAlexisDudden,Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power(Honolulu:Uni-versityofHawaiiPress,2004). 14.HumantributebeganduringtheYüandynasty.Thenumberofchildrenreq-uisitionedwassmall,and theywere takenonan irregularbasis.Thegirlswereselectedfromdaughtersoflow-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 173
18.MyargumentherehasanaffinitytothehistoricaltrajectoriessuggestedbyKimYong-sŏp.Seebelow,andnote30inchapter2. 19.Seenote60inchapter2,myreferencetoPaulRicoeur’sThe Rule of Metaphor: Multi- disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning of Language(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1975). 20.SeeRossKing,“WesternProtestantMissionariesandtheOriginsofKoreanLanguageModernization,”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’snationaltreasuresandrecognizedbyunEscOasaWorldHeritagesite.Itwasconstructedinthemid-eighthcenturyonMt.T’ohamnearKyŏngju. 23.SeeHyungIlPai,Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical Review of Archae-ology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State- Formation Theories (Cam-bridge: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’chŏngchaeketaehanhyŏmnyŏk,”Asea yŏn’gu51,no.1(2008),andMicahAuerback,“‘Ch’in-IlPulgyo’yŏksahakŭichae’go:ChosŏnPulgyodankwa1920-nyŏndaeChosŏnesŏŭisŭngryŏkyŏlhonetaehannonjaeng,”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(December1889),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’sKoreanlanguagetranslation.SeeYiCh’ŏl-sŏng,“Singminjisigiyŏksainsikkwayŏk-sasŏsul,”Han’guksa23(Seoul:Han’gilsa,1994),129.SeealsoOwenMiller,“TheIdeaofStagnationinKoreanHistoriography,”Korean Histories2,no.1(2010):4–5. 28.Bothwerewritten in Japaneseandpublished in Japan toavoid themorestringentcensorshiplawsincolonialKorea. 29.Tanaka,Japan’s Orient. 30.W.W.Rostow,A Proposal: Key to an Effective Foreign Policy(NewYork:HarperandBrothers,1957),andThe Stages of Economic Growth: A Non- Communist Manifesto(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1960).SeealsoTae-gyunPark,“Differ-entRoads,CommonDestination:EconomicDiscoursesinSouthKoreaDuringthe1950s,”Modern Asian Studies39,no.3(2005). 31.SeePakChi-hyangetal.,eds.,Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,vols.1and2(Seoul:Ch’aekSesang,2006). 32.BruceCumings,“TheKoreaWar:WhatIsItThatWeAreRememberingtoForget?,”Ruptured Histories: War, Memory, and the Post–Cold War in Asia,ed.Sheila
noTes To ChapTer one174
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,wasrepub-lished inPositionen und Begriffe andcited inG.L.Ulmen’s introductiontoCarlSchmitt,The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Euro-paeum(NewYork:TelosPress,2003),18–19. 2.TheofficialEnglishtranslationquotedheresuitablymakesuseoftheroyal“We.”FortheKoreantext,seeKojong sillok,32-kwŏn,31-nyŏn(1894),12/12,firstarticle.Kuksapyŏnch’anwiwŏnhoe:http://sillok.history.go.kr/main/main.jsp.Thethirty-firstyearofKojong’sreignwas1894.ButDecember12(1894)bythelunarcalendarwasJanuary7,1895,intheGregoriancalendar. 3.IsabellaL.Bird,Korea and Her Neighbours(1897;Boston:kPi,1985),247. 4.Grandsacrificialrites(chongmyo cherye)wereconductedeachyearinJanu-ary,April,July,andOctober.Specialriteswerealsoperformedonauspiciousocca-sionsordifficulttimes.TheHallofEternalPeace(yŏngnyŏngjŏn), locatedaboutfiftymeterssouthwestoftheMainHall(chŏngjŏn),issmallerandhousesthespirittabletsofthefourancestorsofKingT’aejo,short-reignedkings,queens,andcon-sorts.BoththeMainHallandtheHallofEternalPeacestandontwo-tieredstoneterraces,eachenclosedbyasquarewall.GreatofferingsattheAltarsofLandandHarvest(sajikdan)wereconductedthreetimesayear. 5.IntheOath,KingKojongusedthetermkukka:“OnlyasanindependentrulercanWemakeourcountry[a- kukka]strong.”Thetermkukkareferreddirectlytothedynasticstateandwasusedlongbeforethenineteenthcentury.Mid-ChosŏnthinkerslikeYiI(pennameYulgok,1536–84),forexample,usedthetermtode-note thedynastic state, as in ch’ung ŏ kukka (loyalty to thedynastic state).SeeMartinaDeuchler,“ThePracticeofConfucianism:RitualandOrderinChosŏnDy-nastyKorea,”Rethinking Confucianism: Past and Present in China,Japan,Korea,and Vietnam,ed.BenjaminA.Elman,JohnB.Duncan,andHermanOoms(LosAnge-les:uclAAsianPacificMonographSeries,2002). 6.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatforscholarslikeChŏngYag-yong(1762–1836)therewasafundamentaldistinctiontobemadebetweentheRoyalAncestralTempleandthesajikdan:unliketheRoyalAncestralTemple,whichservedasashrinetothespiritsofdeceasedancestors,thesajikdanwasashrinetoheavenlydeities.Thus,un-liketheRoyalAncestralTemple,thesajikdanisashrinewithatranscendentstatus:theAltarsofLandandGraindonotbelongtoaparticulardynasty,andtheyshouldnotbetorndownorreplacedwhenanewdynastycomestopower.SeeKŭmChang-t’ae,“Tasanŭisajikjewach’ejekojŭng,”Chongkyohak yŏn’gu16(1997).