The Great Enterprise: Sovereignty and Historiography in Modern Korea 9780822395928

Citation preview

The GreaT enTerprise

AsiA-­P Acific  Culture, Politics, and Society Editors:­Rey­Chow,­Michael­Dutton,­H.­D.­Harootunian,­­ and­Rosalind­C.­Morris

The

G r e at e n t e r p r i s e Sovereignty and Historiography in Modern Korea

Henry H. em

Duke universiTy press Durham anD LonDon 2013

© 2013 Duke universiTy press

All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper ♾ Designed by C. H. Westmoreland Typeset in Whitman with Franklin Gothic display by Tseng Information Systems, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Em, Henry. The great enterprise : sovereignty and historiography in modern Korea / Henry H. Em. p. cm.—(Asia-Pacific) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8223-5357-7 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-8223-5372-0 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Korea—Historiography. 2. Sovereignty. 3. International relations. I. Title. II. Series: Asia-Pacific. DS905.7.E44 2013 951.90072—dc23 2012033723 이 저서는­2007년도 정부(교육과학기술부)의 재원으로 한국학중앙연구원의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(Aks-­2007-­c d-­4001)

This­work­was­published­with­a­publication­subsidy­awarded­by­the­­ Academy­of­Korean­Studies­Grant,­which­is­funded­by­the­Korean­­ government­(MOEHRd,­Basic­Research­Fund).

For Sue K. Em, Mike M. Em, Noh Ock-shin, and Oh Jae-shik

ConTenTs

Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1

PARt­i.­Sovereignty ­ ­

1.­Sovereignty­and­Imperialism 21 2.­Imperialism­and­Nationalism 53

PARt­ii.­History Writing ­ ­ ­

3.­Nationalizing­Korea’s­Past 87 4.­Universalizing­Korea’s­Past 114 5.­Divided­Sovereignty­and­South­Korean­Historiography 138

Appendix 1. Names and Vital Dates 161 Appendix 2. Character List 165 Notes 171 Bibliography 229 Index 247

aCknowLeDGmenTs

This­book­has­taken­a­long­time­to­write,­and­over­the­years­it­has­evolved­ in­directions­I­did­not­foresee.­After­an­initial­effort­at­historicizing­Korean­ nationalism­and­nationalist­historiography,­it­became­clear­to­me­that­my­ study­of­modern­Korean­historiography­would­have­to­provide­a­more­comprehensive­account­of­the­relationship­between­imperialism­and­nationalism.­That­realization­led­me­to­focus­on­sovereignty­and­the­sovereign­subject­(chuch’e)­as­concepts­and­associated­practices­that­were­transformed­ by­Euro-­American­imperialism.­It­took­a­long­time­to­figure­out­how­sovereignty,­and­the­assumed­equality­that­one­gains­by­becoming­“sovereign,”­ became­as­foundational­as­the­concept­of­nation­(minjok)­to­the­project­of­ modernity­and­history­writing­in­Korea. ­ In­the­early­1980s,­just­out­of­college,­I­spent­nine­months­in­the­Philippines­working­on­human­rights­issues.­It­was­there­that­I­received­my­ education­in­anti-­imperialist­revolutionary­movements.­Several­years­later,­ from­another­eighteen­months­working­on­human­rights­and­labor­issues­ at­ the­ Urban­ Industrial­ Mission­ in­ Inchŏn,­ South­ Korea,­ I­ learned­ how­ the­experience­of­partition­and­the­Korean­War­continue­to­reverberate­ powerfully­for­so­many.­Those­experiences­also­taught­me­that­the­sense­of­ individual­agency­emerges­from­communities­of­solidarity.­I­am­grateful­to­ Patricia­Patterson­and­Michael­Hahm­for­those­life-­changing­experiences. ­ I­could­not­have­imagined­a­book­project­like­this­without­the­training­ I­received­from­my­teachers­at­the­University­of­Chicago.­Starting­as­an­ undergraduate,­I­learned­from­Tetsuo­Najita­and­Harry­Harootunian­how­ historians­can­and­should­pose­questions­about­ideas­that­seem­natural­and­ commonsensical.­I­am­grateful­to­Tets­and­Harry­for­turning­my­interests­ to­history­and­to­critical­modes­of­history­writing.­A­graduate­seminar­on­ nationalism­taught­by­Prasenjit­Duara­shaped­my­early­work­on­nationalism­and­nationalist­historiography.­My­greatest­debt­is­to­Bruce­Cumings,­ my­friend­and­teacher,­whose­scholarship­and­political­stance­have­inspired­ my­work­over­these­many­years.

x

aCknowLeDGmenTs

­ I­first­presented­my­work­on­nationalism­and­nationalist­historiography­ at­a­conference­organized­by­Gi-­Wook­Shin­and­Michael­Robinson.­That­ was­an­important­conference­for­me,­and­in­the­course­of­preparing­my­ article­for­their­edited­volume,­Colonial Modernity in Korea,­I­was­forced­to­ grapple­with­myriad­questions­regarding­the­modernity­of­the­nation­form.­ John­Duncan,­my­friend,­colleague,­and­mentor­at­uclA,­willingly­engaged­ me­in­many­hours­of­conversation­about­Korean­history­and­historiography.­John­helped­me­to­sharpen­my­argument,­and­I­remain­deeply­grateful­ for­his­incomparable­generosity. ­ In­the­early­1990s,­Choi­Jang-­jip­introduced­me­to­the­debates­over­history­following­liberation­in­1945.­My­debts­to­Professor­Choi­continued­ when­I­returned­to­Korea­as­a­Fulbright­Senior­Scholar,­and­again­in­2007– 8,­when­I­taught­in­the­Department­of­Korean­History­at­Korea­University.­It­was­with­his­support­that­I­was­able­to­organize­an­international­ conference­on­the­colonial­period,­affording­me­the­opportunity­to­learn­ from­a­remarkable­group­of­scholars­working­on­the­colonial­period,­including­Micah­Auerback,­Takashi­Fujitani,­Todd­Henry,­Ken­Kawashima,­ Helen­Lee,­Jinhee­Lee,­John­Lie,­Serk­bae­Suh,­Jun­Uchida,­Janet­Poole,­ and­Theodore­Jun­Yoo.­I­am­grateful­to­the­many­colleagues­at­Korea­University­from­whom­I­learned­a­great­deal,­especially­Professors­Cho­Kwang­ and­Kang­Man-­gil,­who­allowed­me­to­sit­in­on­their­lectures­and­seminars­ on­Korean­historiography. ­ In­1998­Kim­Dong-­choon­invited­me­to­present­my­work­on­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­ and­postnationalism­at­Yŏksa­munje­yŏn’guso.­That­provided­the­occasion­ for­conversations­over­the­years­with­Korean­historians­of­my­generation,­ especially­Park­Chan-­seung.­In­2000­Alain­Delissen­invited­me­to­Paris­ to­spend­a­month­at­the­Centre­de­Recherches­sur­la­Corée,­EHEss.­I­am­ grateful­to­Alain­and­Koen­de­Ceuster­for­their­comments­and­questions­ on­the­papers­I­presented­on­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­and­Paek­Nam-­un.­In­2007,­as­ part­of­the­Oxford­History­of­Historical­Writing­project,­Axel­Schneider­ invited­me­to­a­conference­at­Leiden­University­on­the­writing­of­history­ in­twentieth-­century­East­Asia.­That­provided­the­occasion­for­me­to­map­ out­certain­trajectories­in­history­writing­in­modern­Korea.­In­2009­Jae-­ Jung­Suh­invited­me­to­sAis-­Johns­Hopkins­University­for­a­workshop­on­ my­book­manuscript.­As­the­invited­respondent,­Stefan­Tanaka­provided­ valuable­comments­and­counsel.­In­2010­Andre­Schmid­invited­me­to­the­ University­of­Toronto­for­another­workshop,­and­I­received­very­helpful­

aCknowLeDGmenTs

comments­from­Janet­Poole­and­Ken­Kawashima.­Andre­shares­my­interest­ in­Korean­historiography,­and­his­careful­reading­and­critique­of­my­manuscript­were­immensely­helpful. ­ I­ would­ like­ to­ thank­ the­ Academy­ of­ Korean­ Studies­ for­ providing­ a­ publication­subsidy.­None­of­the­chapters­in­this­book­is­a­reprint­of­earlier­ publications,­but­materials­from­earlier­publications­have­been­incorporated­ into­ various­ chapters.­ Those­ earlier­ publications­ include­ “‘Overcoming’­Korea’s­Division:­Narrative­Strategies­in­Recent­South­Korean­Historiography,”­positions: east asia cultures critique­1,­no.­2­(1993);­“Minjok­as­ a­Modern­and­Democratic­Construct:­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­Historiography,”­Colonial Modernity in Korea,­ed.­Gi-­Wook­Shin­and­Michael­E.­Robinson­(Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Asia­Center,­1999);­and­“Historians­and­History­ Writing­in­Modern­Korea,”­Oxford History of Historical Writing:­vol.­5,­Historical Writing Since 1945,­ed.­Axel­Schneider­and­Daniel­Woolf­(New­York:­ Oxford­University­Press,­2011). ­ I­am­happy­for­this­opportunity­to­acknowledge­other­friends­and­colleagues­not­yet­mentioned­and­with­whom­I­have­worked,­who­encouraged­ and­helped­me­over­the­years:­Charles­Armstrong,­Robert­Buswell,­Cho­ Eun-­su,­Choe­Min,­Chungmoo­Choi,­Michael­Chwe,­Alexis­Dudden,­Han­ Suk-­Jung,­Yukiko­Hanawa,­Marty­Hart-­Landsberg,­Heo­Eun,­Theodore­Q.­ Hughes,­Im­Chong-­myong,­Rebecca­Karl,­Kwak­Jun-­Hyeok,­Jo­Gye-­Won,­ Jung­Tae­Hern,­Elaine­Kim,­Kyung-­Hyun­Kim,­Lee­Beom-­jae,­Lee­Jin-­Han,­ Lee­Jung-­Shin,­Timothy­S.­Lee,­Lydia­Liu,­Abé­Mark­Nornes,­Seung-Deuk­ Oak,­Se-­Mi­Oh,­Leslie­Pincus,­Elizabeth­Shim,­Ryu­Si-­hyun,­J.­T.­Takagi,­ Meredith­ Jung-­En­ Woo,­ Lisa­ Yoneyama,­ Marilyn­ Young,­ and­ Jonathan­ Zwicker. ­ I­could­not­have­finished­this­book­without­the­support­of­a­truly­wonderful­group­of­friends­who­read­parts­of­the­manuscript,­suggested­further­readings,­and­provided­critical­comments.­To­Christine­Hong,­Monica­ Kim,­Suzy­Kim,­Namhee­Lee,­Jae-­Jung­Suh,­and­Youngju­Ryu,­thank­you.­ My­editors­at­Duke­University­Press­were­adept­and­unfailingly­supportive.­ Two­anonymous­readers­provided­extraordinarily­precise­and­knowledgeable­critiques.­As­for­mistakes­and­shortcomings,­those­remain­my­responsibility.­To­Grace­Kyoungwon­Em,­and­to­Changbin­and­Aerie,­who­grew­ up­waiting­for­this­book­to­be­published,­I­can­finally­say:­it’s­done.­Thank­ you­for­your­love­and­patience.­With­gratitude,­I­dedicate­this­book­to­both­ Kyoungwon’s­parents­and­mine.

xi

inTroDuCTion

In­an­essay­published­in­Tongkwang­in­September­1932,­Kim­Ki-­rim­called­ on­“Miss­Korea”­to­cut­her­hair.­“Someone­once­described­the­modern­as­ the­era­of­the­3S’s­(sports,­speed,­sex),­but­I­will­instead­call­the­first­thirty­ years­ of­ our­ century­ the­ era­ of­ the­ short­ hair.­ As­ typified­ by­ ‘Nora,’­ the­ ‘Bob’­ (short­ haircut)­ is­ the­ ultimate­ symbol­ of­ liberation­ and­ of­ women­ venturing­outside.­.­.­.­Cutting­your­hair­announces­your­departure­from­ that­‘harem’­to­which­you­have­been­shackled­for­thousands­of­years;­it­is­ the­sign­that­you­have­come­out­under­the­blue­sky.”1­In­Kim’s­discourse­ on­ modernity,­ he­ set­ aside­ the­ purportedly­ familiar­ characterization­ of­ modernity­as­sports,­speed,­and­sex­to­focus­on­bobbed­hair,­feminists­as­ typified­by­Henrik­Ibsen’s­Nora,­and­women­of­status­venturing­outside­in­ daytime­unconstrained­by­marriage­and­motherhood.­Indeed­by­the­1930s­ one­could­have­seen­in­colonial­Korea­baseball­games,­beauty­pageants,­ exhibitions,­display­windows­fronting­the­new­department­stores,­streetcars,­street­lights,­and­cafés­that­enabled­crowd­watching.­Starting­about­a­ decade­earlier,­Kim’s­readers­would­have­seen­and­felt­not­just­the­rapidity­ of­change­in­the­physical,­spatial,­and­cultural­ordering­of­colonial­Seoul,­ a­constantly­self-­negating­temporal­dynamic,­but­also­the­increasing­rate­ of­change­ itself.­ As­for­sex,­Kim­began­his­essay­by­acknowledging­ that­ in­Korea­in­the­1930s­the­bob­haircut­was­still­associated­with­(feminine)­ eroticism,­along­with­bright­red­lipstick,­the­side­glance­(kyŏnnuntchil),­ and­other­vulgar­practices­that­belonged­to­the­world­of­café­waitresses­and­ dance­girls­in­The Threepenny Opera.2­He­imagined­that­if­he­were­to­suggest­to­a­coed,­“Go­on,­why­don’t­you­cut­your­hair?,”­she­might­turn­red­in­ the­face,­furious,­as­though­he­had­damaged­her­dignity. ­ In­addressing­young­Korean­women­(“Miss­Korea”),­Kim­tried­to­substitute­those­still­prevalent­associations­by­drawing­contrasts­he­defined­in­ terms­of­temporality­and­civilization­as­measured­by­the­status­of­women:­ women­shackled­for­past­millennia­in­contrast­to­liberated­women­of­the­ twentieth­ century.­ He­ granted­ that­ their­ neatly­ braided­ hair­ was,­ well,­ neat.­But­tied­to­that­neatly­braided­hair­hung­“the­dreams­of­a­backward­

2

inTroDuCTion

feudal­era.”­He­wanted­“Miss­Korea”­to­look­at­her­sisters­in­China­who­had­ kicked­away­the­barbaric­custom­of­foot­binding:­Look­at­their­strong­legs­ running­to­the­anti-­imperialist­front­(“t’ado­XXjuŭi­ro­Xsŏn­ŭl­talryŏ”).3­He­ urged­“Miss­Korea”­to­look­at­their­short­hair,­and­he­ended­his­essay­with­ the­question,­“Deep­in­your­heart,­don’t­you­want­to­defend­the­Bob­cut­ that­is­so­vilified?”­By­titling­his­essay­“‘Miss­Korea’­Cut­Your­Hair,”­Kim­ was­able­to­address­young­Korean­women­as­if­they­stood­on­the­world’s­ stage,­on­view­as­in­beauty­pageants­that­are­consciously­organized­for­both­ national­and­international­audiences.­His­agitation­for­Korean­women­to­ liberate­themselves­and­to­participate­in­(colonial­Korea’s)­social­and­political­life,­offered­in­a­pedagogic­tone­and­without­reference­to­patriarchy,­ was­a­common­rhetorical­strategy­for­male­writers­who­were­asked,­frequently,­to­write­about­women­and­women’s­issues­in­colonial­Korea­in­the­ late­1920s­and­early­1930s. ­ Published­without­attribution,­Kim­Ki-­rim’s­essay­was­the­third­of­three­ essays­ on­ Korean­ women­ and­ short­ hair,­ coming­ after­ an­ essay­ by­ Kim­ Hwal-­lan,­a­professor­and­vice­principal­at­Ewha­(Women’s)­College,­and­ a­second­essay­by­“K.­Y.,”­a­student­at­“X­Women’s­School”­who­had­cut­ her­hair.­Until­1939­Ewha­College­was­the­only­women’s­college­in­colonial­Korea,­and­in­her­essay­Kim­Hwal-­lan­noted­that­Ewha­College­had­ two­or­three­students­with­short­hair.4­She­equated­short­hair­with­convenience­and­predicted­that­the­number­of­students­with­short­hair­would­ “naturally”­increase­over­time.­Kim­Hwal-­lan,­who­had­received­her­Ph.D.­ in­education­from­Columbia­University­in­1931,­let­it­be­known­that­she­ neither­ encouraged­ her­ students­ from­ cutting­ their­ hair­ nor­ prevented­ them­from­doing­so.­K.­Y.­had­more­to­say­in­her­essay.­She­began­with­ the­declaration­that­she­had­gained­many­things­after­she­cut­her­hair.­She­ noted,­however,­that­people­who­voiced­all­kinds­of­opinions­about­the­bob­ haircut­did­so­only­from­a­third­person’s­perspective.­She­also­noted­that­ she­could­not­shake­off­the­feeling­that­men,­whether­they­argued­for­or­ against­the­bob,­continued­to­look­at­women­as­visual­objects­for­their­pleasure­and­enjoyment. ­ A­point­of­departure­for­this­book­is­Kim­Ki-­rim’s­observation­that­the­ twentieth­century­was­the­era­of­the­short­haircut:­that­the­cutting­of­hair­ signified­the­triumph­of­reason­over­unreason,­the­realization­of­individual­ autonomy,­and­the­emergence­of­the­modern­political­subject­that­established­ the­ anti-­imperialist­ front.­ Kim­ Ki-­rim’s­ exhortation­ arose­ from­ a­

inTroDuCTion

romantic­infatuation­that­is­the­subject­of­this­book,­a­“romance­of­sovereignty,”­according­to­Achille­Mbembe,­that­articulates­“a­certain­idea­of­ the­political,­the­community,­[and]­the­subject.”­It­was­(and­is)­a­romance­ that­“rests­on­the­belief­that­the­subject­is­the­master­and­the­controlling­ author­of­his­or­her­own­meaning­.­.­.­[and­on­the­belief­that]­the­exercise­ of­sovereignty,­in­turn,­consists­in­society’s­capacity­for­self-­creation.”5­As­ K.­Y.­observed,­sovereignty­as­pedagogy­also­sought­to­reproduce­gender,­ racial,­class,­and­civilizational­hierarchies­and­was­complicit­with­power.­ Still,­K.­Y.­made­it­clear­that­she­liked­her­hair­short:­“In­truth,­I­like­it.­It­ was­when­I­cut­my­hair­that­I­learned­something­about­[the­power­of]­social­conventions,­and­people’s­emotions­and­rationality.”6­The­general­aim­ of­this­book­is­to­examine­this­truth­and­the­pleasures­that­derive­from­the­ idea­of­being­sovereign,­possessing­a­subjective­will­(chuch’esŏng)­capable­of­ reconstituting­life,­language,­and­labor.­This­book­examines­the­historicity­ of­sovereignty­(chukwŏn),­its­complicity­with­power,­and­its­creative,­productive­capacity,­and­also­the­conventions,­rationalities,­and­subjectivities­ that­sovereignty­elicited. ­ Part­I­focuses­on­the­historicity­of­sovereignty:­how­sovereignty­functioned­as­pedagogy­for­imperialism­and­colonialism­and­how­it­became­the­ paramount­signifier­for­Korea’s­modern­era,­productive­of­desire­and­subjectivity.­Chapter­1­examines­sovereignty­as­a­legal­concept­that­structures­ the­modern­nation-­state­and­relations­between­empires­and­nation-­states.­ Sovereignty­was­not­fully­articulated­by­the­Peace­of­Westphalia­and­then­ extended­to­Europe’s­periphery.­The­European­conception­of­sovereignty— that­is,­equal­sovereignty—has­a­more­complicated­history.­Sovereignty­ and­international­law­were­improvised­out­of­the­colonial­encounter­and­ given­various­articulations­by­European­colonizers­in­conditions­of­hegemonic­contestation­with­other­colonial­powers­to­declare­who­was­sovereign,­who­was­not,­and­why.7­That­is­to­say,­colonialism­was­central­to­the­ constitution­of­sovereignty,­and­one­specific­aim­of­this­book­is­to­explore­ the­historicity­of­sovereignty­in­modern­Korea­and­its­deep­complicity­with­ both­Japanese­and­Euro-­American­empires­and­colonial­projects. ­ As­a­history­of­historical­writing­in­modern­Korea,­part­II­examines­sovereignty’s­ creative,­ productive­ power,­ calling­ on­ Korean­ historians­ who­ would­privilege­and­deploy,­for­their­own­purposes,­the­concept­of­equal­ sovereignty­as­the­condition­for­rewriting­Korea’s­past.­Korean­historians­ did­the­imagining,­but­it­was­sovereignty­that­made­it­possible­to­imagine­

3

4

inTroDuCTion

the­Korean­ethnic­nation­(minjok)­and­to­imagine­it­as­a­self-­same­unity­that­ evolved­(or­developed)­through­linear­time.­As­nationalist­historians­rendered­the­ethnic­nation­as­the­sovereign­subject­(chuch’e)­of­Korean­history,­ they­located­Korea­in­global­time­and­helped­create­a­democratic­logic,­limited­by­national­boundaries,­that­invited­all­Koreans—male­and­female,­old­ and­young,­high-­born­and­of­low­status—to­become­sovereign­subjects­of­ national­history. ­ To­recognize­sovereignty’s­complicity­with­imperialism­and­colonialism,­ it­should­be­recalled­that­Japanese­authorities­had­forced­King­Kojong­to­ issue­a­royal­decree­(tanbalryŏng)­that­ordered­all­adult­men­to­cut­off­their­ topknots.8­Before­the­royal­decree­was­issued­on­December­30,­1895,­Yu­ Kil-­chun,­the­home­minister,­flanked­by­Japanese­troops,­had­pressured­ King­Kojong­and­the­crown­prince­to­have­their­own­topknots­cut.9­For­ most­adult­men­in­late­nineteenth-­century­Korea­and­China,­the­cutting­ of­hair­was­associated­with­humiliation­and­violence­against­the­body,­severing­ one’s­ ties­ to­ parents,­ ancestors,­ and­ a­ civilizational­ order.10­ In­ the­ decades­before­and­after­the­turn­of­the­twentieth­century,­one’s­hair­and­ clothes­became­intensely­visible­signs­of­political­and­cultural­allegiance.­ Outraged­by­the­topknot­decree,­from­January­to­April­1896­local­literati­ led­Righteous­Armies­in­armed­insurrection­against­officials­who­enforced­ the­topknot­decree.­For­the­Japanese,­the­avowed­objectives­behind­the­ topknot­order­had­to­do­with­hygiene­and­with­convenience­while­working.­ In­the­royal­decree,­however,­published­by­the­Home­Office,­King­Kojong­ associated­topknot­cutting­with­the­goal­of­achieving­equal­standing­in­the­ nation-­state­system:­“We,­in­cutting­Our­hair,­are­setting­an­example­to­ Our­subjects.­Do­you,­the­multitude,­identify­yourselves­with­Our­design,­ and­cause­to­be­accomplished­the­great­enterprise­[taeŏp]­of­establishing­ equality­with­the­nations­of­the­earth.”11­Cutting­the­topknot­made­manifest­one’s­decision­to­reject­the­“cruelty”­and­“backwardness”­that­differentiated­Korea­from­the­civilized­nations­of­the­world.­The­discarded­topknot­ signaled­a­severing­of­the­future­from­the­past,­because­the­past­could­no­ longer­be­instructive­for­action­in­the­present.­The­topknot­order­was­one­ among­many­acts­of­undoing­in­late­nineteenth-­century­Korea,­and­it­was­ Euro-­American­imperialism,­with­sovereignty­functioning­both­as­political­power­and­police­power,­which­equated­such­acts­of­deterritorialization­and­reterritorialization­with­the­great­enterprise­of­embracing­Western­civilization­and­attaining­equal­standing­with­other­sovereign­nations.

inTroDuCTion

­ The­great­enterprise,­to­be­carried­out­by­Koreans,­required­that­kind­of­ definitive­severing­so­that­Korea­could­stand­autonomous­and­free,­as­an­ equal.12­Thus­there­is­no­irony­in­the­fact­that­Japanese­authorities­had­to­ force­sovereignty­on­King­Kojong.­Sovereignty­and­international­law­were­ more­than­just­complicit­in­imperialist­projects.­King­Kojong’s­declaration­ of­independence­from­China­on­January­7,­1895,­forced­on­him­by­Inoue­ Kaoru,­laid­the­legal­basis­for­increasing­Japan’s­control­over­Korea.13­As­ a­reminder­of­that­which­existed­prior­to­sovereignty­and­precolonial­history,­chapter­1­explains­why­the­state-­ness­of­Chosŏn­Korea­was­not­marred­ in­the­eyes­of­the­Chosŏn­scholar-­officials­by­their­monarch’s­subordinate­ ritual­status­to­the­Ming­emperor­or,­by­the­eighteenth­century,­even­to­ the­Qing­(Manchu)­emperor.­To­be­sure,­Ming-­Chosŏn­and­Qing-­Chosŏn­ relations­were­neither­predetermined­nor­static,­and­the­notion­of­Chosŏn­ Korea­ as­ a­ model­ tributary­ obscures­ periods­ of­ severe­ tension­ and­ conflict,­for­example,­during­early­Ming-­Chosŏn­relations­(especially­between­ 1408­and­1433),­when­the­Chinese­imperial­court­demanded­human­tribute­(girls­for­the­imperial­harem­and­boys­to­be­eunuchs),­or­during­early­ Qing-­Chosŏn­relations­when­Manchu­armies­twice­invaded­Korea,­in­1627­ and­1636,­to­force­the­Korean­court­to­accept­vassal­status.14­The­Manchu­ invasion­of­1636­was­especially­devastating,­and­submission­to­the­Qing­ was­humiliating;­for­many­years­after­1636­Chosŏn­officials­kept­using­the­ Ming­ calendar­ in­ internal­ documents,­ and­ they­ never­ adopted­ Manchu­ clothing­or­hairstyle.­But­tribute­bought­noninterference,­and­for­much­ of­its­history­Chosŏn­Korea­successfully­maintained­its­autonomy­as­well­ as­trade­relations­by­way­of­this­ritually­subordinate­relationship­to­China.­ Moreover,­when­relations­with­the­imperial­court­improved,­the­Chosŏn­ literati­could­argue­that­it­was­Korea’s­inclusion­in­a­China-­centered­world,­ and­their­own­fierce­commitment­to­the­basic­categories­that­defined­that­ world­in­terms­of­inner­and­outer,­civilization­and­barbarism­(hwa­and­yi)­ that­endowed­Chosŏn­with­its­distinctive­and­civilized­state-­ness.­That­is­to­ say,­it­was­often­through­engagement­with­that­China-­centered­world­that­ Chosŏn­scholar-­officials­imagined­Korean­civilization­(soChunghwa)­realizing­its­full­potentiality,­its­cosmic­meaning. ­ The­importance­and­value­for­the­Chosŏn­court­of­receiving­investiture­ from­the­Ming­or­Qing­imperial­court­revolved­around­domestic­politics,­ and­the­Chosŏn­court­time­and­again­displayed­a­multifaceted­persona­in­ its­relations­with­China;­for­much­of­the­Chosŏn­period,­Korean­scholar-­

5

6

inTroDuCTion

officials­could­readily­acknowledge­that­a­central­facet­of­the­state-­ness­of­ Chosŏn­Korea­derived­from­its­subordinate­inclusion­in­a­China-­centered­ tributary­system,­and­at­the­same­time­identify­Tan’gun,­who­stood­outside­the­Chinese­genealogy,­as­the­progenitor­of­the­Korean­state.­Korea’s­ China-­centered­sovereignty­was­not­absolute­sovereignty,­and­certainly­not­ equal­sovereignty.­Its­rituals­and­protocols­were­very­different­from­the­ rituals­and­protocols­of­post-­Westphalian­sovereignty­based­on­the­notion­ of­equal,­separate,­and­indivisible­authority­and­identity.­In­the­late­nineteenth­ century,­ King­ Kojong’s­ default­ strategy­ was­ to­ utilize­ to­ best­ advantage­the­protocols­of­the­China-­centered­ tributary­system­as­well­as­ the­protocols­of­the­sovereignty-­based­nation-­state­system.­It­was­hegemonic­contestation—specifically­Japan’s­victory­over­China­in­the­Sino-­ Japanese­War—that­provided­the­occasion­to­eliminate­this­ambiguity,­as­ well­as­the­space­for­maneuver­that­it­had­afforded.­While­Inoue­Kaoru­ might­have­forced­King­Kojong’s­“declaration­of­independence,”­the­king­ and­the­greater­part­of­reform-­minded­officials­should­be­seen­as­coauthors­ of­the­Independence­Oath­taken­at­the­Royal­Ancestral­Temple.­Chapter­1­ presents­historical­substantiation­of­this­claim­and­prepares­the­ground­ for­discussion­of­the­relationship­between­imperialism­and­nationalism­by­ looking­at­the­relationship­between­authorship­(a­claim­of­sovereignty)­and­ ritual­action. ­ In­the­sense­that­the­king’s­ritual­performance­on­January­7,­1895,­was­ doubly­ prescribed­ (not­ just­ by­ ritual­ manuals­ dating­ back­ centuries­ but­ also­by­Inoue­Kaoru),­it­could­be­said­that­King­Kojong—as­Chosŏn­Korea’s­ supreme­sacerdotal­authority,­its­monarch­and­bearer­of­the­dynastic­mission­and­Heaven’s­mandate­(ch’ŏnmyŏng)—was,­and­was­not,­the­author­ of­his­actions.­It­was­understood­by­all­that­only­King­Kojong’s­taking­the­ Oath­before­his­ancestors­could­make­Korea’s­independence­(from­China)­ inviolable.­It­is­in­that­sense­of­King­Kojong­as­coauthor­of­his­own­ritual­ performance­that­chapter­2­takes­up­the­question­of­how­sovereignty­as­ a­nation­form­could­be­replicated­across­the­globe,­chiefly­among­and­by­ newly­emerging­bourgeoisies,­for­Benedict­Anderson­“the­first­classes­to­ achieve­solidarities­on­an­essentially­imagined­basis.”15 ­ Chapter­2­begins­with­the­argument­that­before­the­Sino-­Japanese­War,­ and­before­King­Kojong’s­declaration­of­Korea’s­“independence,”­material­ and­discursive­conditions­already­existed­within­Korea­that­would­allow­ for­the­dissemination­of­not­just­the­idea­of­national­sovereignty­but­also­

inTroDuCTion

the­presumption­that­recognition­of­Korea’s­sovereignty­by­the­Western­imperial­powers­was­a­necessary­condition­for­avoiding­colonization.­Toward­ this­end,­intellectuals­like­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­took­it­for­granted­that­Korea­had­ to­demonstrate­commitment­to­European­civilization,­as­measured­by­specific­“reforms”­of­political,­economic,­and­cultural­institutions­and­practices­ (such­ as­ sumptuary­ laws),­ and­ also­ to­ participate­ in­ international­ events­such­as­the­Columbian­Exposition­in­Chicago­in­1893.­The­problem,­ as­Yun­saw­it,­was­that­Korea’s­commitment­to­the­great­enterprise­was­as­ second-­rate­and­dismal­as­the­Korea­Exhibit,­so­much­so­that­he­found­himself­unable­to­walk­away­from­it. ­ To­the­extent­that­the­Korea­Exhibit­at­the­Columbian­Exposition­functioned­for­Yun­as­a­synecdoche­of­Korea’s­abjection,­it­is­possible­to­understand­the­sadness­as­well­as­genocidal­contempt­that­Yun­felt­at­the­sight­of­ Native­Americans­in­the­American­West­congregating­around­railroad­stations­along­the­Central­Pacific­Railroad:­“Indians­were­seen­at­almost­every­ station.­Some­of­them­painted­their­faces­red­and­most­had­red­or­blue­ blankets­wrapped­around­their­bodies.­A­sad­and­somewhat­contemptible­ sight:­sad­because­of­their­past­history,­but­contemptible­because­of­the­ inability­to­improve­their­condition.­A­race­that­fails,­from­voluntary­laziness­and­ignorance,­to­avail­itself­of­the­advantages­of­civilization­brought­ so­close­to­its­reach­isn’t­worthwhile­to­live.”16­Yun,­a­progenitor­of­the­ Korean­ (Christian)­ bourgeois­ class­ that­ would­ emerge­ under­ Japanese­ colonial­rule,­saw­Native­Americans­in­terms­of­a­visual­regime­that­paralleled­the­objectifying­and­disciplining­operations­of­discourses­on­“civilization.”­ If­ Native­ Americans­ did­ not­ avail­ themselves­ of­ Euro-­American­ civilization—if­they­voluntarily­chose­to­live­in­ignorance­and­“degraded­ humanity”—then­they­did­not­deserve­to­live.­For­Yun,­the­decision­to­embrace­Euro-­American­civilization­was,­in­itself,­proof­of­a­people’s­capacity­ for­rationality­and­autonomy.­His­privileging­of­freedom,­and­ruminations­ on­why­certain­populations­do­not­deserve­to­live,­point­to­not­just­the­ inclusionary­pretensions­of­liberal­theory­and­the­exclusionary­effects­of­ liberal­practices,­but­also­to­liberalism’s­essential­link­to­imperialism­and­ colonialism.17­ His­ privileging­ of­ freedom­ also­ points­ to­ the­ centrality­ of­ violence­in­the­constitution­of­(Christian)­liberal-­bourgeois­subjectivity­in­ early­twentieth-­century­Korea­and­its­permutations­through­the­colonial­ period­down­to­postcolonial­anticommunist­South­Korea.18 ­ It­must­be­said­that­the­violence­of­sovereignty­was­very­productive.­In­

7

8

inTroDuCTion

language,­sovereignty­as­a­form­of­command­prompted­Korean­intellectuals,­as­writers,­historians,­and­translators,­to­produce­new­meanings­and­ new­narratives­through­semantic­innovation.­In­the­translation­of­sovereignty­in­its­nation­form,­chapter­2­focuses­on­the­unavoidable­accommodation­to­Euro-­American­modernity­and­on­semantic­innovation­through­ both­productive­imagination­and­the­legislative­rationality­of­capitalist­sovereignty.19­Attention­paid­to­the­legislative­rationality­of­capitalist­sovereignty­goes­against­the­grain­of­scholarship­that­wants­to­portray­modernity­and­nation­in­Korea­as­Korea’s­own­creation,­with­Korean­intellectuals­ selecting,­translating,­and­thereby­creating­their­own­modernity­from­the­ Western­archive.­If­that­were­the­case,­the­modernity­thus­created­would­be­ sovereign­to­Korea,­dynamic,­and­ongoing:­Korea’s­modernity­as­an­incomplete­project­that­is­both­particular­and­universal.­Historians­would­then­ have­a­firm­basis­for­writing­the­history­of­Korea’s­modernity­untainted­by­ imperialism­and­colonialism;­historians­need­only­take­due­account­of­the­ historical­and­political­context­and­“the­limitations­of­his­time.”­This­kind­ of­scholarship­(also)­emerges­from­desire­created­by­sovereignty­itself. ­ In­terms­of­language,­it­was­the­translation­of­capitalist­sovereignty­in­the­ late­nineteenth­century­that­produced­the­diachronic­identity­of­national­ language­ (kuk’ŏ),­ discernible­ in­ the­ poetry­ (hyangga)­ of­ the­ Silla­ period­ down­to­the­language­of­scholar-­officials­in­late­nineteenth-­century­Seoul.­ “The­Korean­language”­came­to­be­imagined­as­singular,­a­unity­even­in­ its­great­variations­over­space­and­time.­In­analyzing­this­process­of­translation,­in­the­literal­sense,­chapter­2­draws­attention­to­the­radical­transformations­in­language­and­political­economy,­transformations­that­were­ overdetermined­by­the­legislative­rationality­of­capitalist­sovereignty.­One­ key­example­is­the­word­for­economy­used­today­in­China,­Japan,­and­Korea:­ 經濟­ (C:­ jingji,­ J:­ keizai,­ K:­ kyŏngje).­ The­ lexical­ unit­ kyŏngje­ was­ a­ contraction­of­kyŏngse jemin­(經世濟民):­to­govern­the­world­and­relieve­the­ people.­That­is­to­say,­prior­to­the­nineteenth­century,­kyŏngje­referred­to­a­ political­economy­that­was­necessarily­and­overtly­moral,­a­moral­economy­ structured­on­obligation­to­the­people’s­welfare.­When­Japanese­intellectuals­translated­economy­as­keizai,­however,­they­associated­keizai­with­production,­consumption,­and­the­wealth­of­nations,­an­intellectual­approach­ that­linked­public­interest­with­competition­and­the­pursuit­of­private­gain.­ With­kyŏngje­rendered­as­economy,­the­extraction­of­profit­would­appear­ as­a­series­of­relations­of­exchange­rather­than­tribute­extracted­through­

inTroDuCTion

political­domination:­the­people,­as­workers­and­producers,­became­autonomous­and­“free”­in­their­poverty­and­propertylessness.­Like­capitalism,­ then,­the­term­kyŏngje­could­(and­did)­take­a­purely­economic­form. ­ In­ the­ late­ nineteenth­ century,­ Japanese­ intellectuals­ also­ created­ a­ series­of­neologisms­in­the­course­of­translating­from­European­languages,­ including­the­word­for­nation,­minzoku­(K:­minjok).­It­is­important­to­note­ that­words­like­minjok­([ethnic]­nation)­were­incorporated­into­Korean­as­ it­was­being­nationalized.­In­other­words,­the­nationalization­of­the­Korean­ language­occurred­within­a­profoundly­transnational,­translingual­context.­ Christian­ missionaries,­ especially­ Protestant­ missionaries,­ helped­ transform­the­Korean­alphabet­into­an­icon­of­Korea­and­an­icon­for­the­Korean­ nation.­They­inspired­and­trained­many­prominent­Korean­linguists­and­ grammarians,­including­the­brilliant­linguist­Chu­Si-­g yŏng.­Missionaries­ sought­and­obtained­international­recognition­for­the­scientific­value­of­ the­Korean­alphabet.­They­promoted­respect­for­and­standardization­of­the­ Korean­vernacular­and­fostered­a­spirit­of­protecting­the­Korean­script.20­It­ was­within­this­context­that­vernacular­Korean­written­with­King­Sejong’s­ alphabet­ (created­ in­ 1443)­ was­ elevated­ to­ the­ status­ of­ national­ script­ (kungmun),­while­literary­(classical)­Chinese­was­demoted­to­mere­Chinese­ writing.­But­while­international­recognition­given­to­Korean­writing­might­ seem­to­pay­homage­to­Korean­genius,­as­Rey­Chow­has­argued,­homage­to­ the­West­has­long­been­paid­in­the­form­of­what­seems­to­be­its­opposite21:­ in­this­case,­the­radical­insistence­on­kungmun­(Korean­written­vernacular­as­the­national­script).­In­that­sense,­it­was­capitalist­sovereignty­that­ promoted­Korea’s­distinction­from­China­and­standardization­of­language­ practices­and­populations,­with­Korean­and­Koreans­constituted­as­distinct­ units­that­identify­each­other. ­ Although­ Japanese­ authorities­ saw­ King­ Kojong’s­ declaration­ of­ sovereignty­as­a­necessary­step­toward­the­imposition­of­a­protectorate­and­ eventual­annexation,­to­justify­colonization­they­also­had­to­explain­why­ Korea­was­never­really­sovereign­and­never­really­capable­of­maintaining­ “the­sovereignty­Japan­had­obtained­for­Korea.”­Chapter­3,­which­begins­ part­II­of­this­book,­shows­how,­out­of­ancient­ruins,­the­Japanese­colonial­state­constructed­an­explanation­for­why­colonization­was­necessary.­ Soon­after­annexation­the­Japanese­colonial­state­poured­money,­expertise,­ and­ concrete­ to­ restore­ Sŏkkuram,­ an­ astonishingly­ beautiful­ Buddhist­ statue­seated­within­a­man-­made­stone­grotto­“discovered”­by­a­Japanese­

9

10

inTroDuCTion

mailman.­The­Japanese­colonial­state­also­restored­a­number­of­Buddhist­ temples­near­Kyŏngju­and­breathlessly­extolled­Sŏkkuram­and­the­Buddhist­ art­ and­ architecture­ of­ the­ Silla­ period­ as­ the­ “culmination­ of­ the­ religion­and­the­art­of­the­Orient.”22­The­pedagogic­lesson­had­to­do­with­ Japan’s­self-­designated­role­as­curator­for­Asia’s­art­and­a­colonial­lesson­on­ temporality.­Sŏkkuram­and­the­art­and­architecture­of­the­Silla­period­represented­the­apex­of­Korean­cultural­history,­brilliant­artistic­achievements­ which­stood­in­stark­contrast­to­the­squalor­of­Korea’s­present.­The­story­ of­Sŏkkuram—its­creation­and­subsequent­slide­into­obscurity­and­ruin— was­the­sad­story­of­Korea:­a­beautiful­and­brilliant­cultural­past­that­was­ as­much­Asian­as­Korean,­followed­by­a­long­downward­slide.­The­colonial­ authorities­did­not­just­teach­Koreans­about­their­past;­they­had­to­restore­ it­for­them. ­ Ultimately­colonial­rule­depended­on­coercive­power:­the­power­to­suppress­ protest­ and­ armed­ resistance.­ But­ Japanese­ colonialism­ could­ not­ have­been­sustained­with­just­coercive­power.­To­establish­sufficient­hegemony,­Japanese­colonialism­had­to­be,­above­all,­a­pedagogic­endeavor­in­ which­the­colonized­would­come­to­recognize­the­relative­superiority­of­ the­colonizer.­Restoring­Sŏkkuram­to­its­former­glory­was­part­of­that­pedagogic­effort,­teaching­about­the­world­and­Korea’s­place­in­it­as­defined­by­ Japan­and­the­West.­In­this­colonizing­project,­the­Japanese­colonial­state­ drew­heavily­on­Euro-­American­colonial­practices.­Like­the­British­in­India­ and­Americans­in­the­Philippines,­the­Japanese­allocated­money­and­expertise­to­carry­out­excavations­and­surveys,­to­study­Korea’s­past,­and­to­restore­some­cultural­sites­(but­not­others)­in­order­to­establish­the­categories­ and­narrative­strategies­by­which­Korea­and­Koreans­would­be­understood.­ Thus­there­was­a­proliferation­of­(competing)­discourses­on­Korean­identity­ that­emanated­from­the­Japanese­colonial­state­as­well­as­Korean­nationalist­ intellectuals­and­organizations.­In­this­competition,­the­Japanese­colonial­ state­was­more­successful­in­terms­of­producing­detailed­studies­of­Korean­ art,­ customs,­ language,­ religion,­ and­ history.23­ For­ the­ Japanese­ colonial­ state,­the­goal­of­transforming­colonial­Korea­for­its­strategic­ends­went­ hand­in­hand­with­the­work­of­transforming­peasants­into­Chōsenjin­(Koreans).­The­logic­of­its­racist­colonial­policy­compelled­the­Japanese­colonial­ state­to­reconstitute­(disparate)­Korean­identities­into­a­homogeneous­Chōsenjin­that­became­both­a­bureaucratic­and­a­derogatory­classification­for­ all­Koreans­regardless­of­gender,­regional­origin,­or­class­background.

inTroDuCTion

­ Contrary­ to­ conventional­ nationalist­ accounts­ which­ argue­ that­ Japanese­ colonial­ authorities­ pursued­ a­ consistent­ and­ systematic­ policy­ of­ eradicating­Korean­identity,­we­should­see­that­the­Japanese­colonial­state­ actually­endeavored­to­produce­Koreans­as­subjects,­subjects­in­the­sense­ of­being­under­the­authority­of­the­Japanese­emperor­and­in­the­sense­of­ having­a­separate­and­inferior­subjectivity.­This­in­turn­led­to­a­bifurcated­ discourse,­because­Korean­nationalist­historians,­in­competition­with­the­ Japanese­colonial­state,­were­engaged­in­the­project­of­recovering­or­producing­an­autonomous­and­sovereign­Korean­subjectivity.­Nationalist­historians­would­find­evidence­of­this­subjectivity­in­history,­but­in­necessarily­ incomplete­or­disfigured­form;­for­nationalist­historians,­only­political­independence­could­render­possible­the­full­realization­of­true­(sovereign)­ Korean­subjectivity.­Although­the­power­of­the­repressive­and­ideological­ apparatuses­of­the­Japanese­colonial­state­far­surpassed­that­of­the­Korean­ nationalist­movement,­Korean­intellectuals­were­more­than­capable­of­ensuring­that­the­discourse­on­national­and­individual­sovereignty­remained­ a­contested­field­throughout­the­colonial­period. ­ I­do­not­mean­to­present­a­simple­binary­between­Korean­nationalists­ and­the­Japanese­colonial­state.­The­history­outlined­in­this­book­has­to­do­ with­competing­nationalisms,­and­readers­should­be­aware­that­Japanese­ settlers­and­their­organizations,­although­I­do­not­discuss­them,­were­also­ very­much­involved­in­producing­knowledge­about­Korea.­This­is­pointed­ out­by­Jun­Uchida,­who­cautions­against­simple­identification­of­Japanese­ settlers­with­the­Japanese­colonial­state.­Japanese­settlers­were­“brokers­ of­ empire”­ in­ the­ sense­ that,­ as­ nonstate­ actors,­ they­ participated­ and­ intervened­ in­ the­ colonial­ project­ in­ complex­ ways­ that­ complemented­ but­also­complicated­ the­government-­general’s­ rule.24­ Thus,­and­as­suggested­by­K.­Y.’s­and­Kim­Ki-­rim’s­essays­on­the­bob,­any­“Korean”­subjectivity­created­under­such­conditions­had­to­assume­“a­world­of­synchronic­ temporality”—that­is,­baseball­games,­beauty­pageants,­exhibitions,­display­windows­in­the­new­department­stores,­as­well­as­history­writing,­all­ understood­in­synchronic­“world”­time,­and­subjectivity­itself­constituted­ by­“historical­identification­and­spatial­proximity.”25 ­ Colonial­ historians,­ for­ their­ part,­ represented­ Japan’s­ annexation­ of­ Korea­also­as­a­restoration.­Based­on­his­reading­of­the­eighth-­century­texts­ Kojiki­and­Nihon shoki,­Kume­Kunitake­suggested­that­Japan­before­Jinmu­ (the­mythical­first­emperor)­was­a­thalassocracy­encompassing­Kyūshū,­the­

