Teledyne and Henry Singleton a CS of a Great Capital Allocator
The Great Enterprise by Henry H. Em
-
Upload
duke-university-press -
Category
Documents
-
view
148 -
download
2
description
Transcript of The Great Enterprise by Henry H. Em
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).