11

12

inTroDuCTion

Korean­peninsula,­and­southeastern­China.26­Such­narratives­would­depict­colonization­of­Korea­as­the­restoration­of­Japanese­rule,­Japan­having­ ruled­southern­Korea­in­ancient­times.­Colonial­historians­also­suggested­ that­Japanese­and­Koreans­were­descended­from­common­ancestors.­Such­ narratives,­however,­created­anxiety­for­colonialists­as­well­as­anticolonial­ Korean­nationalists,­an­anxiety­over­sameness­or­lack­of­essential­difference­ between­ colonizer­ and­ colonized.­ Colonialist­ historiography­ came­ into­its­fullness­with­narrative­strategies­that­could­affirm­sameness­while­ asserting­ colonial­ difference­ and­ colonial­ hierarchy,­ which­ were­ maintained­through­narratives­about­absence,­lack,­and­temporality.­Colonialist­historiography­argued­that­external­forces—Chinese,­Manchurian,­and­ Japanese—had­determined­Korea’s­historical­development­from­its­very­ beginnings.­ Factionalism­ was­ deeply­ ingrained­ in­ the­ Korean­ political­ culture,­as­evidenced­by­successive­purges­of­literati­and­factional­strife­ during­the­Chosŏn­period,­preventing­the­emergence­of­a­unified­political­will.­Korean­society­prior­to­annexation­had­been­utterly­stagnant.­In­ other­words,­Koreans­were­not­and­could­not­become­sovereign­subjects­ of­their­own­history. ­ Of­these,­stagnation­theory­was­perhaps­most­effective­in­establishing­ colonial­difference­in­terms­of­temporality.­Drawing­on­the­authority­of­ the­social­sciences,­specifically­Karl­Bücher’s­theories­on­nonmarket­economics,­Fukuda­Tokuzō­argued­that­feudalism­and­private­ownership­of­ land­had­failed­to­emerge­in­Korea,­and­thus­the­level­of­development­in­ late­ nineteenth-­century­ Korea­ was­ comparable­ to­ that­ in­ tenth-­century­ Fujiwara­Japan.­Based­on­a­twenty-­day­trip­to­Korea­in­1902,­Fukuda­was­ able­to­conclude­that­Koreans­“who­lack­the­courageous­warrior­spirit­that­ our­nation­[minzoku]­represents”­must­look­to­Japan,­while­the­Japanese­ have­no­choice­but­to­“acknowledge­the­weight­of­our­appointed­task,­a­ natural­fate­and­duty­of­a­powerful­and­superior­culture­to­assimilate­Korea­ and­Koreans­by­sweeping­away­their­utterly­corrupt­and­decayed­national­ particularity.”27­It­was­against­the­assertion­of­superiority­based­on­temporal­ difference—a­ thousand-­year­ gap­ between­ Japan­ and­ Korea—that­ Paek­Nam-­un­wrote­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­(1933)­and­Chōsen hōken shakai keizaishi­(1937).28­Paek’s­aim­was­to­show­that­Korean­society­and­economy­ had­developed­in­accordance­with­universal­stages­of­development­and­as­ a­result­of­socioeconomic­forces­internal­to­Korea,­that­is,­Koreans­as­sovereign­subjects­of­their­own­history,­a­history­that­was­as­universal­in­its­ development­as­that­of­Europe­or­Japan.

inTroDuCTion

­ Focusing­on­Paek­Nam-­un,­chapter­4­examines­history­writing­as­it­became­an­academic­discipline­in­colonial­Korea.­Among­Korean­historians­ trained­at­Japanese­universities,­especially­Waseda­and­later­Keijō­Imperial­ University­ in­ colonial­ Seoul,­ many­ adopted­ the­ narrative­ framework­ of­ colonialist­historiography,­specifically­Mansenshi,­a­Manchuria-­Korea­spatial­conception­that­negated­Korea’s­historical­sovereignty­by­presenting­ history­as­a­movement,­in­waves,­into­Korea,­and­more­generally­that­of­ Oriental­history­(tōyōshi),­which­presented­Japan­as­uniquely­capable,­in­ contrast­to­moribund­places­like­Korea­and­China­that­were­saddled­with­ debilitating­customs­and­a­long­troubled­past.­As­Stefan­Tanaka­has­shown,­ tōyōshi­provided­justification­for­Japan’s­imperial­expansion,29­and­historians­like­Yi­Pyŏng-­do,­the­central­figure­in­positivist­and­critical-­textual­ historiography,­conceded­a­great­deal­to­tōyōshi,­to­its­status­as­objective,­ academic,­and­uniquely­legitimating­historical­scholarship.­Thus,­contemporaneous­with­Paek­Nam-­un’s­work,­the­1930s­saw­Korean­historians­coalescing­around­three­competing­schools:­nationalist­historiography­as­it­ emerged­in­the­first­decade­of­the­twentieth­century,­its­claims,­central­ themes,­and­narrative­strategy­outlined­by­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho;­socioeconomic­ (Marxist)­historiography,­with­Paek­Nam-­un­situating­Korean­history­in­ world­history,­and­Korean­history­unfolding­in­accordance­with­historical­ laws­(and­thus­a­historiography­“that­does­not­know­despair”);­and­positivist­historiography,­as­represented­by­Yi­Pyŏng-­do­and­the­Chindan­Society,­ that­aimed­for­an­objective,­academic­approach­to­history­writing. ­ There­are­a­number­of­problems­with­a­typology­such­as­this.­Much­of­ modern­Korean­historiography­does­not­fit­neatly­into­these­ categories,­ and­the­categories­themselves­distort­as­much­as­they­explain.­But­this­typology­does­offer­a­useful­starting­point­for­understanding­how­a­majority­ of­South­Korean­historians,­until­quite­recently,­thought­about­their­intellectual­ genealogy,­ their­ relationship­ to­certain­ modes­ of­historical­ writing,­and­their­political­and­ideological­stance.­Once­the­Japanese­Empire­ collapsed­in­1945,­the­commitment­to­objectivity­on­the­part­of­positivist­ historians­appeared­as­little­more­than­complicity­with­colonialism.­Many­ of­the­historians­who­had­privileged­objectivity­had­participated­actively­ in­institutions­established­by­the­Japanese­colonial­state­and­had­helped­ produce­ colonial­ narratives­ under­ the­ banner­ of­ academic­ rigor.­ In­ the­ months­following­liberation­(August­15,­1945),­it­was­Marxist­intellectuals­ like­Paek­Nam-­un­who­were­energized,­and­they­began­laying­the­foundations­for­postcolonial­Korea’s­higher­academic­institutions.­The­day­after­

13

14

inTroDuCTion

Japan’s­surrender,­Paek­began­organizing­the­Chosŏn­haksulwŏn­(Korean­ Academy­of­Sciences),­welcoming­leading­progressive­scholars­across­the­ disciplines,­from­engineering­to­literature,­science,­and­art.­But­the­partition­of­Korea­and­U.S.­military­occupation­below­the­38th­parallel­stopped­ this­process.­In­August­1946,­when­the­U.S.­Army­Military­Government­in­ Korea­(usAMgik)­announced­its­plan­to­merge­Keijō­Imperial­University­ with­nine­existing­professional­schools­to­form­Seoul­National­University,­ Paek­was­vocal­in­his­criticism­of­the­plan:­university­faculty­would­have­ little­autonomy­from­the­usAMgik’s­Department­of­Education,­and­academics­who­had­actively­collaborated­in­support­of­the­Japanese­Empire­ would­be­included­in­the­faculty.­With­conservatives­in­control­of­the­Department­of­Education,­however,­the­Korean­historians­appointed­to­the­ faculty­of­Seoul­National­University­were­mostly­Chindan­Society­members,­including­Yi­Pyŏng-­do.­As­U.S.­occupation­forces­prepared­to­create­a­ separate­anticommunist­state­in­southern­Korea,­many­Marxist­intellectuals,­including­Paek,­went­north,­pushed­by­anticommunist­repression­and­ pulled­by­offers­of­employment­and­opportunity­to­take­important­roles­in­ the­national­democratic­revolution­under­way­on­the­other­side­of­the­38th­ parallel. ­ Chapter­5­presents­a­brief­outline­of­how­positivist­historiography­came­ to­be­reconstituted­as­nationalist­historiography­after­1945.­In­1961­Yi­Ki-­ baek­published­Kuksa sillon­(A­New­History­of­Korea),­written­as­a­history­ textbook­that­incorporated­the­narrative­of­kŭndaehwa­(modernization).­ Echoing­W.­W.­Rostow’s­emphasis­on­the­importance­of­creating­new­social­ groups—intellectuals,­ merchants,­ and­ military­ personnel—for­ economic­ development­ in­ the­ Third­ World,30­ Yi­ attributed­ dynastic­ change­ and­historical­progress­in­Korean­history­to­the­emergence­of­new­social­ classes.­ In­ thus­ adopting­ modernization­ theory­ promoted­ by­ American­ academics­and­advisors,­Kuksa sillon­presented­a­non-­Marxist­postcolonial­ narrative­that­was­anti-­Japanese­but­uncritical­of­American­intervention.­ This­renovation­of­the­textual-­critical­ tradition,­ in­the­form­of­modernization­narratives,­quickly­became­the­dominant­mode­of­history­writing­ in­the­context­of­the­cold­war.­Chapter­5­makes­the­observation­that­the­ question­of­neocolonialism­(the­United­States­in­South­Korea),­suppressed­ by­the­anticommunist­state,­came­to­be­sublimated­through­developmental­time:­South­Korea­was­developing­with­American­assistance­but­also­ by­ using­ its­ own­ sources­ of­ modernity.­ The­ bulk­ of­ chapter­ 5,­ however,­

inTroDuCTion

focuses­on­how­and­why­Marxist­historiography­of­the­1930s­was­reconfigured­as­nationalist­historiography­in­the­1970s­and­1980s.­Because­Paek­ Nam-­un­went­to­North­Korea­in­1948,­historians­in­South­Korea­could­not­ cite­his­work,­and­the­only­way­to­integrate­and­engage­his­work­was­by­ casting­him­as­a­nationalist­historian.­Through­their­empirical­studies­of­ land­tenure,­growth­of­commerce­(merchant­capital),­and­the­development­ of­a­commodity-­monetary­economy­in­the­latter­half­of­Chosŏn,­Kim­Yong-­ sŏp­and­Kang­Man-­gil­revived­and­confirmed­Paek’s­disclosure­of­the­internal­dynamic­underlying­Korea’s­historical­development,­with­class­struggle­ central­to­that­process. ­ Under­a­nationalist­canopy,­then,­Kim­Yong-­sŏp­and­Kang­Man-­gil­reestablished­ intellectual­ links­ to­ a­ form­ of­ history­ writing­ that­ had­ been­ suppressed­in­South­Korea­after­the­Korean­War.­Their­view­of­history­was­ based­on­an­anticolonial,­oppositional­nationalism,­and­their­historiography­contributed­greatly­to­understanding­the­dynamic­nature­of­Korea’s­ social­and­economic­development­in­late­Chosŏn.­In­this­limited­sense,­ Kim­and­Kang­shared­common­ground­with­nationalist­historians­who­preferred­modernization­theory;­their­common­agenda­was­to­write­a­Korea-­ centered­history.­But­the­implications­of­their­historical­narrative­could­ not­be­more­different.­For­modernization­historians,­the­origins­of­Korea’s­ modernity­were­to­be­found­in­the­cultural­and­scientific­developments­in­ the­eighteenth­century­and­traced­forward­to­Westernized­and­Westernizing­elites­of­the­nineteenth­century­and­to­the­noncommunist­nationalists­in­the­twentieth­century­who­would­eventually­establish­South­Korea.­ Kim,­along­with­Kang,­laid­the­basis­for­the­argument­that­there­were­two­ possible­paths­to­modernity:­a­relatively­more­egalitarian­and­autonomous­ path­from­below,­with­peasant­rebellions­providing­the­main­impetus­for­ progressive­change,­and­a­more­exploitative,­dependent­path­from­above,­ led­by­elites­who­would­ultimately­capitulate­to­imperialist­demands­starting­in­the­late­nineteenth­century. ­ Kim­and­Kang­located­the­Westernized­and­Westernizing­elites­within­ a­historical­trajectory­that­had­roots­in­the­cultural­and­political­world­of­ the­landed­class­in­the­late­Chosŏn­period,­whose­modernization­efforts­ from­ the­ late­ nineteenth­ century­ to­ the­ present­ reflected­ their­ narrow­ class­interests,­and­for­that­reason­tended­toward­dependency­on­outside­ powers,­that­is,­collaboration­with­the­Japanese­in­the­colonial­period­and­ with­the­Americans­after­1945.­This­was­a­trajectory­that­paved­the­way­

15

16

inTroDuCTion

for­Korea’s­colonization­by­Japan,­formation­of­separate­states­in­1948,­and­ dictatorship­and­dependent­capitalist­development­in­South­Korea.­This­revisionist­historical­narrative­found­a­broad­audience­with­the­publication­ in­1979­of­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­(Korean­History­before­and­after­Liberation),­edited­by­the­courageous­intellectual­and­journalist­Song­Kŏn-­ho.­ This­book­presented­a­powerful­account­of­how­1945­marked­the­beginning­ of­the­most­horrific­chapter­in­modern­Korean­history.­It­exposed­the­inglorious­origins­of­the­South­Korean­state­and­negated­cold­war­historiography­by­positing­as­nationalist­the­resistance­to­the­un-­sponsored­separate­ elections­in­1948­on­which­South­Korea­claims­its­legal­basis. ­ It­ was­ the­ people’s­ uprising­ in­ the­ city­ of­ Kwangju­ in­ 1980,­ however,­ and­the­massacre­perpetrated­by­South­Korean­troops­that­finally­broke­ the­South­Korean­government’s­ideological­hegemony.­The­magnitude­of­ the­state­violence­drove­students­and­intellectuals­to­search­for­the­structural­and­historical­origins­of­South­Korea’s­dictatorship.­Drawing­on­historical­narratives­like­those­in­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­through­minjung­ (people’s)­art,­minjung­theology,­and­protest­music­and­performance,­students­and­intellectuals­sought­to­constitute­the­minjung­(the­subaltern)­as­ a­national­and­nationalist­subject,­a­subjectivity­that­could­be­an­alternative­to­and­autonomous­from­nationalist­narratives­authorized­by­either­the­ North­Korean­or­the­South­Korean­state.­For­Kang­Man-­gil,­the­historian’s­ most­pressing­task­was­to­write­a­history­of­modern­Korea­from­a­perspective­unfettered­by­“the­structure­of­division.”­Such­a­perspective­is­accessible,­Kang­argued,­when­historians­understand­the­political­struggles­of­ the­immediate­postliberation­period­not­simply­as­the­denouement­of­the­ colonial­experience­but­also­as­a­struggle­to­overcome­national­division. ­ Since­ the­ 1980s,­ then,­ nationalist­ historiography­ in­ South­ Korea­ has­ been­ associated­ with­ leftist­ politics.­ In­ the­ last­ decade­ of­ the­ twentieth­ century,­with­the­collapse­of­socialist­states­in­Eastern­Europe­and­the­dissolution­of­the­Soviet­Union,­what­might­be­called­postnationalist­historiography­ began­ to­ gain­ ground­ in­ South­ Korea.­ Weary­ of­ nationalism’s­ totalizing­power,­a­number­of­literary­critics,­along­with­historians­outside­ the­field­of­Korean­studies,­drew­on­postcolonial­theory­and­took­aim­at­ much­of­modern­Korean­historiography­(that­is,­not­just­nationalist­historiography),­among­other­things­for­its­fixation­on­narratives­of­linear­development.­But­the­principal­target­was­nationalist­historiography­for­its­ erasure­of­plurality,­complexity,­and­difference.­In­an­interesting­twist,­the­

inTroDuCTion

so-­called­New­Right­welcomed­scholarship­inspired­by­postcolonial­theory­ for­its­refusal­to­narrate­the­colonial­period­as­the­Manichaean­struggle­of­ a­colonizing­Japan­that­was­racist­and­exploitative,­opposed­by­a­resisting­ and­enduring­people,­or­nation­(minjung, minjok).­With­this,­the­New­Right­ turned­to­criticism­of­nationalism­in­general,­and­nationalist­historiography­of­the­1980s­in­particular,­attacking­nationalist­historiography­for­questioning­South­Korea’s­legitimacy. ­ In­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik­(Reexamination­of­Korean­History­before­and­after­Liberation),­published­in­February­2006­with­enthusiastic­ coverage­from­conservative­dailies­like­the­Chosŏn ilbo,­the­editors­charged­ that­leftist-­nationalist­historiography,­as­epitomized­by­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­was­responsible­for­the­“dangerously­distorted”­historical­perspective­held­by­a­sizable­segment­of­the­public­(mostly­the­younger­generation)­ as­well­as­by­the­left-­leaning­Roh­Moo-­hyun­administration.­Compiled­by­ four­scholars­identified­with­postmodern­theory­and­the­New­Right,­the­ title­of­this­two-­volume­anthology­deliberately­evoked­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­signaling­the­editors’­intention­of­restoring­balance­to­the­historical­ understanding­of­colonial­and­postcolonial­history.­The­editors­of­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik­argued­that­the­leftist-­nationalist­historiography­of­ the­1980s­had­achieved­near­hegemony­in­politics,­in­spite­of­later­research­ that­should­have­corrected­such­a­skewed­view.­They­argued­that­leftist-­ nationalist­historiography­remained­entrenched,­discouraging­the­publication­of­more­“objective”­scholarship.31­The­New­Right­welcomed­postcolonial­critiques­of­nationalism­and­nationalist­historiography­as­a­way­to­ reassert­the­sovereignty­of­the­individual­(!)­and­to­reaffirm­the­sovereignty­ of­South­Korea­and­the­legitimacy­of­its­anticommunist­legacy. ­ As­intensely­anticommunist­as­the­Old­Right­but­also­fiercely­liberal­in­ terms­of­their­commitment­to­individual­freedoms­and­market­capitalism,­ the­New­Right­accommodated­postcolonial­scholarship­as­a­tactical­move,­ while­their­strategic­target­was­leftist-­nationalist­historiography­and­its­political­expression.­As­Bruce­Cumings­points­out,­what­the­New­Right­saw­as­ a­“dangerously­distorted”­historical­perspective­appeared­time­and­again­in­ classified­reports­authored­by­American­military­and­intelligence­officers­ who­were­critical­of­U.S.­policy­toward­Korea.32­It­should­also­be­noted­ that­a­number­of­contributors­to­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­either­implicitly­or­explicitly,­took­issue­with­the­kind­of­universalism­assumed­by­ the­editors­of­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik—a­universalism­identified­as­

17

18

inTroDuCTion

“civilization”33—based­on­triumphalist­notions­of­progress­and­neoliberal­ values­that­conveniently­separated­the­present­from­histories­of­violence,­ expropriation,­exploitation,­and­control.­While­it­is­evident­that­there­is­no­ longer­an­“outside”­to­the­logics­of­global­capitalism,­it­is­also­evident­from­ the­history­of­history­writing­presented­in­this­book­that­global­capitalism­ creates­surpluses­that­refuse­to­be­disciplined­or­regimented—specifically,­ knowledge,­experience,­and­subjectivity,­surpluses­that­constitute­a­form­ of­wealth­to­which­not­just­intellectuals­but­the­multitude­also­has­access.­ As­Michael­Hardt­and­Antonio­Negri­have­argued,­the­poor­revolt­not­because­they­have­nothing­to­lose,­but­because­they­are­rich:­“Deprivation­ .­.­.­may­breed­anger,­indignation,­and­antagonism,­but­revolt­arises­only­ on­the­basis­of­wealth,­that­is,­a­surplus­of­intelligence,­experience,­knowledges,­and­desire­.­.­.­not­because­the­poor­are­empty­and­excluded­from­ wealth­but­because­they­are­included­in­the­circuits­of­production­and­full­ of­ potential,­ which­ always­ exceeds­ what­ capital­ and­ the­ global­ political­ body­can­expropriate­and­control.”34­In­other­words,­the­great­enterprise­ of­sovereignty­was­potent­fiction,­a­fiction­that­became­a­head­over­heels­ romance­that­allowed­for­the­production­of­the­language­and­the­coordinates­for­the­critique­of­sovereignty’s­complicity­with­power.­Sovereignty­ provided­the­conceptual­language­for­writing­national­histories,­but­it­also­ constituted­the­site­for­the­continuous­production­of­oppositional­subjectivities­and­political­alternatives.

chapter one sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism A­historically­meaningful­imperialism­is­not­only­or­essentially­military­and­ maritime­panoply,­not­only­economic­and­financial­prosperity,­but,­also,­ this­ability­to­determine­in­and­of­itself­the­content­of­political­and­legal­ concepts.­.­.­.­A­nation­is­conquered­first­when­it­acquiesces­to­a­foreign­ vocabulary,­a­foreign­concept­of­law,­especially­international­law. —cARl­scHMitt,­lecture,­1933

On­ January­ 7,­ 1895,­ King­ Kojong,­ accompanied­ by­ Queen­ Min,­ Crown­ Prince­Yi­Ch’ŏk,­the­Taewŏn’gun­(regent),­royal­princes,­cabinet­ministers,­ vice­ministers,­and­hundreds­of­officials,­musicians,­dancers,­and­attendants,­was­at­the­chongmyo,­the­Chosŏn­dynasty’s­Royal­Ancestral­Temple.1­ Performing­ the­ grand­ sacrificial­ rite­ at­ the­ Royal­ Ancestral­ Temple­ as­ a­ direct­male­descendant­of­Yi­Sŏng-­g ye,­the­dynastic­founder­(King­T’aejo),­ King­Kojong­stood­before­the­spirit­chambers­of­Chosŏn­dynasty­kings­and­ their­queens­as­the­archetypal­filial­son,­Chosŏn­Korea’s­supreme­sacerdotal­authority,­and­as­its­monarch,­the­carrier­of­the­dynastic­mission­and­ the­bearer­of­Heaven’s­mandate­(ch’ŏnmyŏng).­In­1895­the­nineteen­spirit­ chambers­in­the­Main­Hall­held­the­spirit­tablets­of­the­major­Chosŏn­dynasty­kings­and­their­queens,­starting­with­the­spirit­tablet­of­the­dynastic­founder­and­his­queen­in­the­westernmost­chamber,­with­descending­ kings­and­queens­in­sequence­toward­the­eastern­end.­As­he­performed­ the­great­offerings,­King­Kojong­swore­to­preserve­the­dynasty­that­his­ancestors­had­founded­and­sustained­for­503­years.­Reading­the­Oath­“in­the­ presence­of­the­Spirits­of­Our­Ancestors­in­Heaven,”­Kojong­vowed,­“We­ will­no­longer­lean­upon­another­state­[t’abang]­but­will­lay­broad­the­destiny­of­the­nation­[kukbo:­destiny­of­the­state],­restore­prosperity,­build­up­ the­happiness­of­Our­people,­and­thus­secure­Our­autonomy­and­independence­[chaju tongnip].” We­declare­publicly­to­all­the­Imperial­Ancestors­that­We,­your­humble­descendant,­have­received­and­guarded­the­mighty­heritage­of­Our­Ancestors.­.­.­.­ But­now­in­our­generation,­the­times­are­greatly­changed.­.­.­.­A­neighboring­

22

ChapTer one

Power­and­the­unanimous­judgment­of­all­our­officers­unite­in­affirming­that­ only­as­an­independent­ruler­can­We­make­our­country­strong.­How­can­We­ your­humble­descendant,­having­received­the­spirit­of­the­times­from­Heaven,­ refuse­to­conform­and­thus­fail­to­preserve­the­heritage­bestowed­by­Our­Ancestors?­.­.­.­From­this­time­forth­We­will­no­longer­lean­upon­another­state­ but­will­lay­broad­the­destiny­of­the­nation,­restore­prosperity,­build­up­the­ happiness­of­Our­people­and­thus­secure­Our­independence.­.­.­.­Therefore,­ We,­Your­humble­descendant,­do­now­take­the­fourteen­great­Laws­and­swear­ in­the­presence­of­the­Spirits­of­Our­Ancestors­in­Heaven­and­announce­that,­ relying­on­the­merits­bestowed­by­Our­Ancestors,­we­will­bring­these­to­a­ successful­issue,­nor­will­We­dare­to­retract­Our­word.­Bright­Spirits,­descend­ and­behold! ­ 1.­All­thought­of­dependence­on­China­shall­be­put­away­so­that­the­heritage­ of­independence­may­be­secured.2

­ Perhaps­the­scores­of­musicians,­dancers,­and­attendants­did­not­know,­ but­high-­level­officials­certainly­did,­that­it­was­the­“neighboring­Power”­ (ubang:­allied­country)—specifically,­Inoue­Kaoru,­Meiji­Japan’s­envoy­extraordinary­and­minister­plenipotentiary­to­Korea—who­had­compelled­ King­Kojong­to­make­this­“Oath­of­Independence.”­It­was­Inoue­who­had­ taken­the­lead­in­using­the­great­offering­at­chongmyo-sajik­to­render­the­ Western­concepts­of­sovereignty­and­independence­sensible­and­manifest­ to­the­scholar-­official­class­and­the­broader­public.­Isabella­Bird,­who­witnessed­this­“singular­ceremony,”­recounted­how­the­Oath­was­taken­“in­ circumstances­of­great­solemnity­in­a­dark­pine­wood,­under­the­shadow­ of­Puk­Han­[Mt.­Pukhan]­at­the­most­sacred­altar­in­Korea,­in­presence­of­ the­Court­and­the­dignitaries­of­the­kingdom.”­“Old­and­serious­men­had­ fasted­and­mourned­for­two­previous­days,­and­in­the­vast­crowd­of­white-­ robed­and­black-­hatted­men­which­looked­down­upon­the­striking­scene­ from­a­hill­in­the­grounds­of­the­Mulberry­Palace,­there­was­not­a­smile­or­ a­spoken­word.­The­sky­was­dark­and­grim,­and­a­bitter­east­wind­was­blowing—ominous­signs­in­Korean­estimation.”3 ­ In­the­late­Chosŏn­period,­great­offerings­at­the­Royal­Ancestral­Temple­ and­ at­ the­ Altars­ of­ Land­ and­ Harvest­ formed­ the­ core­ of­ the­ dynasty’s­ auspicious­rites­and­were­performed­several­times­each­year.­By­the­nineteenth­century­the­Main­Hall­of­the­Royal­Ancestral­Temple­complex,­with­ its­long­front­corridor­connecting­the­nineteen­spirit­chambers,­boasted­the­

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

world’s­longest­floor­space­in­a­wooden­structure.­At­the­temple,­to­the­east­ of­the­main­palace,­the­Chosŏn­dynasty­monarch­reported­to­the­ghosts­of­ his­dead­ancestors­regarding­important­matters­of­state­and­asked­for­their­ help­and­guidance.4­At­the­Altars­of­Land­and­Harvest­(sajik),­to­the­west­of­ the­main­palace,­the­monarch­prayed­to­the­gods­of­earth­and­grain­for­his­ people’s­security­and­well-­being.­Throughout­the­Chosŏn­period,­until­the­ very­end­of­King­Kojong’s­reign­(1864–1907),­Chosŏn­dynasty­kings­as­well­ as­scholar-­officials­(sadaebu)­regarded­these­two­ritual­sites­as­the­metonym­for­what­we­would­call­the­Chosŏn­state.5­Chosŏn­dynasty­monarchs­ could,­and­did,­subscribe­to­the­notion­that­the­people­(min)­constituted­ the­foundation,­and­that­the­people’s­welfare­formed­the­raison­d’être­of­ the­state.­But­sovereignty—supreme­authority­within­Korea’s­borders— belonged­to­the­Chosŏn­monarch,­and­a­core­function­of­dynastic­rituals­ had­to­do­with­the­(re)production­of­knowledge­and­sentiment­associated­ with­filiality­and­loyalty­as­appropriate­for­a­strictly­hierarchical­and­patriarchal­social­order.­Although­the­power­of­Chosŏn­dynasty­monarchs­was­ circumscribed­by­the­scholar-­official­class,­a­class­that­resolutely­clung­to­ the­conceit­that­the­Chosŏn­dynasty­was­its­creation,­it­was­dynastic­kingly­ power­as­manifested­by­the­Royal­Ancestral­Temple­and­the­Altars­of­Land­ and­Harvest­(chongmyo-sajik)­that­stood­guard­over­the­progressively­lesser­ prerogatives­of­the­king’s­subjects.6­Neither­the­scholar-­official­class­nor­ the­commoners,­and­certainly­not­the­slaves­(nobi),­could­presume­to­claim­ the­chongmyo-sajik­as­their­own.­If­the­Chosŏn­monarch­spoke­French­he­ would­have­said,­“L’état,­c’est­moi.”7 ­ While­the­chongmyo-sajik­provided­the­symbolic­and­cognitive­coordinates­for­identifying­and­identification­with­Chosŏn­Korea­as­a­dynastic­ state,­its­state­rituals­also­designated­Chosŏn­as­a­not-so-exemplary­vassal­ state­of­China.­In­1395,­when­the­Chosŏn­dynasty­built­its­Royal­Ancestral­ Temple­in­the­new­capital,­Hanyang­(Seoul),­its­structure­conformed­to­ancient­prescriptions­proper­to­a­tributary­state.­The­temple­was­built­according­to­the­“same­hall,­different­chambers”­system­utilized­in­the­Han­dynasty,­with­the­westernmost­chamber­as­the­honored­position.­The­original­ Main­Hall­was­a­seven-­kan­structure­with­five­spirit­chambers,­the­number­ of­spirit­chambers­stipulated­by­the­Zhōu­dynasty­as­appropriate­for­a­tributary­state.­But­by­1834­the­Main­Hall­had­been­expanded­to­a­nineteen-­kan­ structure.­In­China­the­royal­shrines­of­Tang­and­Song­dynasties­had­only­ eleven­chambers.­Thus,­as­in­other­institutions­and­practices,­the­Chosŏn­

23

24

ChapTer one

dynasty’s­Royal­Ancestral­Temple­complex,­patterned­on­Chinese­precedents,­came­to­take­on­a­uniquely­Korean­and­not­so­subservient­character.8 ­ During­ the­ previous­ dynasty,­ Koryŏ­ (918–1392)­ had­ also­ entered­ into­ some­form­of­tributary­relations,­often­reluctantly,­with­Song,­Liao,­and­Jin­ as­those­dynasties­established­control­over­parts­of­“China”­in­succession.9­ At­the­same­time,­from­the­very­beginning­of­the­Koryŏ­dynasty­through­ the­latter­part­of­the­thirteenth­century,­many­Koryŏ­scholar-­officials,­in­ both­official­and­private­writing,­referred­to­the­Koryŏ­ruler­as­a­Son­of­ Heaven­(K:­ch’ŏnja,­C:­tiānzı̌)­and­emperor­(hwangje,­sŏnghwang,­che).­As­ Ro­Myoung-­ho­has­pointed­out,­until­1270,­when­Koryŏ­capitulated­to­the­ Mongols­after­thirty­years­of­resistance,­early­Koryŏ­rulers­and­most­of­its­ officials­had­held­a­“pluralist”­(tawŏnjŏk)­outlook­that­recognized­greater­ and­equal­empires­in­China­and­in­Manchuria,­while­positing­Koryŏ­as­the­ center­of­a­separate­and­bounded­world­ruled­by­the­Koryŏ­emperor,­who­ claimed­a­ritual­status­reserved­for­the­Son­of­Heaven.10­Koryŏ­rulers­from­ the­dynastic­founder­Wang­Kŏn­(T’aejo,­r.­918–43)­to­Wŏnjong­(r.­1214–74)­ had­the­imperial­suffix­-­cho,­or­-­jong­for­their­posthumous­temple­names.­ The­Koryŏ­Army­was­organized­into­five­armies­rather­than­the­three­allowed­to­a­king.­During­this­period­Koryŏ­rulers­were­addressed­with­the­ imperial­p’yeha­(C:­bixia),­wore­the­imperial­yellow,­used­their­own­reign­ names,­ invested­ members­ of­ the­ royal­ family­ as­ kings­ (wang),­ and­ conducted­sacrifices­to­Heaven.11­As­Remco­Breuker­notes,­imperial­designations­for­edict,­crown­prince,­palace,­and­so­on­are­easily­found­in­extant­ records,­while­epitaphs­and­eulogies­on­steles­reveal­“diverse­and­colorful­ instances­of­imperial­appropriations.”12 ­ Referring­to­the­Koryŏ­ruler­as­emperor­and­Son­of­Heaven­seems­to­ have­been­commonplace­in­early­Koryŏ;­for­example,­among­“folk”­songs­ (sogak)­in­the­music­(akji)­section­of­the­Koryŏsa,­“P’ungipsong”­eulogizes­ the­Koryŏ­ruler­as­“Son­of­Heaven­in­the­East”­(Haedong ch’ŏnja),­who­as­ emperor,­with­the­help­of­Buddha­and­Heaven,­pacifies­the­world­through­ his­transformative­instruction­(kyohwa).13­Indeed­the­rise­and­fall­of­various­ dynasties­in­“China,”­from­the­late­Tang­to­the­establishment­of­the­Yüan­ dynasty,­encouraged­late­Silla­and­early­Koryŏ­courts­to­articulate,­using­ ostensibly­Sinocentric­spatial­terms,­their­own­centrality­in­a­multipolar­ world.­Until­capitulation­to­the­Mongols,­Koryŏ­was­an­“empire”­with­its­ own­microtributary­system.­The­Koryŏ­emperor­forced­Jurchen­tribes­outside­its­borders­to­pay­tribute­and­accept­Koryŏ’s­suzerainty,­and­then­be-

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

stowed­titles­appropriate­to­tribute-­offering­vassals­from­beyond­Koryŏ.14­ Unequal­ sovereignty­ did­ not­ neatly­ correspond­ to­ borders:­ it­ was­ not­ a­ simple­matter­of­being­a­king­abroad­and­an­emperor­at­home.­For­late­Silla­ and­ early­ Koryŏ­ rulers,­ their­ appropriation,­ or­ annexation,­ of­ All­ under­ Heaven­(K:­ch’ŏnha,­C:­tianxia)­to­assert­their­vision­of­different,­coexisting­ “worlds”­as­a­broadly­shared­idea­went­hand­in­hand­with­the­production­of­ complex­discursive­strategies­that­affirmed­these­rulers’­possession­of­full­ de­jure­sovereignty,­that­is,­possession­of­Heaven’s­mandate.­Even­as­Silla­ and­Koryŏ­rulers­received­investiture­from­(another)­Son­of­Heaven,­it­was­ Heaven­itself­that­ostensibly­supported­these­rulers’­authority.­As­the­folk­ song­“P’ungipsong”­suggests,­Koryŏ­was­the­center­of­the­haedong­(East­of­ the­Sea)­world,­and­the­ruler­of­Koryŏ­ruled­as­emperor­and­Son­of­Heaven.­ It­seems­this­folk­song­was­sung­well­into­the­Chosŏn­period.15 ­ Haidong­(East­of­the­Sea;­K:­haedong)­in­Tang­dynasty­texts­referred­to­ a­ geographic­ area­ considered­ to­ be­ separate­ and­ distinct­ from­ China,­ a­ historicized­space­that­encompassed­the­three­kingdoms­Koguryŏ,­Silla,­ and­ Paekche.­ According­ to­ Ch’u­ Myŏng-­ŏp,­ the­ term­ Haedong­ was­ appropriated­by­the­Silla­court­during­the­“Unified”­Silla­period­to­name­a­ bounded­world­south­of­the­Liao­River.­While­the­boundaries­of­Haedong,­ or­for­that­matter­the­boundaries­of­Samhan­(referring­to­Koguryŏ,­Silla,­ and­Paekche),­did­not­remain­fixed,­the­spatial­imaginaries­Haedong­and­ Samhan­constituted­the­“world”­(ch’ŏnha)­that­the­early­rulers­of­the­Koryŏ­ dynasty­claimed­as­emperors­and­Sons­of­Heaven.16­In­933,­when­Wang­Kŏn­ received­investiture­from­the­ruler­of­later­Tang,­Tang­acknowledged­the­ dynastic­founder­of­Koryŏ­as­the­legitimate­successor­to­King­Chumong,­ the­legendary­founder­of­Koguryŏ.­At­the­same­time,­as­Sem­Vermeersch­ points­out,­Wang­Kŏn’s­reign­title­ch’ŏnsu­(Heaven­Bestowed)­made­it­clear­ that­he­had­received­the­mandate­to­rule­directly­from­Heaven.17 ­ While­this­pluralist­outlook­seems­to­have­prevailed­in­early­Koryŏ,­some­ advocated­a­more­full-­throated­version­of­Koryŏ­as­the­center­of­Haedong.­ In­the­early­twelfth­century,­with­Liao­(of­the­Khitan)­fading­and­Jin­(of­ the­ Jurchen)­ taking­ its­ place,­ the­ monk­ Myoch’ŏng­ advocated­ war­ with­ the­Jin­to­“recover”­the­heartland­of­Koguryŏ,­extending­deep­into­Manchuria.­Myoch’ŏng­prophesied­that­the­thirty-­six­countries­(that­is,­the­entire­world)­would­eventually­submit­to­Koryŏ­and­bring­tribute.18­While­ a­ definitive­ assessment­ is­ impossible,­ given­ the­ paucity­ of­ records­ from­ the­Koryŏ­period,­it­seems­there­was­significant­sympathy­and­support­for­

25

26

ChapTer one

an­ expansionist,­ irredentist­ effort.­ Arguing­ that­ the­ topography­ of­ Kaegyŏng­(Kaesŏng),­Koryŏ’s­capital,­was­losing­its­vital­energy,­Myoch’ŏng­ argued­for­moving­the­capital­to­the­Western­Capital­(Pyongyang).19­For­ Myoch’ŏng,­the­shifting­of­the­capital­to­Pyongyang­also­would­have­signaled­a­commitment­to­shift­away­from­a­China-­centered­Confucian­culture.­In­the­end,­Myoch’ŏng’s­forces­were­defeated­by­Kim­Pu-­sik,­a­defeat­that­the­twentieth-­century­historian­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­would­refer­to­as­ one­of­the­greatest­tragedies­in­Korean­history.­Well­aware­of­Koryŏ’s­imperial­claims­and­practices,­but­also­aware­of­its­own­limits,­(Southern)­ Song’s­attitude­toward­Koryŏ­imperial­claims­and­practices­was­rather­tolerant.­As­for­the­Liao­and­Jin,­they­were­more­willing­to­recognize­another­ Son­of­Heaven,­according­to­Breuker,­“perhaps­because­they­always­had­to­ compete­with­other­Sons­of­Heaven.”20­At­times­Song­reception­rituals­for­ Koryŏ­envoys­and­Koryŏ­reception­rituals­for­imperial­envoys­from­Song,­ Liao,­ and­ Jin­ suggested­ equal­ rather­ than­ hierarchical­ relations;­ that­ is,­ while­Song,­Liao,­and­Jin­did­not­wholly­recognize­Koryŏ­imperial­claims­ and­practices,­neither­did­they­reject­them­completely.21 ­ In­1270,­after­thirty­years­of­struggle­against­the­Mongols,­Koryŏ­finally­ capitulated­ to­ the­ Yüan.­The­ Yüan­ established­ commanderies­ in­ Pyongyang­and­Ssangsŏng­and­demoted­the­titles­of­the­Koryŏ­ruler,­court,­and­ officials.­This­capitulation­to­the­Mongols­assured­dynastic­continuity­in­ terms­of­the­Koryŏ­name,­ancestral­shrines,­and­guardian­deities­of­the­ state.­But­starting­with­King­Ch’ungnyŏl­(r.­1274–1308),­the­Koryŏ­crown­ prince­was­raised­in­Beijing,­Koryŏ­kings­married­princesses­of­the­Yüan­ imperial­ house,­ and­ Koryŏ­ became­ a­ son-­in-­law­ state­ (puma’guk)­ of­ the­ Yüan­empire.­During­this­period­the­Yüan­dynasty­exerted­a­powerful­influence­over­kingly­succession­in­Koryŏ,­and­the­temple­names­of­six­Koryŏ­ kings,­from­Ch’ungnyŏl­to­Ch’ungjŏng­(r.­1348–51),­were­made­to­begin­ with­ch’ung­(loyalty),­indicating­loyalty­to­the­Yüan.­The­Koryŏ­court’s­son-­ in-­law­ status—that­ is,­ its­ loss­ of­ full­ sovereignty—lasted­ until­ the­ mid-­ fourteenth­century,­when­King­Kongmin­captured­Ssangsŏng­and­declared­ the­Koryŏ­throne­autonomous.22 ­ At­ the­ beginning­ of­ the­ Chosŏn­ dynasty,­ to­ reconfirm­ sovereign­ autonomy­that­had­been­lost­to­the­Yüan­during­the­latter­part­of­the­Koryŏ­ period,­ the­ Chosŏn­ court­ built­ an­ Altar­ to­ Heaven.­ The­ officials­ on­ the­ Board­of­Rites­insisted,­however,­that­the­Altar­be­called­wŏndan­(Round­ Altar)­rather­than­wŏn’gudan­(Round­Hill­Altar),­to­avoid­the­appearance­of­

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

asserting­the­Chosŏn­monarch’s­ritual­equivalence­with­the­Ming­emperor­ and­thus­avoid­conflict­with­Ming­China.­The­majority­of­the­sadaebu­resisted­the­wishes­of­early­Chosŏn­dynasty­kings­to­personally­conduct­the­ sacrifice­to­Heaven­at­the­wŏndan,­an­act­that­would­have­unmistakably­ constituted­the­Chosŏn­monarch­as­equal­in­ritual­status­with­the­Ming­ emperor.­Preventing­the­monarch­from­conducting­sacrifices­to­Heaven­ was­a­duty­of­the­scholar-­official­class­checking­the­power­of­Chosŏn­dynasty­kings.23­The­sadaebu­repeatedly­reminded­early­Chosŏn­monarchs­ that­only­the­Son­of­Heaven­(the­emperor­of­China)­had­the­requisite­ritual­ status­to­conduct­sacrifices­to­Heaven.24­After­King­Sejo’s­reign­(1455–68),­ subsequent­Chosŏn­dynasty­monarchs­seem­to­have­given­up­on­the­wŏndan,­and­it­faded­away.25­Thus­in­1895­the­Chosŏn­dynasty­chongmyo-sajik­ configuration,­delimited­by­the­absence­of­an­Altar­to­Heaven,­unmistakably­signified­Chosŏn’s­ritually­subordinate­status­to­China.­In­1897,­when­ King­Kojong­declared­Korea­an­empire,­an­Altar­to­Heaven­was­rebuilt­on­ the­site­where­high-­level­envoys­from­Qing­China­used­to­be­lodged.­In­ 1913,­three­years­after­annexation,­the­Japanese­colonial­government­dismantled­the­Altar­to­Heaven,­and­a­hotel­was­built­on­the­site.26 ­ In­establishing­the­Chosŏn­dynasty­in­1392,­Yi­Sŏng-­g ye­found­it­necessary­ to­ seek­ tributary­ status­ from­ the­ Ming­ emperor,­ and­ subsequent­ Chosŏn­dynasty­kings­had­to­continue­the­practice­of­receiving­investiture­ from­the­Ming­emperor.­But­at­the­same­time,­the­capital-­based­scholar-­ officials­who­helped­Yi­Sŏng-­g ye­establish­the­Chosŏn­dynasty­maintained­ that­the­dynastic­founder­had­received­Heaven’s­mandate­to­rule.­In­August­1392,­the­founding­year­of­the­Chosŏn­dynasty,­Cho­Pak­of­the­Board­ of­Rites­submitted­a­memorial­to­the­throne­in­which­he­affirmed­a­long­ history­of­Korean­rulers­receiving­the­mandate­directly­from­Heaven:­“Because­Tan’gun­was­the­first­ruler­to­receive­the­Mandate­of­Heaven­in­Korea­ (Tongbang),­and­Kija­[C:­Jizi]­was­the­first­ruler­to­bring­civilization­to­fruition­in­Korea,­the­magistrate­in­Pyongyang­should­be­instructed­to­conduct­ sacrifices­to­them­at­appropriate­times.”27­In­confirming­Tan’gun’s­direct­ relationship­to­Heaven­and­his­status­as­the­founder­of­the­first­“Korean”­ state­(in­2333­bcE­near­Pyongyang),­and­by­having­the­city­of­Pyongyang­ conduct­sacrifices­to­both­Tan’gun­and­Kija,­the­sadaebu­of­the­early­Chosŏn­ dynasty­chose­to­buttress­a­religious­and­political­narrative­(and­practice)­ that­was­already­well­established­during­the­Koryŏ­period:­the­claim­to­a­ distinct­and­indigenous­history­of­legitimacy­(chŏngt’ong)­that­reached­far­

27

28

ChapTer one

back­into­the­mythic­past,­indeed­to­the­days­of­Tan’gun­contemporaneous­ with­the­Chinese­sage­kings­Yao­and­Shun.28 ­ In­the­same­memorial,­however,­Cho­Pak­also­requested­King­T’aejo­to­ put­ an­ end­ to­ royal­ sacrifices­ to­ Heaven­ at­ the­ Round­ Hill­ Altar,­ pointedly­reminding­him­that­only­the­Son­of­Heaven­(the­emperor­of­China)­ could­perform­the­sacrifice.­Unlike­the­Ming­emperor,­King­T’aejo­could­ not­claim­the­unique­status­of­mediator­between­Heaven­and­the­civilized­ world.29­The­seeming­contradiction­of­proclaiming­an­indigenous­and­distinct­history­of­legitimacy­for­Chosŏn,­on­the­one­hand,­and­insisting­that­ the­Chosŏn­dynasty­monarch­observe­ritual­proprieties­appropriate­for­a­ vassal­state­of­Ming­China,­on­the­other,­points­to­the­complex­ways­in­ which­ Yi­ Sŏng-­g ye­ and­ the­ capital-­based­ sadaebu­ negotiated­ power­ between­themselves­to­overcome­both­external­and­internal­obstacles­when­ establishing­the­Chosŏn­dynasty.­In­other­words,­the­capital-­based­scholar-­ official­class­that­helped­Yi­to­power­was­careful­to­institutionalize­structures,­practices,­and­narratives­that­limited­the­power­and­authority­of­the­ Chosŏn­monarch.30­This­arrangement,­or­settlement,­along­with­the­contingent­and­dynamic­aspects­of­Ming-­Chosŏn­and­Qing-­Chosŏn­relations,­ produced­multiple­and­seemingly­conflicting­narratives—conflicting,­that­ is,­from­the­modern­standpoint­of­sovereignty­in­the­modern­nation-­state­ system. ­ In­the­seventeenth­century,­after­two­invasions,­the­second­having­been­ truly­devastating­and­humiliating,­the­Chosŏn­dynasty­acknowledged­Qing­ suzerainty,­but­without­truly­accepting­the­Manchu­dynasty’s­claim­over­ the­Central­Plain­(K:­chungwŏn).­Scholars­like­Song­Si-­yŏl­(1607–89),­who­ lived­through­both­invasions­as­a­young­man,­yearned­to­overthrow­the­ Qing­and­restore­the­Ming.­For­Song,­disrecognition­of­Qing­China­was­ fundamentally­ linked­ to­ the­ question­ of­ civilization,­ and­ as­ adamant­ a­ Ming­loyalist­as­he­was,­he­also­made­it­quite­clear­that­civilization­was­ not­permanently­tied­to­place­or­people.­Both­Confucius­and­Mencius,­for­ example,­were­born­in­states­where­previously­the­region­and­its­people­ had­been­considered­foreign,­or­barbaric­(tongyi),­and­Song­argued­vigorously­that­it­was­the­duty­of­learned­men­in­Chosŏn­Korea­to­continue­the­ civilizational­legacy­that­began­with­the­sage­kings­Yao­and­Shun,­a­precious­legacy­that­was­cultivated­and­transmitted­by­Confucius,­Mencius,­ and­Zhu­Xi­and­taken­up­by­Yi­Hwang­(Toegye)­and­Yi­I­(Yulgok)­of­Chosŏn­ Korea.31­That­commitment­to­civilizational­legacy­is­what­prompted­Song’s­

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

disciples­to­build­a­shrine­to­the­Ming­emperor,­both­to­make­amends­for­ the­failure­to­actually­launch­an­attack­against­the­Qing­and­as­an­expression­of­their­claim­to­the­Ming­mantle­of­civilization.32 ­ To­reclaim­its­authority­over­rituals­and­discourse­on­the­state­of­Chosŏn­ Korea’s­civilization,­and­even­as­it­performed­rituals­of­submission­to­the­ Qing,­the­Chosŏn­court­took­the­dramatic­step­of­also­establishing­a­shrine­ to­ the­ Ming.­ Sukchong­ (r.­ 1674–1720)­ established­ a­ shrine­ to­ the­ Ming­ Wanli­emperor­on­the­palace­grounds,­and­eighteenth-­century­monarchs­ like­Yŏngjo­(r.­1724–76)­and­Chŏngjo­(r.­1776–1800)­expanded­the­scope­ of­sacrifices­to­Ming­emperors.­This­high-­stakes­politics­over­ritual­practice­ helped­establish­a­potent­narrative­of­Chosŏn­Korea­as­soChunghwa,­a­lesser­ civilization­compared­to­Ming­China,­but­after­the­Manchu­conquest­of­ China,­the­last­bastion­of­civilization.­That­is­to­say,­late­sixteenth-­century­ and­seventeenth-­century­mortuary­rites­to­the­Ming­conducted­by­Chosŏn­ monarchs­and­the­sadaebu­were­acts­of­self-­identification­that­would­maintain­Chosŏn­Korea’s­distance­from­Qing­China­and­elevate­Chosŏn­Korea­ and­its­civilization­at­Qing’s­expense.33­In­broader­historical­perspective,­ Chosŏn­ officials,­ from­ the­ beginning­ to­ the­ end­ of­ the­ Chosŏn­ dynasty,­ often­chafed­at­the­demands­imposed­by­the­tributary­relationship­with­ China.­At­the­very­beginning­of­the­Chosŏn­period­Chosŏn­officials­repeatedly­balked­at­the­amount­of­tribute­to­be­paid­to­the­Ming.­In­relation­to­ the­Qing,­Gari­Ledyard­wryly­notes­that­Korean­diplomats­on­tribute­missions­to­Beijing­seemed­strangely­graceless­and­clumsy­in­their­ritual­obeisance,­at­least­during­rehearsals­supervised­by­the­Chinese­Board­of­Rites.34 ­ In­the­late­nineteenth­century,­this­complex­discursive­history­surrounding­ Chosŏn’s­ tributary­ status—that­ is,­ Korea’s­ multiple,­ seemingly­ conflicting­narratives­on­legitimacy—presented­a­conundrum­and­obstacle­to­ Japanese­and­Western­imperialism.­Inoue­Kaoru­in­fact­had­been­a­key­official­in­Meiji­Japan’s­first­concerted­attempt­to­“deterritorialize”­and­then­ “reterritorialize”­Chosŏn’s­zone­of­contact.35­As­the­vice­envoy,­Inoue­was­ signatory­to­the­1876­Treaty­of­Kanghwa,­in­which­the­first­article­avowed­ that­Chosŏn­was­an­independent­country­(chaju chi pang)­with­the­same­ sovereign­rights­(kwŏn)­as­Japan.36­It­turned­out,­however,­that­this­first­ “Western-­style”­treaty,­to­which­the­Chosŏn­court­was­forced­to­affix­its­ seal,­did­not­succeed­in­wrenching­Chosŏn­Korea­from­its­tributary­status­ toward­China.­Attached­to­the­Treaty­of­Friendship­and­Commerce­of­1882,­ which­established­relations­between­the­United­States­and­Korea­on­terms­

29

30

ChapTer one

of­“equality,”­King­Kojong’s­dispatch­stated­that­Korea­was­a­dependency­ of­China,­“but­the­management­of­her­government­affairs,­home­and­foreign,­ha[d]­always­been­vested­in­the­(Korean)­sovereign.”37­The­strategy,­ of­course,­was­to­try­to­utilize­to­best­advantage­the­principles­of­both­the­ China-­centered­tributary­system­as­well­as­the­sovereignty-­based­nation-­ state­system. ­ In­discussions­with­Li­Hongzhang­leading­up­to­the­U.S.-­Korea­Treaty­of­ 1882,­Kim­Yun-­sik­had­pressed­for­the­formulation­“for­China,­Korea­is­a­ dependent­country;­for­all­others,­Korea­is­independent.”38­Between­1885­ and­1887,­in­the­dispute­with­Britain­over­its­occupation­of­Port­Hamilton­ (Kŏmundo,­a­group­of­islands­in­the­South­Sea),­Korean­authorities­made­ references­to­international­law­(man’guk kongbŏp)­to­illustrate­the­illegality­ of­the­British­seizure­of­Korean­territory.­It­was­this­ambiguity,­the­space­ for­maneuver­afforded­by­Korea’s­embrace­of­both­a­China-­centered­world­ and­the­nation-­state­system,­which­Inoue­wanted­to­negate.­As­Alexis­Dudden­has­pointed­out,­by­leading­the­way­in­utilizing­the­post-­Westphalian,­ sovereignty-­based­conception­of­international­relations,­Japanese­statesmen­like­Inoue­Kaoru­positioned­themselves­as­the­preeminent­translators­and­enforcers­of­international­law­in­East­Asia.39­This­strategic­move,­ like­many­Meiji-­period­domestic­reforms­and­innovations,­was­“diplomacy­ carried­on­by­other­means.”­That­is,­until­1905­the­goal­of­revising­the­unequal­treaties­imposed­on­Japan­was­never­far­from­the­minds­of­the­Meiji­ leadership,­ and­ many­ of­ the­ “reforms”­ that­ were­ instituted­ in­ the­ Meiji­ era­were­intended­to­remake­Japan­as­recognizably­similar­to­the­Western­ powers­(for­example,­the­Meiji­emperor­appearing­in­public­with­a­Western­ haircut,­strictures­against­mixed­bathing,­ending­the­ban­on­Christianity). ­ There­were,­of­course,­other­strategic­considerations.­In­Britain’s­competition­with­Tsarist­Russia,­the­Great­Game,­Japan­could­prevent­Russia­from­ establishing­a­warm­water­port­and­thus­halt­Russian­imperial­expansion­ southward­into­East­Asia.­For­such­reasons,­Britain­and­the­United­States­ did­not­oppose­Japan’s­efforts­to­wrench­Chosŏn­Korea­from­its­tributary­ status­ toward­ China.­ Moreover­ Meiji­ statesmen­ like­ Inoue­ Kaoru­ used­ Britain’s­imposition­of­a­protectorate­status­on­Egypt­in­1882­as­a­model­ for­giving­“full­sovereignty”­and­“independence”­to­Chosŏn.­The­destruction­of­the­China-­centered­theory­and­practice­of­tributary­relations,­based­ on­ritual­hierarchy­and­actual­autonomy,­was­to­be­replaced­by­the­post-­ Westphalian­theory­and­practice­of­equal­sovereignty,­a­shift­that­would­

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

facilitate­Japanese­domination­over­Chosŏn­Korea.­Perhaps­it­should­be­ said­that­the­idea­of­equal­sovereignty­both­enabled­and­restrained­Euro-­ American­imperialism­in­nineteenth-­century­East­Asia.­In­the­main,­however,­both­the­theory­and­the­practice­of­symbolic­equality­and­equal­sovereignty­ facilitated­ actual­ domination­ and­ inequality—as­ authorized­ by­ international­treaties­and­laws.

The­Historicity­of­Confucian­Kingship­and­Sovereign­Space Since­the­Three­Kingdoms­period,­when­Buddhism­first­received­royal­patronage—late­fourth­century­cE­for­Koguryŏ­and­Paekche­and­sixth­century­cE­for­Silla—Buddhist­monks­had­entreated­the­Buddhas­and­bodhisattvas­to­protect­the­state.­According­to­Lewis­Lancaster,­the­Buddhism­ that­was­embraced­by­Koguryŏ­and­Paekche­was­the­royal­religion­of­the­ Turkic­nomadic­kingdoms­that­had­dominated­northern­China­in­the­late­ fourth­ century;­ developed­ along­ the­ Silk­ Road,­ Turkic­ Buddhism­ led­ to­ the­deep­involvement­of­Buddhist­monks­in­political­matters.40­From­the­ Three­Kingdoms­period­to­the­end­of­the­Koryŏ­dynasty,­the­image­of­the­ benevolent­and­compassionate­king­in­possession­of­divine­attributes­(a­ Cakravartin­king),­arising­from­the­belief­in­karmic­heritage,­had­defined­ and­enhanced­the­authority­of­kings.­While­Buddhism­affirmed­the­potential­of­every­human­being­to­achieve­an­enlightened­state­of­mind,­it­also­ legitimated­Silla’s­caste­system­by­way­of­moral­causality­spanning­more­ than­ one­ lifetime,­ the­ cycle­ of­ death­ and­ rebirth­ in­which,­ based­ on­ its­ karma,­a­soul­transmigrates­and­is­reborn­in­various­states­of­existence,­as­ animal,­human,­aristocrat.­Such­notions­legitimated­the­Silla­aristocracy­ that­differentiated­itself­from­the­lower­orders­on­the­basis­of­its­kolp’um,­ or­bone­rank.­At­the­very­top­of­the­aristocracy­was­the­sŏnggol­(holy­bone)­ that­identified­itself­as­“a­lineage­of­Buddhas,­Buddhist­rulers­about­to­become­ Buddhas,­ and­ Indian­ deities.”41­ For­ newcomers­ to­ the­ throne,­ the­ king’s­identification­with­Cakravartin­kings­could­compensate­for­shortcomings­in­the­dynastic­founder’s­family­background;­Wang­Kŏn­(temple­ name­T’aejo),­for­example,­who­founded­the­Koryŏ­dynasty­(918–1392),­ faced­down­the­aristocrats­of­Silla­as­the­maintainer­of­the­dharma.­Thus­ in­the­first­of­his­Ten­Injunctions,­Wang­Kŏn­instructed­his­descendents,­ “For­the­great­enterprise­[taeŏp]­of­our­country,­it­is­necessary­to­procure­ the­protective­power­of­all­the­Buddhas.”42

31

32

ChapTer one

­ During­the­Koryŏ­period,­when­the­power­of­Buddhist­institutions­was­ at­its­zenith,­the­insertion­of­Indian­Buddhist­and­Jain­ideas­about­kingship­ into­preexisting­origin­and­foundation­narratives­became­a­part­of­histories­written­by­Buddhist­monks,­narratives­that­asserted­correspondences­ between­Buddhist­deities,­local­gods,­and­heroes­that­founded­kingdoms.­ The­origin­narrative­for­the­first­“Korean”­state­centered­on­Tan’gun,­the­ progenitor­of­Ancient­Chosŏn.­In­recording­this­foundation­narrative,­the­ thirteenth-­century­monk­Iryŏn­asserted­an­equivalence­between­Hwanin,­ the­Celestial­Emperor;­Śakro­Devānām­Indra,­Lord­of­the­Devas,­who­lives­ in­Svarga,­a­set­of­heavenly­worlds­located­on­Mt.­Meru­(in­South­Asia);­ and­Tan’gun,­Hwanin’s­grandson,­as­the­manifestation­of­Śrī­Mahādevī.43­ This­Buddhist­gloss­on­the­Tan’gun­narrative­was­but­one­articulation­of­ spatial­and­temporal­imaginaries­informed­by­Buddhist­discourses,­including­prophecies­about­Maitreya,­the­future­Buddha­who­would­appear­in­ Koryŏ­to­enable­the­construction­of­a­new­world.­Though­Koryŏcentric,­ the­spatial­imaginary­here­is­of­a­much­broader­world,­with­Koryŏ­as­the­ East­and­India­as­the­West,­as­in­this­mid-­tenth-­century­inscription:­“[King­ Kwangjong]­wants­to­bring­peace­to­the­eastern­country­and­greatly­upholds­the­teaching­of­the­western­regions.­.­.­.­He­draws­tranquil­water­from­ the­river­of­Sŏn­[Zen]­and­spreads­the­ways­of­compassion­in­the­palace.­ The­gate­of­Lanka­was­broadly­opened;­the­garden­of­dhārānis­was­brightly­ expanded.”44­As­Vermeersch­points­out,­during­King­Kwangjong’s­reign­a­ climate­of­terror­pervaded­the­court,­and­“incriminations­sufficed­to­end­ a­career­or­a­life.”­King­Kwangjong­executed­a­great­many­people,­and­to­ atone­for­the­killing­he­“held­Buddhist­masses,­distributed­alms­to­the­poor,­ organized­the­release­of­animals,­and­forbade­the­killing­of­animals.”45 ­ Koryŏ­rulers­like­Kwangjong­undertook­Buddhist­consecration­rituals,­ similar­ to­ bodhisattva­ ordination,­ committing­ them­ to­ the­ dharma.­ But­ however­much­commitment­Kwangjong­may­have­had­to­upholding­the­ dharma,­as­sovereign,­like­all­kings­and­emperors,­he­also­claimed­the­right­ to­kill.­That­fundamental­aspect­of­kingly­sovereign­power­did­not­change­ with­the­founding­of­the­Chosŏn­dynasty,­of­course,­but­the­capital-­based­ scholar-­officials­who­helped­establish­the­new­dynasty­saw­themselves­as­ the­authors­who­provided­meaning­and­significance­to­that­dynastic­change.­ Staunchly­committed­to­a­great­transformative­enterprise,­they­launched­a­ sustained­attack­on­Buddhism­and­the­Buddhist­church:­Buddhist­monks­ and­ Buddhist­rituals­ were­ banished­from­the­court­and­ the­capital,­ and­ Chosŏn­ rulers­ were­ prevented­ from­ undertaking­ Buddhist­ consecration­

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

rituals.­In­their­commitment­to­the­comprehensive­Confucian­transformation­of­ideas,­institutions,­and­practices­associated­with­both­kingship­and­ dynastic­ narratives,­ these­ scholar-­officials­ constituted­ themselves­ as­ the­ ruling­class­and­the­Chosŏn­state­as­a­Confucian­bureaucratic­state.­Confucian­rituals­became­the­point­of­departure­for­governance­(yech’i),­with­ ritual­propriety­understood­as­having­a­transformative­power,­able­to­constitute­people­as­righteous­and­loyal­subjects,­making­it­less­necessary­for­ laws­or­the­king­to­kill­so­many.­By­the­late­sixteenth­century­the­Chosŏn­ dynasty­could­claim­success­in­naturalizing­Confucian­rituals,­rituals­that­ created­and­mediated­status­identities­(sinbun)­and­affective­relations.46 ­ How­ was­ it­ that­ the­ scholar-­officials­ and­ aristocrats­ residing­ in­ and­ around­the­capital,­who­were­themselves­steeped­in­Buddhist­lore,­so­determined­to­eradicate­Buddhist­influence­from­the­political­and­cultural­ life­of­the­Chosŏn­court­and­the­scholar-­official­class?­The­decision­to­completely­purge­Buddhism­from­state­rituals,­and­Buddhist­institutions­and­ influence­from­the­Chosŏn­court,­provided­the­fledgling­dynasty­its­material­ basis—in­ terms­ of­ land,­ labor,­ and­ taxes—for­ consolidating­ state­ power.­We­should­not­lose­sight­of­the­pressing­institutional­and­security­ concerns­behind­the­campaign­against­Buddhism.­There­was­a­great­need­ to­expand­the­tax­base,­reward­merit­subjects­with­land,­and­calculate­how­ the­new­dynastic­state­could­consolidate­power.­This­pushed­the­sadaebu­ to­bring­about­the­destruction­of­over­three­thousand­Buddhist­temples,­ seize­monastery­lands­and­slaves,­limit­the­number­of­novices­permitted­to­ become­monks,­sell­Buddhist­statues­to­Japan­or­melt­them­down­to­mint­ coins,­and­prohibit­Buddhist­monks­from­entering­the­capital. ­ But­ at­ the­ same­ time­ it­ is­ difficult­ not­ to­ see­ this­ particular­ dynastic­ change­as­also­emblematic­of­a­purposeful­epistemological­act.­There­were­ sustained­and­coordinated­diatribes­not­just­against­Buddhist­institutions­ and­practices­(particularly­mortuary­rites)­but­also­against­shamans­and­ shamanistic­ practices.­ Perhaps­ the­ most­ consequential­ epistemological­ move­ was­ made­ by­ Chŏng­ To-­jŏn­ (1342–98),­ one­ of­ the­ intellectual­ founders­of­the­new­dynasty,­who­so­effectively­made­use­of­the­categories­ of­orthodox­and­heterodox­thought.­After­Chŏng,­the­Confucian­literati­ would­regularly­draw­distinctions­between­orthodox­learning­and­aberrant­ concepts­(idan),­and­such­categories­provided­the­intellectual­basis­for­the­ articulation­and­dissemination­of­Confucian­notions­about­sovereignty­and­ selfhood­(with­its­focus­on­self-­cultivation)­and­the­suppression­of­Buddhist­concerns­with­other-­worldliness­and­salvation.

33

34

ChapTer one

­ One­could­still­find­in­the­seventeenth­and­eighteenth­centuries­maps­ showing­ how­ the­ land­ itself­ (the­ topography­ of­ the­ Korean­ peninsula)­ continued­to­be­conceptualized­in­Buddhist­terms;­for­example,­Korea’s­ mountains­linked­to­the­mountains­of­Tibet­that­formed­the­head­of­a­huge­ dragon,­ its­ long­ body­ stretching­ east­ along­ the­ mountain­ ranges­ above­ Mongolia,­with­its­tail­sweeping­down­south­along­Korea’s­T’aebaek­mountain­range,­its­tip­ending­with­Mt.­Halla­on­Cheju­Island­off­the­southern­ coast­of­the­Korean­peninsula.47­But­sovereign­space­as­imagined­by­late­ Chosŏn­scholar-­officials­was­definitively­bounded,­and­in­spatial­terms­the­ embrace­of­a­Neo-­Confucian­universal­order­meant­a­turning­away­from­ Koryŏ­claims­to­a­culturally­distinct­empire.­As­Andre­Schmid­notes,­“By­ the­late­Chosŏn­dynasty,­travelers­to­China­were­quite­conscious­that,­in­ the­words­of­the­famous­scholar­Pak­Chiwŏn,­‘This­river­[the­Yalu­River]­ is­the­point­of­contact­and­the­boundary­between­them­and­us.’­To­cross­ the­Yalu­River­was­to­enter­into­Qing­territory.”48­In­the­eighteenth­and­ nineteenth­centuries,­writes­Schmid,­Chosŏn­officials­demonstrated­their­ considerable­talent­in­performing­tribute­formalities­before­Qing­officials­ sent­to­clarify­the­border­between­Chosŏn­and­China,­while­remaining­adamant­about­Chosŏn­land­claims­and­interpretation­of­border­markers.49­I­ think­ it­ is­ possible­ to­ understand­ this­ spatial­ imaginary­ of­ Chosŏn­ as­ a­ bounded­sovereign­space­as­indicative­of­a­continuing­sense­of­being­besieged,­following­the­incredible­shock­of­invasions­from­Japan­and­then­by­ the­Manchus,­as­Pak­Che-­ga­put­it,­“when­Heaven­collapsed­and­Earth­was­ torn­apart”­and­barbarians­(the­Manchus)­overthrew­the­Ming­dynasty.50 ­ In­the­seventeenth­century­it­had­not­seemed­far-fetched­for­Song­Si-­yŏl­ to­advocate­war­with­the­Qing­empire: Today,­those­who­oppose­the­plan­for­northern­subjugation­try­to­justify­their­ position­by­stating­that­our­military­is­too­weak­to­carry­out­such­a­task.­However,­Koguryŏ­was­able­to­defeat­millions­[sic]­of­Sui­and­Tang­soldiers­despite­ the­fact­that­their­territory­was­only­one-­third­of­the­land­we­now­call­our­own.­ No­less­a­figure­than­Emperor­Taizong­of­Tang­was­humbled­by­our­ancestors­ during­the­battle­for­Ansi­Fortress.­Those­barbarians­[Manchus]­are­nothing­ more­than­an­uncivilized­people­who­do­not­add­up­to­one­ten-­thousandth­of­ the­worth­of­Emperor­Taizong.51

By­Pak­Chi-­wŏn’s­time,­however,­it­was­clear­that­Chosŏn­would­not­be­able­ to­march­north­to­“punish”­the­Manchus,­leaving­a­situation­of­continued­

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

unease­over­sharing­a­border­with­the­Qing­Empire.­Eighteenth-­century­ scholars-­officials­like­Yu­Tŭk-­kong­(1749–1807),­a­disciple­of­Pak­Chi-­wŏn,­ wrote­histories­about­Korea’s­“northern”­dynasties­Koguryŏ­and­Parhae,­ highlighting­great­military­victories­over­the­Sui­and­Tang­Empires.­At­the­ same­time,­Yu­did­not­write­Palhaego­as­part­of­an­irredentist­project.­As­ Huh­Tae-­yong­explains,­the­book­was­a­recollection­about­a­powerful­kingdom­that­served­a­different­purpose:­to­reinforce­the­notion­of­Chosŏn­as­ the­last­bastion­of­civilization.­Early­twentieth-­century­nationalist­historians­like­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­saw­Koguryŏ’s­military­victories­against­the­Sui­and­ Tang­as­proof­of­strength­and­resistance­to­China.­But,­as­Huh­argues,­Yu’s­ historiography­should­not­be­read­as­a­prototype­or­precursor­to­twentieth-­ century­ nationalist­ historiography.­ His­ histories­ of­ Koguryŏ­ and­ Parhae­ were­meant­to­show­“that­Confucian-­based­Sinocentric­order­could­be­restored”­within­the­bounded­space­of­Chosŏn.52 ­ To­ be­ sure,­ in­ the­ early­ part­ of­ the­ Chosŏn­ period,­ the­ court­ and­ the­ scholar-­official­class­chafed­at­paying­tribute­to­the­Ming—so­revered­by­ Song­Si-­yŏl­after­its­demise—especially­human­tribute­(girls­for­the­harem­ and­boys­to­serve­as­eunuchs),­since­young­girls­sent­to­the­Ming­palace­ were­recruited­from­among­daughters­of­low-­to­middle-­grade­officials.53­ The­number­of­human­beings­requisitioned­was­relatively­small­(several­ dozen­a­year),­and­in­1433­the­Ming­emperor­stopped­this­practice.­Just­as­ in­the­early­Koryŏ­period,­the­Chosŏn­court­had­built­a­Temple­to­Heaven­ and­established­its­own­microtributary­system,­launching­punitive­expeditions­to­Tsushima­(today­part­of­Nagasaki­Prefecture)­and­border­areas­ inhabited­by­the­Jurchen,­forcing­these­polities­to­submit­as­vassals­to­the­ Chosŏn­ruler­and­to­pay­tribute.­By­the­sixteenth­century,­however,­the­ Chosŏn­ruler­was­clearly­not­an­emperor,­nor­did­the­Chosŏn­court­see­ itself­as­the­center­of­a­separate­and­distinct­world.­The­Chosŏn­monarch,­ the­sadaebu,­and­the­literati­in­the­countryside­embraced­the­civilization-­ barbarism­binary­associated­with­Sinocentrism.54­This­conviction­in­the­ correctness­of­a­China-­centered­world­was­authorized­by­a­conception­of­ sovereignty­that­could­not­be­based­on­the­notion­of­multiple­centers­or­ multiple­worlds,­as­in­centuries­prior. ­ In­ the­ late­ sixteenth­ century­ and­ early­ seventeenth,­ the­ devastations­ wrought­by­the­Hideyoshi­and­Manchu­invasions­and­the­political­disorientation­ brought­ on­ by­ the­ collapse­ of­ the­ Ming­ dynasty­ prompted­ the­ Chosŏn­monarchy­and­the­sadaebu­to­intensify­efforts­to­“Confucianize”­

35

36

ChapTer one

Chosŏn­ society.55­ When­ the­ Manchus­ demanded­ that­ the­ Chosŏn­ court­ transfer­to­the­Qing­dynasty­the­deferential­ritual­and­diplomatic­protocols­Chosŏn­had­observed­in­its­relations­with­the­Ming­court,­the­Chosŏn­ court­ and­ the­ sadaebu­ could­ not­ bring­ themselves­ to­ comply,­ to­ which­ the­Manchus­responded­with­two­invasions,­in­1627­and­1636.­Having­to­ capitulate­to­the­Manchus­in­1636­and­witness­the­“barbarian”­Manchus­ seizing­the­center­of­civilization­in­1644,­mid-­seventeenth-­century­Chosŏn­ literati­could­only­fantasize­about­“marching­north”­to­restore­the­Ming­ dynasty.56­Forced­to­submit,­and­faced­with­the­immense­task­of­restoring­its­networks­of­power­and­authority,­the­Chosŏn­dynasty’s­reaction­in­ the­intellectual­and­cultural­realm­was­to­(re)invigorate­patriarchy­and­reinforce­the­categories­of­civilization­(hwa)­and­barbarism­(yi).57­For­the­ Chosŏn­ elite­ after­ the­ seventeenth­ century,­ it­ was­ Chosŏn’s­ embrace­ of­ Chunghwa,­a­China-­centered­culturalism,­and­their­own­commitment­to­ the­basic­categories­that­defined­that­world­in­terms­of­inner­and­outer,­ civilization­and­barbarism­(hwa­and­yi),­that­endowed­Chosŏn­with­its­distinctive­and­civilized­state-­ness.­It­was­through­deep­intellectual­engagement­with­and­fidelity­to­a­China-­centered­cultural­inheritance­that­the­ civilization­of­Chosŏn­realized­its­full­potentiality,­its­cosmic­meaning. ­ That­is­to­say,­the­collapse­of­the­Ming­dynasty­in­the­mid-­seventeenth­ century­had­the­effect­of­reinforcing­Confucian­kingship­and­the­perception­of­Chosŏn’s­sovereign­space­as­soChunghwa,­a­lesser­but­the­only­remaining­civilization.58­The­attributes­of­centrality­(chung)­and­civilization­ (hwa)­were­detached­from­the­historical,­geographical­China­and­converted­ into­universal­norms­that­both­the­Chosŏn­court­and­the­sadaebu­could­ claim­to­uphold,­alone­in­the­world.­Toward­the­end­of­the­eighteenth­century,­however,­it­became­increasingly­difficult­to­sustain­the­pretense­that­ Chosŏn­ was­ the­ last­ bastion­ of­ civilization.­ Pak­ Chi-­wŏn,­ for­ example,­ called­ attention­ to­ the­ many­ favorable­ aspects­ of­ Qing­ China’s­ material­ culture­(including­new­modes­of­manufacture­and­commerce)­and­disparaged­the­moribund­quality­of­Chosŏn’s­economy.59­For­officials­like­Pak,­ who­traveled­to­Beijing­and­wrote­about­what­he­saw,­the­characterization­ of­Qing­China­as­barbaric­was­laughable.­Placing­emphasis­on­technical­ utility­and­the­people’s­welfare­(iyong husaeng),­he­advocated­a­thoroughgoing­renovation­of­Chosŏn’s­economy­and­social­life­on­the­model­of­Qing­ China.­Hong­Tae-­yong,­with­his­appreciation­for­the­Jesuits’­knowledge­of­ mathematics­and­astronomy,­sought­to­bring­about­an­even­more­radical­

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

decentering:­the­Earth­is­round,­spins­on­an­axis,­and­circles­the­sun­with­ the­other­planets,­and­thus­the­concept­of­“centrality”­can­only­be­relative.60 ­ Just­as­complex­as­this­cultural,­spatial,­and­political­history,­the­meaning­ of­the­various­state­rituals­did­not­remain­fixed­over­the­five­centuries­of­ the­Chosŏn­period.­To­be­sure,­the­Chosŏn­court­never­turned­away­from­ the­notion­of­yech’i,­transforming­people­into­loyal­moral­subjects­through­ ritual.­But­it­would­be­inaccurate­to­see­the­grand­sacrificial­rites­at­the­ chongmyo-sajik­as­emblematic­of­an­unchanging­or­fixed­tradition.­After­the­ theory­and­practice­of­Chosŏn’s­state­rituals­were­codified­during­the­reign­ of­Sŏngjong,­in­1474­in­the­Kukcho oryeŭi­(Manual­for­Five­State­Rites),­ debates­over­ritual­propriety­and­the­meaning­of­the­rites­in­different­circumstances­became­the­central­arena­of­political­struggle­until­the­very­ end­of­the­Chosŏn­dynasty.­The­evolution­of­the­theory­and­performance­of­ grand­sacrificial­rites­at­the­chongmyo-sajik­bring­to­light­not­only­the­history­of­conflict­over­ideas­and­experiences­of­Confucian­kingship­but­the­ history­of­the­Chosŏn­elite’s­understanding­of­both­state­sovereignty­within­ a­China-­centered­tributary­system­and­Confucian­selfhood—the­self­that­is­ not­private,­solitary,­and­autonomous­but­positively­situated­in­hierarchic­ and­patriarchic­sociality. ­ In­ the­ late­ nineteenth­ century,­ for­ Russian,­ Japanese,­ American,­ and­ British­diplomats­and­businessmen­intent­on­acquiring­concessions­from­ the­Chosŏn­court­in­pursuit­of­both­personal­and­national­gain,­the­seeming­ambiguity­in­Chosŏn’s­sovereign­status­created­a­number­of­legal­and­ strategic­obstacles.­In­contrast,­as­Japanese­diplomats­knew­very­well,­the­ post-­Westphalian­conception­of­sovereignty—based­on­the­notion­of­equal­ sovereignty,­ supposing­ a­ final­ and­ supreme­ authority­ within­ a­ political­ community­delineated­by­well-­defined­borders—facilitated­the­machinations­of­the­imperialist­powers.­By­ruling­out­pretexts­for­further­Chinese­ intervention­or­mediation­on­behalf­of­Korea,­Japan­could­supplant­China’s­ influence­over­Korea.­More­important,­Japan’s­tutelage­of­Korea­could­receive­the­sanction­of­Britain­and­the­United­States.

Rituals­of­Independence Among­ Meiji­ elder­ statesmen­ (genrō),­ Inoue­ Kaoru­ was­ the­ most­ well-­ versed­on­the­political­situation­in­Chosŏn­Korea,­and­in­the­autumn­of­ 1894­he­volunteered­to­go­to­Korea­to­replace­Ōtori­Keisuke,­the­Japanese­

37

38

ChapTer one

minister­in­Seoul­who­was­thought­to­lack­sufficient­prestige­to­deal­with­ Western­diplomats.61­Ōtori­was­also­having­trouble­dealing­with­the­Taewŏn’gun,­who­began­to­scheme­against­the­Japanese­once­the­Deliberative­ Council,­led­by­Kim­Hong-­jip,­began­to­pass­reform­measures­intended­to­ abolish­slavery­and­do­away­with­status­distinctions.­Inoue,­on­the­other­ hand,­easily­sidelined­the­Taewŏn’gun­with­evidence­of­his­plot­to­enlist­ the­aid­of­Chinese­forces­in­the­north­and­Tonghak­forces­in­the­south.­As­ envoy­extraordinary­and­minister­plenipotentiary­to­Korea,­Inoue­had­the­ power­to­negotiate­and­conclude­treaties­with­Korea.­His­strategic­goals­ were­to­sever­the­tributary­ties­that­had­linked­China­and­Korea­for­centuries­and­then,­without­offending­the­Western­powers,­convert­Korea­into­ Japan’s­protectorate.62 ­ Soon­ after­ arriving­ in­ Seoul­ on­ October­ 26,­ 1894,­ Inoue­ revealed­ his­ twenty-­point­reform­program­to­King­Kojong­and­the­leading­members­of­ the­Chosŏn­government.­The­first­article­of­the­reform­program­insisted,­“All­ power­shall­stem­from­one­source,­namely,­the­king.”­The­last­article­stipulated,­“For­the­purpose­of­securing­the­independence­of­Korea,­the­above­ articles­of­reform­and­national­policy­shall­be­presented­at­the­Royal­Ancestral­Temple­and­be­published­for­the­benefit­of­the­people.”63­Thus­it­was­that­ King­Kojong’s­Oath­before­the­ghosts­of­his­dynastic­forbearers,­not­to­submit­to­the­dictates­of­other­countries,­was­dictated­to­him­by­Inoue­Kaoru.­ In­July­1894,­after­Japanese­troops­had­taken­control­of­the­central­palaces­ in­Seoul,­a­Deliberative­Council­(Kun’guk­kimuch’ŏ)­had­been­established.­ Led­by­Kim­Hong-­jip­and­Yu­Kil-­chun,­the­Council­passed­hundreds­of­reform­measures­intended­to­abolish­status­distinctions­and­“cruel­customs.”­ Most­of­the­members­of­the­Council­had­been­involved­in­Enlightenment­ efforts­since­the­1870s.­It­should­also­be­remembered­that,­except­in­those­ instances­where­they­tried­to­seize­power­directly,­King­Kojong­had­supported­and­encouraged­the­efforts­of­reformist­officials.64­At­the­same­time,­ such­ revolutionary­ (antifeudal)­ reforms­ also­ took­ their­ impetus,­ in­ part,­ from­the­Tonghak­rebellion,­with­reformist­officials­hoping­to­conciliate­the­ Tonghak­insurgents­in­the­countryside.65­Thus,­starting­with­King­Kojong,­ the­two­decades­preceding­the­Sino-­Japanese­War­(1894–95)­had­witnessed­ determined­efforts­in­both­the­capital­and­the­countryside­to­do­away­with­ status­distinctions­and­to­envision­alternative­structures­that­would­accommodate­a­much­broader­section­of­the­populace­in­political­discourse.66 ­ As­part­of­the­reform­measures,­the­State­Council­and­Six­Ministries,­ including­the­Board­of­Rites,­were­abolished­in­December­1894.­In­their­

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

place,­ seven­ ministries­ modeled­ on­ the­ Meiji­ government­ were­ established.­Interestingly,­while­most­of­the­reformist­officials­maintained­an­ unfavorable­view­of­Confucian­rituals,­Inoue­was­more­attentive­to­how­old­ rituals­might­be­made­to­produce­new­meanings.­It­was­Inoue­who­took­the­ lead­in­trying­to­use­the­great­offering­at­chongmyo-sajik­to­render­the­Western­concept­of­sovereignty­and­independence­sensible­(and­manifest)­to­ the­scholar-­official­class­and­the­broader­public.­Following­Inoue’s­script,­ King­Kojong­was­shown­using­the­great­offering­at­the­chongmyo-sajik­as­a­ vehicle­for­imbuing­the­old­words­with­new­meanings,­by­associating­words­ such­as­tongnip­(independence)­with­the­Western­semantics­of­sovereignty.­ By­so­doing,­King­Kojong­in­fact­confirmed­to­the­literati­as­well­as­the­ Western­powers­that­Chosŏn­Korea­had­all­along­lacked­full­sovereignty. ­ By­October­1894,­after­major­Japanese­victories­over­Qing­forces­on­land­ (the­battle­at­Pyongyang)­and­at­sea,­King­Kojong­and­most­of­his­officials­ were­ready­to­formally­cut­Chosŏn’s­ties­to­China.67­Inoue­might­have­written­the­script­for­King­Kojong’s­“declaration­of­independence,”­but­the­king­ and­the­greater­part­of­reform-­minded­officials,­for­their­own­reasons,­were­ coauthors­of­the­Independence­Oath­taken­at­the­Royal­Ancestral­Temple.­ Yu­Kil-­chun,­who­in­1890­submitted­his­manuscript­Sŏyu kyŏnmun­(Observations­on­a­Journey­to­the­West)­to­King­Kojong,­had­offered­this­seemingly­ sympathetic­ but­ condescending­ appraisal­ of­ those­ who­ argued­ for­ continued­ritual­deference­to­China: Occasionally,­ people­ unfamiliar­ with­ international­ law­ [kongbŏp]­ and­ the­ trend­of­the­times,­and­unable­to­make­a­distinction­between­a­vassal­state­ [sokkuk]­and­a­tributary­state­[chin’gongguk],­point­to­our­payment­of­tribute­ [to­China]­as­evidence­of­our­country’s­vassal­status.­But­who­would­pay­tribute­if­they­did­not­respect­their­own­country­and­love­their­own­sovereign­ [in’gŭm]?­Enmeshed­in­a­difficult­situation­by­the­actions­of­great­powers,­they­ had­settled­on­the­stratagem­of­protecting­their­country­through­extravagant­ ritual­deference­[to­China].­Understanding­their­country’s­vulnerable­situation­and­overly­afraid­and­fearful­of­the­great­powers,­they­swallow­their­sense­ of­outrage­and­undermine­the­power­that­can­flow­from­concerted­effort.­But­ if­we­think­about­the­underlying­basis,­we­can­surmise­that­[their­actions]­ stem­from­anxiety­and­trepidation­rooted­in­loyalty­to­their­country­and­love­ for­their­sovereign.68

­ Pak­ Yŏng-­hyo­ and­ Sŏ­ Kwang-­bŏm­ were­ the­ principal­ leaders­ within­ the­Deliberative­Council­from­December­1894­until­July­1895,­and­while­

39

40

ChapTer one

the­Council­passed­dozens­of­reform­edicts,­it­cannot­be­said­that­it­was­ autonomous­ from­ Japanese­ control.­ At­ the­ same­ time,­ since­ his­ role­ in­ the­Kapsin­coup­attempt­in­1884,­Pak­had­been­consistent­in­his­call­for­ Korea’s­independence­from­Qing­China.­While­forcing­China­to­acknowledge­ Korea’s­ complete­ independence­ would­ have­ been­ difficult­ without­ recourse­to­war,­it­can­be­argued­that­the­king’s­pledge­to­“dispense­with­ any­thought­of­relying­on­Qing­China,­and­to­firmly­set­about­laying­the­ foundations­for­Korea’s­sovereign­independence”­was­not­completely­overdetermined­by­Japanese­occupation­forces. ­ It­is­important­to­keep­in­mind­that­as­early­as­1883,­prior­to­the­signing­ of­a­treaty­with­the­United­States,­the­Chosŏn­officials­who­had­argued­for­ the­establishment­of­relations­with­the­United­States­were­not­oblivious­to­ how­power­determined­international­relations­and­the­application­of­international­law.­As­one­writer­pointed­out­in­the­Hanyang chubo,­“What­are­ international­treaties­and­laws?­They­are­but­a­tool­of­rich­and­powerful­ countries­to­rationalize­their­own­misconduct­and­to­rebuke­others.­.­.­.­In­ international­commerce­only­strength­matters­amid­rich­and­poor,­weak­ and­strong,­and­one­cannot­rely­on­international­treaties­or­laws.”69­At­the­ same­time,­those­who­advocated­establishing­diplomatic­and­trade­relations­with­the­United­States­understood­that­international­law­functioned­ as­the­only­language­with­which­Chosŏn­could­both­engage­and­deter­Japan­ and­the­Western­powers.­As­we­have­seen,­the­chongmyo-sajik­had­anchored­ the­Chosŏn­dynasty­to­extremely­complex­discursive­traditions­of­asserting­ autonomy­ within­ a­ China-­centered­ tributary­ system.­ Despite—for­ some,­precisely­because­of—profound­changes­forced­by­mid-­nineteenth-­ century­Western­imperialism­and­the­treaty-­port­system,­tributary­protocols­in­Qing-­Chosŏn­relations­remained­central­to­both­China­and­Korea­ in­terms­of­self-­representations­and­representations­to­the­world­at­large.70­ In­ that­ sense,­ King­ Kojong’s­ “declaration­ of­independence”­ at­ the­Royal­ Ancestral­Temple­in­1895,­in­the­presence­of­his­ministers­and­other­high­ officials,­and­his­determination­“not­to­submit­to­the­dictates­of­other­countries”­(that­is,­not­to­submit­to­the­dictates­of­China)­signaled­a­radical­ break­ not­ just­ politically­ but­ also­ in­ terms­ of­ diplomatic­ and­ discursive­ practices.71 ­ In­the­first­article­of­the­fourteen-­article­Oath­that­he­read­aloud,­King­ Kojong­pledged­to­“give­up­all­idea­of­any­subjection­to­China­[ch’ŏngguk],­ and­to­agree­to­labor­to­firmly­establish­[Korea’s]­independence­[chaju tong-

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

nip].”72­This­was­the­first­time­that­a­Chosŏn­dynasty­monarch­explicitly­ disavowed­Chosŏn’s­commitment­ to­a­China-­centered­ geopolitics.73­Kojong’s­Oath­signaled­his­commitment­to­securing­Chosŏn’s­independence­ in­a­global­nation-­state­system­dominated­by­the­Western­imperial­powers,­ a­system­wherein­sovereignty­supposed­a­final­and­absolute­authority­in­ a­specific­political­community,­a­(nation-­)state,­with­no­final­or­absolute­ authority­existing­elsewhere.­More­significant­perhaps­than­the­pledge­to­ sever­Chosŏn’s­ties­to­China­was­the­language­of­the­Oath­itself,­in­which­ the­ meaning­ and­ significance­ of­ old­ words­ like­ chaju­ and­ tongnip­ were­ linked­conclusively­to­contemporary­Western­legal­terminology­(kongbŏp)­ and­practices,74­setting­in­motion­a­process­that­would­remove­Heaven­as­ the­source­of­political­legitimacy. ­ In­the­second­article­of­the­Oath,­King­Kojong­promised­to­formalize­ the­ royal­ succession.­ Although­ making­ the­ king­ even­ more­ vulnerable­ (with­the­possibility­of­forced­abdication),­formalizing­the­royal­succession­would­stabilize­the­monarchy,­and­doing­so­without­an­imperial­patent­ of­appointment­from­the­Qing­emperor­would­provide­further­proof­of­the­ end­of­Korea’s­tributary­relationship­to­China.­Instead,­and­taking­the­Meiji­ experience­as­his­model,­Inoue­endeavored­to­make­Japan­the­underwriter­ of­the­Korean­monarchy.­In­that­sense,­King­Kojong’s­Oath­was­a­translation­of­sorts.­It­was­to­be­the­hypothetical­equivalent­of­the­Meiji­emperor’s­ Charter­Oath­of­1868.75­The­sweeping­reforms,­dating­from­the­occupation­ of­Kyŏngbok­palace­in­July­1894,­were­to­be­seen­as­the­Korean­equivalent­ of­the­Meiji­Restoration:­an­ishin­(K:­yushin),­a­term­emotively­resonant­ with­classical­significance. ­ The­ Meiji­ Charter­ Oath­ too­ was­ issued­ in­ the­ midst­ of­ revolutionary­ chaos,­meant­to­reassure­the­various­domains­concerning­the­aims­of­the­ new­Meiji­government.­The­figure­of­the­emperor­in­Kyoto­had­provided­ the­rationale­for­overthrowing­the­Tokugawa­bakufu.­In­addition­to­his­ethical­and­sacerdotal­authority,­the­emperor­was­to­be­“restored”­to­political­ authority­as­well­(and­moved­to­Edo,­the­seat­of­Tokugawa­power),­and­ under­his­gaze­domainal­sectionalism­would­be­replaced­by­a­new­political­ unity.­The­Charter­Oath,­finalized­by­Kido­Kōin­of­the­Chōshū­domain­and­ signed­by­the­young­Emperor­Meiji­(then­sixteen­years­old),­called­for­the­ unity­of­all­classes,­high­and­low,­establishment­of­deliberative­assemblies,­ a­promise­that­matters­of­state­would­be­decided­by­public­discussion,­permission­for­people­of­all­classes­to­pursue­their­aspirations­(for­example,­

41

42

ChapTer one

commoners­could­seek­government­employment),­the­discarding­of­evil­ customs,­and­the­search­for­knowledge­throughout­the­world­(that­is,­the­ West).76 ­ While­Inoue­tried­to­portray­King­Kojong’s­Oath­as­Chosŏn’s­equivalent­ of­the­Meiji­Charter­Oath,­Meiji­statesmen­like­Mutsu­Munemitsu,­Japan’s­ foreign­minister,­were­disdainful­of­those­who­sought­to­represent­Japan’s­ motives­as­being­entirely­chivalrous.­On­the­topic­of­sponsoring­“reforms”­ in­Chosŏn­Korea­Mutsu­wrote: When­it­became­publicly­known­that­we­were­undertaking­these­reforms­[in­ Korea]­by­ourselves,­Japanese­opinion­spontaneously­agreed­that­a­chivalrous­ nation­like­ours­should­not­hesitate­to­extend­a­helping­hand­to­a­friendly­nation­like­Korea.­.­.­.­Naturally,­I­myself­never­saw­any­significance­in­the­issue­ of­Korea’s­reform­other­than­its­being­a­matter­of­political­necessity.­.­.­.­Nevertheless,­once­the­situation­changed­and­Japan­became­solely­responsible­for­ Korea’s­reform,­reform­itself­became­a­vital­issue­in­our­foreign­policy,­and­ our­government­was­obliged­at­the­very­least­to­attempt­its­implementation.­ Whatever­circumstances­lay­behind­the­unity­of­opinion­in­Japan­at­the­moment,­ I­ recognized­ that­ having­ such­ unity­ and­ cooperation­ was­ extremely­ desirable­for­domestic­and­diplomatic­purposes.77

Among­other­things,­the­“reforms”­were­meant­to­curb­the­power­of­the­ Korean­king,­and­on­this­point­Mutsu­would­have­agreed.­In­the­remaining­ articles­of­the­Oath,­King­Kojong­pledged­that­all­affairs­of­state­(chŏngmu)­ would­be­decided­in­consultation­with­his­cabinet,­that­the­queen­would­ not­interfere­with­such­decisions,­and­that­the­expenses­of­the­royal­household­would­be­reduced.78­So­that­all­the­people­would­become­aware­of­ King­Kojong’s­vow­to­his­dynastic­ancestors,­the­royal­Oath­(sŏgomun)­was­ published­and­disseminated­in­three­different­versions:­in­han’gŭl,­mixed­ script,­ and­ literary­ Chinese.­ Along­ with­ King­ Kojong’s­ birthday­ and­ the­ anniversary­of­the­founding­of­the­dynasty,­this­“day­of­independence”­was­ declared­a­public­holiday.79

Equal­Sovereignty­as­Colonial­Pedagogy In­Europe­the­knowledge­and­practice­of­state­sovereignty­emerged­with­ the­Treaty­of­Westphalia­in­1648,­and­traditional­notions­about­the­Holy­Roman­Empire­were­permanently­abandoned.80­In­place­of­overlapping­sover-

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

eignties—that­is,­an­empire­headed­spiritually­by­a­pope­and­temporally­by­ an­emperor—the­German­princes­of­the­Holy­Roman­Empire­gained­“absolute­sovereignty”­in­their­dominions,­and­Europe­was­reconceptualized­as­ a­community­of­sovereign­states.­Equal­sovereignty­was­identified­with­the­ principle­that­there­should­be­a­final­and­absolute­authority­in­the­political­ community­and­that­“no­final­and­absolute­authority­exists­elsewhere.”81­ That­is­to­say,­sovereignty­of­the­nation-­state­did­not­precede­the­development­of­the­nation-­state­system.­As­Anthony­Giddens­points­out,­“International­relations­are­not­connections­set­up­between­pre-­established­states­ which­could­maintain­their­sovereignty­without­them:­they­are­the­basis­ upon­which­nation-­states­exist­at­all.”82 ­ Just­as­the­idea­of­a­China-­centered­tributary­system­was­a­construct,­ so­too­was­the­post-­Westphalian­notion­of­equal­sovereignty­and,­for­that­ matter,­the­Enlightenment­notion­of­individual­personhood,­of­the­unique­ individual­as­a­self-­aware,­self-­creating­subject­beyond­(or­prior­to)­social­ status,­roles,­and­obligations.­Proponents­of­equal­sovereignty­and­autonomous­personhood­tended­not­to­forget­the­constructedness­of­both,­because,­as­Stephen­Krasner­reminds­us,­there­was­no­golden­age­when­state­ sovereignty­(or­personhood)­was­wholly­accepted,­respected,­or­scrupulously­practiced.­As­long­as­there­have­been­states,­states­have­compromised­their­own­sovereignty­and­violated­that­of­others.83­Referring­to­the­ experiences­ in­ Europe,­ Krasner­ points­ out,­ “Principles­ associated­ with­ both­ Westphalian­ and­ international­ legal­ sovereignty­ have­ always­ been­ violated.­Neither­Westphalian­nor­international­legal­sovereignty­has­ever­ been­a­stable­equilibrium­from­which­rulers­had­no­incentive­to­deviate.”84 ­ In­spite­of­this­history,­the­Westphalian­idea­of­sovereignty­could­and­ did­serve­as­a­cognitive­map­for­nineteenth-­century­Western­(and­Japanese)­ imperialism­ in­ East­ Asia.­ Treaties,­ institutions,­ and­ discourses­ on­ equality­between­sovereign­states,­and­equality­between­men,­served­to­ open­up­both­China­and­Japan­to­trade­and­diplomacy­in­the­middle­of­the­ nineteenth­century.­While­Western­diplomats­were­hypersensitive­to­rituals­and­symbols­that­could­be­construed­as­violating­their­own­sovereign­ equality,85­the­treaties­they­forced­on­China,­Japan,­and­Korea­were­unequal,­with­the­most-­favored-­nation­clause­preventing­China­(and­Japan)­ from­playing­off­one­Western­power­against­another.­That­is­to­say,­extraterritoriality,­treaty­ports­and­assorted­concessions,­control­over­tariffs,­and­ belief­in­white­supremacy­went­hand­in­hand­with­Western­liberal­claims­

43

44

ChapTer one

about­individual­equality­and­equality­between­sovereign­states.­Indeed­ Japanese­intellectuals­like­Fukuzawa­Yukichi­saw­an­essential­relationship­ between­the­two,­arguing­that­Japan’s­sovereignty­and­independence­depended­on­individuals­who­were­themselves­constituted­as­independent­ and­equal.86 ­ King­Kojong’s­Oath­of­1895­was­not­the­first­nor­the­last­occasion­wherein­ Japanese­and­Western­diplomats­tried­to­educate­the­Korean­court­on­how­ to­maintain­Chosŏn­as­an­“independent”­nation,­while­at­the­same­time­ trying­to­ensure­that­the­Korean­court­would­continue­to­yield­to­their­demands.­Several­days­before­King­Kojong­made­his­pledge­before­his­dynastic­ancestors,­for­example,­Inoue­had­also­advised­the­king­to­recall­Korea’s­ legation­in­Washington,­D.C.,­Korea’s­only­diplomatic­legation­in­a­Western­ country­at­the­time.­Inoue­advised­Kojong­to­sell­the­legation­property­and­ entrust­Korean­matters­to­the­Japanese­embassy.87­John­M.­B.­Sill,­the­U.S.­ minister­to­Korea,­reported­that­King­Kojong­was­not­pleased­by­this­suggestion:­“The­king­dislikes­to­lose­this­chief­mark­of­his­independence.”88 ­ Diplomats­in­the­U.S.­legation,­such­as­Horace­N.­Allen,­had­been­concerned­about­Japan’s­intentions­in­Korea­(namely,­acquisition­of­monopolies­and­concession­rights)­and­in­response­to­King­Kojong’s­appeals­wanted­ the­United­States­to­join­Britain­and­Russia­in­calling­for­the­withdrawal­ of­both­Chinese­and­Japanese­troops­from­Korea.89­But­instructions­from­ Washington­held­them­to­“impartial­neutrality.”­Though­a­diplomat,­missionary,­and­entrepreneur­like­Allen­chafed­at­America’s­passive­position­ (from­the­mid-­1880s­on),­like­the­other­Western­diplomats­in­Korea,­he­was­ not­displeased­with­the­Oath­that­King­Kojong­was­induced­to­make. ­ According­ to­ Martina­ Deuchler,­ by­ 1880­ King­ Kojong,­ along­ with­ his­ chief­state­councilor­and­other­high­ministers,­had­become­convinced­that­ it­was­in­Chosŏn’s­interest­to­sign­a­treaty­with­the­United­States.­Such­ a­ course­ was­ sure­ to­ elicit­ public­ outrage,­ however,­ especially­ from­ the­ Confucian­literati­in­both­the­capital­and­the­countryside­who­were­still­ adamantly­opposed­to­opening­the­ports­to­Western­imperial­powers.­The­ policy­paper­that­won­over­King­Kojong­and­his­ministers­was­Chaoxian celue­(K:­Chosŏn ch’aengnyak,­A­Policy­for­Korea)­written­by­Huang­Zunxian,­councilor­to­He­Ruzhang,­the­first­Qing­minister­to­Japan.­In­Huang’s­ view,­Russia­posed­the­chief­security­threat­to­Korea,­Korea­was­critical­for­ shielding­China’s­eastern­flank,­and­the­Chinese­Army­and­Navy­were­not­ capable­of­defending­Korea­in­case­of­a­Russian­attack.­To­keep­the­Russians­

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

in­check,­Huang­argued,­Korea­should­be­encouraged­to­sign­a­treaty­with­ the­United­States.90­For­common­security­calculations,­then,­both­King­Kojong­and­Li­Hongzhang­wanted­Chosŏn­Korea­to­establish­diplomatic­relations­with­the­United­States. ­ Li­Hongzhang,­viceroy­of­China,­did­not­start­the­treaty­negations­with­ Commodore­Robert­Shufeldt­of­the­U.S.­Navy­until­Kim­Yun-­sik,­King­Kojong’s­ representative,­ arrived­ in­ Tientsin.91­ Deuchler­ has­ suggested­ that­ one­reason­for­wanting­a­high­Korean­official­present­at­the­negotiations­ was­Li’s­fear­that­China­would­be­held­responsible­for­the­fulfillment­of­ the­treaty.­Nonetheless­he­wanted­to­insert­into­the­treaty­a­clause­that­acknowledged­Korea’s­dependence­on­China.­As­argued­by­Kwŏn­Hyŏk-­su,­ this­ hybrid­ tributary-­treaty­ approach­ sought­ to­ maintain­ tributary­ relations­while­grounding­commercial­and­political­relations­on­the­basis­of­ international­law.92­At­a­time­when­China­was­itself­beset­by­Western­imperial­powers,­the­kind­of­direct­influence­and­intervention­that­Yuan­Shikai,­ the­ Imperial­ Chinese­ Majesty’s­ resident­ in­ Korea,­ attempted­ in­ the­ period­1882–94­was­quite­novel.­It­was­to­resist­Qing­China’s­attempt­to­ impose­on­the­Chosŏn­court­the­equivalent­of­a­protectorate­status­that­ King­Kojong­became­eager­to­establish­and­strengthen­diplomatic­relations­ with­the­United­States.93­King­Kojong­had­his­own­reasons­for­wanting­to­ underscore­Korea’s­dependence­on­China­at­this­time.­Most­immediately­ he­wanted­to­deflect­opposition­to­the­treaty­within­Korea­by­making­it­appear­as­if­it­were­demanded­by­China.­Thus­the­formula­advocated­by­Kim­ Yun-­sik­in­Tientsin­was­this:­“With­regard­to­China,­Korea­is­a­dependent­ country;­with­regard­to­all­other­countries,­Korea­is­independent.”­But­Shufeldt­rejected­this­formulation­on­the­grounds­that,­while­it­was­of­no­concern­to­the­United­States­if­Korea­needed­China’s­approval­for­the­treaty,­ a­treaty­between­two­countries­had­to­presuppose­complete­equality­between­the­partners.94 ­ When­Lucius­H.­Foote,­the­first­American­minister­to­Korea,­finally­set­ foot­in­Seoul­in­May­1883,­he­told­King­Kojong­that­the­United­States­was­ motivated­by­concern­for­the­“comfort­and­happiness”­of­the­Korean­people­ and­that­“the­weakness­of­a­nation­[referring­to­Korea]­was­sometimes­its­ strength.”­Kojong­welcomed­the­minister,­hoping­that­the­American­presence­would­help­keep­the­other­imperialist­powers­at­bay.­But­by­the­mid-­ 1880s­ American­ interest­ in­ Korea­ was­ already­ waning;­ Washington­ did­ not­bother­appointing­a­minister­for­a­number­of­years­between­the­mid-­

45

46

ChapTer one

1880s­and­1905,­and­President­William­McKinley­and­President­Theodore­ Roosevelt­were­not­concerned­about­the­likelihood­that­Japan­would­colonize­ Korea.­ After­ Japan’s­ victory­over­ Russia­ in­ the­ Russo-­Japanese­War­ (1904–5)­and­the­signing­of­the­Taft-­Katsura­agreement,­American­diplomats­led­the­Western­charge­out­of­Korea.95 ­ The­American-­Korean­Treaty­of­1882,­Korea’s­first­(unequal)­treaty­with­ a­Western­power,­had­not­resolved­what­was­seen­as­ambiguity­in­Korea’s­ sovereign­status.­Japan’s­victory­over­China­in­1895,­however,­not­only­put­ an­end­to­that­ambiguity­(and­the­China-­centered­tributary­system),­it­also­ confirmed­Japan’s­role­as­the­preeminent­translator­of­the­new­semantics­ of­sovereignty­in­East­Asia.­This,­as­we­shall­see,­did­not­herald­the­disappearance­of­old­categories­like­inner­and­outer,­civilization­and­barbarism­ (hwa­and­yi)­in­Japanese­public­discourse.­For­scholars­and­government­ officials­alike,­the­satisfaction­derived­from­translating­the­new­semantics­ of­sovereignty­was,­it­seems,­mostly­intellectual­(as­an­instrumental­form­ of­rationality):­it­was­the­satisfaction­of­making­transparent­the­calculus­ (or­rationality)­of­power,­in­quantitative­measurement,­in­both­the­old­and­ new­rhetoric,­and­depicting­international­relations­as­a­realm­of­pure­politics­based­on­equal­sovereignty.96 ­ It­was­difficult­to­mobilize­and­at­the­same­time­manage­public­support­ for­the­government’s­international­relations.­Mutsu­Munemitsu,­Japan’s­ foreign­minister­during­the­Sino-­Japanese­War,­explained­this­limitation­ succinctly­in­Kenkenroku­(A­Record­of­Arduous­and­Selfless­Service­to­the­ Throne): The­government­quite­naturally­wished­to­foster­patriotic­sentiment­and­saw­ no­reason­to­repress­it.­Patriotism,­however,­is­something­coarse­which­runs­ to­excess;­and­if­great­care­is­not­taken­in­controlling­it­in­specific­situations,­it­ may­cause­serious­difficulties­for­the­authorities.­Herbert­Spencer­once­wrote­ at­the­conclusion­of­an­essay­on­the­profound­patriotic­spirit­of­the­Russian­ people,­that­patriotism­is­the­legacy­of­a­barbaric­age.­While­his­critique­is­ perhaps­too­severe,­there­are­cases­where­the­injudicious­encouragement­of­ patriotic­feelings­may­be­inimical­to­the­achievement­of­a­state’s­long-­range­ objectives.97

­ After­victories­at­Pyongyang­(September­15,­1894)­and­on­the­Yellow­Sea­ (September­17,­1894),­the­Japanese­public­had­become­certain­of­an­early­ victory­and­wondered­only­when­the­standard­of­the­Rising­Sun­would­fly­ from­the­Gates­of­Heavenly­Peace­in­Beijing.­Animated­by­“coarse­patriot-

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

ism,”­the­public­did­not­realize­that­the­government­had­no­choice­but­to­ capitulate­to­the­Triple­Intervention.98­Because­the­people­were­emotionally­aroused,­they­could­not­objectively­assess­the­international­situation:­ “While­our­prestige­rose,­the­need­to­act­responsibly­in­world­affairs­grew­ at­a­corresponding­rate.­However,­our­people­at­the­time­were­so­aroused­ that­they­acted­purely­on­the­basis­of­subjective­judgments,­without­any­objective­regard­for­the­international­ramifications­of­the­policies­they­advocated.­Judging­matters­only­from­their­own­limited­perspective,­they­had­ no­sense­of­how­far­Japan­could­go­without­provoking­serious­complications­abroad.”99 ­ Thus­the­patriotism­of­the­people,­while­useful,­can­also­cause­problems­ in­state-­to-­state­relations­and­even­governability.­Because­of­uninformed­ and­highly­jingoistic­public­opinion,­stirred­up­by­irresponsible­opponents­ of­the­government,­Japan­was­obliged­to­push­the­Chinese­forces­beyond­ the­prudent­limit,­that­is,­beyond­the­point­acceptable­to­Russia,­Germany,­ and­France.­The­government’s­capitulation­to­the­Triple­Intervention­was­a­ policy­of­last­resort,­a­decision­that­could­have­been­avoided­had­it­not­been­ for­ the­ vagaries­ of­ European­ diplomacy­ (which­ Japan­ had­ little­ control­ over)­and­the­ignorance­of­the­government’s­opposition.­Mutsu’s­implied­ demand­for­absolutism­in­domestic­politics­thus­went­hand­in­hand­with­ his­understanding­of­international­relations.­The­privileging­of­rationality,­ a­type­of­rationality­that­would­disclose­the­foreign­Other­in­quantitative­ measurement,­would­make­possible­the­establishment­of­clear,­determinate­goals­as­the­sole­basis­for­action.­Only­this­kind­of­rationality­could­ safely­guide­Japan­in­its­(late)­emergence­as­an­imperial­power­within­the­ nation-­state­system­dominated­by­the­West.­The­new­semantics­of­sovereignty,­ostensibly­monopolized­by­those­in­the­Meiji­government­trained­ in­law,­could­not,­by­itself,­organize,­mobilize,­and­control­public­opinion.­ It­was­at­the­end­of­the­nineteenth­century­that­Meiji­statesmen­like­Mutsu­ Munemitsu­ articulated­ the­ basis­ for­ the­ emperor­ system,­ idealizing­ the­ One­Individual­that­Hegel­identified­with­Oriental­despots,­not­in­the­language­of­myth­but­in­the­language­of­instrumental­rationality.

Authorship­and­Ritual­Action In­the­days­leading­up­to­the­great­offering­at­the­Royal­Ancestral­Temple­ in­January­1895,­King­Kojong­had­to­be­prudent­in­his­speech­and­action,­ to­cleanse­his­mind­and­purify­his­body.100­On­the­day­of­the­great­offering,­

47

48

ChapTer one

before­entering­the­precinct­of­the­Main­Hall,­Kojong­and­the­crown­prince­ stepped­into­a­walled­enclosure­(chaesil),­where­they­washed­themselves­ with­ water­ drawn­ from­ a­ round­ well­ (chejŏng)­ and­ arranged­ their­ vestments.­Proceeding­northwest­along­the­royal­path­(ŏro)­toward­the­Main­ Hall­(chŏngjŏn),­Kojong­walked­alone­along­its­raised­middle­passage­and­ entered­the­Main­Hall­through­the­eastern­gate.­Court­officials,­musicians,­ and­female­dancers­entered­the­chŏngjŏn­through­two­pillars­outside­the­ western­gate.­The­foundation­of­one­pillar­was­round,­signifying­Heaven,­ and­the­foundation­of­the­other­was­square,­signifying­Earth,­thus­forming­ the­unity­of­Heaven,­Earth,­and­humankind.­Inside­the­chŏngjŏn,­the­court­ officials­formed­long­lines­on­the­upper­stone­terrace­(sang-wŏldae),­and­ following­the­principles­of­yin­and­yang,­the­musicians­formed­two­orchestras,­one­on­the­upper­stone­terrace­(dŭngga)­and­the­other­on­the­lower­ stone­terrace­(hŏn’ga).101 ­ After­the­placing­of­the­ancestral­tablets,­the­royal­ancestral­spirits­were­ welcomed,­ the­ghosts­ entering­ the­ chŏngjŏn­ through­ the­ central­ gate­ in­ the­south­wall­(sinmun).102­As­the­first­cup­of­wine­was­offered,­the­upper­ orchestra­performed­eleven­music­pieces­(pot’aep’yŏng)­and­dancers­performed­the­civil­dance­(munmu)­holding­two­flutes,­yak­and­chŏk,­the­latter­ made­from­a­pheasant­feather,­as­singers­praised­King­T’aejo’s­founding­of­ the­Chosŏn­dynasty­and­the­civil­accomplishment­of­subsequent­Chosŏn­ kings.­With­the­offering­of­the­second­and­third­cups,­the­lower­orchestra­performed­eleven­music­pieces­(chŏngdaeŏp),­and­dancers­performed­ the­martial­dance­(mumu)­holding­wooden­swords­and­spears,­as­singers­ praised­the­military­feats­of­King­T’aejo­and­subsequent­Chosŏn­kings. ­ The­sentimental­and­cognitive­attributes­of­such­ritual­action­formed­ the­basis­for­the­pedagogic­and­legitimating­functions­of­grand­sacrificial­ rites­at­the­chongmyo-sajik,­enabling­the­monarch­to­enact­the­story­of­the­ Chosŏn­dynasty­as­his­story,­reminding­himself­and­his­officials­of­the­dynasty’s­raison­d’être.103­Performing­the­sacrifices­at­the­chongmyo­and­the­ sajikdan­in­the­presence­of­his­ministers­and­lesser­officials,­the­Chosŏn­ monarch­mediated­between­Heaven­and­Earth,­between­the­dead­and­the­ living.­Through­the­act­of­invoking­Heaven­and­welcoming­the­spirits­of­ his­dead­ancestors­at­the­chongmyo,­or­invoking­the­gods­of­land­and­grain­ at­the­sajikdan,­praying­for­rain,­the­Chosŏn­monarch­affirmed­his­legitimacy,­ his­ responsibility­ for­ the­ welfare­ of­ his­ subjects­ (the­ moral­ criterion­for­exercising­power),­and­the­metaphysics­of­hierarchy­that­defined­

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

Chosŏn’s­unique­political­and­social­order.­Rather­than­simply­reflect­(and­ confirm)­ existing­ political­ and­ social­ relations,­ the­ sacrificial­ rites­ were­ supposed­to­reconstitute­those­relations—the­ruler­and­the­ruled­constituting­each­other­as­such—by­demonstrating­how­human­feelings­were­to­ be­channeled­into­proper­hierarchical­and­patrilineal­channels.104­By­replicating­state­rituals­at­the­local­level,­in­appropriately­lesser­forms,­the­ people­were­to­be­incorporated­into­the­existing­(imagined)­hierarchical,­ male-­centered­political­and­social­order­as­filial­sons­and­loyal­subjects,­ positively­situated­in­their­sociality.105 ­ When­King­Kojong­performed­the­great­offering­on­January­7,­1895,­we­ do­not­know­what­he­thought­or­how­he­felt.­In­the­sense­that­all­of­his­actions­were­prescribed­in­detail,­in­ritual­manuals­dating­back­to­the­late­ fifteenth­century,­it­could­be­said­that­King­Kojong,­as­the­principal­performer­of­the­state­ritual­at­the­chongmyo-sajik,­was,­and­was­not,­the­author­of­his­actions.106­Whatever­the­inner­state­of­the­king­and­others­at­any­ single­point­in­the­ritual,­however,­it­was­understood­by­all­that­his­Oath­before­his­ancestors­made­the­pronouncement­of­independence­inviolable.­In­ other­words,­whether­or­not­King­Kojong­and­his­scholar-­officials­believed­ in­ghosts,­they­would­not­have­denied­that­the­political­economy­of­knowledge­in­late­nineteenth-­century­Chosŏn­still­validated­the­notion­that­rituals,­ properly­ performed,­ provided­ unique­ access­ to­ essential­ knowledge­ about­one’s­place­in­the­world,­with­appropriate­feelings­and­values.­In­that­ sense,­King­Kojong’s­inner­state­did­not­matter­as­much­as­the­fact­that­he­ performed­the­ritual­as­prescribed.­His­Oath­was­a­speech-­act,­an­utterance­that­immediately­produced­a­new­reality­precisely­because­he­alone­ possessed­requisite­authority.­His­ritual­performance­and­speech-­act­that­ day­ were­ doubly­ prescribed,­ not­ just­ by­ centuries­ of­ ritual­ manuals­ but­ also­by­Inoue­Kaoru’s­script.­This­did­make­a­difference.­Chosŏn-­period­ scholars­of­ritual­recognized,­of­course,­that­rituals­are­historical­(human)­ creations.­But­blatant­attempts­to­use­dynastic­rituals­as­vehicles­to­create­ and­communicate­new­meanings­helped­foster­a­more­willful,­unrestrained­ attitude­(and­rivalry)­toward­the­manipulation­of­signs.­Such­acts­of­translation­not­only­destroyed­the­China-­centered­theory­and­practice­of­tributary­relations­but­also­demolished­the­dynastic­(feudal)­incorporating­logic­ and­set­loose­new­desires. ­ As­with­any­act­of­translation,­Inoue’s­attempt­at­translation­did­not­occur­ between­two­distinct­systems­of­signs­and­meanings,­Japanese­and­Korean.­

49

50

ChapTer one

In­fact­his­attempt­at­translation­necessitated­a­prior­gesture:­the­portrayal­ of­Korea­and­Japan­as­distinct,­unified­spaces,­each­with­its­unique­system­ of­signs­and­meanings.­Here­was­the­distinctively­productive­(as­opposed­to­ repressive)­aspects­of­Japanese­colonialism­at­this­historical­juncture:­the­ collaboration­with­reformist­officials­to­resignify­the­past­and­to­mobilize­ the­past­to­authorize­projects­that­would­break­with­tradition.­The­productive­imagination­of­this­particular­translator­was­conditioned­by­the­narrative­of­Western­liberalism­and­the­nation-­state­system­into­which­Korea­ was­to­be­incorporated.­Such­acts­of­translation­helped­produce­new­subjectivities,­imagined­communities,­and­ostensibly­transparent­relations­between­present­and­past­in­late­nineteenth-­century­Chosŏn­as­well­as­in­ Meiji­Japan­and­eventually­denied­Heaven­as­that­which­confers­the­right­ to­rule. ­ King­Kojong’s­1895­Oath­before­the­spirits­of­dead­Chosŏn­dynasty­kings­ and­the­use­of­translated­words­like­tongnip­in­the­last­decades­of­the­nineteenth­ century­ had­much­in­common­ and­reveal­ a­great­deal­about­ the­ nature­ of­ Korea’s­ translated­ modernity­ and­ the­ process­ by­ which­ Korea­ became­colonized­by­Japan­(1910–45).­New­meanings­were­invented­that­ would­ serve­ as­ hypothetical­ equivalents­ of­ the­ (Western)­ semantics­ of­ sovereignty­ involving­ terminology­ and­ practices­ that­ validated­ Western­ imperialism,­colonialism,­and­capitalist­penetration.­Through­the­use­of­ neologisms­and­manipulation­of­centuries-­old­dynastic­rituals,­the­made-­ up­quality­of­orthodox­conceptions­of­the­world­was­brought­to­the­fore,­ and­the­search­for­intellectual­certitude­turned­increasingly­toward­instrumental­reason.­But­perhaps­the­spirits­of­dead­Chosŏn­dynasty­kings­could­ not­be­so­easily­swayed,­or­King­Kojong’s­body­was­not­yet­so­docile.­On­the­ day­of­the­Winter­Solstice,­when­the­visit­to­the­Yi­Ancestral­Temple­should­ have­ taken­ place,­ King­ Kojong’s­ body­ had­ broken­ out­ in­ a­ rash.107­ Thus­ Inoue­Kaoru­and­Korea’s­declaration­of­independence­from­China­had­to­ wait­sixteen­days­until­the­king’s­body­returned­to­a­ritually­clean­state.108 ­ The­king’s­body­breaking­out­in­a­rash­can­serve­as­a­metaphor­not­only­ for­ the­ process­ of­ deterritorialization­ but­ also­ for­ the­ process­ by­ which­ the­nationalist­desire­for­equal­sovereignty­was­created­by­the­violent,­destructive,­and­constructive­workings­of­imperialism.­Inoue’s­manipulation­ of­Chosŏn­dynastic­symbols­and­rituals­to­create­and­communicate­new­ meanings­aimed­to­conjure­spirits—but­spirits­rendered­mute,­reduced­ to­visuality,­and­locked­in­a­past­severed­from­their­future.­After­the­Triple­

sovereiGnTy anD imperiaLism

Intervention­ and­ the­ retreat­ of­ Japanese­ influence­ in­ Chosŏn,­ King­ Kojong­continued­the­manipulation­of­dynastic­rituals,­leading­in­1897­to­the­ building­of­a­wŏn’gudan­(Round­Hill­Altar),­the­elevation­of­Chosŏn­to­the­ Great­Han­Empire­(Taehan­cheguk),­and­the­elevation­of­his­own­status­ to­that­of­emperor.109­But­this­short­period­of­relative­autonomy­would­be­ brought­to­an­end­with­the­Russo-­Japanese­War­and­the­Japanese­imposition­of­a­protectorate­in­1905.­Thereafter­the­modern­desire­for­independence­and­equal­sovereignty­would­be­nurtured­by­nationalist­historians­ like­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho.­While­the­initial­conjuring­of­that­desire­took­place­before­Heaven­and­the­spirit­tablets­of­Chosŏn­dynasty­kings­and­queens,­ with­the­dynastic­state­on­its­death­bed­and­Heaven­removed­as­the­source­ of­political­legitimacy,­it­is­perhaps­understandable­why­historians­like­Sin­ Ch’ae-­ho­and­Pak­Ŭn-­sik­would­turn­to­the­most­elemental,­the­most­quintessential­as­the­point­of­departure­for­reconstituting­the­whole. ­ It­should­be­remembered­that­mortuary­rituals,­among­other­things,­help­ gather­the­life­force­(K:­ki,­C:­qi),­and­it­is­the­gathering­and­dispersing­of­ this­force­that­set­in­motion­the­cycle­of­living­and­dying.­Other­than­mortuary­rituals,­and­as­prerequisite­to­self-­strengthening­and­anticolonial­resistance,­what­practice­could­gather­this­force­to­reconstitute­the­whole?­For­ Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­it­was­history­writing­that­could­revive­the­people’s­quintessential­spirit­(chŏngsin),­and­it­would­be­on­the­basis­of­that­inner­force­that­ the­whole­could­be­reconstituted—the­people’s­spirit,­shaped­by­history­ but­also­transcending­it,­channeling­and­transforming­ki­into­a­modern,­ historical,­and­material­force.­Like­the­monarch­who­is­also­the­officiant­ of­mortuary­rituals­at­the­Royal­Ancestral­Temple,­nationalist­historians­ would­tend­to­the­Korean­Geist.­Taking­up­ideas­related­to­social­Darwinism­and­the­organic­theory­of­the­state,­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­and­other­nationalist­ historians­in­the­first­decade­of­the­twentieth­century­would­(re)imagine­ Chosŏn­Korea­as­an­organic­entity,­the­ethnic­nation,­rather­than­a­dynastic­state.­Like­mortuary­rituals­and­the­exercise­of­one’s­moral­capacity,­history­writing­in­early­twentieth-­century­Korea­was­remembrance,­an­act­of­ mourning,­and­ethical­practice,­an­act­that­gathers­ki,­the­ethnic­nation’s­ life­force,­facilitating­movement­toward­anticolonial­struggle­and­the­birth­ of­another­living­body,­this­time­as­a­sovereign­nation-­state.­Thus­for­Sin,­ one­of­the­first­to­narrate­Korea’s­past­in­the­mode­of­nationalist­historiography,­historians­had­a­heavy­responsibility. ­ The­historical­and­semantic­links­between­imperialism­and­nationalism­

51

52

ChapTer one

are­obviously­quite­complex,­and­the­chapters­that­follow­try­to­unravel­ some­of­that­complexity.­Historians­who­insist­on­maintaining­a­sharp­distinction,­analytical­and­otherwise,­between­imperialism­and­nationalism­ make­a­simple­but­important­point.­Whereas­imperialism­sought­to­establish­domination­over­Korea,­Korean­nationalism­in­the­late­nineteenth­century­and­much­of­the­twentieth­century­was­defensive.­In­opposing­imperialist­encroachment,­Korean­nationalists­sought­to­unite­and­mobilize­ the­people­through­more­egalitarian,­inclusive­politics.­But­in­dismantling­ status­distinctions,­in­teaching­people­of­all­classes­the­idea­and­practice­of­ citizenship,­and­in­pursuing­the­goal­of­development,­nationalists­also­succeeded­in­naturalizing­the­nation-­state­form­and­legitimating­its­totalizing­ power.110­At­the­same­time,­focusing­on­the­concept­of­sovereignty­and­the­ historical­and­material­linkages­between­imperialist­violence­and­nationalist­imagination,­the­historical­analyses­presented­here­show­how­the­past­ could­also­become­the­space­of­democratic­reimagining,­inspiration,­and­ endurance.

chapter two imperiaLism anD naTionaLism Questions­answered:­“Korea”­and­“Corea”­are­both­correct,­but­the­former­ is­preferred.­Korea­is­not­a­part­of­China,­but­is­independent.­The­Koreans­ do­not­speak­the­Chinese­language­and­their­language­resembles­neither­ the­Chinese­nor­the­Japanese.­Korea­made­treaties­in­1882.­Korea­has­electric­lights,­steamships,­telegraph,­but­no­railroads.­Koreans­live­in­comfortable­tile-­roofed­houses,­heated­by­flues­under­the­floor.­Korean­civilization­ is­ancient­and­high;­area,­100,000­square­miles;­population­16,000,000;­ climate­like­that­of­Chicago.—Sign­over­the­Korea­Exhibit,­World’s­Fair­

in­Chicago,­1893

In­its­brief­description­of­the­Korea­Exhibit­at­the­Chicago­World’s­Fair— named­the­World’s­Columbian­Exposition­to­celebrate­the­four-­hundredth­ anniversary­of­Christopher­Columbus’s­“discovery­of­the­New­World”— the­Chicago Record­quoted­in­its­entirety­the­sign­that­hung­over­the­Korea­ Exhibit­and­surmised,­correctly,­that­the­Koreans­staffing­the­exhibit­had­ gotten­tired­of­answering­the­same­questions­over­and­over.1­In­December­ 1893,­when­Commissioner­Chŏng­Kyŏng-­wŏn­returned­to­Korea­and­reported­to­King­Kojong­about­Korea’s­participation­in­the­World’s­Fair,­he­ noted­that­there­were­so­many­visitors­from­so­many­countries­asking­questions­that­they­had­to­place­a­label­on­every­item­they­displayed,­explaining­its­use.2­Providing­a­distinctly­national­backdrop­to­the­small­descriptive­labels—Korea­is­not­a­part­of­China;­the­Korean­language­resembles­ neither­Chinese­nor­Japanese;­Korean­homes­are­kept­warm­in­the­winter­ by­flues­under­the­floor—the­sign­over­the­exhibit­likely­had­a­more­ambitious­pedagogical­intent,­anticipating­not­just­questions­fairgoers­might­ ask­about­Korea,­but­also­the­questions­that­they­should­be­asking­about­ Korea’s­place­in­the­world. ­ Whether­the­author­of­this­sign­was­the­commissioner­of­the­exhibit,­ Chŏng­Kyŏng-­wŏn,­or­perhaps­Horace­Allen,­appointed­by­King­Kojong­ to­ advise­ and­ assist­ the­ Korean­ delegation­ to­ the­ World’s­ Fair,­ the­ delegation­ took­ pains­ to­ emphasize­ Korea’s­ distinguishing­ characteristics.3­

54

ChapTer Two

Korea’s­distinctiveness­from­China­and­Japan­and­the­very­act­of­its­self-­ representation­at­the­World’s­Fair­were­meant­to­give­evidence­of­its­independence­and­sovereignty.­The­sign­above­the­Korea­Exhibit­can­be­read­as­ a­somewhat­glum­attempt­to­educate­fairgoers—the­exhibit­itself­proving­ inadequate—that­Korean­civilization­was­“ancient­and­high”­and­that,­at­ the­same­time,­Korea­was­becoming­modern.­As­an­attempt­to­insert­a­legal­ and­moral­dimension­into­the­description­of­Korea­as­a­nation-­state,­as­well­ as­to­serve­as­an­informational­backdrop­for­the­tobacco­pipes­and­other­ artifacts­of­everyday­life­on­display,­the­sign­over­the­exhibit­spoke­directly­ to­what­many­fairgoers­might­have­recognized­as­a­legal­principle­operative­in­capitalist­modernity:­only­autonomous­individuals­and­nations­can­ enter­into­binding­contractual­agreements;­only­autonomous­individuals­ and­nations­are­truly­advanced­(and­masculine),­capable­of­making­mature­ moral­decisions.4 ­ A­decade­earlier,­a­year­after­the­signing­of­the­Treaty­of­Commerce­and­ Amity­between­the­United­States­and­Chosŏn­Korea,­an­eight-­man­diplomatic­mission­had­been­dispatched­to­the­United­States.­Led­by­Chief­Envoy­Min­Yŏng-­ik,­ the­mission­ visited­ two­industrial­ fairs­ in­Boston.5­By­ the­time­of­the­World’s­Fair­in­Chicago,­Qing­China­still­had­no­intention­ of­abandoning­Chinese­claims­of­suzerainty­over­Korea­and­Chosŏn­Korea­ remained­in­a­seemingly­ambiguous­“dependent-­yet-­autonomous”­status.6­ Participation­ in­ international­ events­ like­ the­ World’s­ Fair­ provided­ evidence­of­state-­led­efforts­that­Benedict­Anderson­referred­to­as­official­nationalism.7­To­put­it­differently,­a­year­before­the­first­Sino-­Japanese­War­ and­King­Kojong’s­declaration­of­Korea’s­“independence,”­material­and­discursive­conditions­already­existed­within­Korea­that­would­allow­for­the­ dissemination­of­not­just­the­idea­of­national­sovereignty­but­also­the­presumption­that­recognition­by­the­Western­imperial­powers­was­a­necessary­ condition­for­avoiding­colonization—whether­by­China,­Russia,­or­Japan. ­ As­Lydia­Liu­has­observed,­sovereignty­in­the­late­nineteenth­century­ was­based­on­a­constitutive­notion­of­sovereign­right.8­In­other­words,­sovereignty­required­recognition­from­the­Western­imperial­powers.­To­receive­recognition,­non-­European­polities­had­to­demonstrate­commitment­ to­ European­ civilization,­ as­ measured­ by­ specific­ “reforms”­ of­ political,­ economic,­and­cultural­institutions­and­practices,­including­participation­ in­international­events­like­the­Chicago­World’s­Fair.­The­product­of­centuries­of­colonial­expansion­and­conquest,­late­nineteenth-­century­sover-

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

eignty­was­capitalist­sovereignty,­functioning,­as­Hardt­and­Negri­argued,­ both­as­political­power­and­police­power:­“a­political­power­against­all­external­political­powers”­and­a­police­power­that­worked­to­subsume­“singularities­in­the­totality,­of­the­will­of­all­into­the­general­will.”9­At­a­time­ when­European­colonies­covered­roughly­half­of­the­mainland­of­the­earth­ (subjugating­roughly­two-­fifths­of­the­earth’s­human­population),10­when­ European­superiority­seemed­indisputable­and­sovereignty-­based­international­law­facilitated­Euro-­American­imperialism,­sovereignty­had­become­ a­machine,­and­Korea’s­ participation­ in­the­World’s­ Fair­expressed­ both­ compliance­and­the­staging­of­new­forms­of­subjectivity­and­desire—for­ example,­desire­for­inclusion­in­the­nation-­state­system­dominated­by­the­ West. ­ Extraordinarily­popular­and­influential,­the­Columbian­Exposition­had­ more­ than­ 27­ million­ visitors­ over­ its­ six-­month­ run,­ a­ number­ equivalent­ to­ more­ than­ 40­ percent­ of­ the­ population­ of­ the­ United­ States­ at­ the­time.­As­Richard­Seager­notes,­the­Chicago­World’s­Fair­“functioned­ as­a­pilgrimage­site­for­millions­.­.­.­enthralled­by­its­evocation­of­history,­ its­panoramic­displays­of­global­culture­and­modern­technology.”11­Exposition­planners­created­three­separate­spheres­that­together­encompassed­ their­vision­for­the­World’s­Fair:­the­monumental­White­City,­the­Midway­ Plaisance­(an­amusement­area­officially­under­the­auspices­of­the­exposition’s­Department­of­Ethnology),­and­eight­miles­north­of­the­Exposition,­ in­downtown­Chicago,­the­newly­constructed­Art­Institute­to­host­the­various­congresses,­including­the­World­Parliament­of­Religions.­The­White­ City­was­so­called­because­of­the­white­plaster­that­formed­the­façade­of­the­ Exposition­buildings.­Lit­up­by­ninety­thousand­incandescent­lamps­and­ constructed­along­a­lagoon­and­reflecting­waterways­covering­686­acres,­ the­ buildings­ themselves­ were­ immense­ and­ ornate­ neoclassical­ Beaux­ Arts­structures.­Housing­gigantic­machines­while­alluding­to­the­glories­ of­Augustus­Caesar,­these­structures­elicited­in­the­leading­national­periodicals­countless­essays­that­pointed­to­the­future­with­“an­imperial­cast­of­ mind.”12 ­ The­author­of­the­sign­over­the­Korea­Exhibit­asserted­not­just­Korea’s­ selfhood­and­autonomy­but­also­unambiguous­agreement­with­the­belief­ that­such­an­assertion­was­appropriate­and­moral.­At­the­same­time,­the­ Korea­Exhibit­itself­was­seemingly­deficient,­embarrassingly­so,­at­least­for­ Yun­ Ch’i-­ho.13­ Yun­ had­ just­ completed­ his­ graduate­ studies­ in­ Christian­

55

56

ChapTer Two

education­and­systematic­theology­at­Emory­College­and­was­on­his­way­ to­China,­with­a­three-­week­stop­in­Chicago­to­see­the­Columbian­Exposition­and­the­World­Parliament­of­Religions.­His­first­trip­outside­of­Korea­ had­been­in­1881,­when­he­was­sixteen.­His­father,­a­military­official,­had­ arranged­for­him­to­join­the­Inspection­Mission­to­Japan­(chosa sach’aldan)­ as­an­assistant.14­Sent­by­King­Kojong,­the­officials­who­toured­Japan­were­ to­ observe­ and­ report­ on­ institutional­ and­ technological­ changes­ being­ pushed­through­by­the­Meiji­state­and­to­assess­the­threat­to­Korean­security.­ When­ the­ Inspection­ Mission­ returned­ to­ Korea,­ Yun­ stayed­ on­ in­ Japan­to­study­Japanese.15­A­year­later,­in­1882,­he­began­studying­English,­ because­“with­English,­Koreans­would­be­able­to­directly­import­Western­ civilization­without­having­to­go­through­Japan.”16 ­ In­1883­the­Japanese­foreign­minister­Inoue­Kaoru­recommended­Yun­ to­Lucius­Harwood­Foote,­America’s­first­envoy­and­minister­plenipotentiary­to­Korea.17­Returning­to­Korea­with­Minister­Foote,­Yun­received­an­ appointment­as­a­clerk­in­the­newly­established­Office­of­Extraordinary­ Affairs­ (T’ongni­ kimu­ amun,­ the­ antecedent­ to­ a­ foreign­ ministry)­ and­ was­assigned­as­Foote’s­translator.­Later,­as­a­protégé­of­the­“progressives”­ who­launched­a­failed­coup­attempt­in­1884,­Yun­had­to­go­into­hiding,­ and­when­Minister­Foote­left­Korea­in­January­1885,­Yun­went­with­him.18­ Upon­reaching­Nagasaki,­Yun­cut­off­his­topknot­and­bought­a­suit­of­Western­clothes.­He­went­on­to­Shanghai,­where­he­enrolled­in­a­school­run­ by­the­American­Methodist­Episcopal­Church,­South,­and­in­April­1887­ converted­to­Christianity.­In­late­1888,­with­the­help­of­American­missionaries,­he­went­to­the­United­States­to­study­theology­at­Vanderbilt­and­at­ Emory­College.19­His­chief­interest­at­the­World’s­Fair­was­the­World­Parliament­of­Religions,­the­first­formal­attempt­to­create­a­global­dialogue­ between­faiths,­where­the­representatives­of­Eastern­and­Western­spiritual­ traditions­helped­establish­the­notion­of­“world­religions,”­a­category­that­ expressed­a­vague­commitment­to­religious­tolerance,­while­reinforcing­a­ logic­of­classification.20

World­Religions­and­Tolerance Delegates­to­the­Parliament­of­Religions­were­to­engage­in­dialogue­premised­on­tolerance,­the­rules­specifying­that­delegates­should­“state­their­ own­beliefs­and­reasons­for­them­with­the­greatest­frankness”­but­refrain­

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

from­criticism­of­others.21­In­his­diary,­however,­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­did­not­refrain­from­criticizing­some­of­the­delegates.­Between­summary­descriptions­of­delegates’­speeches,­Yun­took­swipes­at­those­who­argued­for­religious­pluralism.­Of­Hirai­Ryuge­Kinzō,­a­delegate­from­Japan,­Yun­wrote­ that­his­style­was­beautiful,­his­thoughts­“expressed­as­they­were­in­vague­ and­metaphysical­terms.”­He­noted­that­Hirai­“caught­the­audience”­but­ judged­his­paper­“morally­useless­on­account­of­its­fallacies.”­“He­advocating­a­synthetic­religion­defined­religion­as­an­‘apriori­belief­in­an­unknown­entity.’­Then­he­proceeded­to­consider­the­nature­of­the­unknown­ entity.­‘Nonsense!’­For­if­the­entity­is­‘unknown’­how­can­he­consider­its­ nature?­.­.­.­He­tried­to­show­that­the­creator­of­conditioned­ and­finite­ beings­ could­ not­ be­ infinite­ and­ unconditioned.­ He­ might­ as­ well­ have­ said­that­the­maker­of­unintelligent­dolls­can’t­be­intelligent!”22­Yun­noted­ that­the­delegates­of­all­the­non-­Christian­creeds­presented­a­united­front­ to­Christianity­and­that­the­Unitarians­and­Universalists­sided­with­them.­ Hirai’s­paper­was­sharply­critical­of­Christian­missionary­work­in­Japan,­ but­many­of­his­declarations­were­followed­by­loud­applause.23­In­his­entry­ for­September­27,­the­last­day­of­the­Parliament,­Yun­mentions­Hirai­again:­ “Harai­[sic]­of­Japan­talked­about­the­Japanese­priest’s­[sic]­shedding­tears­ for­leaving­America.­I­call­this­an­Asiatic­lie­pure­and­simple.”24 ­ As­John­P.­Burris­notes,­some­of­the­strongest­voices­from­Asia,­in­exquisite­English,­belonged­to­delegates­from­India­and­Ceylon:­“The­lengthy­ British­occupation­of­India­had­caused­deep­animosities,­and­the­foremost­ thing­on­the­Indians’­minds­was­not­to­enunciate­transcendental­truths,­ which­they­also­did,­but­to­talk­religious­politics.”25­But­Yun­was­not­sympathetic.­He­quoted­Virachand­Raghav­Gandhi­from­Gujarat,­who­represented­Jains,­and­commented,­“Gandhi,­a­Bombay­lawyer­[sic].­‘Do­I­wish­a­ Hindoo­[sic]­or­a­Buddhist­turn­a­Christian?­God­forbid!­Do­I­wish­a­Christian­turn­a­Hindoo­or­a­Buddhist?­God­forbid!’­Thus­in­the­very­name­of­ liberty,­ toleration­ etc.­ etc.­ this­ man­ forbids­ the­ freedom­ of­ choice.”26­ It­ should­be­noted­that­one­of­the­goals­of­this­first­World­Parliament­of­Religions­was­to­“inquire­what­light­each­religion­has­afforded,­or­may­afford­ to­other­religions­of­the­world.”­While­desiring­racial­inclusion,27­Yun­was­ not­a­little­skeptical­about­whether­Hindus­and­Buddhists­might­be­able­to­ shed­any­light­on­divine­truth.­His­privileging­of­freedom­(the­freedom­to­ choose­one’s­faith)­dovetailed­closely­with­the­Christian-­centric­vision­of­ John­Henry­Barrows,­the­chairman­of­the­General­Committee­on­Religious­

57

58

ChapTer Two

Congresses­of­the­World’s­Congress,­for­whom­one­of­the­objects­of­the­Parliament­was­to­“change­[the]­many-­colored­radiance­back­into­the­white­ light­of­heavenly­truth.”­The­white­light­of­heavenly­truth­was,­of­course,­ Christianity.­Barrows­charged­that­“those­who­ha[d]­the­full­light­of­the­ cross­should­bear­brotherly­hearts­towards­all­who­grope­in­a­dimmer­illumination.”28 ­ Two­weeks­later,­arriving­in­Vancouver­after­four­days­of­a­“tedious­ride­ over­prairies,­wild­mountains,­canyons,­valleys­of­varied­scenes­and­temperature,”­Yun­had­this­to­say­about­the­Native­Americans­he­saw­in­the­stations­along­the­Central­Pacific­Railroad:­“Indians­were­seen­at­almost­every­ station.­Some­of­them­painted­their­faces­red­and­most­had­red­or­blue­ blankets­wrapped­around­their­bodies.­A­sad­and­somewhat­contemptible­ sight:­sad­because­of­their­past­history,­but­contemptible­because­of­the­ inability­to­improve­their­condition.­A­race­that­fails,­from­voluntary­laziness­and­ignorance,­to­avail­itself­of­the­advantages­of­civilization­brought­ so­close­to­its­reach­isn’t­worthwhile­to­live.”29­Yun’s­perspective­on­Native­Americans­thus­paralleled­the­objectifying­operation­of­discourses­on­ “civilization,”­associating­a­moral­and­political­complex­of­meanings­with­ white­supremacy.­If­Native­Americans­did­not­avail­themselves­of­Euro-­ American­civilization—if­they­voluntarily­chose­to­continue­living­in­ignorance­ and­ “degraded­ humanity”—then­ they­ did­ not­ deserve­ to­ live.­ No­ matter­how­constrained­or­forced­that­“choice”­might­be,­the­act­of­choosing­Euro-­American­civilization­was,­in­itself,­proof­of­a­people’s­capacity­ for­rationality­and­autonomy—that­is,­autonomy­from­tradition­and­ignorance.­Yun’s­privileging­of­freedom,­along­with­ruminations­on­why­certain­ populations­did­not­deserve­to­live,­point­to­not­just­the­inclusionary­pretensions­of­liberal­theory­and­the­exclusionary­effects­of­liberal­practices,­ but­also­the­centrality­of­violence­in­the­constitution­of­(Christian)­liberal-­ bourgeois­subjectivity­in­the­late­nineteenth­century­and­its­permutations­ through­the­colonial­ period­down­to­postcolonial­ anticommunist­ South­ Korea.30 ­ While­in­Chicago,­when­not­attending­the­Parliament­of­Religions,­Yun­ also­ visited­ the­ Columbian­ Exposition.­ He­ observed­ that­ the­ China­ Exhibit­seemed­“more­concerned­about­selling­its­merchandise.”­Yun­does­ not­mention­it,­and­it­is­quite­possible­that­he­did­not­know,­but­the­Qing­ government­had­turned­down­President­Benjamin­Harrison’s­invitation­to­ participate­ in­ the­ Columbian­ Exposition­ to­protest­ the­extension­ of­ the­

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

Chinese­Exclusion­Act­of­1882.­There­were­a­number­of­earlier­Chinese­exclusion­laws,­but­the­Act­of­1882,­insofar­as­it­was­a­federal­law,­established­ a­comprehensive­legal­barrier­to­Chinese­immigration­and­made­Chinese­ already­in­the­United­States­permanent­aliens.­In­1892­the­Chinese­Exclusion­Act­was­renewed­for­another­ten­years,­and­that­is­what­prompted­ the­Qing­government­to­boycott­the­Chicago­World’s­Fair­in­1893.­Without­ China’s­participation,­the­Chinese­Exhibit­was­organized­by­five­private­ groups,­three­of­which­were­not­Chinese,­including­a­New­York­jeweler­and­ a­Swedish-­led­committee­that­designed­the­Chinese­“temple.”­Well­away­ from­the­magnificent­buildings­and­exhibits­around­the­Court­of­Honor,­referred­to­as­the­White­City,­the­Chinese­Exhibit­was­located­in­the­Midway­ Plaisance.­“Sandwiched­between­entertainment­facilities,”­the­Chinese­displays­“became­a­source­of­amusement,­not­respect.”31 ­ Set­apart­from­the­White­City­by­a­rail­bridge,­the­Midway­Plaisance­extended­west,­a­strip­of­land­a­mile­long­and­about­six­hundred­feet­wide,­ “organized­linearly­.­.­.­providing­a­lesson­in­racial­hierarchy.”32­The­historian­Hubert­Howe­Bancroft­described­the­Midway: Entering­ the­ avenue­ a­ little­ to­ the­ west­ of­ the­ Woman’s­ Building­ [the­ visitor]­would­pass­between­the­walls­of­medieval­villages,­between­mosques­and­ pagodas,­past­the­dwellings­of­colonial­days,­past­the­cabins­of­South­Seas­ islanders,­of­Javanese,­Egyptians,­Bedouins,­Indians.­.­.­.­Then,­as­taste­and­ length­of­purse­determined,­for­fees­were­demanded­from­those­who­would­ penetrate­the­hidden­mysteries­of­the­plaisance,­they­might­enter­the­Congress­of­Beauty­with­its­plump­and­piquant­damsels,­might­pass­a­house­in­one­ of­the­theatres­or­villages,­or­partake­of­harmless­beverages­served­by­native­ waiters.­Finally­they­would­betake­themselves­to­the­Ferris­Wheel,­on­which­ they­were­conveyed­with­smooth,­gliding­motion­to­a­height­of­260­feet,­affording­a­transient­and­kaleidoscopic­view­of­the­park­and­all­it­contains.33

­ On­or­near­the­Midway­Plaisance,­there­were­exhibits­of­Dakota­Sioux,­ Navajos,­Apaches,­and­various­northwestern­tribes.­According­to­Robert­ Rydell,­the­Native­Americans­became­objects­of­abuse­and­ridicule:­“With­ Wounded­Knee­only­three­years­removed,­the­Indians­were­regarded­as­ apocalyptic­threats­to­the­values­embodied­in­the­White­City.­.­.­.­The­White­ City­and­the­Midway­were­truly­symbolic,­but­not­antithetical,­constructs.­ Rather,­the­vision­of­the­future­and­the­depiction­of­the­nonwhite­world­as­ savage­were­two­sides­of­the­same­coin.”34

59

60

ChapTer Two

­ Among­foreign­participants,­Japan­received­a­great­deal­of­attention­and­ had­the­largest­presence­in­terms­of­space,­including­a­40,000-­square-­foot­ building­and­garden­complex­on­Wooded­Island,­several­buildings­and­attractions­on­the­Midway,­and­some­90,000­square­feet­of­display­space­ in­the­White­City.­In­return­for­an­early,­substantial­contribution­to­the­ Chicago­ organizers­ and­ a­ promise­ to­ reproduce­ a­building­ of­ “the­ most­ ancient­style­of­architecture,”­Japan­had­been­given­prime­real­estate­on­ Wooded­Island.­Costing­nearly­$500,000,­the­Japanese­pavilion­included­a­ reproduction­of­the­Phoenix­Hall­of­the­Byōdō-­in­temple­near­Kyoto,­with­ a­teahouse­and­gardens.35­It­must­be­noted­that­the­Japanese­presentation­ at­Chicago­was­strictly­controlled­by­an­imperial­commission­headed­by­ Foreign­ Minister­ Mutsu­ Munemitsu,­ who­ spent­ “virtually­ every­ waking­ hour”­pondering­the­problem­of­how­to­renegotiate­(unequal)­treaties­with­ Western­imperial­powers.36­The­pursuit­of­this­state­objective­was­woven­ into­the­narrative­strategy­of­representing­Japanese­Buddhism­at­the­World­ Parliament­of­Religions.37 ­ In­his­opening­address­for­the­Japanese­delegation,­Noguchi­Zenshirō,­ a­ Buddhist­ layman,­ artfully­ touched­ on­ the­ themes­ of­ Western­ aggression­and­the­illegality­of­the­treaties.­Judith­Snodgrass­writes,­“Maintaining­his­ironical­message­of­gratitude,­Noguchi­thanked­America­for­sending­Perry­and­presented­Japanese­Buddhism­as­the­most­precious­gift­that­ Japan­could­offer.”­Comparing­Commodore­Perry­to­Columbus,­Noguchi­ hinted­at­the­continuing­movement­of­civilization­westward,­from­Europe­ to­America­to­Japan.­As­Snodgrass­points­out,­his­paper,­in­a­very­subtle­ way,­criticized­Euro-­American­imperialism:­“The­Japanese­erected­a­statue­ to­Perry,­as­the­Americans­had­done­to­Columbus,­but­beside­it­they­placed­ a­ statue­ of­ Ii­ Naosuke,­ the­ chancellor­ of­ the­ Tokugawa­ bakufu­ who­ had­ been­assassinated­as­a­traitor,­Noguchi­explained,­because­‘he­opened­the­ door­to­a­stranger­without­waiting­for­the­permission­of­the­emperor’­.­.­.­ [alluding]­to­the­invalidity­of­the­treaties­forced­upon­Japan­by­the­United­ States.”38 ­ The­majority­of­the­fairgoers­were­working-­class­and­farming­families,­ and­as­they­marveled­at­the­latest­scientific­and­technological­innovations­ exhibited­in­ornate,­massive­neoclassical­buildings,­they­were­also­introduced­to­innovative­and­entertaining­ways­of­representing­racial­and­civilizational­hierarchies.­In­1890­nearly­78­percent­of­the­population­of­Chicago­ were­either­foreign-­born­or­the­children­of­foreign-­born,39­and­it­would­

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

be­safe­to­say­that­the­White­City­and­the­idea­of­America­as­united­and­ progressive­did­not­convince­every­fairgoer.­The­working-­class­movement­ was­strong­and­militant;­seven­years­earlier­a­rally­in­support­of­striking­ workers­had­led­to­what­has­come­to­be­known­as­the­Haymarket­Massacre,­ and­Chicago­had­the­reputation­of­being­“the­most­radical­of­American­ cities.”40­Black­Americans­were­denigrated­and­excluded,­as­Ferdinand­L.­ Barnett­noted:­“Only­as­a­menial­is­the­Colored­American­to­be­seen.­.­.­.­ It­remained­for­the­Republic­of­Hayti­[sic]­to­give­the­only­acceptable­representation.­.­.­.­That­republic­chose­Frederick­Douglass­to­represent­it­as­ Commissioner­through­which­the­Colored­American­received­from­a­foreign­power­the­place­denied­him­at­home.”41 ­ The­ Chicago­ of­ Upton­ Sinclair,­ the­ Chicago­ of­ sweatshops­ and­ tenements,­habitats­without­plumbing­or­light—that­“real”­Chicago­conflicted­ with­the­Exposition­directors’­vision­of­the­future.­In­that­sense,­as­Alan­ Trachtenberg­has­pointed­out,­the­White­City­was­not­only­physically­separated­from­Chicago,­but­also­aesthetically­differentiated.42­For­Yun­Ch’i-­ho,­ that­physical­and­aesthetic­distance­only­intensified­the­distance­he­perceived­between­Korea­and­civilized­nations.­On­seeing­the­Korea­Exhibit,­ Yun­wrote­that­it­was­so­second-­rate­and­dismal­that­he­could­not­turn­ away­from­it.­The­Exhibit­did­not­present­Chosŏn­Korea­as­a­nation­that­a­ modern­citizen­might­admire.­It­was­altogether­unable­to­articulate­Korea­ in­any­compelling­way­within­that­symbolic­universe­that­privileged­industrialization,­progress,­and­empire.­Yun­wrote­in­his­diary­that­he­could­not­ help­but­“blush­at­the­poverty­of­Corean­arts.”­He­spent­two­days­viewing­ the­Columbian­Exposition.­In­his­entry­for­September­28­he­wrote,­“After­ breakfast­went­to­the­Fair.­Felt­humiliated­not­to­find­a­Corean­flag­in­any­ of­the­buildings­from­whose­roofs­fly­the­colors­of­almost­every­nation.­Ah!­ Yet­I­shall­not­know­the­depth­and­breadth­of­the­degradation­and­shame­of­ Corea­till­I­get­into­her­capital.­.­.­.­Went­to­the­Corean­Pavilion­at­11­a.m.­ and­stayed­there­until­5­p.m.!­Why­and­what­for?­I­can’t­explain;­only­I­ couldn’t­get­away­from­there,­miserable­as­the­exhibit­is.”43 ­ Korea’s­participation­in­the­Columbian­Exposition­and­its­mode­of­national­self-­representation­illustrate­the­pathways­by­which­Korea­was­imbricated­with­the­cultures­of­Euro-­American­empire­and­the­(re)structuring­of­racial­and­civilizational­hierarchies­in­the­intellectual­and­political­ terrain­of­late­nineteenth-­century­semicolonial­Korea.­They­illustrate­how­ imperialism­and­the­global­articulation­of­sovereignty­by­the­Western­im-

61

62

ChapTer Two

perial­powers­created­the­material­and­discursive­conditions­that­rendered­ Korea­and­Koreans­“wretched­and­slavish.”44­While­a­student­at­Vanderbilt­and­Emory,­Yun­had­spent­his­summers­giving­sermons­at­churches­ throughout­the­South.45­In­his­diary­entry­for­June­26,­1893,­in­Lincolnton,­ North­Carolina,­he­wrote,­“Had­a­full­house­last­night.­Met­Mrs.­M.­A.­ Wildman­of­Richmond.­She­introduced­herself­to­me­as­a­cousin­of­Miss­ Linnie­Davis­a­Presbyterian­missionary­to­Corea.­God­bless­her;­a­missionary­to­Corea­has­more­to­endure­than­one­in­the­African­jungles.”­His­diary­ records­many­delightful­hours­spent­playing­the­game­of­quotation­with­ wives,­daughters,­and­widows­of­pastors,­and­the­daughter­of­his­landlord­ while­in­Chicago.­In­his­entry­for­August­11,­1893,­in­Lynchburg,­Virginia,­ Yun­recorded­his­“wandering­thoughts”:­Miss­F.­E.­was­“aristocratic­in­feeling­and­bearing­though­not­in­circumstances.­.­.­.­[She]­asked­me­if­I­ever­ get­mad!­Have­I­deceived­her­in­hiding­and­controlling­my­passions?­Certainly­not.­It­is­no­sin­to­hide­our­passions­as­long­as­we­design­no­harm­ behind­those­who­may­offend­us.” ­ His­diary­makes­it­clear­that­Yun­was­offended­numerous­times­by­the­ racism­he­encountered­in­the­United­States.­But­in­hiding­his­anger­he­insisted­that­he­harbored­no­design­to­harm­those­same­(white)­Americans.­ On­the­other­hand,­toward­those­groups­of­people­(nonwhites)­whom­he­ judged­willfully­in­ignorance­and­barbarity,­such­as­the­Native­Americans­ he­saw­in­the­American­West,­his­anger,­indeed­his­casual­genocidal­remark,­could­be­stated­freely­and­openly.­Intellectuals­like­Yun­Ch’i-­ho— Korean,­ male,­ bourgeois,­ and­ Christian,­ practiced­ in­ public­ speaking,­ afternoon­teas,­and­parlor­games­with­white­women,­his­passions­firmly­ controlled­as­befit­a­civilized­man—helped­set­in­motion­political­and­cultural­movements­under­the­rubric­of­Civilization­and­Enlightenment­(munmyŏng kaehwa)­that­ushered­in­a­modern­public­sphere­and­a­racialized­and­ nationalized­abstracted­subjectivity.46 ­ From­ Vancouver,­ via­ Japan,­ Yun­ arrived­ back­ in­ Shanghai­ in­ mid-­ November­1893­to­await­political­changes­in­Korea­that­might­permit­his­ return.47­That­opportunity­came­with­the­outbreak­of­the­Sino-­Japanese­ War,­the­Japanese­occupation­of­Seoul,­and­Inoue­Kaoru’s­support­for­a­reformist­government.­Yun­returned­to­Korea­in­February­1895­and­received­ an­appointment­first­as­vice­minister­of­education,­and­then­as­vice­minister­of­foreign­affairs.48

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

Translating­Sovereignty It­is­not­clear­when­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­began­keeping­a­diary.­What­has­been­preserved­begins­on­January­1,­1883.­At­the­time­he­was­studying­English­in­ Japan­with­Lizzie­Goodhue­Millet,­the­wife­of­Ernest­Francisco­Fenollosa,­ a­professor­of­philosophy­and­political­economy­at­Tokyo­Imperial­University,­and­Kanda­Naibu,­a­lecturer­in­English­at­Tokyo­Imperial­University.­ Yun’s­ early­ diary­ entries­ were­ in­ literary­ Chinese.­ However,­ on­ November­25,­1887,­while­studying­at­the­Anglo-­Chinese­College­in­Shanghai,49­ he­switched­to­vernacular­writing­in­the­Korean­alphabet­with­the­simple­ declaration­“From­today­I­will­keep­my­diary­in­Korean­[kungmun].”­On­ December­7,­1889,­a­year­after­arriving­in­Nashville­to­study­at­Vanderbilt,­ he­changed­his­language­again,­this­time­to­English.­He­wrote,­in­English,­ “My­Diary­has­hitherto­been­kept­in­Corean.­But­its­vocabulary­is­not­as­yet­ rich­enough­to­express­all­what­I­want­to­say.­Have­therefore­determined­to­ keep­the­Diary­in­English.”­His­English­entries­were­much­longer,­and­he­ immediately­took­up­topics­he­had­not­written­about­before:­about­Jacob­ (“the­Armenian”),­a­friend­who­was­poor­(“poorer­than­I”)­but­who­had­ “simplicity­in­manner­and­kindness­of­heart”;­about­the­southerner­who­ “looks­down­on­a­negro­with­as­much­contempt­as­on­a­brute”;­and­about­ the­southern­church­that­“favored­slavery.”50 ­ When­Yun­switched­from­Korean­to­English,­the­questioning,­feeling,­ self-­conscious­ self­ that­ emerges­ from­ the­ diary­ seems­ to­ emerge­ fully­ formed.­In­the­Korean-­language­entries­of­the­days­and­weeks­prior­to­the­ shift,­the­language­does­not—cannot—give­evidence­of­that­kind­of­interiority,­ of­ a­ masculine­ and­ singular­ consciousness.­ Even­ for­ Yun,­ who­ obviously­had­a­knack­for­languages­and­writing,­the­Korean­vernacular­ at­the­time­proved­inadequate­for­self-­presentation.­It­was­not­the­poverty­ of­ the­ Korean­ vocabulary­ that­ made­ written­ vernacular­ Korean­ inadequate.­ Vernacular­ Korean­ in­ the­ late­ 1880s,­ as­ a­ written­ language,­ did­ not­have­the­kind­of­literary­conventions­that­English­developed­after­the­ eighteenth­century,­that­could­interpellate­Yun­as­author­and­narrator­of­ a­self-­narrative.­Central­to­his­diary­keeping­was­the­figure­of­the­sovereign­subject­in­the­post-­Enlightenment­West­that­was­informed­by­notions­ of­self-­interest,­self-­consciousness,­and­self-­knowledge.51­In­his­switch­to­ Eng­lish,­his­diary­became­a­self-­defining­story,­and­Yun­a­self-­determining­ author­who­could­write­about­his­own­subjectivity­from­externalized­and­ internal­points­of­view,­constituting­himself­as­both­subject­and­object.

63

64

ChapTer Two

­ While­Yun­may­have­constructed­his­subjectivity­in­English,­it­was­also­ clear­to­him,­as­it­was­to­the­Western­missionaries­in­Korea,­that­a­distinctly­ Korean­subjectivity—that­is,­a­Korean­national­subjectivity—would­have­ to­be­constructed­in­the­Korean­vernacular.­This­would­necessitate­an­immense­cultural­shift.­William­E.­Griffis,­an­American­Orientalist­and­Congregational­minister,­recalled­how,­more­than­once,­he­had­urged­“Korean­ literary­men”­to­“cultivate­their­own­mother­tongue,”­but­in­vain:­“They­ were­safely­immune,­inert­and­unashamed,­for­they­considered­the­subject­ of­cultivating­their­vernacular­beneath­their­notice.­.­.­.­If­De­Quincey’s­dictum,­that­next­to­the­flag­of­his­native­country,­a­scholar­should­be­loyal­to­ his­own­language,­be­true,­then­it­seems­little­wonder­that­Korean­sovereignty­was­lost­and­that­Japanese­may­yet­become­the­official­language­of­ Cho-­sen.”52­There­were,­of­course,­Korean­literary­men­who­had­sought­to­ forge­a­link­between­written­Korean­vernacular­and­patriotism,­men­like­ Yu­Kil-­chun,­Sŏ­Chae-­pil,­Chu­Si-­g yŏng,­and­Yun­Ch’i-­ho,­all­of­whom­had­ extensive­exposure­to­Western­languages,­especially­English.53­To­not­only­ articulate­and­disseminate­news­and­new­ideas,­but­to­convince­its­readership­of­the­moral­and­ethical­significance­of­recognizing­that­(seemingly)­ essential­ link­ between­ civilization,­ sovereign­ thinking,­ and­ a­ “national”­ language­constituted­the­primary­motivation­behind­the­creation­of­Korea’s­ first­vernacular­newspaper,­Tongnip sinmun­(literally,­the­Newspaper­Independent).54 ­ Beginning­publication­on­April­7,­1896,­printed­in­the­Korean­alphabet,­ with­occasional­articles­and­editorials­in­English,­Tongnip sinmun­referred­ to­the­Korean­alphabet­created­during­King­Sejong’s­reign­(1418–50)­as­the­ national­script­(kungmun).55­A­creation­of­Sŏ­Chae-­pil,­and­later­with­Yun­ Ch’i-­ho­as­publisher­and­editor-in-chief,­the­newspaper­was­published­by­ the­Independence­Club.56­It­was­printed­by­the­Trilingual­Press­run­at­the­ Paejae­Boys’­High­School­by­the­American­Methodist­Episcopal­Mission.57­ The­inaugural­issue­included­an­editorial­written­by­Sŏ­Chae-­pil: The­reason­that­our­newspaper­uses­only­the­Korean­alphabet­[kungmun],­and­ not­Chinese­[hanmun],­is­so­as­to­have­it­read­by­all­the­people­without­regard­ to­their­social­status­[sangha kwich’ŏn].­Space­is­provided­between­words­in­ the­hope­that­people­might­read­the­paper­with­ease­and­understand­what­is­ recorded­in­the­paper­more­fully.­In­foreign­countries­[kakkuk],­people­[saram tŭl],­without­regard­to­their­sex,­first­learn­their­own­writings­and­only­after­ they­have­acquired­a­good­command­of­their­language­do­they­begin­to­learn­

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

a­foreign­language­[oe’guk kŭl].­But­in­Korea,­people­study­the­Chinese­writing­system­even­though­they­did­not­learn­the­Korean­alphabet­[Chosŏn kungmun],­and­therefore­it­is­rare­to­find­people­[saram]­who­know­the­Korean­writing­system­well.­When­we­compare­Korean­and­the­Chinese­writing­system,­ Korean­letters­are­superior.­First,­they­are­easier­to­learn.­Second,­they­are­ Korean­letters­[Chosŏn kŭl]­and­therefore­if­the­Korean­people­[Chosŏn inmin]­ use­them­for­all­things,­the­people­of­all­ranks,­without­regard­to­their­positions,­can­understand­them­with­ease.­The­people­have­long­been­accustomed­ to­the­use­of­Chinese­orthography­and­have­failed­to­use­the­Korean­writing­ system,­so­that­the­Korean­people­[Chosŏn inmin]­have­now­become­unfamiliar­ with­their­own­letters.­Instead­they­are­more­familiar­with­the­Chinese­writing­ system.­Is­this­not­lamentable!58

­ Sŏ­Chae-­pil­was­twenty­years­old­when­he­had­to­flee­to­Japan,­along­ with­ Kim­ Ok-­kyun,­ Pak­ Yŏng-­hyo,­ and­ Sŏ­ Kwang-­bŏm,­ after­ the­ failure­ of­the­1884­coup­attempt.­Receiving­a­cold­shoulder­from­Inoue­Kaoru,­ Sŏ­went­to­the­United­States­the­following­year.­After­working­in­various­ menial­jobs,­he­was­accepted­into­the­Columbia­University­Medical­School­ (now­George­Washington­University)­and­received­his­medical­degree­in­ 1892.­Soon­after,­he­married­Muriel­Armstrong,­the­daughter­of­Colonel­ George­ Buchanan­ Armstrong,­ founder­ of­ the­ U.S.­ Railway­ Mail­ Service­ and­a­cousin­of­President­James­Buchanan.­Sŏ­had­U.S.­citizenship­when­ he­returned­to­Korea­in­1896­to­participate­in­the­movement­to­transform­ Korea­under­the­banner­of­“civilization­and­enlightenment.”59­His­American­name,­Philip­Jaisohn,­was­itself­a­translation,­based­on­a­combination­ of­the­first­character­of­his­given­name,­Chae­(載),­with­his­family­name,­ Sŏ­ (徐),­ to­ create­ Jaisohn.­ The­ second­ character­ of­ his­ given­ name,­ p’il­ (弼),­became­Philip.­The­recombination­of­the­various­signifiers­Sŏ,­Chae,­ p’il­into­Philip­Jaisohn­may­appear­to­us­forced­and­mechanical­because­of­ its­obedience­to­the­way­American­names­are­ordered.­But­obedience­to­ Euro-­American­norms­allowed­Sŏ­Chae-­pil­to­acquire­a­hybrid­name,­an­ American­wife,­and­U.S.­citizenship.­The­making­of­this­hybrid­name­illustrates­how­modernity­and­the­nation­form­first­came­to­be­translated­in­ late­nineteenth-­century­Korea:­the­unavoidable­accommodation­to­Euro-­ American­ modernity­ and­ semantic­ innovation­ through­ both­ productive­ imagination­and­the­legislative­rationality­of­capitalist­sovereignty.60 ­ Translating­modernity­and­the­nation­form­suggests­beginnings:­the­inauguration­of­the­Korean­alphabet­as­the­national­script­in­the­last­decade­

65

66

ChapTer Two

of­the­nineteenth­century,­the­beginning­of­modern­Korean­historiography­in­the­first­decade­of­the­twentieth­century,­the­emergence­of­modern­ Korean­literature,­and­a­host­of­other­beginnings.­Together­these­provided­ evidence­of­the­simultaneous­emergence­of­the­ethnic­nation­(minjok)­and­ modernity­in­Korea.­There­is­a­temptation­to­depict­Korean­intellectuals­ in­the­late­nineteenth­century­and­early­twentieth­as­sovereign­subjects­ of­such­beginnings,­not­just­present­at­the­creation­but­there­as­the­active­ subjects­creating­new­meanings­as­they­translate­from­one­language­to­the­ host­language­and­in­the­process­create­new­identities,­new­institutions,­ and­new­practices­that­are­of­their­own­making.­Formulated­in­this­way,­the­ act­of­translation­might­suggest­a­historical­narrative­quite­different­from­ that­suggested­by­attention­to­Western­and­Japanese­hegemony:­modernity­and­nation­in­Korea­as­Korea’s­own­creation,­with­Korean­intellectuals­ selecting,­interpreting,­and­creating­their­own­modernity­from­the­Western­archive.­The­modernity­thus­created­would­be­Korean­(encompassing­ different­intellectual­traditions),­dynamic,­and­ongoing—an­incomplete­ project­that­is­both­particular­and­universal.­Historians­would­then­have­a­ firm­basis­for­writing­the­history­of­Korea’s­modernity;­this­history­would­ be­ the­ retelling­ of­ the­ intellectual’s­ consciousness,­ while­ taking­ due­ account­of­the­historical­and­political­context,­that­is,­“the­limitations­of­his­ time.” ­ But­such­a­historical­narrative­is­the­product­of­a­type­of­desire­created­ by­sovereignty­itself,­as­Hardt­and­Negri­put­it,­sovereignty­as­“a­form­of­ command­that­overdetermines­the­relationship­between­individuality­and­ universality­as­a­function­of­the­development­of­capital.”61­A­more­critical­ historiography­might­locate­acts­of­translation­in­a­specific­space­and­time,­ a­crossroad­where­“things­happen”­by­way­of­imagination­and­political­dynamic.­One­of­the­things­that­happened­was­the­production­of­new­meanings­and­new­narratives­through­semantic­innovation.­To­see­how­semantic­ innovation­might­have­occurred­in­specific­moments,­in­specific­texts,­it­ can­be­argued­that­“combinatory­rationality”­was­put­into­play­by­structural­semantics,­while­a­“legislating­rationality”­was­at­work­at­the­level­of­ narrative.62­Things­happened­through­the­productive­imagination­of­the­ translator,­but­the­rationalities­to­be­noted­here­were,­for­the­most­part,­ not­under­the­control­of­the­translator.­To­the­extent­that­these­rationalities­were­beyond­the­reach­of­the­translator,­we­have­to­concede­that­language­itself­has­a­certain­agency.­We­can­talk­about­translating­from­some­

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

language­to­Korean,­but­only­if­we­do­not­assume­that­this­act­of­translation­ occurs­between­two­distinct­systems­of­signs­and­meanings. ­ Prior­to­standardization­and­modernization­begun­in­the­late­nineteenth­ century,­Korean­could­not­have­functioned­as­an­effective­means­for­shared­ communion.63­As­Ross­King­points­out,­“The­language­situation­in­1880s­ Korea­was­one­of­diglossia­and­digraphia.”­The­official­written­language­ was­hanmun—“classical­Chinese­in­its­Korean­guise”—while­the­spoken­ vernacular­was­“a­series­of­related,­unstandardized­dialects­of­Korean,­the­ most­prestigious­being­that­of­the­capital,­Seoul.”­As­for­writing,­there­were­ four­major­“styles”:­ŏnmun, ŏnhanmun, idumun,­and­hanmun.64­It­was­when­ Korean­intellectuals­translated­capitalist­sovereignty­in­the­late­nineteenth­ century­that­the­diachronic­identity­of­Korean­came­to­be­assured—from­ the­language­of­hyangga­of­the­Three­Kingdoms­period­down­to­the­language­of­officials­in­late­nineteenth-­century­Seoul—and­Korean­imagined­ as­singular,­a­unity­even­in­its­great­variations­over­space­and­time.65­To­historicize­this­act­of­translation,­then,­it­is­crucial­to­attend­to­the­epistemological­as­well­as­political­possibilities­that­presented­themselves­as­nation,­ the­“West,”­and­the­“world”­as­an­international­community­(man’guk:­literally,­ten­thousand­countries)­came­to­be­constructed­in­late­nineteenth-­ century­Korea. ­ Legislative­rationality,­capitalist­sovereignty­functioning­like­a­machine,­ the­unavoidable­accommodation­to­Western­norms­and­laws,­and­semantic­ innovation—how­might­we­conceptualize­these­as­processes­of­translation­ and­in­translation?­There­were­a­number­of­ways­by­which­new­words­were­ created­and­old­words­given­new­meanings.­For­example,­neologisms­such­ as­ethnic nation­(J:­minzoku)­were­created­in­Japan­in­the­process­of­translation.­In­the­early­1880s­Miyazaki­Muryū­translated­the­French­Assemblée­ Nationale­as­minzoku kaigi.­It­took­a­decade­or­so­for­this­neologism,­minzoku,­to­attain­a­certain­degree­of­stability­in­its­meaning­as­ethnic­nation.66­ The­compound­minzoku­(K:­minjok),­understood­as­ethnic nation,­began­to­ circulate­in­Korea­in­the­early­1900s.­As­usage­of­the­term­became­more­ fixed­in­East­Asian­political­discourse,­its­meaning­approached­the­German­ Volk­or­Volkschaft.67­An­“old”­compound­like­kokumin­(國民),­used­internally­ to­refer­to­the­people­of­one’s­domain­(J:­han,­ 藩)­during­the­Tokugawa­ period,­accrued­new­associations­after­the­Meiji­Restoration­and­began­to­ circulate­throughout­East­Asia­in­the­early­twentieth­century,­its­meaning­ vacillating­between­the­conservative­“national­subject”­and­the­more­lib-

67

68

ChapTer Two

eral­“national­citizen.”­There­were­other­compounds­used­throughout­East­ Asia­whose­meanings­were­radically­altered­by­their­association­with­certain­terms­in­Western­social­science­texts. ­ Another­revealing­example­is­the­word­for­economy­used­today­in­China,­ Japan,­ and­ Korea­ (經濟;­ K:­ kyŏngje,­ C:­ jingji,­ J:­ keizai).­ The­ lexical­ unit­ kyŏngje­is­a­contraction­of­kyŏngse jemin­(經世濟民,­to­govern­the­world­ and­relieve­the­people),­found­in­classical­Chinese­literature.­That­is­to­say,­ prior­to­the­nineteenth­century,­kyŏngje­referred­to­a­political­economy­ that­was­necessarily­and­overtly­moral­in­the­sense­of­obligation­to­people’s­ welfare.68­In­1827­Satō­Nobuhiro­in­his­work­Keizai yōroku­(The­Essence­ of­Economics)­rendered­keizai­in­terms­of­production,­consumption,­and­ the­wealth­of­nations,­an­intellectual­approach­that­linked­public­interest­ with­competition­and­the­pursuit­of­private­gain,­almost­certainly­in­the­ context­of­studying­and­translating­Dutch­texts.69­As­Justin­Rosenberg­has­ pointed­out,­whereas­tribute­(taxes­or­rents,­in­money­or­kind)­was­extracted­through­direct­political­relations­of­domination­prior­to­capitalism,­ in­a­capitalist­economy­“profit­[is]­appropriated­through­a­series­of­relations­of­exchange.”­When­the­people­(min,­ 民)­had­been­subordinated­as­ the­king’s­subjects,­they­were­the­object­of­both­governance­and­sometimes­ compassion.­With­capitalist­sovereignty,­and­kyŏngje­rendered­as­economy,­ political­inequality­was­no­longer­inscribed­in­the­relations­of­production.­ The­extraction­of­profit­appears­as­a­series­of­relations­of­exchange­rather­ than­tribute­extracted­through­political­domination;­the­people,­as­workers­ and­producers,­became­“free”­in­their­poverty­and­propertylessness.­Like­ capitalism,­then,­the­term­kyŏngje­could­(and­did)­take­a­“purely­economic”­ form.70 ­ For­our­purposes,­I­will­limit­the­examination­of­semantic­innovation­to­ the­question­of­how­Korean­intellectuals­like­Philip­Jaisohn,­Chu­Si-­g yŏng,­ and­others­could­have­“shortened­the­distance”­between­words­like­ŏnmun­ (諺文,­ vulgar­ script)—the­ Chosŏn­ literati’s­ designation­ for­ vernacular­ writing­using­the­Korean­alphabet­invented­in­the­mid-­fifteenth­century,­ today­referred­to­as­han’gŭl­(in­South­Korea)—and­Chosŏn kŭl­(Korean­letters,­朝鮮글)­and­kungmun­(national­script,­국문,­國文).­For­the­Chosŏn­literati,­vernacular­writing­in­Korean­was­ŏnmun­in­the­sense­that­the­Korean­ alphabet­recorded­vulgar­speech.­But­in­November­1894,­in­the­wake­of­the­ Kabo­reforms,­a­royal­edict­referred­to­vernacular­writing­in­the­Korean­ alphabet­as­the­national­script­and­decreed,­“All­laws­and­edicts­shall­have­

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

Korean­as­their­base;­one­may­attach­a­translation­in­literary­Chinese­[hanmun]­or­in­mixed­script­[kukhanmun].”­Here,­it­should­be­noted­that­this­ royal­edict­gave­recognition­and­enormous­prestige­to­not­just­vernacular­ writing­in­the­Korean­alphabet­but­to­the­very­concept­of­a­“national­script.” ­ When­first­promulgated­in­1443­under­the­directive­hunmin chŏngŭm­(instruct­the­people­on­the­correct­sounds),­the­vernacular­writing­system­ that­came­to­be­belittled­as­ŏnmun­was­a­true­alphabet­that­represented­ phonemes,­units­of­sound­that­distinguish­meanings.­It­was­easy­to­learn,­ but­the­Chosŏn­literati­opposed­the­use­of­this­alphabet­in­official­texts­ on­epistemological­ grounds.­Literary­Chinese­(hanmun)­was­the­writing­ system­of­power­and­universal­truth.­It­was­not­foreign.­It­was­the­script­ that­secured­Korea’s­place­in­civilization.­The­Chosŏn­literati­expressed­intense­anxiety­that­the­widespread­use­of­ŏnmun­would­inevitably­result­in­ many­turning­their­back­on­a­vast­universe­of­cultivated­learning.71­Thus­ laws,­indeed­anything­of­importance,­could­not­and­should­not­be­written­in­the­Korean­alphabet.­Prior­to­the­late­nineteenth­century,­then,­it­ would­have­made­little­sense­to­place­country­(國)­before­mun­(文).­To­the­ extent­that­a­“national­script”­(國文)­made­any­sense­at­all,­it­would­have­ suggested­a­“country”­mode­of­writing­unable­to­shake­off­its­parochialism:­ country­would­have­rendered­mun—letters,­but­also­literature­in­the­larger­ sense—into­its­other,­that­is,­the­local­written­vernacular,­the­“other”­of­ true­knowledge.72 ­ When­referring­to­their­country,­the­Chosŏn­literati­often­used­the­term­ Eastern Country­(K:­Tongguk,­ 東國),­the­geographical­point­of­reference,­ of­course,­being­China.73­But­the­formal­name­for­this­dynastic­state­was­ Chosŏn,74­ and­ in­ referring­ to­ Chosŏn kŭl­ (Korean­ letters)­ Philip­ Jaisohn­ had­combined­the­“pure”­Korean­word­kŭl,­for­writing,­with­the­name­for­ Korea­that­did­not­locate­it­spatially­with­regard­to­China.­The­huge­gulf­ between­writing­that­is­kŭl­(글)­and­writing­and­literature­that­is­mun­(文)­ was­bridged­by­kŭl’s­association­with­Chosŏn­and­mun’s­association­with­ kuk­(country)­in­the­space­and­time­of­Korea’s­becoming­“sovereign”­from­ China.75­That­is­to­say,­it­took­more­than­just­productive­imagination­to­ shorten­the­distance­between­the­national­and­mun­and­to­posit­an­equivalence­between­the­local­vernacular­(Chosŏn kŭl)­and­national­(kungmun)­ script.­The­declarative­sentence­“They­are­Korean­letters­[朝鮮글]”­derived­ its­meaning,­significance,­and­power­from­imperialism­and­capitalist­sovereignty­that­had­de-­centered­and­provincialized­China­and­shattered­the­

69

70

ChapTer Two

notion­of­all-­under-­heaven­(C:­tianxia,­K:­ch’ŏnha),­a­concept­which­placed­ the­Chinese­emperor­at­the­center­and­defined­political­sovereignty­in­relation­to­that­center.­Within­the­rationality­of­capitalist­sovereignty,­it­now­ made­good­sense­to­combine­Chosŏn­with­kŭl­and­country­with­mun:­Korea­ is­different­from­China;­kŭl­cannot­come­after­China­or­Japan­or­France;­ country­and­mun­belong­together.­It­was­that­international­context—sovereignty’s­legislative­rationality—which­enabled­intellectuals­like­Jaisohn­to­ imagine­Korea­as­a­singular­linguistic­community­and­to­urge­all­Koreans­ to­read­and­write­in­the­Korean­vernacular. ­ We­saw­how­this­rationality­worked­in­the­case­of­Yun­Ch’i-­ho’s­diary­ writing­ when,­ in­ 1887,­ he­ switched­ from­ literary­ Chinese­ to­ vernacular­ writing­in­the­Korean­alphabet­and­referred­to­it­as­kungmun.­It­was­not­ an­accident­that­Yun­switched­from­literary­Chinese­to­the­Korean­script­ while­studying­at­the­Anglo-­Chinese­College­in­Shanghai.­Through­personal­and­institutional­networks­that­were­transnational,­through­church­ services­and­Bible­study­groups,­and­by­inspiring­and­training­many­prominent­Korean­linguists­and­grammarians—including­the­brilliant­linguist­ Chu­Si-­g yŏng—Christian­(especially­Protestant)­missionaries­made­possible­ international­ recognition­ of­ the­ scientific­ value­ of­ the­ Korean­ vernacular­script,­promoted­respect­for­and­standardization­of­Korean,­and­ fostered­a­spirit­of­protecting­the­Korean­script.76­Protestant­missionaries­ helped­transform­the­Korean­vernacular­script­into­an­icon­of­Korea­and­ an­icon­for­Korea.­The­status­given­to­Chosŏn kŭl­as­national­script­might­ seem­to­pay­homage­to­Korean­genius.­But­as­Rey­Chow­has­argued,­the­ homage­to­the­West­has­long­been­paid­in­the­form­of­what­seems­to­be­its­ opposite:77­in­this­case,­the­insistence­on­national­language.­That­is­to­say,­ imperialism­and­capitalist­sovereignty­compelled­Korea’s­distinction­from­ China,­ Japan,­ and­ all­ the­ other­ countries,­ and­ the­ West­ was­ very­ much­ present­in­constituting­the­Korean­language­and­Korean­people­as­inherent­ attributes­of­a­distinct­unity.78

Sovereignty­and­Peoplehood In­English-­language­historiography­on­modern­Japan­and­modern­China,­ many­ of­ the­ groundbreaking­ histories­ written­ in­ the­ early­ years­ of­ the­ cold­war­dealt­with­Western­“impact”­and­Japanese­and­Chinese­response.­ While­this­historiography,­for­the­most­part,­presented­Western­impact­as­

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

modernization—a­social­scientific­reworking­of­the­earlier­“civilizing”­process—in­Korea’s­case­Western­impact­was­rendered­even­more­benign,­because­Korea­was­colonized­by­Japan­in­1910.­That­is­to­say,­historians­(outside­of­North­Korea)­have­not­considered,­in­a­critical­way,­the­colonizing­ effect­of­not­just­Western­impact­on­late­nineteenth-­century­Korea­but­of­ the­nation-­state­system­into­which­Korea­was­forcibly­incorporated.­The­ nation-­state­system­interpellated­intellectuals­like­Chu­Si-­g yŏng,­Philip­Jaisohn,­and­others­as­nationalized­subjects­who­produced­semantic­innovations­and­demarcated­ Korea­as­a­unified­space­with­a­distinct­system­ of­signs­and­meanings.­This­semantic­innovation­was­overdetermined­and­ marked­a­beginning,­not­just­in­the­sense­that­Tongnip sinmun­was­the­first­ newspaper­published­in­vernacular­Korean­and­English.­The­Independent­ became­a­“national”­newspaper­because­it­was­printed­in­the­vernacular.­ This­newspaper,­disseminated­“nationally,”­enabled­new­ways­of­experiencing­time­and­space.79­It­helped­create,­as­Rebecca­Karl­found­for­China­at­ the­turn­of­the­twentieth­century,­“a­world­of­synchronic­temporality­emphasizing­historical­identification­and­spatial­proximity.”80 ­ The­point­to­be­made­here­is­that­a­new­consciousness­of­history­and­ globality—for­example,­the­plight­of­the­Vietnamese­under­French­colonial­rule,­or­lessons­to­be­learned­from­Italian­or­Polish­history—helped­ establish­a­logic­of­equivalence­based­on­a­racial­geography­of­the­world­ and­a­concomitant­desire­for­a­unified­nation­space­predicated­on­a­unity­ of­Korean­language­and­Korean­people.­While­this­imagined­unified­nation­ space­ enabled­ “historical­ identification”­ with­ other­ countries­ and­ peoples,­ how­ that­ identification­ would­ be­ articulated—who­ and­ what­ would­be­made­visible­and­audible—was­ central­to­a­new­political­ aesthetic­ of­ subject-­making.­ In­ Philip­ Jaisohn’s­ editorial­ in­ the­ Tongnip sinmun,­readers­were­told­that­people­in­foreign­countries­(kakkuk saram tŭl),­ regardless­of­sex,­study­foreign­languages­only­after­they­have­acquired­a­ good­command­of­their­own­language­(pon’guk kungmun).­By­inference,­Jaisohn­constructed­a­civilizational­hierarchy,­and­Koreans­were­to­emulate­ those­people­most­civilized—Euro-­Americans—who­knew­to­value­their­ own­national­language.81­In­calling­on­all­Koreans­(Chosŏn inmin),­without­ regard­to­position­or­social­status,­to­read­and­write­in­vernacular­Korean,­ Jaisohn­was­echoing­a­central­tenet­of­liberalism­and­capitalist­sovereignty:­ that­formal­political­inequality­among­men­should­not­be­basic­to­Korea’s­ sovereignty.82

71

72

ChapTer Two

­ Jaisohn’s­editorial­problematized­not­just­the­profound­gap­separating­ literary­Chinese­from­vernacular­Korean­but­also­the­profound­social,­cultural,­and­political­gap­that­separated­the­social­classes­in­Korea.­To­put­it­ differently,­while­Tongnip sinmun­enabled­a­consciousness­of­simultaneity­ with­one’s­countrymen­and­with­peoples­elsewhere,­it­also­highlighted­and­ problematized­the­hierarchically­fragmented­state­of­the­Korean­people.­ For­ Jaisohn­ and­ many­ other­ intellectuals­ in­ ensuing­ years,­ it­ was­ clear­ which­social­class­constituted­the­main­obstacle­to­unifying­and­standardizing­both­the­language­and­the­people.­For­younger­political­activists­like­ Rhee­ Syngman,­ the­ main­ impediment­ was­ posed­ by­ the­ scholar­ gentry­ steeped­in­classical­training,­while­hope­lay­in­the­common­people­(paeksŏng).­ In­ the­ introduction­ to­ Tongnip chŏngsin­ (Spirit­ of­ Independence),­ written­in­1904­while­he­was­in­jail,­Rhee­wrote: To­make­this­book­as­readable­as­an­old­[vernacular]­novel,­I­provided­lengthy­ explanations­in­simple­everyday­language­and­did­not­write­down­the­names­ of­many­people­and­places.­So­that­a­large­number­of­people­throughout­the­ country­could­read­this­easily,­I­have­only­used­the­Korean­script­[kungmun]­ to­record­[my­thoughts].­Much­discussion­is­addressed­to­the­common­people­ [paeksŏng]­in­particular,­because­the­future­of­Korea­[TaeHan]­is­entirely­dependent­on­them.­By­and­large,­people­[saram]­of­middle­and­higher­status,­ or­those­who­know­some­literary­Chinese,­are­for­the­most­part­rotten,­set­in­ their­ways,­and­beyond­hope.­Not­only­are­these­people­[beyond­hope],­but­ the­places­they­inhabit­are­also­beyond­salvation.83

It­should­be­noted­that­the­future­Rhee­invoked­for­Korea­was­a­future­(possibly­quite­disastrous)­different­from­Korea’s­past­and­present.­The­scholar­ gentry­steeped­in­Confucian­learning­were­“rotten,­set­in­their­ways,­and­ beyond­hope.”­The­past,­now­identified­with­the­world­of­the­scholar­gentry,­could­not­be­instructive­for­Korea’s­present­or­for­the­future.­But­what­ about­ the­ common­ people­ whom­ Rhee­ presumably­ addressed­ and­ on­ whom­the­future­of­Korea­depended? ­ In­an­essay­titled­“To­Establish­the­Nation­Teaching­and­Transformation­ Is­the­Key,”­written­in­literary­Chinese­roughly­in­the­same­period,­Rhee­ referred­to­the­people­(paeksŏng)­as­dolls­made­of­wood­(mok’u)­or­grass­ (ch’ou).84­In­this­essay,­as­in­Tongnip chŏngsin,­Rhee­repeated­an­assertion­ that­would­have­been­familiar­to­anyone­with­a­modicum­of­knowledge­of­ classical­Chinese­literature:­the­people­are­the­foundation­of­the­country.­

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

But­he­cast­the­people­as­the­country’s­foundation­not­just­in­the­old­sense­ that­they­are­the­producers­of­all­things­essential­to­life­(thus­their­moral­ stature)­but­also­in­the­very­novel­sense­that­the­common­people­are­the­ historical­agents­that­usher­in­the­future.­The­problem,­for­Rhee,­was­that­ their­minds­(chŏngsin)­were­stiff­and­preoccupied­by­petty­interests;­their­ minds­had­no­feeling­or­movement.­As­narrative,­we­might­call­this­the­ poetics­of­degeneration.­This­kind­of­poetics­had­already­been­well­established­around­the­time­Rhee­became­an­activist,­as­illustrated­by­this­editorial­in­the­Independent­in­March­1897: Whether­a­country­is­progressing­[chinbo]­or­not­progressing­has­to­do,­above­ all,­with­whether­its­countrymen­seek­their­rights­as­a­people­[paeksŏng].­By­ people,­we­are­not­just­talking­about­those­who­hold­no­government­office:­ all­who­live­in­the­country­are­paeksŏng.­.­.­.­When­the­people­exercise­their­ rights­the­authority­of­the­monarch­[ingŭm]­becomes­enhanced­and­the­country’s­standing­[chich’e]­is­elevated.85­But­the­people­of­Chosŏn,­having­been­oppressed­by­their­own­countrymen­for­hundreds­of­years,­have­long­forgotten­ their­rights­[paeksŏng ŭi kwŏlli],­and­do­not­even­know­what­it­means.86

Just­ as­ Tongnip sinmun­ conferred­ (inter)national­ status­ on­ vernacular­ Korean,­so­this­editorial­sought­to­reconstitute­paeksŏng­in­a­world­of­synchronic­temporality,­abstracted­through­a­logic­of­equivalence:­paeksŏng­ no­longer­in­the­sense­of­people­who­do­not­hold­office­but­inclusive­of­all­ who­live­in­Korea,­the­people­not­as­the­object­of­governance­but­as­bearers­ of­rights. ­ Seven­years­later,­however,­in­Rhee’s­Tongnip chŏngsin,­the­category­paeksŏng­still­retained­that­character­of­requiring­edification­(hwa).­Rather­than­ describe­the­people­as­the­bearer­of­rights,­however,­Rhee­constitutes­them­ as­fallen­kin,­brothers­and­sisters­gripped­by­ignorance­and­poverty—and,­ it­should­be­added,­sinfulness.­“My­only­fervent­wish­is­for­the­ignorant­and­ despised,­young­and­weak­brothers­and­sisters­in­the­country­to­pay­special­attention,­to­become­interested­on­their­own­initiative,­to­step­by­step­ try­to­move­to­action,­and­also­to­guide­others,­so­that­day­by­day­people’s­ attitudes­will­change­and­manners­reformed,­so­that­transformation­[hwa]­ will­come­from­below.”87­While­Rhee­hoped­for­transformation­to­come­ from­below,­and­while­he­was­certain­that­the­future­of­Korea­depended­ entirely­on­the­people­(paeksŏng),­there­was­no­unity­among­the­millions­of­ Koreans:­the­children­of­rich­families­saw­the­world­as­a­paradise­on­earth,­

73

74

ChapTer Two

caught­up­in­licentiousness,­ given­to­drink,­sex,­and­gambling­(chusaekchapki);­the­children­of­poor­families­thought­only­of­filling­their­stomachs,­if­necessary­by­stealing­and­deception.88­Rhee­wrote­Tongnip chŏngsin­ precisely­because­he­thought­the­Korean­people­were­not­up­to­the­task­of­ defending­Korea’s­independence,­and­his­view,­as­reflected­in­his­political­ practice,­hardly­changed. ­ Prior­to­his­imprisonment,­Rhee­had­been­one­of­the­youngest­and­most­ ardent­activists­in­the­Manmin­kongdonghoe­(People’s­Assembly),­which­ grew­out­of­debating­forums­first­organized­by­the­Independence­Club­at­ huge­outdoor­assemblies­in­the­heart­of­Seoul­that­drew­thousands,­if­not­ tens­of­thousands,­evolving­from­public­gatherings­for­deliberative­dialogue­ to­what­might­be­called­street­parliaments.89­On­October­30,­1898,­in­an­ assembly­held­in­front­of­the­palace­organized­jointly­by­reformist­officials­ and­the­Independence­Club,­the­assembly­discussed­a­six-­point­resolution­ to­be­presented­to­Emperor­Kojong,­with­two­of­the­points­related­to­the­ campaign­for­a­legislative­assembly:­treaties­and­agreements­with­foreign­ powers­should­require­legislative­ratification,­and­appointment­of­all­high­ officials­should­require­the­approval­of­the­majority­of­Emperor­Kojong’s­ ministers.90­ On­ November­ 4­ the­ arrest­ of­ Independence­ Club­ activists­ began.­In­January­1899­the­Independence­Club­was­forcibly­dissolved,­Yun­ Ch’i-­ho­was­sent­into­internal­exile­in­Wŏnsan,­and­nine­months­later­Tongnip sinmun­stopped­publication.91 ­ Rhee­ was­ charged­ and­ then­ jailed­ for­ involvement­ in­ an­ alleged­ conspiracy­to­have­Emperor­Kojong­abdicate­in­favor­of­Yi­Kang­(1877–1955),­ Kojong’s­fifth­son,­and­then­to­bring­back­Pak­Yŏng-­hyo­(1861–1939)­from­ Japan­to­head­a­reformist­cabinet.92­Rhee­was­sentenced­to­die,­but­after­ heavy­pressure­from­American­missionaries­living­in­the­capital­(Rhee­had­ attended­Paejae­Boys’­High­School­and­converted­to­Christianity­while­in­ jail),­his­sentence­was­commuted­to­life­in­prison;­he­was­released­when­ the­Russo-­Japanese­War­began,­and­then­he­was­on­his­way­to­the­United­ States.93­His­trip­to­the­United­States­was­reportedly­arranged­by­two­high­ officials,­Min­Yŏng-­hwan­and­Han­Kyu-­sŏl,­who­wanted­him­to­seek­American­ help­ in­ safeguarding­ Korea’s­ independence.­ Rhee­ met­ Secretary­ of­ State­John­Hay­and­President­Theodore­Roosevelt,­but­there­was­no­chance­ that­he­could­have­succeeded.­Roosevelt­brought­together­representatives­ of­Russia­and­Japan­to­negotiate­at­Portsmouth,­producing­a­treaty­which­ ended­the­Russo-­Japanese­War,­with­Russia­agreeing­not­to­interfere­with­

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

Japan­in­matters­related­to­Korea.94­A­month­before­the­conclusion­of­the­ Treaty­of­Portsmouth,­Secretary­of­War­William­Howard­Taft­and­Prime­ Minister­ of­ Japan­ Katsura­ Tarō­ came­ to­ an­ agreement­ regarding­ Korea.­ In­the­Taft-­Katsura­memorandum,­Roosevelt­agreed­to­Japan’s­control­of­ Korea,­and­Japan­recognized­America’s­paramount­interest­in­the­Philippines.­In­November­1905­Korea­became­a­protectorate­of­Japan. ­ In­1906­Rhee­began­his­studies­in­the­United­States­and­earned­three­ academic­degrees­in­record­time:­a­bachelor’s­degree­from­George­Washington­ University­ in­ 1907,­ a­ master’s­ degree­ from­ Harvard­ in­ 1910,­ and­ a­ doctorate­ from­ Princeton­ in­ 1910.­ Until­ he­ returned­ to­ Seoul­ in­ 1945­ on­a­U.S.­military­plane,­and­throughout­the­Korean­War­and­beyond,­he­ continued­to­look­to­the­United­States­for­political,­economic,­and­military­support.95­His­critique­of­Korea’s­aristocracy,­his­condescending­attitude­toward­the­common­people,­and­his­faith­in­both­Christianity­and­ the­United­States­trace­the­outlines­of­what­I­have­been­calling­the­(Christian)­liberal-­bourgeois­subjectivity­that­emerged­in­Korea­at­the­turn­of­the­ twentieth­century. ­ For­Rhee,­politics­remained­primarily­a­pedagogic­project,­a­top-­down­ process­of­edifying­the­ignorant­masses­in­order­to­constitute­a­unity.­He­ was­ quite­ clear­ about­ the­ necessity­ of­ the­ civilizing­ process.­ Where­ the­ problems­of­ignorance,­superstition,­and­lethargy­among­the­people­were­ intractable,­Rhee­warned­against­actual­independence.­As­he­put­it,­“To­ grant­independence­[chaju kwŏlli]­to­[an­unenlightened­nation]­would­be­ like­giving­a­sharp­sword­to­an­immature­child.­So­that­it­will­not­harm­ him,­the­sword­ought­to­be­taken­away.­Just­as­a­child­should­not­be­allowed­ to­ wield­ a­ sword­ at­ his­ whim,­ the­ unenlightened­ nation,­ regardless­of­its­size­or­strength,­cannot­receive­the­protection­of­international­ law­nor­retain­its­sovereign­rights,­not­because­the­law­is­unfair­[p’yŏnbyŏk].”96­Rhee’s­conception­of­sovereignty­and­peoplehood,­while­seemingly­inclusive­of­everyone,­was­profoundly­undemocratic­and­colonial.­As­ Uday­Mehta­has­pointed­out,­such­exclusion­was­not­the­result­of­liberalism­practiced­incompletely.­The­exclusionary­basis­of­liberalism­derived­ from­its­theoretical­core:­the­legitimacy­of­political­authority­requires­consent;­consent,­to­be­meaningful,­requires­the­people­giving­that­consent­to­ be­possessed­of­reason;­certain­groups­of­people­(children,­madmen,­and­ idiots)­are­incapable­of­exercising­that­kind­of­reason;­such­people­can­be­ excluded,­governed­without­their­consent.97­Rhee’s­Spirit of Independence­

75

76

ChapTer Two

outlined­those­cultural,­social,­and­even­psychological­attributes­that­constitute­the­preconditions­for­political­inclusion.­Like­liberalism’s­prescription­for­colonized­peoples—where­the­colonized­were­rendered­equivalent­ to­children­or­semicivilized­or­simply­incompetent—Rhee’s­people­should­ be­attentive,­obedient,­industrious,­and­sit­patiently­in­the­waiting­room­of­ History­until­the­day­they­are­ready­for­sovereignty. ­ More­ democratic­ articulations­ of­ sovereignty­ and­ peoplehood­ would­ emerge­from­other­productive­imaginations,­including­those­of­historians­ turned­revolutionaries­immersed­in­mass-­based­anticolonial­struggles­in­ colonial­Korea­and­in­the­Korean­diaspora.­As­historians­adopted­narrative­strategies­that­sought­to­explain­Korea’s­loss­of­sovereignty­and­point­ the­way­toward­recovery­of­sovereignty,­history­writing­became­an­integral­part­of­anticolonial­struggles.­Rather­than­positing­an­inherent­lack,­ these­histories­pointed­to­the­existence­of­an­autonomous­national­subject­in­Korean­history,­variously­identified­with­a­Korean­spirit—sim­(心),­ hon­(魂),­or­ŏl,­the­equivalent­of­Geist—or­with­different­conceptions­of­ peoplehood:­minjok­(ethnic­nation,­民族),­minjung­(people,­民衆),­or­inmin­ (people,­ 人民).­Inviting­the­people­into­history,­modern­national(ist)­histories­reified­sovereignty,­rendering­the­present­condition­as­a­moment­in­ the­telos­of­History.

History­Writing­and­Nationalism If­the­impetus­for­the­creation­of­a­public­sphere­and­the­nationalizing­of­ both­ language­ and­ people­ originated­ with­ imperialism,­ capitalist­ sovereignty,­and­liberalism­that­was­deeply­implicated­in­both,­then­what­kind­ of­ conception­ of­ the­ whole­ existed­ within­ Korea­ prior­ to­ the­ late­ nineteenth­ century?­ The­ case­ can­ easily­ be­ made­ that­ “Korea”­ as­ a­ civilization,­or­as­a­cultural­and­social­formation,­had­a­history­dating­back­well­ over­a­thousand­years.­As­the­political­and­religious­elite­of­“Unified”­Silla­ (676–935),­Koryŏ­(936–1392),­and­Chosŏn­(1392–1910)­reacted­to­and­participated­in­intellectual­movements­within­the­larger­cosmopolitan­world­ centered­around­“China,”­they­were­compelled­to­generate­various­forms­of­ collective­identity—representations­of­their­state­and­their­people­as­being­ separate­and­unique.­Through­the­practice­of­state-­sponsored­rituals,­the­ building­of­monuments,­and­the­compilation­of­official­histories,­narratives­ about­the­collective­self­were­continuously­generated.­As­such­narratives­ were­generated,­other­(competing)­narratives­were­repressed­or­contested.­

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

That­ is,­ narratives­ on­ “Korean”­ identity­ did­ not­ simply­ accumulate­ over­ time;­not­all­such­narratives­got­transmitted,­and­those­that­were­were­invariably­translated­(that­is,­reinvented)­for­use­in­the­present.98 ­ It­is­in­this­sense­that­the­concept­of­Koreans­as­constituting­an­ethnic­ nation­(minjok)­is­a­modern­construct­which,­in­the­historical­context­of­ its­emergence­at­the­turn­of­the­century,­enabled­more­democratic,­more­ inclusive­forms­of­political­action.­As­noted­earlier,­the­word­minjok­(read­ as­minzoku­in­Japanese)­was­a­neologism­created­in­Meiji­Japan.99­When­ Korean­(and­Chinese­and­Japanese)­nationalists­wrote­in­English­in­the­ first­half­of­the­twentieth­century,­the­English­word­they­generally­used­ for­minjok­was­race.­In­the­late­nineteenth­century­and­early­twentieth,­ as­Walker­Conner­points­out,­numerous­writers­in­the­West­(incorrectly)­ employed­race­as­a­synonym­for­nation.­And,­as­Andre­Schmid­points­out,­ when­intellectuals­throughout­East­Asia­appropriated­the­neologism,­minjok­became­not­only­a­powerful­political­concept­but­also­“a­powerful­conceptual­tool­.­.­.­to­rewrite­[the]­historical­past.”100 ­ This­is­not­to­ignore­Lydia­Liu’s­injunction­to­those­engaged­in­cross-­ cultural­studies­to­eschew­a­conceptual­model­“derived­from­a­bilingual­ dictionary.”101­ Following­ Liu,­ I­ do­ not­ assume­ that­ languages­ are­ commensurate­or­that­equivalents­exist­naturally­between­them.­Although­the­ word­minjok­entered­the­Korean­vocabulary­in­the­late­1890s­and­became­ widely­ used­ two­ decades­ later,­ this­ is­ not­ sufficient­ proof­ that­ the­ minjok­is­a­modern­construct.­Son­Chin-­t’ae­(1900–Korean­War?)­made­this­ point­in­1948­when­he­wrote,­“Although­the­word­‘minjok’­was­not­used­ in­the­past—­because­it­was­the­quintessential­character­of­Korea’s­court-­ centered,­aristocratic­states­to­obstruct­the­development­of­such­[national]­ consciousness­[sasang]­and­concepts—the­[Korean]­minjok­certainly­did­ exist­even­if­the­word­did­not.”102­Similarly­Cho­Tong-­gŏl­applauds­the­pioneer­of­nationalist­historiography,­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­(1880–1936),­not­for­creating­a­historical­narrative­based­on­a­new­construct­called­the­minjok­but­ for­creating­a­historical­narrative­based­on­the­discovery­of­the­minjok— suggesting­that­prior­to­its­discovery­the­minjok­was­already­(and­always)­ present.103­In­contrast­to­these­views,­I­am­arguing­that­minjok­is­a­modern­ construct,­and­not­to­recognize­it­as­such­is­to­miss­the­crucial­link,­in­early­ twentieth-­century­Korean­historiography,­between­nationalism­and­democratic­thought. ­ To­understand­this­linkage,­we­might­begin­with­the­question­of­when­ and­how­peasants­of­Kyŏngsang­Province,­for­example,­became­“Koreans.”­

77

78

ChapTer Two

Of­a­very­different­ historical­ context,­ Eugen­Weber­ has­ argued­ that­ the­ French­peasant­was­“nationalized”­(that­is,­made­French)­only­in­the­1880s.­ “The­French”­were­produced­in­the­last­decades­of­the­nineteenth­century­ through­the­creation­of­a­national­language­(standard­French)­and­national­ customs.­To­be­more­precise,­the­transformation­of­peasants­into­Frenchmen­became­possible­after­the­establishment­of­universal­schooling,­unification­of­customs­and­beliefs­by­interregional­labor­migration­and­military­ service,­and­subordination­of­political­and­religious­conflicts­to­an­ideology­ of­patriotism.­In­other­words,­it­was­only­after­the­emergence­of­modern­ state­structures­that­distinctive­social,­political,­and­linguistic­practices­became­“local­variations”­of­a­newly­created­national­culture.104 ­ If­the­French­became­“French”­in­the­1880s,­when­did­Koreans­become­ “Korean”?­In­asking­this­question,­I­must­emphasize­that­Korea,­perhaps­as­ early­as­the­Koryŏ­period,­had­far­more­linguistic­and­cultural­unity­than­ did­prerevolutionary­France.­There­were,­however,­significant­linguistic­and­ cultural­differences­among­the­various­provinces­in­Korea.­Even­more­important­than­these­regional­(lateral)­differences,­status­distinctions­between­ yangban,­chungin­(middle­people),­commoners,­and­ch’ŏnmin­(base­people)­ had­created­horizontal­lines­of­cultural­cleavage­in­which­each­status­group­ had­its­own­idiom,­norms,­and­social­role.­It­can­be­argued,­for­example,­ that­ Confucianism­ “belonged”­ to­ the­ ruling­ (yangban)­ class­ in­ the­ sense­ that­it­served­to­underscore,­legitimize,­and­make­authoritative­the­different­ worlds­inhabited­by­the­horizontally­segregated­layers­in­premodern­Korean­ society.105­As­Carter­Eckert­notes,­prior­to­the­late­nineteenth­century, there­was­little,­if­any,­feeling­of­loyalty­toward­the­abstract­concept­of­“Korea”­ as­a­nation-­state,­or­toward­fellow­inhabitants­of­the­peninsula­as­“Koreans.”­ Far­more­meaningful­at­the­time,­in­addition­to­a­sense­of­loyalty­to­the­king,­ were­the­attachments­of­Koreans­to­their­village­or­region,­and­above­all­to­ their­clan,­lineage,­and­immediate­and­extended­family.­The­Korean­elite­in­ particular­would­have­found­the­idea­of­nationalism­not­only­strange­but­also­ uncivilized.­Since­at­least­the­seventh­century­the­ruling­classes­in­Korea­had­ thought­of­themselves­in­cultural­terms­less­as­Koreans­than­as­members­of­ a­larger­cosmopolitan­civilization­centered­on­China.­.­.­.­To­live­outside­the­ realm­of­Chinese­culture­was,­for­the­Korean­elite,­to­live­as­a­barbarian.106

Eckert­ is­ not­ suggesting­ that­ Korean­ elites­ were­ ignorant­ of­ differences­ (political,­linguistic,­and­cultural)­between­themselves­and,­say,­the­Chi-

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

nese.­For­more­than­a­thousand­years,­Korea­had­a­central­bureaucratic­ state­that­employed­a­class­of­people­whose­job­was­to­maintain­and­articulate­their­difference­from­competing,­neighboring­states­(most­often­in­ Manchuria,­sometimes­Japan,­and­of­course,­China­itself).107­However,­unlike­the­modern­nation-­state,­the­kingdoms­of­“Unified”­Silla,­Koryŏ,­and­ Chosŏn­were­not­interested­in­homogenizing­their­subjects.­In­fact­it­can­ be­argued­that­the­premodern­state’s­(extremely­effective)­solution­to­the­ problem­of­maintaining­political­stability­was­to­tolerate­local­distinctiveness­and­to­maintain­status­distinctions.108 ­ The­ people­ of­ Chosŏn­ knew­ that­ they­ shared­ certain­ ties­ with­ other­ people­living­in­the­Chosŏn­kingdom,­as­well­as­with­ancestors­they­had­ never­ seen.­ But,­ as­ Benedict­ Anderson­ would­ argue,­ these­ “ties”­ would­ have­ been­ imagined­ particularistically,­ “as­ indefinitely­ stretchable­ nets­ of­kinship­and­clientship.”109­At­the­turn­of­the­century,­however,­a­new­ generation­of­political­activists­and­intellectuals­felt­they­had­to­redefine­ Korea­in­terms­of­internal­homogeneity­and­external­autonomy.­The­historical­juncture­for­this­epistemological­break­came­after­the­Korean­monarchy­proved­incapable­of­keeping­imperialist­powers­at­bay­and­after­Japan­ made­ Korea­ its­ protectorate,­ undermining­ the­ notion­ of­ Pan-­Asianism­ based­on­racial­solidarity.­Organizing­movements­for­independence,­self-­ strengthening,­and­people’s­rights,­these­intellectuals­reimagined­Korea’s­ collective­identity­in­terms­of­a­“deep,­horizontal­comradeship”—regardless­of,­or­because­of,­the­actual­divisions­and­inequalities­that­prevailed­in­ Korean­society. ­ It­was­ethnic­national­historiography­(minjok sahak),­then,­born­in­the­ early­twentieth­century,­that­for­the­first­time­narrated­the­history­of­Korea­ as­the­history­of­the­Korean­minjok,­a­category­inclusive­of­every­Korean­ without­regard­to­age,­gender,­or­status­distinctions.110­The­first­nationalist­ historian­responsible­for­centering­the­ethnic­nation—both­as­the­subject­ of­history­and­as­the­object­for­historical­research—was­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho.111­ His­ essay­ “Toksa­ sillon”­ (A­ New­ Way­ of­ Reading­ History),­ published­ in­ 1908,­set­forth­the­first­and­most­influential­historical­narrative­equating­ Korean­history­(kuksa)­with­the­history­of­the­Korean­nation­(minjoksa).­As­ a­history­of­the­ethnic­nation­rather­than­a­dynastic­history,­“Toksa­sillon”­ traced­the­origin­of­the­Korean­nation­to­the­mythical­figure­Tan’gun.112­The­ first­“modern”­history­textbooks­published­in­1895­had­treated­Tan’gun­as­a­ deity­(sinin,­神人)­who­descended­(降)­from­Heaven.­Starting­in­1906,­after­

79

80

ChapTer Two

Korea­became­a­protectorate­of­Imperial­Japan,­Tan’gun­became­humanized­in­the­history­textbooks,­as­having­been­born­(生). ­ Christian­missionaries­in­late­nineteenth-­century­Korea­were­anxious­ to­make­distinctions­between­historia,­logos,­and­mythos.­While­presenting­the­stories­in­the­Bible­as­history,­they­treated­the­story­of­Tan’gun­as­ myth,­in­the­sense­of­“fable,”­“invention,”­“fiction,”­“what­could­not­have­ happened.”­In­1901,­the­missionary­and­historian­Homer­B.­Hulbert,­who­ evinced­high­regard­for­Korean­historical­sources,­nevertheless­argued­that­ events­ prior­ to­ the­ Three­ Kingdoms­ period­ belong­ to­ the­ time­ of­ myth.­ “Authentic­Korean­history­may­be­said­to­begin­with­the­year­57­b.c.­.­.­.­ From­the­year­57­b.c.­the­history­of­Korea­is­recorded­in­a­clear­and­rational­manner.”113­For­Hulbert,­the­beginnings­of­the­Three­Kingdoms­period­ marked­the­advent­of­Korean­history.­Starting­with­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­the­initial­ nationalist­response­to­the­discrediting­of­the­Tan’gun­story­was­to­separate­ out­the­mythic­elements­from­the­historical­and­on­the­ground­of­historical­ actuality­trace­Korean­ethnic­national­origin­and­essential­culture­back­to­ Tan’gun­as­a­historical­figure­who­had­established­ancient­Chosŏn.114 ­ The­Tan’gun­legend­had­an­ambiguous­place­in­premodern­Korean­historiography.­It­is­not­mentioned­in­Korea’s­oldest­extant­history,­the­Samguk sagi­(Historical­Record­of­the­Three­Kingdoms),­compiled­by­Kim­Pu-­sik­ in­1145.115­According­to­Han­Yŏng-­u,­the­political­intent­of­Kim’s­Samguk sagi­ was­ to­ bolster­ bureaucratic­ authority­ centered­ around­ the­ Koryŏ­ court­(936–1392).­Compiled­ten­years­after­Kim­suppressed­a­revolt­led­ by­Myoch’ŏng,­Samguk sagi­also­makes­no­reference­to­Parhae­(699–926;­ P’ohai­in­Chinese),­a­kingdom­established­by­a­former­Koguryŏ­general­encompassing­much­of­Manchuria,­southern­Siberia,­and­northeast­Korea.116­ In­writing­the­history­of­the­Three­Kingdoms,117­Kim­Pu-­sik­depicted­Koryŏ­ as­the­successor­to­Silla­(which­by­676­controlled­the­southern­two-­thirds­of­ the­peninsula).­In­contrast,­the­forces­led­by­Myoch’ŏng­regarded­Koryŏ­as­ the­successor­state­of­Koguryŏ­and­advocated­an­(incautious)­expansionist­ policy­to­recover­onetime­Koguryŏ­land.118­The­suppression­of­Myoch’ŏng’s­ revolt­went­hand­in­hand­with­policies­of­peacefully­coexisting­with­the­Jin­ and­bolstering­the­authority­of­the­Koryŏ­court­by­promoting­Confucian­ principles,­particularly­loyalty­to­the­king.­Likewise­the­narrative­strategy­ as­well­as­the­methodology­of­Kim’s­Samguk sagi,­including­the­invocation­ of­the­Confucian­historiographic­principles­of­rationality­(mujing pulsin)­ and­fidelity­to­historical­sources­(suli pujak,­that­is,­transmission­without­

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

creative­elaboration),­cannot­be­understood­apart­from­the­political­context­of­mid-­twelfth-­century­Koryŏ. ­ The­Tan’gun­legend­does­appear­in­the­thirteenth-­century­texts­Samguk yusa­(Memorabilia­of­the­Three­Kingdoms,­1285?),­written­by­the­Buddhist­ Sŏn­master­Iryŏn,­and­in­Chewang un’gi­(Rhymed­Record­of­Emperors­and­ Kings,­1287),­written­by­Yi­Sŭng-­hyu.119­But­these­histories­were­compiled­ under­very­different­historical­circumstances.­Both­began­their­histories­ with­Tan’gun,­a­significant­assertion­that­traced­Koryŏ’s­origin­directly­to­ Heaven.­ Because­ Iryŏn­ and­ Yi­ Sŭng-­hyu­ witnessed­ the­ suffering­ of­ the­ people­during­the­Mongol­invasions­and­domination­of­Koryŏ,­Yi­Ki-­baek­ surmises­that­this­“strengthened­their­sense­of­identity­as­a­distinct­race­ [minjok]­and­gave­force­to­the­concept­of­their­descent­from­a­common­ancestor.”120­Among­ the­events­that­Iryŏn­and­Yi­Sŭng-­hyu­ witnessed­ was­ King­Ch’ungnyŏl’s­marriage­to­a­daughter­of­Khubilai­in­1274­and­the­Koryŏ­ royal­family’s­becoming­a­cadet­branch­of­the­Mongol­imperial­house.121­ The­meaning­of­the­Tan’gun­legend­in­these­thirteenth-­century­texts,­then,­ cannot­be­isolated­from­the­historical­context­of­the­Mongol­domination­ of­ Koryŏ­ from­ 1259­ to­ 1356.­ Indeed­ it­ is­ reasonable­ to­ interpret­ Iryŏn’s­ narrative­strategy­of­making­Tan’gun­as­ancient­as­the­legendary­Chinese­ emperor­Yao­and­his­willingness­to­talk­about­“extraordinary­forces­and­ capricious­spirits”­and­“wondrous­tales”­(religiously­ignoring­the­Confucian­principle­of­mujing pulsin)­as­a­narrative­of­resistance.122 ­ Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­use­of­the­Tan’gun­legend­in­the­twentieth-­century­context­was­similarly­a­narrative­of­resistance,­but­it­was­also­a­reinvention— and­not­simply­a­revival—of­this­old­and­recurrent­narrative­in­premodern­ Korean­ historiography.­ The­ claim­ to­ a­ distinct­ history­ of­ legitimacy­ (chŏngt’ong)­that­reached­far­back­into­the­mythic­past­did­not­naturally­or­ teleologically­give­rise­to­nationalist­modes­of­narrating­territory,­temporality,­and­peoplehood.­The­best­evidence­that­any­“transmission”­of­the­ past­must­also­be­a­reinvention­is­Sin’s­“Toksa­sillon”­itself.­If­Korea­as­a­ homogeneous­ethnic­nation­had­been­a­well-­established,­abiding­concept,­ then­there­would­have­been­no­need­to­write­“Toksa­sillon,”­and­it­would­ not­have­caused­such­excitement­among­his­readers­in­1908.­By­identifying­ the­minjok­rather­than­the­monarch­as­the­subject­of­an­evolutionary­history­ (where­the­strong­survive­and­the­weak­perish),­“Toksa­sillon”­displaced­ traditional­forms­of­Confucian­historiography—p’yŏnnyŏnch’e­(chronicles)­ and­kijŏnch’e­(annal­biographies)—with­the­(tragic)­epic­form.­Sin­adopted­

81

82

ChapTer Two

a­novel­way­of­telling­what­Confucian­historians­had­already­known;­his­ narrative­utilized­new­codes­to­produce­new­structures­of­meaning­quite­ different­from­that­found­in­histories­written­in­the­chronicle­style­and­the­ annal­biography­style.123 ­ Confucian­historiography­had­constituted­itself­not­as­a­separate­discipline­but­as­an­integral­part­of­the­study­of­classics­and­statecraft.­Its­function­was­to­serve­as­a­mirror­and­as­a­repository­of­knowledge­that­would­ enable­the­monarch­and­all­scholar-­officials­to­act­morally­and­ethically­in­ the­present.­As­a­political­tool,­history­writing­had­the­solemn­ethical­function­of­assigning­praise­and­blame.­As­texts­considered­central­to­subject-­ formation,­Confucian­histories­served­a­pedagogic­function­in­the­practice­ of­self-­cultivation­that­was­to­be­both­self-­directed­and­yet­profoundly­social.­Although­both­official­and­private­histories­existed,­both­were­written­ by­bureaucrats­for­other­bureaucrats­(either­holding­office­or­aspiring­to­ do­so).124­Moreover­in­terms­of­access­to­court­documents­and­official­histories­(with­the­exception­of­the­Collected­Statutes),­these­could­be­consulted­only­by­a­small­group­of­scholar-­officials.125 ­ Although­ nationalist­ historiography­ was­ constituted­ as­ a­ modern­ and­ scientific­discipline,­it­preserved­certain­aspects­of­Confucian­historiography,­for­example,­the­concept­of­history­as­a­mirror­for­the­present­and­ history­as­serving­an­ethical­function,­assigning­praise­and­blame.­But­the­ critical­difference­had­to­do­with­the­profound­epistemic­break­caused­by­ Korea’s­incorporation­into­the­nation-­state­system­dominated­by­the­West­ in­the­late­nineteenth­century­and­the­social­position­of­the­historian­and­ his­intended­readership­in­colonial­modernity.­Few­of­the­nationalist­historians­came­from­high­yangban­status;­many­were­regularly­hounded­by­ the­colonial­police;­and­most­wrote­their­histories­in­their­capacity­as­“public­intellectuals.”­When­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­wrote­“Toksa­sillon,”­for­example,­he­ was­a­member­of­the­secret­society­Sinminhoe­(New­People’s­Association)­ and­employed­by­the­newspaper­Taehan maeil sinbo­(Korean­Daily­News),­ and­the­essay­itself­was­serialized­in­the­Taehan maeil sinbo­from­August­to­ December­1908.126 ­ On­the­eve­of­Korea’s­being­colonized­by­Japan,­to­achieve­political­independence­and­to­reclaim­dignity­and­“authentic”­identity­in­reaction­to­ colonialist­discourses­on­Korea,­nationalists­such­as­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­sought­ to­ arouse,­ unite,­ and­ mobilize­ the­ entire­ Korean­ population.127­ In­ place­ of­loyalty­to­the­king­and­attachments­to­the­village,­clan,­and­family,­and­

imperiaLism anD naTionaLism

in­ place­ of­ hierarchic­ status­ distinctions­ among­ yangban,­ chungin,­ commoners,­and­ch’ŏnmin,­nationalist­historiography­endeavored­to­redirect­ the­people’s­loyalty­toward­a­new,­all-­embracing­identity­of­Koreans­as­a­ unique­ethnic­group.­It­was­with­this­political­intent­that­Sin­wrote­“Toksa­ sillon”­for­an­emerging­“general­public,”­tracing­Korea’s­ethnic­and­cultural­ origins­as­far­back­as­possible­to­a­geographic­area­that­extended­far­beyond­ the­Korean­peninsula­into­Manchuria. ­ In­1908­Sin’s­indictment­of­Kim­Pu-­sik’s­Samguk sagi­for­its­deletion­of­ Manchuria­from­Korean­history­and­his­reconceptualization­of­state­history­ (kuksa)­ as­ the­ history­ of­ the­ Korean­ nation­ (minjoksa)­ were­ radical­ conceptual­acts.­Sin’s­identification­of­the­minjok­as­the­subject­of­an­evolutionary­history­marked­a­watershed­in­modern­Korean­intellectual­history.128­In­a­much­later­essay,­serialized­in­Tonga ilbo­from­October­1924­ through­March­1925,­where­Sin­continued­his­polemic­against­Kim­Pu-­sik,­ Kim’s­many­faults­were­condensed­to­sadaejuŭi­(事大主義),­a­mentality­of­ subservience—the­antithesis­of­a­sovereign,­autonomous­subjectivity.­For­ Sin,­the­defeat­of­Myoch’ŏng­by­Kim­in­1135­and­the­subsequent­erasure­ of­Tan’gun­and­Parhae­(and­thus­Manchuria)­from­Korean­history­was­the­ disastrous­turning­point­in­Korean­history­and­ushered­in­a­thousand-­year­ legacy­of­sadaejuŭi.129­With­this,­Sin­created­new­possibilities­for­imagining­ the­ethnic­nation:­as­autonomous­subject,­a­primordial­unity,­a­complete­ figure­of­sovereignty­absent­in­the­present­but­present­at­the­very­beginning­of­history­and­recoverable­in­the­future. ­ This­was­a­strategy­of­disavowal­similar­to­and­yet­different­from­that­of­ Yun­Ch’i-­ho.­Like­Sin’s,­Yun’s­disavowal­was­temporal.­He­could­have­tea­ with­white­Christian­ladies­in­the­Jim­Crow­South,­sympathizing­with­the­ cousin­of­Miss­Linnie­Davis,­a­Presbyterian­missionary­in­Korea,­who­“ha[d]­ more­to­endure­than­one­in­the­African­jungles.”­In­this­intensely­racialized­ private­ space,­ a­ congregation­ point­ for­ supporting­ those­ who­ bear­ the­white­man’s­burden,130­Yun­could­be­differentiated­from­those­Koreans­ who­ desperately­ needed­ American­ missionaries­ through­ the­ shared­ fiction­that­his­sociality­in­that­space­(his­Christian­faith,­his­demeanor,­ his­skill­at­word­games)­removed­him­temporally­from­his­brethren.­But­ living­in­American­time,­the­disavowal­was­difficult­and­complicated­given­ how­intensely­racialized­were­the­spaces­he­inhabited.­His­emotional­life­ saturated­by­racial­and­civilizational­hierarchies­that­produced­feelings­of­ fascination­and­revulsion,­Yun­found­himself­unable­to­walk­away­from­the­

83

84

ChapTer Two

Korea­Exhibit­at­the­Columbian­Exposition­because­it­was­so­second-­rate­ and­dismal.­To­the­extent­that­for­Yun,­the­Korea­Exhibit­functioned­as­a­ synecdoche­of­Korea’s­abjection,­it­is­possible­to­understand­his­sadness­ and­ contempt­ for­ Native­ Americans­ in­ the­ American­ West­ as­ springing­ from­recognition­and­identification. ­ Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­disavowal­was­different;­the­ethnic­nation­he­located­at­ the­very­beginning­of­history­already­contained­within­itself­an­autonomous­subjectivity,­its­own­sovereignty.­Subsequent­historians,­especially­ Marxist­historians­like­Paek­Nam-­un­writing­in­the­early­1930s,­would­be­ critical­of­Sin,­historicizing­his­historiography­as­an­“antique­inheritance”­ from­the­nineteenth­century.­Because­Sin­grounded­his­historical­narrative­on­concepts­like­sim­(心),­hon­(魂),­and­ŏl­(Spirit,­Mind,­or­Geist),­Paek­ Nam-­un­rendered­Sin’s­historiography­as­an­idealist-­particularist­history­ that­in­the­end­only­reinforced­colonialist­historiography.­By­emphasizing­ Korean­uniqueness,­nationalist­historiography­reinforced­the­view­of­precolonial­Korea­as­outside­of­world­history.­Be­that­as­it­may,­history­writing­after­Sin­continued­to­revolve­around­the­problematic­of­sovereignty,­ and­ sovereignty­ continued­ to­ be­ privileged­ precisely­ by­ the­ claim­ that­ the­ ethnic­ nation­ preceded­ sovereignty.­ The­ problematic­ of­ sovereignty­ and­ autonomous­ subjectivity­ rendered­ the­ past­ flexible­ and­ the­ present­ ­changeable.

chapter three naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT The­ history­ of­ a­ state­ is­ that­ which­ renders­ a­ precise­ record­ of­ the­ rise­ and / or­fall,­prosperity­and / or­decay­of­the­[ethnic]­nation.­Without­the­ nation­there­is­no­history;­without­history,­the­nation­cannot­have­a­clear­ perception­of­the­state,­and­thus­the­historian­has­a­heavy­responsibility.

—sin­cH’AE-­H O,­“Toksa­sillon,”­Taehan maeil sinbo,­1908

A­year­before­Japan’s­annexation­of­Korea,­while­climbing­the­eastern­slope­ of­Mt.­T’oham­in­Kyŏngju,­a­Japanese­mailman­made­a­great­discovery.1­ Near­the­summit,­as­he­took­in­the­beauty­of­the­mountain­shaped­like­a­ great­folding­screen­and­in­the­distance­the­Eastern­Sea,­he­chanced­upon­ what­looked­to­be­a­cave.­Inside­he­encountered­a­Buddhist­statue­of­astonishing­beauty.­Following­this­“discovery”­of­the­Sŏkkuram,­constructed­in­ the­mid-­eighth­century,­Japanese­authorities­began­an­extensive­restoration­and­pedagogic­effort.­Today­the­Sŏkkuram­is­a­major­tourist­destination­in­South­Korea,­a­national­treasure­recognized­by­unEscO­as­a­World­ Heritage­Site,­giving­testimony­to­the­brilliance­of­Korea’s­cultural­and­religious­past.­The­restoration­effort­began­in­1913,­and­it­was­the­Japanese­ colonial­state­that­first­brought­Sŏkkuram­to­the­attention­of­the­world.­ Why­would­the­Japanese­colonial­state­spend­money­and­resources­to­restore­Sŏkkuram­and­sing­odes­to­the­beauty­of­not­just­Sŏkkuram­but­also­ Pulkugsa­and­the­Silla­capital­of­Kyŏngju?­Was­Sŏkkuram­forgotten­during­ the­Chosŏn­period?­Didn’t­the­Chosŏn­state­recognize­its­historic­and­artistic­importance?­What­made­it­easy­for­Japanese­writers­like­Yanagi­Sōetsu,­ founder­of­the­folk­craft­movement­in­Japan,­to­take­the­lead­in­praising­ Sŏkkuram­as­the­“culmination­of­the­religion­and­the­art­of­the­Orient”?2 ­ Questions­like­these­go­to­the­heart­of­understanding­the­complexity­of­ colonial­domination­and­power­and­the­multifaceted­history­of­colonialism,­ starting­ with­ Euro-­American­ and­ Japanese­ colonialism.­ Ultimately­ colonial­rule­depended­on­coercive­power:­the­power­to­eradicate­or­repress­ armed­ resistance­ and­ protest.­ But­ Japanese­ colonialism­ could­ not­ have­been­sustained­with­just­coercive­power;­Japan­had­to­establish­sufficient­hegemony,­the­creation­of­a­political­and­cultural­environment­in­

88

ChapTer Three

which­the­colonized­recognized­the­relative­superiority­of­the­colonizer.­ In­other­words,­colonialism­had­also­to­be­a­pedagogic­endeavor­in­which­ the­colonized­were­taught­to­live,­and­to­want­to­live,­in­a­world­created­ by­the­colonizer­and­to­see­that­world­as­natural.­Restoring­Sŏkkuram­to­ its­former­glory­formed­a­part­of­that­pedagogic­endeavor,­teaching­about­ the­world­and­Korea’s­place­in­it­as­defined­by­Japan­and­the­West.­That­is­ to­say,­an­essential­part­of­Japanese­colonial­rule­involved­knowledge­production­that­drew­heavily­on­Euro-­American­colonial­practices.­Like­the­ British­in­India­and­the­Americans­in­the­Philippines,­the­Japanese­colonial­state­invested­time,­money,­and­human­resources­to­carry­out­excavations­and­surveys,­to­study­Korea’s­past­and­restore­some­cultural­sites­(but­ not­others)­in­order­to­establish­the­categories­and­narrative­strategies­by­ which­Korea­and­Koreans­would­be­understood.­This­Korea,­contemporaneous­with­the­time­and­discursive­space­in­which­Japanese­scholars­working­for­the­colonial­authorities­produced­knowledge­about­Korea’s­past,­is­ what­I­refer­to­as­colonial­Korea. ­ The­ Japanese­ discovery­ of­ Sŏkkuram­ in­ 1909­ coincided­ with­ massive­ and­ brutal­ suppression­ campaigns­ in­ the­ southern­ provinces­ to­ eradicate­armed­resistance­by­Righteous­Armies.­The­Righteous­Armies­were­ a­response­to­the­forced­abdication­of­King­Kojong­and­the­disbanding­of­ the­Korean­Army­in­1907.­Up­and­down­the­Korean­peninsula­Righteous­ Armies­ launched­ attacks­ against­ Japanese­ and­ pro-­Japanese­ individuals­ and­organizations,­also­targeting­infrastructure­such­as­bridges,­railroads,­ and­telegraph­lines.­In­North­Kyŏngsang­Province,­Righteous­Armies­were­ most­active­around­Mt.­Ilwol.­It­was­during­his­inspection­of­the­suppression­campaign­in­Taejŏn­that­the­Japanese­resident­general­Sone­Arasuke­ heard­ news­ about­ Sŏkkuram,­ visited­ the­ site­ himself,­ and­ immediately­ ordered­Sekino­Tadashi,­an­expert­on­antiquities,­to­conduct­a­thorough­ study­of­the­site.3­Sone’s­initial­plan­for­Sŏkkuram­was­to­take­it­apart­and­ ship­it­to­Japan—in­other­words,­to­loot­it. ­ A­road­was­constructed­between­Pulguksa­and­Sŏkkuram,­and­the­resident­general­had­plans­drafted­to­construct­a­rail­line­from­Kampo­to­the­ top­of­Mt.­T’oham­and­to­enlarge­the­port­at­Kampo.­Sŏkkuram­was­to­be­ taken­apart­piece­by­piece­and­sent­by­train­and­then­by­ship­to­Japan.­ But­in­the­end­the­costs­involved­turned­out­to­be­prohibitive,­in­terms­of­ money­but­also­in­terms­of­the­resistance­that­would­have­been­waged­by­ Koreans.­In­1910,­the­year­Japan­annexed­Korea,­Sekino­Tadashi­published­

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

a­study­in­which­he­explained­to­the­Japanese­reading­public­the­artistic­ value­of­Sŏkkuram.­In­the­same­year­photos­of­Sŏkkuram­were­published­ for­ the­ first­ time—in­ Japan.4­ After­annexation,­ with­ colonial­ Korea­ formally­part­of­the­Japanese­Empire,­the­head­of­the­colonial­government,­ Governor-­General­Terauchi­Masatake,­dropped­plans­for­dismantling­and­ shipping­Sŏkkuram­to­Japan.­In­1912­he­visited­Sŏkkuram­and­approved­ the­plans­and­budget­for­its­restoration.­The­restoration­work,­begun­in­ 1913,­took­three­years­to­complete.­With­a­road­built­connecting­Pulguksa­ and­Sŏkkuram,­school­trips­were­organized,­with­teachers­bringing­students­down­from­Seoul­to­Pusan­by­train.­Under­Japanese­tutelage,­Koreans­would­come­to­learn­about­the­beauty­and­significance­of­Sŏkkuram.­ This­shift­in­policy—from­plunder­to­restoration—would­showcase­not­ just­Sŏkkuram­but­also­Japan’s­sophistication­and­modernity,­its­mastery­ of­the­(Western)­disciplines­of­archaeology,­architecture,­and­art­history.­ This­restoration­work­would­demonstrate­Japanese­knowledge­and­commitment­to­studying,­restoring,­and­appreciating­“Asian­art.”­Japan­would­ be­the­curator,­uniquely­able­to­preserve­and­present­Asian­art­as­equally­ compelling­as­Western­art­to­both­Asia­and­the­West. ­ Except­for­the­wood­used­for­structural­supports,­the­workmen,­tools,­ and­materials­for­the­restoration­were­all­brought­from­Japan.­The­main­ Buddha­in­the­rotunda­faced­east­with­an­ethereal­smile,­his­robe­draped­ over­his­left­shoulder,­sitting­cross-­legged­on­a­raised­central­pedestal,­his­ left­hand­open­in­the­gesture­of­bearing­witness.­This­Buddha­was­left­in­ place,­but­everything­else­was­taken­apart.­The­granite­stones,­“woven­like­ silk,”­that­formed­the­outside­wall­of­the­rectangular­anteroom,­where­ceremonies­were­conducted;­the­rotunda­beyond­where­the­main­Buddha­was­ enshrined;­the­eight­guardian­deities­carved­in­relief­on­stone­slabs­that­ formed­the­inner­wall­of­the­anteroom;­the­two­massive­stone­pillars­at­ the­ entrance­ to­ the­ rotunda;­ the­ curved­ stone­ slabs­ along­ with­ knuckle­ stone­that­formed­the­vaulted­dome,­serving­as­a­canopy­over­the­main­ Buddha;­a­carving­of­Indra­on­the­right­and­Brahma­on­the­left;­and­lining­ the­wall­around­the­rotunda­two­Bodhisattvas­and­the­Ten­Disciples5—all­ these­were­taken­apart­and­then­put­back­together­again.­But­it­turned­out­ that­the­restoration­effort­was­not­entirely­successful. ­ To­provide­more­structural­support­the­Japanese­restorers­used­concrete­ to­put­the­pieces­back­together­again.­The­stone­slabs­still­formed­a­canopy­ over­the­Buddha,­ but­these­were­now­part­of­a­concrete­dome­over­the­

89

90

ChapTer Three

rotunda.­Soon­after­restoration­moisture­became­a­problem.­The­original­ structure,­the­granite­stones­“woven­like­silk,”­had­allowed­for­both­circulation­of­air­and­indirect­sources­of­light­into­the­rotunda.6­With­a­concrete­ dome,­however,­moisture­trapped­in­the­rotunda­condensed­and­trickled­ down­the­face­of­the­Buddha,­as­if­the­Buddha­was­sweating,­and­moss­ began­to­grow­on­the­stone­reliefs.7­In­spite­of­this­debacle,­the­Japanese­ colonial­state­went­to­great­lengths­to­showcase­its­cultural­preservation­ efforts.­Reporting­on­the­start­of­restoration­work,­Maeil sinbo,­the­Korean-­ language­newspaper­published­by­the­colonial­government,­described­Sŏkkuram­as­a­brilliant­example­of­the­Korean­nation’s­artistic­character­(minjokjŏk kaesŏng).8­Thus­it­was­the­Japanese­colonial­state­that­definitively­ identified­Sŏkkuram­as­an­example­of­Korea’s­cultural­and­religious­past. ­ On­July­4,­1916,­the­Japanese­colonial­state­promulgated­the­Regulations­ on­the­Preservation­of­Ancient­Sites­and­Relics­of­Chōsen.­As­Hyung­Il­ Pai­has­pointed­out,­these­regulations­stipulated­ that­any­discoveries­of­ historic­ruins­or­buildings,­sites­of­palaces­or­temples,­Buddhist­images,­ earthenware,­ and­ other­ objects­ of­ Korean­ art,­ archaeology,­ and­ history­ were­to­be­reported­to­the­nearest­police­captain.­The­colonial­state­also­ established­the­Commission­for­Investigating­Historic­Relics­(Chōsen­koseki­kenkyūkai),­charged­with­the­task­of­implementing­the­regulations­ and­“investigating­archeological­remains,­planning­exhibitions,­preserving­ and­ reconstructing­ monuments,­ registering­ national­ remains,­ and­ publishing­ the­ results­ of­ their­ research­ activities.”­ Pai­ also­ notes­ that­ these­ regulations­were­adaptations­of­regulations­and­guidelines­first­passed­in­ Meiji­ Japan.9­ But­ it­ should­ be­ stressed­ that­ Meiji­ heritage-­management­ laws­grew­out­of­the­Meiji­state’s­own­“discovery”­of­“Japan’s”­artistic­past.­ In­1884­a­commission­sponsored­by­the­Meiji­government­catalogued­the­ temples,­shrines,­and­artifacts­in­Nara­Prefecture.­This­commission,­led­by­ Okakura­Kakuzō,­Kanō­Tessai,­and­Ernest­F.­Fenollosa,­“discovered”­the­ Guze­Kannon,­a­seventh-­century­gilt-­wood­sculpture­at­Hōryūji­temple.10 ­ It­was­a­discovery­in­the­sense­that­the­Guze­Kannon­had­been­locked­ inside­a­shrine­that­had­not­been­opened­for­centuries.­Ernest­Fenollosa,­at­ the­time­a­professor­of­philosophy­and­political­economy­at­Tokyo­Imperial­ University,11­described­the­discovery­this­way: The­greatest­perfect­monument­of­Corean­Art­that­has­come­down­to­us,­without­which­we­could­only­conjecture­as­to­the­height­reached­by­the­peninsula­creations,­is­the­great­standing­Buddha,­or­possibly­Bodhisattwa,­of­the­

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

Yumedono­pavilion­at­Horiuji.12­This­most­beautiful­statue,­a­little­larger­than­ life,­was­discovered­by­me­and­a­Japanese­colleague­in­the­summer­of­1884.­ I­had­credentials­from­the­central­government­which­enabled­me­to­requisition­the­opening­of­godowns­and­shrines.­The­central­space­of­the­octagonal­ Yumedono­was­occupied­by­a­great­closed­shrine.­.­.­.­The­priests­of­the­Horiuji­confess­that­tradition­ascribed­the­contents­of­the­shrine­to­Corean­work­ of­the­days­of­Suiko,­but­that­it­had­not­been­opened­for­more­than­two­hundred­years.­.­.­.­They­resisted­long,­alleging­that­in­punishment­for­the­sacrilege­an­earthquake­might­well­destroy­the­temple.­Finally­we­prevailed,­and­ I­shall­never­forget­our­feelings­as­the­long­disused­key­rattled­in­the­rusty­ lock.­Within­the­shrine­appeared­a­tall­mass­closely­wrapped­about­in­swathing­bands­of­cotton­cloth,­upon­which­the­dust­of­ages­had­gathered.­It­was­ no­light­task­to­unwrap­the­contents,­some­500­yards­of­cloth­having­been­ used.­.­.­.­Seen­in­profile­it­seemed­to­rise­to­the­height­of­archaic­Greek­art.­.­.­.­ But­the­finest­feature­was­the­profile­view­of­the­head,­with­its­sharp­Han­ nose,­its­straight­clear­forehead,­and­its­rather­large—almost­negroid—lips,­ on­which­a­quiet­mysterious­smile­played,­not­unlike­Da­Vinci’s­Mona­Lisa’s.13

Fenollosa’s­account­presents­a­singular­masculine­voice,­acknowledging­a­ Japanese­ colleague­but­ not­naming­ him,­displaying­ imperial­ credentials­ that­overpower­local­resistance,­unlocking­and­entering­forbidden­sacred­ places,­ stripping­ away­ the­ cloth­ to­ reveal­ the­ Bodhisattva’s­ mysterious­ smile.14 ­ Okakura­Kakuzō’s­account­of­this­discovery­is­different­in­a­number­of­ ways.15­In­1884­Okakura­was­working­in­the­art­section­of­the­Ministry­of­ Education.­Eighteen­years­later,­while­staying­in­India,­he­recounted­the­ discovery­this­way: In­1884­along­with­Fenollosa­and­Kanō­Tessai,­I­approached­the­priests­asking­ that­they­open­the­door.­The­priests­replied­that­if­they­did­so­thunder­would­ certainly­be­heard.­They­opened­it­at­the­beginning­of­Meiji­during­the­clamor­ over­the­separation­of­Buddhism­and­Shintō.­Instantly­the­heavens­clouded­ over­and­thunder­roared;­the­masses­became­frightened­and­fled.­With­such­ a­memorable­experience­they­did­not­easily­acquiesce.­.­.­.­After­we­removed­ the­cloth­we­reached­white­paper.­This­is­where­the­masses­stopped­when­they­ were­frightened­off­by­the­thunder.16

Published­well­after­Okakura’s­death,­in­the­immediate­aftermath­of­Japan’s­ invasion­of­China­in­1937,­The Awakening of the East­presents­powerful­de-

91

92

ChapTer Three

nunciations­of­Western­imperialism.17­Okakura’s­account­locates­the­Guze­ Kannon­in­its­local­and­contemporaneous­significance,­as­meaningful­and­ connected­to­early­Meiji­religious­and­political­life­and­conflict.­In­a­different­work,­written­in­the­same­period­but­published­in­1903­as­The Ideals of the East,­Okakura­narrated­the­past­incorporation­of­Buddhist­art­and­ideals­ from­India,­via­China­and­Korea,­as­exemplifying­the­intellectual­and­artistic­waves­that­had­washed­ashore­in­Japan­over­millennia,­making­Japan­ “the­ real­ repository­ of­ the­ trust­ of­ Asiatic­ thought­ and­ culture.”­ In­ that­ sense,­Okakura­continued,­“Japan­is­a­museum­of­Asiatic­civilization;­and­ yet­more­than­a­museum­because­the­singular­genius­of­the­race­leads­it­to­ dwell­on­all­phases­of­the­ideals­of­the­past.”18 ­ Japan­was­the­spiritual­repository­of­Asia­over­millennia,­the­only­place­ in­Asia­where­the­best­of­Asian­thought­and­culture­“in­all­their­purity”­was­ incorporated­into­Japanese­life­“in­the­spirit­of­living­Adwaitism”—Adwaita­ meaning­“the­state­of­not­being­two­.­.­.­[consistent­with]­the­great­Indian­ doctrine­that­all­which­exists­though­apparently­manifold,­is­really­one.”19­ Therefore­the­Japanese­people­were­bound­to­shoulder­the­responsibility­ of­serving­as­the­voice­of­Asia.­Okakura­explained­how­the­Japanese­came­ to­this­responsibility­in­terms­of­“unbroken­sovereignty,”­a­sovereignty­that­ endowed­the­Japanese­with­“the­spirit­of­living­Adwaitism­which­welcomes­ the­new­without­losing­the­old”:­“the­strange­tenacity­of­the­[Japanese]­ race,­nurtured­in­the­shadow­of­a­sovereignty­unbroken­from­its­beginning,­ that­very­tenacity­which­preserves­the­Chinese­and­Indian­ideals­in­all­their­ purity­amongst­us,­even­where­they­were­long­since­cast­away­by­the­hands­ that­created­them.”20 ­ While­a­student­at­Tokyo­Imperial­University­Okakura­had­studied­with­ Fenollosa­and­came­to­share­his­deep­interest­in­Japanese­art.­In­the­same­ year­that­they­discovered­the­Guze­Kannon­in­their­capacity­as­imperial­ art­commissioners,­Okakura­and­Fenollosa­founded­Kanga-­kai,­an­art­society­that­endeavored­to­awaken­the­Japanese­public­to­the­significance­of­ Japan’s­national­treasures.­Together­they­helped­establish­the­Tokyo­Fine­ Arts­ Academy­ and­ the­ Tokyo­ Imperial­ Museum,­ and­ they­ helped­ draft­ the­law­for­the­preservation­of­temples,­shrines,­and­art­treasures.­It­was­ Okakura’s­rendering­of­Japan­as­“the­real­repository­of­the­trust­of­Asiatic­ thought­and­culture”­that­allowed­him­to­begin­The Ideals of the East­with­ the­declaration­“Asia­is­one.” ­ In­ Chōsen bijutsushi,­ a­ 1932­ publication­ on­ Korean­ art­ history,­ Sekino­

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

Tadashi,­who­had­been­the­chief­consultant­on­the­Sŏkkuram­restoration­ project,­identified­the­origins­of­Korean­art­with­the­Chinese-­influenced­art­ of­the­Lelang­Commandery­(K:­Nangnang),­negating­any­notion­of­an­autochthonous­origin.­Published­a­year­after­Japan’s­invasion­of­Manchuria,­ Sekino’s­history­of­Korean­art­fit­comfortably­with­the­Manchuria-­Korea­ spatial­ conception­ of­ Mansenshi,­ a­ colonialist­ narrative­ that­ presented­ Korean­cultural­history­in­terms­of­movement,­in­colonizing­waves,­into­ the­Korean­peninsula.­Sekino’s­history­of­Korean­art,­its­origins­identified­ with­both­Manchuria­and­China,­used­a­narrative­strategy­well­established­ by­the­early­1930s,­ of­brilliant­ origins­ and­then­decline.­With­ the­adoption­of­Buddhism­during­the­Three­Kingdoms­period­Korean­art­reached­ its­zenith­in­Silla­and­then­“Unified”­Silla.­But­then­began­a­long­decline­ starting­in­the­Koryŏ­period,­reaching­its­nadir­in­the­dry­and­trivial­art­of­ the­Chosŏn­period.21­Within­that­narrative,­Sŏkkuram­became­a­great­artifact­of­Japan’s­Asia:­Asia­as­One.­That­is,­in­taking­responsibility­for­Korea’s­ cultural­and­artistic­past,­and­unlike­Okakura,­who­took­care­to­situate­the­ Guze­Kannon­in­its­local­and­contemporaneous­significance,­the­Japanese­ colonial­state’s­restoration­ of­Sŏkkuram­in­Kyŏngju­emptied­that­site­of­ local­and­contemporaneous­meanings,­while­colonial­scholarship­reterritorialized­Sŏkkuram­and­other­Three­Kingdoms–period­sites­and­artifacts,­ helping­to­produce­new­historical­and­spatial­imaginaries­(for­example,­the­ binary­of­Western­art­and­Eastern­art)­for­an­expanding­Japanese­empire.

Colonialist­and­Nationalist­Historiography The­pedagogic­endeavors­of­the­Japanese­colonial­state­situated­Chosŏn­ Korea­in­a­temporality­in­which­Korea’s­brilliant­artistic­achievements­in­ ancient­times­stood­in­stark­contrast­to­its­recent­precolonial­past.­Sŏkkuram,­ presented­ as­ the­ “culmination­ of­ the­ religion­ and­ the­ art­ of­ the­ Orient,”­also­rendered­Buddhist­art­and­architecture­of­Silla­as­the­apex­of­ Korean­cultural­history.­The­story­of­Sŏkkuram—its­creation­and­subsequent­slide­into­obscurity—was­the­story­of­Korea:­a­brilliant­past­that­was­ Asian­rather­than­Korean,­followed­by­a­downward­slide­into­the­vulgar­and­ trivial­art­of­the­Chosŏn­dynasty,­pointing­to­the­necessity­of­Japan’s­tutelage­of­Korea­and­Koreans.­Japan’s­annexation­of­Korea­was­a­restoration­at­ many­levels,­including­restoration­of­ancient­kinship­ties­and­of­Japanese­ rule­over­Korea—Japan­having­ruled­southern­Korea­in­ancient­times,­as­

93

94

ChapTer Three

asserted­by­nativist­(kokugaku)­readings­of­the­eighth-­century­texts­Kojiki­ (Record­of­Ancient­Matters)­and­Nihon shoki­(The­Chronicles­of­Japan).­ Colonialist­historiography,­then,­written­mostly­by­Japanese­historians­but­ also­by­a­number­of­Korean­historians,­provided­justification­for­Japanese­ control­ over­ Korea­ by­ narrating­ Korean­ history­ in­ terms­ of­ decline­ and­ lack.­Contemporary­Koreans­lacked­the­capacity­for­autonomous­development,­lacked­a­progressive­spirit.­Colonialist­historiography­suggested,­and­ at­times­stated­unequivocally,­that­because­of­such­inherent­deficiencies­ Japan­had­no­choice­but­to­lead­Korea­into­modern­civilization. ­ Contemporary­South­Korean­historians­identify­four­themes­which­characterize­ colonialist­ historiography­ on­ Korea:­ that­ external­ forces—Chinese,­Manchurian,­and­Japanese—had­always­determined­Korea’s­historical­development­(t’ayulsŏngnon);­that­premodern­Korean­society­had­been­ utterly­ stagnant,­ nineteenth-­century­ Korea­ being­ equivalent­ to­ twelfth-­ century­Japan­(chŏngch’esŏngnon);­that­factionalism­was­deeply­ingrained­ in­the­Korean­political­culture,­as­evidenced­by­continuous­factional­strife­ during­the­Chosŏn­period­(tangp’asŏngnon);­and­that­Japanese­and­Koreans­ shared­ a­ common­ ancestry,­ and­ therefore­ Japan’s­ colonization­ of­ Korea­ represented­the­restoration­of­ancient­ties­(Il-Sŏn tongjoron).22 ­ In­ this­ way­ colonialist­ historiography­ suggested,­ and­ later­ stated­ unequivocally,­that­because­of­such­inherent­deficiencies­Japan­was­compelled­ to­extend­imperial­rule­over­Korea­so­as­to­lead­it­into­modern­civilization.­According­to­Hatada­Takashi,­the­origins­of­what­many­contemporary­ Korean­historians­characterize­as­colonialist­historiography­on­Korea­can­ be­traced­to­mid-­Meiji­efforts­to­write­a­national­history­for­Japan.­One­very­ influential­work­was­Kokushi gan­(A­Survey­of­Japanese­History),­published­ by­Tokyo­Imperial­University­in­1890.­Written­by­Shigeno­Yasutsugu,­Kume­ Kunitake,­and­Hoshino­Hisashi,­Kokushi gan­was­intended­as­a­primer­in­ the­teaching­of­Japanese­history,­and­it­was­long­used­as­a­university­textbook.­According­to­Numata­Jirō,­it­was­Shigeno­Yasutsugu­who­played­the­ leading­role­in­establishing­the­“modern­Tokyo­tradition”­of­history­writing.­Stressing­the­native­origins­of­“mainstream”­historiography­in­modern­ Japan,­Numata­argues­that­the­Tokyo­tradition­resulted­from­a­fusion­between­the­critical­methods­of­Western­historical­science­(as­introduced­by­ the­German­historian­Ludwig­Riess­in­1887)­and­the­scholastic­tradition­of­ evidential­research,­or­kōshō gaku­(K:­kochŭnghak,­C:­k’ao cheng),­which­had­ been­well­established­during­the­Tokugawa­period.23

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

­ What­Hatada­Takashi­would­point­out,­however,­is­that­if­the­birth­of­ modern­historical­science­in­Japan­owed­its­methodology­to­the­Tokugawa­ tradition­ of­ evidential­ research,­ the­ narrative­ framework­ for­ Japan’s­ national­history­was­also­greatly­influenced­by­Tokugawa­nativist­(kokugaku)­ views­on­Japan’s­origins.­According­to­Hatada,­Kokushi gan­drew­on­the­ nativist­reading­of­the­Kojiki­and­the­Nihon shoki,­which­asserted­that­Japanese­and­Koreans­had­a­common­ancestry­(Nissen dōssoron),­but­only­in­the­ sense­that­long­ago­the­Japanese­had­controlled­the­southern­part­of­Korea.­ Kokushi gan,­as­intended,­provided­the­narrative­framework­for­Japan’s­national­history­textbooks­used­in­primary­and­secondary­schools,­creating­a­ historical­imaginary­(rekishi zō)­wherein­the­colonization­of­Korea­in­modern­ times­ represented­ the­ restoration­ of­ an­ ancient­ relationship.24­ This­ kind­of­expansionist­historical­imaginary,­along­with­media­portrayals­of­ Korea­following­Japan’s­victory­in­the­first­Sino-­Japanese­War­(1894–95),­ created­a­historical­imaginary­whereby­the­Japanese­came­to­believe­that­ Japan­had­ruled­Korea­in­ancient­times­and­that­the­Japanese­colonization­ of­Korea­in­modern­times­represented­the­restoration­of­an­ancient­relationship.25 ­ This­imperial­imaginary­in­Japan’s­national­histories­was­reproduced­in­ histories­ of­ Korea.­ Hayashi­ Taisuke’s­ Chōsenshi­ (History­ of­ Korea),­ published­in­1892,­argued­that­in­ancient­times­the­northern­part­of­Korea­had­ been­a­colony­of­China­(with­Han­Chinese­commanderies­of­Lelang,­Lintun,­and­Chenfan­controlling­areas­that­had­belonged­to­Wiman­Chosŏn)­ and­the­southern­part­of­Korea­had­been­controlled­by­Mimana­(Kaya),­a­ Japanese­colony.­Hayashi’s­Chōsenshi­set­the­framework­for­other­studies­ on­Korea­that­sought­to­explain­its­historical­development­as­having­been­ determined­by­external­forces.­Hyŏn­Ch’ae’s­Tongguk saryak­(1906),­which­ was­ used­ as­ a­ Korean­ history­ textbook­ in­ the­ newly­ established­ public­ schools,­was­published­as­a­translation­of­Hayashi’s­Chōsenshi,­perhaps­as­ an­expedient­way­to­get­around­Japanese­censors.­As­Andre­Schmid­has­ pointed­out,­in­his­translation­of­Chōsenshi­Hyŏn­changed­the­narrative­in­ important­ways,­downplaying­Empress­Jingū’s­alleged­invasion­of­Korea­as­ one­of­many­battles­between­competing­Korean­kingdoms­and­between­ Korean­kingdoms­and­Japan.26­Nevertheless­this­act­of­“translation”­scandalized­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­because­Hyŏn­did­not­seem­mindful­of­the­consequences­of­such­expediency,­either­in­terms­of­historical­scholarship­or­ politically.27­To­cite­one­more­example,­Fukuda­Tokuzō’s­Kankoku no kei-

95

96

ChapTer Three

zai soshiki to keizai tani­(Economic­Units­and­Economic­Organization­in­ Korea),­published­in­1904,­asserted­that­the­most­salient­characteristic­of­ Korean­history­was­its­stagnancy.­Fukuda­found­Chosŏn­of­the­late­nineteenth­century­comparable­to­tenth-­century­Japan­(Fujiwara­period).28 ­ These­studies­of­Korea­set­the­tone­for­other­studies­on­the­Orient.­Stefan­Tanaka­has­shown­that­Japanese­historians­created­the­category­of­tōyōshi­(Oriental­history)­so­as­to­narrate­Japanese­history­as­different­from­but­ equal­to­European­history.­One­strategy­used­by­Tokugawa­intellectuals­ to­deal­with­the­prevailing­China-­centered­East­Asian­world­order­and­to­ assert­Japan’s­equivalence­with­China­had­been­to­replace­Chūgoku­with­ Shina­as­the­Japanese­appellation­for­China.­This­name­allowed­nativist­ (kokugaku)­scholars­to­separate­Japan­from­the­barbarian­and­civilized­or­ outer­and­inner­implications­of­the­name­Chūgoku.29­However,­after­Japan’s­ victory­in­the­first­Sino-­Japanese­War­(1894–95),­historians­such­as­Shiratori­Kurakichi­employed­the­name­Shina­to­signify­China­“as­a­troubled­ place­mired­in­its­past,­in­contrast­to­Japan,­a­modern­Asian­nation.”30­The­ symbolic­shift­in­names­for­China­had­its­counterpart­in­Korea­as­well.­ Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­use­of­Jina­rather­than­Chungguk­reflects­what­Schmid­has­ called­the­“decentering­of­the­Middle­Kingdom.”­After­Japan’s­victory­in­ the­first­Sino-­Japanese­War,­this­de-­centering­reversed­inherited­notions­ of­civilization­ and­shifted­the­locus­away­from­China­and­toward­Japan­ and­the­West.­This­point­is­illustrated­by­a­revealing­editorial­in­the­Tongnip sinmun,­the­organ­of­the­Independence­Club,­uncovered­by­Schmid:­“The­ only­ thing­ [we­ Koreans]­ knew­ was­ to­ revere­ China­ as­ the­ central­ plain­ [chungwŏn],­scorn­Japan­as­the­country­of­wae,­and­call­all­other­countries­ barbarians­[orangk’ae].­Now,­for­more­than­ten­years,­our­doors­have­been­ open­and­we­have­welcomed­guests­coming­from­all­places.­With­our­ears­ we­can­hear,­and­with­our­eyes­we­can­see­the­customs­and­laws­of­western­ countries.­We­can­now­generally­judge­which­countries­are­the­civilized­ ones­and­which­countries­are­the­barbarous­ones.”31 ­ In­Japanese­historiography,­the­substitution­of­Shina­for­Chūgoku­and­ the­creation­of­a­new­spatial­category­called­Tōyō­(the­Orient)­and­a­new­ academic­discipline­called­tōyōshi­(Oriental­history)­marked­the­emergence­ of­a­comprehensive­ideological­system­regarding­Japan’s­position­and­destiny­in­relation­to­the­West­and­the­rest­of­Asia.32­Behind­the­creation­of­ tōyōshi­was­the­political­desire­to­portray­the­Japanese­as­uniquely­capable­ of­ meeting­ the­ European­ nations­ on­ an­ equal­ plane,­ and­ thus­ uniquely­

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

capable­of­leading­Asia.­Tōyōshi­enabled­Japanese­intellectuals­to­conceptualize­the­West­as­“merely­another­culture­(though­in­some­aspects­still­a­ superior­one),­a­fellow­competitor­on­[the]­rocky­path­toward­progress.”33­ The­creation­of­tōyōshi­was­motivated­by­defensive­considerations­in­that­ it­sought­to­deflect­notions­of­permanent­Western­superiority.­At­the­same­ time,­tōyōshi­had­its­aggressive­side.­In­the­hands­of­Japan’s­Orientalists,­ China­and­Korea­came­to­embody­all­the­negative­aspects­of­the­West’s­Orient,­and­tōyōshi­provided­justification­for­Japan’s­imperial­expansion.­As­argued­by­Tanaka,­“modern”­Japanese­historiography­emerged­as­a­response­ to­the­Orientalism­of­the­West—that­is,­as­an­attempt­to­de-­objectify­Japan­ and­Asia.­The­strategy­adopted­by­historians­like­Shiratori­(and­institutions­ like­the­Department­of­Oriental­History­at­Tokyo­Imperial­University)­was­ to­prove­that­the­Japanese­were­not­Oriental,­as­defined­by­the­West,­by­ using­the­same­(Orientalist)­epistemology.34­As­a­new­academic­field,­tōyōshi­legitimated­itself­on­the­basis­of­its­“scientific,”­“rationalistic”­methodology­and­on­the­basis­of­its­practical­application­in­the­“administration­of­ southern­Manchuria”­and­the­“protection­and­development­of­Korea.” ­ For­historians­like­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­the­violence­of­imperialism­and­colonialist­historiography­was­justification­enough­for­writing­a­nationalist­historiography.­Sin’s­historiography­set­the­themes­for­later­nationalist­historiography,­which­insisted­that­Korea­had­always­had­a­distinct­culture­and­ society,­testified­to­the­veracity­of­the­Korean­nation­by­chronicling­the­ long­history­of­the­Korean­people’s­resistance­to­foreign­aggression,­and­ narrated­the­emergence­of­the­Korean­nation­as­an­essential­part­of­world­ history.­Many­contemporary­historians­locate­the­emergence­of­modern­ history­writing­in­Korea­with­Sin’s­“Toksa­sillon,”­published­in­1908.­On­ what­basis­can­this­essay­claim­such­status?­In­1894,­under­the­aegis­of­the­ newly­established­Education­Ministry­(Hakmun­amun,­later­hakbu),­“modern”­textbooks,­including­history­textbooks,­were­published.­However,­as­ Sin­himself­notes,­although­the­history­textbooks­listed­Kim­T’aek-­yŏng,­ Hyŏn­Ch’ae,­and­others­as­authors,­these­textbooks­were,­on­the­whole,­ translations­of­history­books­on­Korea­written­by­Japanese­scholars.35 Examining­history­books­used­at­different­schools,­I’ve­found­hardly­any­of­ value.­In­the­first­chapter,­Koreans­[minjok]­are­described­as­if­they­were­part­ of­the­Chinese­people;­in­the­second­chapter,­Koreans­appear­almost­like­part­ of­the­Sŏnbijok­[Hsien-­pi];­and­reading­the­entire­book­Koreans­are­variously­

97

98

ChapTer Three

made­out­to­be­part­of­the­Malgaljok­[Moho],­part­of­the­Mongojok­[Mongols],­part­of­the­Yŏjinjok­[Jurchen],­or­part­of­the­Ilbonjok­[Japanese].­If­this­ were­true,­our­land,­which­encompass­several­tens­of­thousands­li,­would­be­ in­pandemonium­with­barbarians­from­north­and­south­milling­around,­and­ [our]­accomplishments­of­four­thousand­years­would­be­credited­to­the­Liang­ in­the­morning,­and­in­the­evening­to­the­Ch’u.36

In­criticizing­these­textbooks,­Sin­identified­the­history­of­Korea­with­the­ fortunes­of­the­minjok­as­constituted­by­the­descendants­of­Tan’gun;­gave­ the­ geographic­ length­ of­ Korea­ as­ about­ ten­ times­ the­ customary­ three­ thousand­li,­thus­appropriating­nearly­all­of­Manchuria;­took­great­pains­ to­assert­a­distinct,­separate­ethnicity­for­the­Korean­people,­tracing­a­precise,­singular­genealogical­history,­beginning­with­Tan’gun­and­continuing­ through­Ancient­Chosŏn,­Puyŏ,­Koguryŏ,­Parhae,­Koryŏ,­and­Chosŏn;­and­ characterized,­without­equivocation,­history­as­an­instrument­for­instilling­ patriotism­among­youth. ­ On­the­first­point,­Sin’s­identification­of­a­country’s­history­with­the­history­of­the­people­(minjok)­parallels­the­revolutionary­shift­that­occurred­ with­the­French­Revolution,­the­shift­from­L’état c’est moi­to­L’état c’est le peuple.­The­opening­sentence­of­“Toksa­sillon”­reflects­the­republican­ideal­ held­by­Sin­and­many­other­leading­nationalist­intellectuals­of­that­time.­ Later­in­this­text­he­wrote,­“A­state­does­not­belong­to­one­individual,­it­ belongs­to­the­entire­people.”37­As­a­tactical­matter,­however,­he­did­not­ attack­the­Korean­monarch.38­Nevertheless­the­republican­position­staked­ out­in­“Toksa­sillon”­gives­evidence­of­what­Kang­Man-­gil­has­described­ as­the­shift­from­patriotism­based­on­loyalty­to­the­king­to­a­nationalism­ based­ on­ popular­ sovereignty.39­ This­ democratic­ predisposition­ became­ much­more­obvious­in­Sin’s­later­writing­(see­the­discussion­below­of­the­ minjok­in­relation­to­the­minjung). ­ As­Schmid­has­pointed­out,­when­Sin­asserted­a­distinct,­separate­ethnicity­for­the­Korean­people­that­originated­with­Tan’gun­and­descended­ through­ Puyŏ,­ his­ aim­ was­ to­ subvert­ weak­ and­ limited­ conceptions­ of­ Korea’s­national­space.­His­lament­over­the­erasure­of­Parhae­from­official­ historiography­had­historical­precedent.­In­Parhae ko,­completed­in­1784,­ Yu­Tŭk-­kong­lamented­the­fact­that­Koryŏ­did­not­compile­a­history­of­Parhae.­Because­Kim­Pu-­sik­had­not­included­Parhae’s­history­in­the­Samguk sagi,­instead­tracing­Koryŏ’s­legitimacy­only­through­“Unified”­Silla,­Koryŏ­

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

had­in­effect­given­up­its­claim­over­the­territory­Parhae­had­once­controlled.­(In­the­Confucian­historiographic­tradition,­it­is­the­duty­of­successive­dynasties­to­compile­the­history­of­preceding­dynasties­from­the­ material­left­by­their­predecessors.)­To­reclaim­Parhae’s­history­as­part­of­ Korean­history,­Yu­argued­that­Parhae­and­“Unified”­Silla­should­be­seen­as­ forming­northern­and­southern­states.­This­argument­was­repeated­by­Kim­ Chŏng-­ho­in­the­mid-­nineteenth­century­in­his­Taedong chiji­(Geography­of­ Korea).40­During­the­colonial­period,­this­way­of­periodizing­Korean­history­ was­adopted­by­Chang­To-­bin,­An­Hwak,­and­Kwŏn­Tŏk-­kyu.­After­liberation,­in­North­Korea,­Pak­Si-­hyŏng,­Chu­Yŏng-­hŏn,­and­others­characterized­Parhae­as­the­successor­state­of­Koguryŏ,­but­they­did­not­refer­to­this­ era­as­the­Period­of­Northern­and­Southern­States­(nampukguk sidae).41 ­ Schmid­ notes­ that­ confrontations­ over­ territorial­ access—such­ as­ resource­ concessions­ to­ foreign­ powers,­ circulation­ of­ foreign­ currencies,­ extraterritoriality,­ and­ unregulated­ Japanese­ immigration—had­ already­ undermined­inherited­conceptions­of­territorial­authority.­Sin’s­“Toksa­sillon”­“became­the­first­in­a­long­line­of­Korean­history­writing­that­wielded­ the­Manchurian­connection­to­create­a­nationalist­history­that­reveled­in­ the­grandeur­of­an­ancient­past.”42­In­thus­problematizing­Chosŏn-­period­ orthodox­conceptions­of­Korea’s­national­space,­Sin­drew­on­irredentist­ themes­ that­ existed­ in­ earlier­ historiography.­ In­ Chosŏn sanggosa­ (History­of­Ancient­Korea),­written­sixteen­years­later­(1924),­Sin­praised­Han­ Paek-­kyŏm’s­Tongguk chiriji­(Korea’s­Topographic­Record)­as­having­inaugurated­(proper)­historiography.­Completed­in­1615,­Han­narrated­two­lines­ of­descent­for­Korean­history:­in­the­north,­from­Tan’gun­and­Kija­down­ through­Koguryŏ;­in­the­south,­from­Samhan­down­through­Paekche,­Silla,­ and­Kaya.­Han’s­narrative­privileged­the­northern­line­of­descent­over­the­ southern.­Writing­at­a­time­when­another­invasion­from­the­south­(from­ Japan)­seemed­unlikely,­a­time­when­the­Ming­seemed­weak­even­as­the­ Jurchens­were­gathering­their­forces­in­the­north,­Han­had­argued­for­a­ strong­ policy­ toward­ the­ Jurchens­ and­ included­ (reinstated)­ Manchuria­ within­the­territorial­boundaries­of­Korea’s­ancient­past.­Adopting­Han’s­ narrative­strategy,­Sin­panegyrized­the­northern­line­of­descent. ­ It­is­also­important­to­note­that,­two­decades­prior­to­“Toksa­sillon,”­Japanese­historians­had­begun­to­question­the­“limited”­conception­of­Japan’s­ national­space.­In­an­article­published­in­1889,­Kume­Kunitake­criticized­ the­notion­of­“Japan­as­an­island­nation­that­had­not­changed­in­thousands­

99

100

ChapTer Three

of­years,”­and­he­reminded­his­readers­of­an­ancient­Japan­that­had­encompassed­Korea­and­southeastern­China.­Eventually,­as­Tanaka­notes,­“arguments­like­Kume’s­[served]­as­a­historical­justification­for­the­annexation­ of­Korea.”43­In­1891­Kume­published­an­article­in­Shigaku zasshi­in­which­ he­referred­to­Shintō­as­“a­primitive­custom­of­sacrifice­to­heaven.”­Kume­ came­ under­ such­ heavy­ attack­ from­ Shintoists­ and­ nationalists­ that­ he­ was­obliged­to­relinquish­his­post­at­Tokyo­Imperial­University.44­The­spatial­imagining­of­a­greater­Japan­and­Sin’s­greater­Korea­shared­a­similar­ strategy,­but­their­political­aims­were,­for­the­most­part,­diametrically­opposed:­Kume­was­creating­a­modern­and­“rational”­historical­framework­for­ Japanese­colonialism,­and­Sin­a­historical­framework­for­Korean­resistance. ­ With­this­defensive­motivation,­Sin­identified­the­Korean­minjok­as­the­ descendants­of­Tan’gun­and­reconstituted­Manchuria­as­the­birthplace­of­ the­minjok­and­a­powerful­reminder­of­Korea’s­past­glory.­Although­his­appropriation­of­Manchuria­can­be­seen­as­a­defensive­response,­this­historical­narrative­also­sustained­and­duplicated­a­potent­totalizing­tendency.45­ We­can­also­detect­in­his­adoption­of­categories­like­Jina­(J:­Shina)­and­ tongyangsa­(J:­tōyōshi)­a­paradox­inherent­in­nationalist­discourse­in­the­ colonial­world:­the­subjugated­people,­in­the­very­act­of­resisting­colonial­ rule,­speak­the­language­of­their­oppressors—the­language­of­empire.­The­ problematic­in­nationalist­thought­forces­it­relentlessly­to­demarcate­itself­ from­the­discourse­of­colonialism,­but­even­as­nationalist­discourse­seeks­ to­ assert­ the­ feasibility­ of­ entirely­ new­ political­ possibilities,­ it­ remains­ a­prisoner­of­the­modes­of­thought­characteristic­of­rational­knowledge­ in­the­post-­Enlightenment­age—thus­the­lack­of­autonomy­of­nationalist­ ­discourse.46 ­ Perhaps­precisely­because­of­its­derivative­nature,­as­a­twentieth-­century­ construct­ the­ discourse­ on­ minjok­ could­ become­ a­ powerful­ mobilizing­ force.47­But­while­acknowledging­the­inclusive­and­egalitarian­propensity­ of­the­Korean­nationalist­movement,­we­should­be­on­guard­against­the­ appropriating­and­totalizing­power­of­nationalist­historiography.­As­Elie­ Kedourie­cautions,­nationalist­historiography­would­deceive­most­readers:­ “Men­ who­ thought­ they­ were­ acting­ in­ order­ to­ accomplish­ the­ will­ of­ God,­to­make­the­truth­prevail,­or­to­advance­the­interests­of­a­dynasty,­ or­ perhaps­ simply­ to­ defend­ their­ own­ against­ aggression,­ are­ suddenly­ seen­to­have­been­really­acting­in­order­that­the­genius­of­a­particular­nationality­should­be­manifested­and­fostered.”48­Or,­as­argued­by­Prasenjit­ Duara,­ while­ in­ reality­ the­ “nation”­ is­ a­ contested­ and­ contingent­ iden-

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

tity,­national­(as­well­as­nationalist)­historiography­secures­for­the­nation­ “the­false­unity­of­a­self-­same,­national­subject­evolving­through­time.”49­ Kedourie’s­and­Duara’s­critiques­of­national­historiography­are­pertinent­ to­the­Korean­case.­With­too­much­confidence,­contemporary­Korean­national­historiography­ (minjok sahak)­secures­for­the­nation­a­long­list­of­ “national”­heroes­from­as­early­as­the­Three­Kingdoms­period,­heroes­like­ Ŭlchi­Mundŏk­(mid-­sixth­century­to­early­seventh­century)­of­Koguryŏ.­ But­as­John­Duncan­points­out,­it­is­“extremely­unlikely­that­the­peoples­ of­ Koguryŏ,­ Paekche­ and­ Silla­ all­ thought­ of­ themselves­ as­ members­ of­ a­larger,­‘Korean’­collectivity­that­transcended­local­boundaries­and­state­ loyalties.”­Duncan­rejects­the­premise­common­in­nationalist­histories­that­ a­Korean­ethnic­nation­was­already­in­existence­at­the­dawn­of­historical­ time.­Accordingly­he­is­skeptical­of­the­notion­that­the­contest­between­ the­ Three­ Kingdoms—the­ wars­ between­ Koguryŏ,­ Paekche,­ and­ Silla— represented­a­struggle­for­the­political­unification­of­the­Korean­minjok.­ While­pointing­to­the­capacity­of­the­premodern­state­to­break­down­local­ cultural­and­linguistic­barriers,­Duncan­also­cautions­against­nationalist­ historiography­that­seeks­“to­elide­potentially­competitive­forms­of­identification­such­as­class,­region,­or­gender­in­favor­of­a­totalizing­national­ identity.”50 ­ Nevertheless,­on­the­basis­of­certain­assumptions­made­about­blood­and­ soil,­national­(and­nationalist)­historiography­endows­a­succession­of­cultural­and­military­heroes­with­a­common­“national”­identity.­As­Etienne­ Balibar­explains,­this­national­identity­“is­always­already­presented­to­us­ in­the­form­of­a­narrative­which­attributes­to­[this­entity]­the­continuity­of­ a­subject.­The­formation­of­the­nation­thus­appears­as­the­fulfillment­of­a­ ‘project’­stretching­over­centuries,­in­which­there­are­different­stages­and­ moments­of­coming­to­self-­awareness.”51­Through­the­power­of­this­ideological­form,­national­histories­can­portray­even­Paleolithic­inhabitants­of­ the­peninsula­as­“early­Koreans,”­their­culture­as­“pre-­national,”­and­the­ modern­Korean­nation-­state­as­the­culmination­of­a­long­process­of­development.52­The­same­holds­for­North­Korean­historiography,­except­that­ Koguryŏ­and­Parhae­would­be­substituted­for­“Unified”­Silla­in­tracing­the­ development­of­subsequent­“mainstream”­Korean­history.­But­as­Balibar­ reminds­us,­we­should­not­read­this­history­as­“a­line­of­necessary­evolution­ but­[as]­a­series­of­conjunctural­relations­which­has­inscribed­them­after­ the­event­into­the­pre-­history­of­the­nation-­form.”53 ­ Even­as­some­historians­acknowledge­the­discontinuities­and­breaks­in­

101

102

ChapTer Three

Korean­history,­nearly­all­still­accept­the­nation-­state­as­the­“normal”­or­ “natural”­ form­ of­ political­ community.54­ This,­ Duara­ argues,­ is­ a­ central­ facet­of­Western­hegemony:­the­assumption­that­the­nation-­state­is­the­only­ legitimate­form­of­polity.55­We­are­as­yet­unable­to­imagine­alternative­political­forms,­and­by­writing­narratives­of­the­nation,­which­constitute­much­ of­modern­historiography,­historians­help­maintain­the­illusion­of­a­nation’s­ necessary­and­unilinear­evolution.­The­nation­form,­as­ideology,­presents­ itself­to­us­as­ontological­necessity;­our­desire­that­history­will­confirm­our­ belief­that­the­present­rests­on­profound­intentions­and­necessities­prompts­ the­production­of­a­linear,­continuous­history­that­begins­in­the­ancient­past­ and­culminates­in­the­establishment­of­the­Republic­of­Korea­or­(depending­ on­one’s­politics)­the­Democratic­People’s­Republic­of­Korea. ­ Almost­all­general­histories­of­Korea­begin­with­the­Bronze­Age,­if­not­ earlier,­suggesting­that­the­people­who­used­bronze­daggers­and­built­dolmen­tombs­more­than­2,500­years­ago­were­early­Koreans.­To­cite­but­two­ examples,­the­university-­level­general­Korean­history­textbook­Han’guksa kaesŏl­(Outline­of­Korean­History),­written­by­South­Korea’s­Compilation­ Committee­for­National­History­Textbooks,­begins­the­narrative­of­Korean­ history­ with­ this­ sentence:­ “The­ Korean­ nation­ [minjok]­ emerged­ from­ the­Neolithic­period­and­the­Bronze­Age­as­an­exceptional,­homogeneous­ people­possessing­a­unique­culture,­and­established­a­tradition­that­was­ different­from­that­of­the­Chinese.”56­In­volume­1­of­Chosŏn t’ongsa­(History­of­Korea),­published­in­Pyongyang­by­the­Social­Science­Academy,­ the­national­narrative­begins­with­the­appearance­of­“primitive­bands”­in­ Northeast­Asia­and­the­Korean­peninsula­during­the­Paleolithic­era­about­a­ million­years­ago.57­It­remains­for­a­democratic­historiography­to­show­how­ the­nation­threatens­to­impose­immutable­articulations­in­an­authoritarian­ way.­Strange­as­it­may­sound,­the­basis­for­a­much­less­totalizing­historiography­may,­I­think,­be­found­in­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­later­historiography­and­ certainly­in­his­anarchist­writings.

Coauthors­of­Nation The­proliferation­of­discourses­on­Korean­identity,­which­emanated­from­ both­ the­ Korean­ nationalist­ movement­ and­ the­ Japanese­ colonial­ state,­ stemmed­from­the­necessity­to­“nationalize.”­For­both­Koreans­and­Japanese,­the­necessity­of­producing­Korean­subjects­was­prompted­by­the­development­ of­ the­ global­ nation-­state­ system.­ In­ the­ process­ of­ trying­ to­

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

compete,­or­simply­survive,­in­the­nation-­state­system,­both­the­colonial­ state­ and­ the­ Korean­ nationalist­ movements­ and­ organizations­ had­ to­ study,­standardize,­and­thus­reinvent­(or­just­invent)­everything­we­now­ associate­with­the­Korean­nation,­including­such­cardinal­elements­as­the­ Korean­language­and­Korean­ethnicity.­Imperialist­rivalry­over­Korea­and­ eventual­colonization­by­Japan­intervened­in­Korea’s­nation-­building­process,­and­the­process­of­nationalizing­Koreans­was,­in­a­sense,­taken­over­ by­the­Japanese­colonial­state.­Starting­with­the­restoration­of­Sŏkkuram,­it­ was­the­Japanese­colonial­state­that­went­on­to­establish­controls­over­print­ capitalism­ as­ well­ as­ national­ systems­ of­ schooling,­ transportation,­ and­ communication­that­produced­colonial­Chōsenjin­(Koreans).­The­transformation­of­Japanese­peasants­into­Japanese­(kokumin)­had­begun­several­ decades­earlier,­after­the­consolidation­of­the­Meiji­Restoration­and­the­ establishment­of­a­strong­central­state.­By­the­time­of­Korea’s­annexation,­ the­Japanese­state­had­accumulated­substantial­experience­with­the­technologies­of­both­nation-­building­and­colonization,­including­the­production­of­national­consciousness.­Those­who­became­colonial­administrators­ (for­example,­Gotō­Shinpei­in­colonial­Taiwan)­had­made­a­careful­study­of­ Western­colonial­institutions­and­methods. ­ Compelled­to­deny­any­“constructive”­role­in­Japanese­colonialism,­contemporary­Korean­nationalist­accounts­draw­attention­to­the­last­decade­ of­the­colonial­period,­when­the­colonial­authorities,­under­the­banner­of­ Naisen­Ittai­(Japan­and­Korea­as­One­Body),­pursued­a­policy­of­forced­assimilation:­eliminating­the­use­of­Korean­in­school­instruction­(1934),­requiring­attendance­at­Shintō­ceremonies­(1935),­and­forcing­the­adoption­ of­Japanese­surnames­(1939).­The­slogan­of­Naisen­Ittai,­however,­reveals­ the­ ambivalence­ of­ Japan’s­ racist­ policy­ throughout­ the­ colonial­ period,­ marked­ by­ the­ combination­ of­ exteriorization­ and­ internal­ exclusion.­ Japan,­as­the­Interior­(Nai),­excludes­Korea­(sen)­as­the­“outside”;­at­the­ same­time,­this­outside­(Korea)­must­become­one­with­the­Interior,­which­ is­always­already­there.58­It­was­in­this­sense­that­Japanese­colonialism­was­ “constructive”­for­both­the­colonizer­and­the­colonized:­the­construction­of­ Japanese­superiority­as­demonstrated­by­the­inferiority­of­Koreans­and­the­ superiority­claimed­by­the­colonizer­generating­a­self-­image­of­inferiority­ among­Koreans. ­ Coercion,­prohibition,­and­censorship,­then,­were­not­the­only­(or­even­ primary)­ forms­ through­ which­ colonial­ power­ was­ exercised.­ The­ Japanese­colonial­state­did­establish­new­rules­and­controls­over­the­enuncia-

103

104

ChapTer Three

tion­of­Korean­national­identity,­and­there­were­topics­that­were­off-­limits­ or­required­strict­observance­of­protocol,­tact,­and­discretion.­At­the­same­ time,­there­was­a­steady­proliferation­of­discourses­concerning­Korean­identity­emanating­from­the­Japanese­colonial­state­itself,­including­studies­of­ Korean­history,­geography,­language,­customs,­religion,­music,­and­art­in­ almost­immeasurable­detail.­What­are­we­to­make­of­this?­For­the­Japanese­ colonial­state,­the­goal­of­exploiting­Korea­and­using­it­for­Japan’s­strategic­ends­went­hand­in­hand­with­the­work­of­transforming­peasants­into­ Koreans.­In­other­words,­the­logic­of­its­racist­colonial­policy­compelled­the­ Japanese­colonial­state­to­reconstitute­(disparate)­Korean­identities­into­a­ homogeneous­Chōsenjin.­Thereafter­Chōsenjin­became­both­a­bureaucratic­ and­derogatory­classification­that­applied­to­all­Koreans­regardless­of­gender,­regional­origin,­or­class­background. ­ Thus,­ contrary­ to­ conventional­ nationalist­ accounts­ which­ argue­ that­ Japanese­colonial­authorities­pursued­a­consistent­and­systematic­policy­of­ eradicating­Korean­identity,­we­should­see­that­the­Japanese­colonial­state­ actually­endeavored­to­produce­Koreans­as­subjects,­in­the­sense­of­being­ under­the­authority­of­the­Japanese­emperor­and­in­the­sense­of­having­a­ separate­(and­inferior)­subjectivity.­This­in­turn­led­to­a­bifurcated­national­ (and­racial)­discourse­because­Korean­nationalist­historians,­in­competition­with­the­Japanese­colonial­state,­were­engaged­in­the­project­of­recovering­or­producing­an­autonomous­Korean­subjectivity.­Nationalist­historians­would­find­evidence­of­this­subjectivity­in­history,­but­in­necessarily­ incomplete­or­disfigured­form.­They­presumed­an­essential­link­between­ national­sovereignty­and­individual­sovereignty­and­regarded­nonnational­ forms­of­community­and­solidarity­as­partial,­incomplete­grounding,­asserting­that­only­national­liberation­could­render­possible­the­full­realization­of­authentic­subjectivity. ­ Thus­we­have­both­the­Japanese­colonial­state­and­Korean­nationalists­researching­and­writing­Korean­history,­preserving­and­interpreting­Korean­ customs­and­religious­practices,­and­laboring­to­create­a­standard­Korean­ language.­Although­the­power­of­the­repressive­and­ideological­apparatuses­ of­the­Japanese­colonial­state­far­surpassed­that­of­the­Korean­nationalist­ movement,­ the­ contradictions­ inherent­ in­ Japan’s­ racist­ colonial­ policy,­ along­with­the­capacity­of­the­Korean­nationalist­movement­to­(re)generate­discourses­of­identity­and­liberation,­ensured­that­the­discourse­on­ nation­remained­a­contested­field­throughout­the­colonial­period.59­Thus­

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

any­“Korean”­subjectivity­created­under­such­conditions—whether­loyal­or­ defiant­to­the­Japanese­Empire—had­to­be­profoundly­unstable­and­constantly­threatened­by­the­contradictions­of­colonial­experience.60 ­ In­analyzing­discourses­that­are­hegemonic­on­a­global­scale,­such­as­the­ nation­form,­we­must­consider­nondiscursive­macroprocesses,­processes­ that­ have­ to­ do­ with­ the­ capitalist­ world­ economy,­ or­ what­ Immanuel­ Wallerstein­has­called­the­“World­System.”­According­to­Wallerstein,­hegemony­in­the­World­System­has­to­do­with­“productive,­commercial­and­financial­preeminence­of­one­core­power­over­other­core­powers,”­a­preeminence­that­is­not­enduring­because­there­is­both­upward­and­downward­ mobility­in­core-­periphery­relations.61­The­nation-­state­system­emerged­as­ the­political­superstructure­of­this­World­System.­The­interstate­system­is­ competitive­because­nation-­states­in­the­periphery­may­succeed­in­attaining­core­status,­and­core­nations­can­slip­to­semiperiphery­status.62 ­ Bruce­ Cumings­ makes­ use­ of­ World­ Systems­ theory­ to­ argue­ that­ for­ most­of­the­twentieth­century­(with­the­exception­of­the­seven­months­ from­ Pearl­ Harbor­ to­ the­ Battle­ of­Midway),­ Japan­ had­ been­ a­ subordinate­part­of­either­a­trilateral­American-­British-­Japanese­hegemony­or­a­ bilateral­American-­Japanese­hegemony.63­In­other­words,­even­as­it­ruled­ Korea,­Japan­was­a­subimperial­power,­a­“core”­power­in­relation­to­Korea­ and­China­but­a­dependency­of­Britain­and­the­United­States­in­both­the­ regime­of­technology­and­world­politics.­Cumings­illustrates­this­by­citing­ the­ example­ of­ Japanese­ textile­ firms,­ the­ leading­ sector­ in­ Japan’s­ first­ phase­ of­ industrialization,­ which­ bought­ their­ machines­ from­ England­ until­about­1930.­In­the­1930s­Japan­began­producing­better­machines­and­ quickly­became­the­most­efficient­textile­producer­in­the­world.­In­the­mining­industry,­however,­Japan­was­still­dependent­on­American­technology­ throughout­the­1930s,­allowing­American­gold-­mining­companies­to­profit­ from­Korean­gold­mines.­In­sum,­according­to­Cumings,­Japan’s­position­in­ the­World­System­changed­according­to­the­following­timeline: 1900–22:­Japan­in­British-­American­hegemony 1922–41:­Japan­in­American-­British­hegemony 1941–45:­Japan­as­regional­hegemon­in­East­Asia 1945–70:­Japan­in­American­hegemony64 ­ Cumings­is­not­proposing­a­reduction­of­national­narratives­to­some­abstract­capitalist­relations­of­production.­Rather,­along­lines­suggested­by­

105

106

ChapTer Three

Balibar,­Cumings’s­approach­to­understanding­national­narratives­might­ be­described­as­“bound­up­not­with­the­abstraction­of­the­capitalist­market,­but­its­concrete­historical­form:­that­of­a­‘world-­economy’­which­is­ always­already­hierarchically­organized­into­a­‘core’­and­a­‘periphery,’­each­ of­which­has­different­methods­of­accumulation­and­exploitation­of­labor­ power,­and­between­which­relations­of­unequal­exchange­and­domination­ are­established.”65­In­other­words,­as­Balibar­explains,­it­is­“the­concrete­ configurations­of­the­class­struggle­and­not­‘pure’­economic­logic­which­explain­the­constitution­of­nation­states.”66­On­the­relationship­between­discourses­on­ethnic­identity­and­the­logic­of­the­World­System,­Wallerstein­ notes­that­the­capitalist­system­is­based­not­merely­on­the­capital-­labor­ antinomy­but­on­a­complex­hierarchy­within­the­labor­segment.­This­hierarchy­within­labor­generates­the­“ethnicization”­of­the­workforce­within­a­ given­state’s­boundaries.­There­are­certain­advantages­to­the­ethnicization­ of­occupational­categories­because­different­kinds­of­relations­of­production­require­different­kinds­of­“normal”­behavior.­The­advantages­have­to­ do­with­the­fact­that­the­state­need­not­do­all­the­work;­the­oppressed­group­ will­ voluntarily­ defend­ its­ ethnic­ identity­ and­ socialize­ its­ membership.­ This­resolves­“one­of­the­basic­contradictions­of­historical­capitalism—its­ simultaneous­thrust­for­theoretical­equality­and­practical­inequality.”67 ­ The­concrete,­historical­form­of­this­World­System,­which­is­always­hierarchically­organized­into­a­core­and­a­periphery,­provided­the­framework­ for­the­hegemony­of­the­nation-­state­system.­The­ability­of­historians­like­ Shiratori­to­define,­limit,­and­authorize­a­certain­view­of­the­rest­of­the­ Orient,­and­then­impose­it,­was­made­possible­by­an­emerging­industrial­ mode­of­production­in­Japan­whose­success­was­verified­in­Japan’s­victories­over­China­(1895)­and­Russia­(1905).­And­yet­Japan’s­version­of­Orientalism­could­not­achieve­full­hegemonic­status­in­the­sense­that­even­ as­Japan­colonized­Korea­and­established­a­puppet­state­in­Manchuria,­it­ remained­a­dependency­of­Britain­and­the­United­States.­Thus­we­might­ say­that­there­were­overlapping­and­competing­hegemonies­operating­in­ Korea,­producing­competing­discourses­on­race,­nation,­gender,­modernity,­ and­ culture.­ Moreover­ these­ hegemonies­ dissipated­ as­ one­ moved­ from­the­core­(London,­Washington,­Tokyo)­to­the­major­intellectual­centers­in­the­periphery­(Beijing,­Shanghai).­In­Beijing­and­Shanghai,­urban­ centers­where­a­multitude­of­intellectuals­and­political­activists­in­some­ form­ of­exile­were­ thrown­ into­ unexpected­ contact,­ hybrid­ spaces­ with­

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

complex,­ international­ financial­ and­ intellectual­ ties­ yielded­ new­ possibilities­for­change­and­innovation,­for­both­thinking­and­organizing.­From­ this­periphery,­intellectuals­like­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­succeeded­in­subverting­or­ displacing­the­dominant­(colonial)­framework­in­important­ways.68 ­ In­Sin’s­anarchist­writings­(from­1925­on),­the­all-­embracing­identity­of­ minjok­is­replaced­by­the­more­partisan­category­of­minjung.­In­historical­ studies­written­in­the­early­twentieth­century,­Sin­presented­a­less­essentialist­way­of­conceptualizing­the­nation.­Perhaps­as­a­self-­critique­of­his­ earlier­position­in­“Toksa­sillon,”­his­introduction­to­the­Chosŏn sanggosa­ (History­of­Ancient­Korea)­has­moments­of­ambivalence­in­signifying­the­ minjok,­that­is,­moments­of­slippage­in­the­opposition­of­self­and­Other.­ Why­was­Chosŏn sanggosa­published­in­Korea­in­1931,­about­a­decade­after­ it­was­written?­In­1931­the­general­crisis­in­the­world­economic­system­had­ pushed­the­Soviet­Union­toward­the­policy­of­“socialism­in­one­country”­ and­the­United­States­toward­the­New­Deal.­In­Europe­and­Japan­fascism­ reemerged­as­a­powerful­movement,­presenting­itself­as­an­alternative­to­ the­problems­of­a­market­economy.­In­1931­Japanese­forces­invaded­Manchuria,­and­Korea­began­to­be­transformed­into­an­economic­and­military­ base­ for­ Japanese­ penetration­ of­ the­ Chinese­ mainland.­ That­ same­ year­ the­ Sin’ganhoe­ voted­ to­ dissolve,­ acknowledging­ its­ failure­ to­ create­ an­ effective­united­front­of­Korean­communists,­nationalists,­and­anarchists­ within­Korea.­On­the­intellectual­scene,­the­Chōsenshi­henshūkai­(Society­ for­the­Compilation­of­Korean­History;­sckH),­whose­work­was­directed­ and­funded­by­the­office­of­the­governor-­general­in­Korea,­was­about­to­ begin­publication­of­its­massive,­detailed­study­of­Korean­history,­the­outcome­of­a­project­begun­by­Governor-­General­Saitō­Makoto­in­1922. ­ In­1932,­after­ten­years­of­work,­sckH­published­the­first­five­volumes­ of­ what­ became­ the­ thirty-­eight-­volume­ Chōsenshi­ (Korean­ History).­ In­ addition,­ sckH­ published­ a­ three-­volume­ Chōsen shiryō shushin­ (Collection­of­Korean­Documents)­and­a­twenty-­one-­volume­Chōsen shiryō sōkan­ (Archive­ of­ Korean­ Documents).­ The­ sckH­ was­ clearly­ an­ organ­ of­ the­ Japanese­colonial­state,­but­its­members­included­Korean­historians­like­ Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn,­the­man­who­drafted­the­“Korean­Declaration­of­Independence”­in­1919,­and­Yi­Nŭng-­hwa,­a­renowned­historian­of­Korean­Buddhism.­Yi­was­one­of­the­original­fourteen­members­when­the­sckH­was­ organized­in­1922­by­Arikishi­Tadaichi,­and­Ch’oe­joined­in­1928.69­It­was­ at­this­historical­juncture­that­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­Chosŏn sanggosa­was­serial-

107

108

ChapTer Three

ized­in­Korea­in­the­Chosŏn ilbo.70­The­day­after­Chosŏn sanggosa­ended,­ the­Chosŏn ilbo­began­publishing­Sin’s­Chosŏn sanggo munhwasa­(Cultural­ History­of­Ancient­Korea),­which­ran­in­forty­installments.­An­Chae-­hong­ (1891–1965),­a­historian­in­his­own­right­and­the­president­of­Chosŏn ilbo,­ was­instrumental­in­publishing­Sin’s­work­inside­Korea.71­Because­Sin­had­ not­compromised­with­the­Japanese—at­the­time­he­was­incarcerated­in­a­ Japanese­prison­in­Lūshun­(Port­Arthur)—and­because­the­work­itself­had­ been­written­outside­the­geographical­and­intellectual­perimeter­of­Japan’s­ hegemony,­Sin’s­historiography­was­presented­as­a­much­needed­corrective­ to­colonialist­historiography’s­distortions­of­Korea’s­ancient­past.­But­in­ writing­from­the­periphery,­Sin­succeeded­in­subverting­not­only­colonialist­historiography,­but­many­of­the­assumptions­associated­with­the­nation­ form.­Ironically­this­counterhegemonic­move­was­made­possible­by­Sin’s­ appropriation­of­Hegel’s­subject-­object­distinction.­It­is­worth­quoting­at­ length­from­Sin’s­introduction­to­Chosŏn sanggosa: What­is­history?­It­is­the­record­of­the­state­of­mental­activity­in­human­society­wherein­the­struggle­between­the­“I”­[a]­and­the­“non-­I”­[pi-a]­develops­ through­time­and­expands­through­space.­World­history,­then,­is­a­record­of­ such­a­state­for­all­of­mankind,­while­Korean­history­is­a­record­of­such­a­state­ for­the­Korean­people­[Chosŏn minjok]. ­ Who­do­we­refer­to­as­“I”­and­the­“non-­I”?­Simply­put,­we­call­the­person­ situated­in­the­subjective­position­“I,”­and­all­others­we­call­“non-I.”­For­example,­Koreans­call­Korea­“I”­and­call­England,­America,­France,­Russia,­and­ others­the­“non-I.”­But­the­people­of­England,­America,­France,­Russia,­and­ other­countries­each­call­their­countries­“I”­and­call­Korea­a­“non-I.”­The­proletariat­refers­to­itself­as­“I”­and­to­landlords,­capitalists,­and­others­as­the­ “non-I.”­But­the­landlords,­capitalists,­and­others­each­refer­to­their­own­group­ as­“I”­and­to­the­proletariat­as­the­“non-I.”­Not­only­this­but­in­learning,­in­ technology,­in­occupations,­and­in­the­intellectual­world—and­in­every­other­ area—if­there­is­an­I­there­will­be­a­non-­I­as­its­opposite;­and­just­as­there­is­ an­I­and­the­non-­I­within­the­I­position,­so­there­is­an­I­and­the­non-­I­within­ the­non-­I­position.­Therefore,­the­more­frequent­the­contact­between­the­I­ and­the­non-­I,­the­more­heated­will­be­the­struggle­of­the­I­against­the­non-I.­ And­so­there­is­no­respite­in­the­activity­of­human­society,­and­there­will­never­ be­a­day­when­the­forward­advance­of­history­will­be­completed.­It­is­for­this­ reason­that­history­is­the­record­of­struggle­between­I­and­the­non-I.­.­.­. ­ If­the­people­of­Myo,­Jina,­etc.—the­non-­I—constituting­the­other­[sang-

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

daeja]­had­not­existed,­it­is­unlikely­that­“I”­would­have­existed.­That­is,­naming­the­state­as­Chosŏn,­building­the­three­capitals,­keeping­the­five­armies,­ etc.—this­manifestation­of­the­“I”­would­not­have­occurred.72

­ Here,­in­reference­to­Jina­(J:­Shina),­we­might­detect­the­presence­of­ Japanese­Orientalism.­ But­although­Sin­may­have­used­Jina­rather­than­ Chungguk­to­distance­Korea­from­the­barbarian­ and­civilized,­ outer­and­ inner­ implications­ of­ China­ as­ the­ Middle­ Kingdom,­ his­ use­ of­ Jina­ in­ Chosŏn sanggosa­did­not­(indeed­could­not)­invoke­the­kind­of­Orientalist­ assumptions­ present­ in­ Shiratori’s­ historiography.­ National­ identity­ (Korean,­English,­or­French)­is­historically­constructed­and­changes­over­ time;73­it­may­have­been­constructed­in­opposition­to­a­foreign­other,­but­ it­is­also­(necessarily)­fragmented­from­within.­Thus­we­find­the­subject-­ object­ distinction­ made­ by­ Hegel,­ but­ it­ is­ clear­ that­ the­ philosophical­ structure­ “which­ uncannily­ simulates­ the­ project­ of­ nineteenth-­century­ imperialism,”­as­Robert­Young­puts­it,­has­been­taken­over,­made­“universal”­from­the­point­of­view­of­the­colonized.74

Beyond­Nationalism Immersed­in­the­intellectual­ferment­of­Shanghai­and­Beijing,­especially­in­ the­wake­of­the­May­Fourth­Movement,­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­was­able­to­appropriate­Hegel’s­dialectic­in­a­way­that­asserted­not­a­triumphant,­rational­subject­but­a­contingent­and­open-­ended­one.­When­the­Korean­provisional­ government­in­Shanghai­elected­Rhee­Syngman­as­president­in­absentia­ and­proved­unwilling­to­take­up­armed­struggle­against­Japanese­colonialism,­Sin­denounced­it­in­the­newspaper­Sin Taehan­(New­Korea)­and­returned­to­Beijing­in­1920.­In­1923,­when­Sin­wrote­the­“Declaration­of­the­ Korean­Revolution”­for­the­Korean­revolutionary­organization­Ŭiyŏldan,­he­ did­so­in­consultation­with­Yu­Cha-­myŏng,­who­was­an­anarchist­and­the­ leading­theorist­in­the­Ŭiyŏldan.75­Even­had­we­not­known­that­Sin­became­ an­anarchist­after­writing­these­histories,­the­texts­themselves­suggest­moments­of­ambivalence­in­signifying­the­minjok,­that­is,­moments of slippage in the opposition of self and other:­“If­there­is­an­I­there­will­be­a­non-­I­as­its­ opposite;­and­just­as­there­is­an­I­and­the­non-­I­within­the­I­position,­so­ there­is­an­I­and­the­non-­I­within­the­non-­I­position.”76 ­ In­his­later­anarchist­ writings,­ Sin­tried­to­construct­ a­new­collective­ subjectivity­capable­of­subverting­the­modernist­program,­which­he­saw­

109

110

ChapTer Three

as­oppressive,­exploitative,­and­brutal.­The­nation­form­as­imagined­by­the­ West­was­hegemonic,­in­the­sense­that­the­global­nation-­state­system­set­ the­boundaries­of­political­discourse,­defining­the­nation-­state­as­the­“normal”­or­“natural”­form­of­political­community.­And­yet­no­construct­can­be­ completely­or­permanently­hegemonic,­and­hegemony­dissipated­as­one­ moved­from­the­core­to­the­periphery.­From­the­periphery,­then,­intellectuals­like­Sin­succeeded­in­subverting­or­displacing­the­dominant­framework­ in­important­ways. ­ Nationalist­readings­of­Sin’s­work­focus­on­the­anti-­Japanese­aspects.­In­ the­“Manifesto­of­the­Korean­Revolution”­(1923),­Sin­did­list­“Bandit­Japan”­ (kangdo Ilbon)­as­the­primary­target­of­the­revolution,­understood­as­the­ Japanese­emperor,­the­governor-­general­of­Korea­and­other­high­officials,­ “traitorous­politicians,”­and­any­and­all­facilities­belonging­to­the­enemy.­ By­smashing­Japan,­Koreans­could­recover­an­“indigenous­Korea”­(koyu ŭi Chosŏn)­which­lay­beneath­Japan’s­despotism.­(Sin­places­quotation­marks­ around­Korea­and­Japan.)­But­the­recovery­of­an­indigenous­Korea­did­not­ mean­the­restoration­of­old­social­forms.­Along­with­foreign­rule,­“slavish­ culture­and­servile­mentality”­were­to­be­destroyed.­All­religious­beliefs,­ ethics,­ culture,­ art,­ customs,­ and­ habits­ of­ traditional­ culture­ produced­ by­the­strong­for­their­enjoyment­had­to­be­dismantled­so­that­the­people­ (minjung)­could­break­out­of­their­abject­fate­and­construct­a­people’s­culture­(minjungjŏk munhwa). ­ Sin­excoriated­those­Koreans­who­were­lobbying­for­an­“independent­ domestic­ administration”­ (naejŏng tongnip),­ “participatory­ government”­ (ch’am chŏngkwŏn),­or­“self-­rule”­(chach’i).­They­were­forgetting­that­Japan­ had­ devoured­ Korea­ “even­ as­ the­ ink­ was­ drying­ on­ [Japanese]­ slogans­ that­had­guaranteed­‘Peace­in­Asia,’­and­the­‘Protection­of­Korean­Independence.’”­Sin­also­ridiculed­those­nationalists­who­advocated­a­“cultural­ movement”­(munhwa undong).­Writing­editorials­that­would­not­offend­the­ colonial­authorities­was­all­the­cultural­movement­amounted­to.­For­Sin,­ 100­million­pages­of­newspapers­and­magazines­could­not­equal­the­power­ of­one­uprising­in­awakening­the­minjung. ­ Sin­also­denounced­those­nationalists­who­advocated­“diplomacy”­(oegyoron)­or­“preparation”­(chunbiron).­He­did­not­name­specific­individuals,­but­ it­ would­ have­ been­ clear­ to­ his­ readers­ that­ the­ targets­ of­ his­ polemics­ were­Rhee­Syngman­and­An­Ch’ang-­ho.­Rhee­was­“stupid”­(ŏlisŏkgo yongryŏl hada)­for­banking­on­foreign­intervention­to­solve­the­problem­of­national­

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

survival.­As­for­An­and­others­who­argued­for­“preparation,”­Sin­reminded­ them­that­they­should­be­preparing­for­a­war­of­independence.­Arguing­ that­Koreans­must­ready­themselves­for­independence,­the­advocates­of­ preparation­actually­advocated­political­quietism,­turning­their­energies­to­ education,­industry,­and­a­whole­list­of­things­that­had­to­be­readied­prior­ to­ direct,­ uncompromising­ struggle.­ These­ activists­ made­ the­ rounds­ in­ Beijing,­Siberia,­Hawaii,­and­the­United­States­to­collect­money­for­their­ programs,­but­all­they­could­show­for­their­efforts­were­a­few­precarious­ schools­and­inept­organizations.77 ­ What­did­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­advocate­in­the­1920s?­As­Sin­Yong-­ha­argues,­ Sin’s­disgust­with­nationalists­in­the­Korean­provisional­government,­plus­ his­ reading­ of­ Pyotr­ Kropotkin,­ turned­ him­ from­ nationalism­ to­ anarchism.78­Today­most­conservative­intellectuals­in­South­Korea­gloss­over­ the­fact­that­rather­than­the­nation­(minjok),­the­historical­subject­in­Sin’s­ revolution­ was­ the­ people,­ or­ the­ multitude­ (minjung),­ a­ broad­ political­ grouping­of­the­oppressed­and­exploited­“propertyless­masses”­(musan taejung).79­The­minjung,­as­Sin­used­the­term,­was­a­more­amorphous­category­ than­Marx’s­proletariat,­but­it­was­not­synonymous­with­the­Korean­people­ as­ a­ whole,­ that­ is,­ minjok.­ As­ Marx­ did­ for­ the­ proletariat,­ Sin­ granted­ ontological­privilege­to­the­minjung. ­ Throughout­Korean­history,­argued­Sin,­the­minjung­formed­the­wretched­ majority—exploited,­beaten,­starved,­lulled­into­subservience­and­obedience.­ For­ that­ very­ reason,­ the­ minjung­ was­ uniquely­ capable­ of­ sweeping­away­all­oppressive­and­exploitative­institutions­and­practices,­and­in­ that­ sense­ the­ minjung­ was­ a­ universal­ subject.­ But­ unlike­ the­ Marxist-­ Leninists,­Sin­refused­to­distinguish­between­the­vanguard­and­the­masses,­ or­between­leaders­and­the­led,­and­the­revolution­was­therefore­a­“minjung­revolution”­or­a­“direct­revolution.”­The­minjung­formed­the­“grand­ headquarters”­of­the­revolution­(Minjung ŭn uri hyŏngmyŏng ŭi taebonyŏng ida).­Through­a­program­of­assassinations,­bombings,­and­uprisings,­Sin­ believed,­the­“conscientized”­segment­of­the­minjung­could­succeed­in­imparting­“resolve”­(kag’o)­to­the­rest­of­the­minjung.­When­the­minjung­as­a­ whole­resolved­to­take­the­path­of­revolution,­all­the­cunning­and­savagery­ of­the­colonial­state­would­not­be­able­to­stop­the­revolution. ­ Thus­Sin­differentiated­between­the­“awakened”­minjung­and­the­“not­ awakened”­minjung,­but­this­distinction­was­not­at­all­similar­to­the­kind­ of­external­and­manipulative­relationship­that­characterized­the­Leninist­

111

112

ChapTer Three

conception­of­relations­between­the­“vanguard”­and­the­“masses.”­Sin­resisted­the­Leninist­idea­that­the­“for­itself”­of­the­revolutionary­subject­was­ accessible­only­to­the­enlightened­vanguard.­Indeed­even­as­he­called­for­a­ revolution,­his­language­echoed­the­moralistic­tone­of­Kropotkin.­The­exploitative­economic­system­swallows­up­the­people­(minjung)­in­order­to­ fatten­thieves,­but­this­system­of­plunder­must­be­destroyed­in­order­to­improve­the­lives­of­the­people.­In­all­societies­with­inequalities,­the­strong­ oppress­the­weak,­the­high-­born­stand­above­the­humble,­and­the­people­ have­to­plunder,­excoriate,­and­envy­one­another.­At­first­the­majority­of­the­ people­are­harmed­for­the­happiness­of­a­few.­But­later­the­privileged­few­ struggle­among­themselves­so­that­the­people­are­harmed­even­more.­Thus­ the­happiness­of­all­the­people­can­be­attained­only­with­the­eradication­of­ social­inequalities.80 ­ In­spite­of­this­seemingly­immutable­commitment­to­an­egalitarian­ideal,­ many­conservative­intellectuals­assume­that­had­Sin­lived­to­see­Korea­liberated­he­would­have­abandoned­his­anarchism.81­But­it­was­his­assertion­ that­an­unfettered­people­would­construct­communities­based­on­equality,­ cooperation,­ and­ reason.­ Although­ Korea’s­ liberation­ from­ colonial­ rule­ was­a­fundamental­goal­of­the­revolution,­the­“privileged­classes”­(t’ŭkkwŏn kyegŭp)­which­oppress­the­“Korean­people”­(Chosŏn minjung,­in­quotations­ in­the­original­text),­including­the­colonial­administration,­were­to­be­overthrown­so­as­to­recover­an­“unfettered­people”­(chayujŏk Chosŏn minjung).­ The­emergence­of­an­unfettered­people,­and­the­communities­they­would­ create­based­on­equality,­cooperation,­and­reason,­could­not­be­brought­ about­through­the­power­of­any­nation-­state. ­ Here,­then,­was­a­political­program­that­went­beyond­national­and­individual­sovereignty­and­a­historical­view­that­undermined­the­continuous,­ unified­narrative­of­the­nation.­To­those­who­fear­the­unraveling­of­capitalist­sovereignty­Sin­might­say,­“Those­who­do­not­know­how­to­build­do­ not­know­how­to­destroy,­and­those­who­do­not­know­how­to­destroy­do­ not­know­how­to­build.­Construction­and­destruction­are­different­only­in­ appearance.­In­the­mind,­destruction­is­immediately­construction.”82­After­ the­Korean­War,­state­nationalism­as­it­emerged­in­both­North­and­South­ Korea­all­but­overwhelmed­and­swamped­such­autonomous­forms­of­imagination.­Sin’s­turn­to­anarchism­(where­the­all-­embracing­identity­of­minjok­is­replaced­by­the­more­partisan­category­of­minjung)­already­suggested­ that­minjok­by­itself­could­no­longer­serve­as­a­democratic­imaginary,­was­

naTionaLizinG korea’s pasT

no­ longer­ able­ to­ reveal­ and­ subvert­ a­ wide­ range­ of­ subordinated­ subject­positions­such­as­woman,­worker,­tenant­farmer,­and­illiterate.­Before­ the­end­of­the­colonial­period,­a­more­democratic­historiography­would­ emerge­as­a­critique­of­nationalist­historiography,­by­showing­how­claims­ staked­out­by­other­identities­have­often­been­suppressed­or­marginalized­ by­the­discourse­on­minjok.

113

chapter four universaLizinG korea’s pasT Beyond­ critical­ readings­ of­ those­ classical­ [dynastic]­ histories,­ we­ have­ taken­on­the­task­of­gathering­and­analyzing,­consistent­with­the­highest­ standards­of­modern­historiography,­all­the­materials­that­were­scattered­ or­ignored,­all­kinds­of­shards­and­fragments,­to­establish­a­progressive­historiography­of­the­entirety­of­national­ life.­That­[kind­of­historiography]­ does­not­simply­present­the­past­for­self-­critique;­it­constitutes­our­perspective­on­what­lies­ahead.­It­is­this­that­gives­historiography­its­politicality­[silch’ŏnsŏng],­and­prescribes­the­general­direction­[of­political­struggle]. —PAEk­nAM-­u n,­Chōsen shakai keizaishi,­1933

In­ a­ Korean-­language­ article­ published­ in­ Chungang­ in­ November­ 1933,­ three­months­after­the­publication­of­his­first­major­work,­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­(A­Social­Economic­History­of­Korea),­Paek­Nam-­un­sought­to­ reach­out­to­a­broad­Korean­audience­in­his­approach­to­writing­Korean­ history.­Written­in­Japanese­and­published­in­Tokyo,­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­ was­the­first­comprehensive­socioeconomic­history­of­ancient­Korea,­and­ its­publication­was­promptly­celebrated­by­intellectual­circles­in­both­Japan­ and­colonial­Korea.­In­the­Chungang­article,­consistent­with­his­materialist­ stance,­Paek­refused­to­portray­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­as­groundbreaking­ scholarship,­insisting­instead­that­the­book­should­be­read­as­an­initial­articulation­of­an­already­existing­societal­(class)­consciousness­arising­from­ present-­day­ realities­ confronting­ Koreans.­ At­ the­ same­ time­ he­ insisted­ that­he­had­to­be­free­to­present­a­critical­reading­of­historical­sources­and,­ “as­a­Korean­scholar,”­free­to­engage­in­“scientific­debate”­with­“ordinary­ popular­conceptions.”1 ­ The­tension­between­Paek’s­claim­that­his­work­articulated­an­already­ existing­ consciousness­ and­ his­ contention­ that­ Korean­ historians­ must­ challenge­ordinary­popular­conceptions­gives­some­indication­of­the­forbidding­intellectual­terrain­that­he­and­other­Korean­Marxists­occupied­in­ the­early­1930s­in­colonial­Korea.­The­Peace­Preservation­Law­of­1925,­as­ amended­in­1928,­had­made­it­a­capital­offense­to­organize­or­lead­any­or-

universaLizinG korea’s pasT

ganization­that­threatened­the­kokutai­(national­body/structure).­Militant­ leftists­and­futei senjin­(malcontent­Koreans)­were­the­main­targets­of­the­ Peace­Preservation­Law­in­Japan,­as­well­as­in­colonial­Korea.­In­Japan,­futei senjin­was­a­frequently­used­pejorative­term­that­gained­currency­when,­ in­ the­ wake­ of­ the­ forced­ abdication­ of­ Emperor­ Kojong­ in­ 1907,­ Righteous­ Armies­ (ŭibyŏng)­ in­ Korea­ launched­ armed­ struggle­ against­ Japanese­forces.­In­the­immediate­aftermath­of­the­Great­Kantō­Earthquake­of­ 1923,­the­fear­and­anxiety­among­the­Japanese­public­that­had­accompanied­ Korean­resistance­to­colonization­gave­way­to­wild­rumors­that­Koreans­ were­taking­advantage­of­the­catastrophe­by­perpetrating­rape,­arson,­and­ seditious­riots.­Vigilantes­set­up­checkpoints­and­massacred­over­six­thousand­people­in­the­Tokyo-­Yokohama­area­whom­they­identified­as­Korean.2 ­ With­the­onset­of­the­Great­Depression­in­1929­the­price­of­rice­dropped­ precipitously,­leading­to­even­greater­hardship­in­the­Korean­countryside.­ In­1930,­50­to­60­percent­of­farm­income­came­from­rice,­and­when­prices­ dropped,­the­loss­in­income­was­passed­down­to­the­tenant­farmers.­After­ the­invasion­of­Manchuria­in­1931,­censorship­and­police­surveillance­became­more­intense,­and­with­the­elimination­of­many­socialists­and­communists­ from­ various­ movements­ and­ institutions­ Marxist­ intellectuals­ like­Paek­Nam-­un­were,­to­a­large­extent,­isolated­from­institutions­that­ could­shape­ordinary­popular­conceptions.­Between­1925­and­1928­there­ had­been­four­attempts­to­establish­a­Korean­Communist­Party­inside­of­ colonial­Korea,­but­all­ended­in­mass­arrests.­Colonial­police­kept­former­ Korean­Communist­Party­members­and­fellow­travelers­under­more­or­less­ permanent­surveillance­even­after­they­had­served­their­prison­terms.­By­ 1928­it­had­become­impossible­to­sustain­a­revolutionary­movement­within­ colonial­Korea—the­Japanese­authorities­were­too­efficient—and­the­locus­ and­ leadership­ of­ the­ Korean­ communist­ movement­ shifted­ to­ overseas­ bases.3 ­ Many­of­the­institutions­that­attempted­to­shape­ordinary­popular­conceptions­were­ideological­apparatuses­of­the­Japanese­colonial­state:­the­ public­school­system,­certain­religious­institutions,­and,­as­described­by­ Chulwoo­Lee,­the­police,­who­“conducted­surveys,­supervised­public­hygiene,­directed­residents­in­road­building­and­repair,­gave­instructions­on­ farming,­exhorted­people­to­take­side-­jobs­and­to­save­money,­acted­as­conciliators­in­private­disputes,­enforced­court­judgments,­organized­meetings­ for­ideological­propaganda,­and­so­on.”4­The­Buddhist­organization­Chōsen­

115

116

ChapTer Four

Bukkyōdan­(K:­Chosŏn­Pulgyodan),­for­example,­was­founded­as­part­of­ the­colonial­project­of­Japanese-­Korean­reconciliation.­As­Micah­Auerback­ points­out,­however,­Chōsen­Bukkyōdan­never­overcame­the­tensions­between­the­Japanese­and­Korean­Buddhist­communities.­Based­on­a­close­ reading­of­both­Japanese-­and­Korean-­language­articles­in­Chōsen Bukkyō,­ the­ newsletter­ of­ the­ Chōsen­ Bukkyōdan,­ Auerback­ concludes­ that­ because­of­the­Japanese­sense­of­entitlement­and­ethnic­and­cultural­superiority,­publications­like­Chōsen Bukkyō­ultimately­failed­to­generate­among­ Korean­readers­a­sense­of­intimacy­with­the­Japanese,­known­as­ch’in-Il,­ commonly­translated­as­pro-Japanese.5 ­ For­a­little­more­than­a­decade­after­the­March­First­Movement­of­1919,­ a­“cultural­policy”­had­replaced­the­patently­coercive­policies­of­the­first­ decade­of­colonial­rule.­Under­the­banner­of­“Harmony­between­Japan­and­ Korea”­(Naisen yūwa),­flogging­as­a­form­of­punishment­was­abolished,­the­ Corporation­Law­that­had­prevented­Koreans­from­starting­modern­enterprises­was­abolished,6­and­permits­were­granted­for­independent­Korean-­ language­newspapers­and­magazines.­Korean-­language­publications­proliferated­ and­ tested­ the­limits­ of­censorship­ laws.­ As­Michael­ Robinson­ points­out,­until­1932­the­colonial­state­maintained­a­dual­set­of­publication­ laws:­one­for­Japanese-­language­publications,­another­for­Korean-­language­ publications.­Whereas­Japanese-­language­materials­were­subject­to­postpublication­censorship,­Korean-­language­newspapers­and­magazines­were­ subject­to­prepublication­censorship.­Moreover­the­police­applied­a­secondary­dual­policy­of­censorship­toward­Korean­publications,­repressing­ radical­publications­and­tolerating­apolitical­expressions­of­national­pride­ and­aspiration.­Of­the­publications­that­were­suspended­permanently­in­ the­1920s—magazines­like­Sinsaenghwal,­Shinch’ŏnji,­and­Kaebyŏk—all­had­ relentlessly­advanced­leftist­or­uncompromising­nationalist­views.7 ­ Even­though­they­often­questioned­colonial­policy­and­popularized­national­narratives­that­seemingly­countered­colonialist­narratives,­nationalist­newspapers­like­Tonga ilbo­and­Chosŏn ilbo­were­seen­as­less­threatening­ and­allowed­to­carry­on.­For­the­nationalist­press,­there­was­a­market­for­ counternarratives­within­colonial­Korea,­and­the­stature­and­circulation­of­ Tonga ilbo­and­Chosŏn ilbo­rose­in­tandem­with­its­“nationalist/anti-­colonial­ quotient.”­By­the­early­1930s,­as­Robinson­notes,­a­process­of­financial­attrition­and­police­repression­had­eliminated­politically­oriented­journals,­ while­Tonga ilbo­and­Chosŏn ilbo­became­major­publishing­groups­that­prof-

universaLizinG korea’s pasT

ited­from­the­publication­of­slick­magazines­for­a­mass­audience.8­It­was­ this­commercialized,­politically­restrained­publishing­industry­that­helped­ shape­“ordinary­popular­conceptions”­at­the­time­Paek­Nam-­un­wrote­Chōsen shakai keizaishi. ­ From­the­point­of­view­of­Marxists­like­Paek,­the­national­narratives­disseminated­in­newspapers­like­Tonga ilbo­did­not­fundamentally­subvert­the­ hierarchies­and­categories­of­knowledge­established­by­the­Japanese­colonial­state.­On­the­one­hand,­the­Bolshevik­Revolution­and­subsequent­sniping­from­Korean­Marxists­had­forced­many­nationalist­intellectuals­to­“discover­society”­(sahoe)­and­the­impoverished­masses­(minjung)­as­historical,­ political,­and­ethical­categories­that­had­to­complement­the­discourse­on­ the­ethnic­nation­(minjok).­On­the­other­hand,­after­the­dissolution­of­the­ united­front­organization­Sin’ganhoe­(New­Trunk­Society,­新幹會)­in­1931,­ nationalist­intellectuals­had­become­even­more­hostile­to­Marxists.­The­ Sin’ganhoe,­ organized­ in­ 1927,­ had­ sought­ to­ bridge­ the­ gap­ between­ a­ dwindling­number­of­communists­and­unwavering­nationalists.­Both­communists­and­nationalists­had­called­for­unity­since­the­early­1920s,­but­the­ catalyst­for­actually­creating­a­broad­united­front­came­in­late­1925,­when­ it­seemed­that­some­of­the­principal­leaders­in­the­“cultural­nationalist”­ camp­were­contemplating­more­“realistic”­goals­in­place­of­outright­independence. ­ The­influential­writer­Yi­Kwang-­su­had­gone­on­record­calling­for­home­ rule­ (chach’i),­ thereby­ accepting­ Japan’s­ sovereignty­ over­ Korea.­ In­ late­ 1925­reports­surfaced­that­Ch’oe­Rin,­the­leader­of­a­Ch’ŏndogyo­faction,­ along­with­Kim­Sŏng-­su­and­Song­Chin-­u,­who­ran­Tonga ilbo,­were­engaged­in­serious­discussion­with­the­colonial­authorities­about­the­possibility­of­home­rule.9­It­was­this­that­prompted­the­first­real­agreement­between­communists­and­unwavering­nationalists­like­An­Chae-­hong,­editor­ of­Chosŏn ilbo,­to­create­a­broad­united­front­organization.10­An­had­become­ the­chief­editor­of­the­Korean-­language­daily­in­1924,­and­in­1927­he­had­ played­a­leading­role­in­organizing­Sin’ganhoe.­In­1931­he­opposed­the­communists’­call­for­the­dissolution­of­the­Sin’ganhoe,­but­to­no­avail.­Nationalists­like­An­shared­a­similar­dilemma­with­communists:­how­to­create­and­ sustain­an­effective­united­front­between­the­communists­and­nationalists­ but­at­the­same­time­maintain­their­distinct­ideological­“identity,”­continue­ their­polemics­against­the­other’s­ideological­stance,­and­extend­hegemony­ over­the­entire­united­front.11­Among­communists,­those­whose­“national-

117

118

ChapTer Four

ist­quotients”­were­high­were­labeled­“petit­bourgeois”­and­“right-­wing­opportunists.”­Those­whose­“class­militancy”­led­to­the­collapse­of­the­united­ front­(and­political­isolation)­were­labeled­“left-­wing­extremists.”12 ­ When­ Sin’ganhoe­ was­ founded­ in­ February­ 1927,­ the­ Tonga ilbo­ management­(Kim­Sŏng-­su­and­Song­Chin-­u)­were­obliged­to­support­it,­and­ its­unambiguous­goal­of­continuing­the­struggle­for­Korea’s­independence­ through­political­resistance­effectively­shelved­any­plans­for­organizing­a­ movement­for­home­rule.­Even­after­joining­the­Sin’ganhoe,­however,­Kim­ and­Song­did­not­abandon­the­idea­of­home­rule,­and­before­the­organization’s­dissolution­in­1931,­a­less­intractable­leadership­flirted­with­the­idea.­ When­the­alliance­between­the­Kuomintang­and­the­Chinese­Communist­ Party­collapsed­in­1927,­resulting­in­the­deaths­of­thousands­of­Chinese­ communists—and­many­Korean­communists­as­well13—the­fourth­executive­committee­of­the­Korean­Communist­Party­(1928)­tried­to­prevent­a­ comparable­catastrophe­by­creating­a­powerful­worker-­peasant­bloc­within­ the­Sin’ganhoe­to­prevent­the­“reformist­bourgeoisie”­from­gaining­hegemony­over­the­united­ front,­but­without­success.­The­Japanese­authorities,­for­their­part,­were­sympathetic­and­yet­guarded­about­the­idea­of­ home­rule­for­Koreans.­Serious­consideration­of­home­rule­stopped­with­ the­implementation­of­the­Naisen­Ittai­policy­in­the­mid-­1930s.14­By­1931­ the­communists­and­the­Japanese­colonial­authorities­were­ready­to­dissolve­the­Sin’ganhoe.­Not­all­leftists­agreed­with­this­decision,­and­most­ nationalists­in­the­Sin’ganhoe,­including­An­Chae-­hong,­tried­to­prevent­ the­dissolution.­The­communists’­decision­to­dissolve­the­organization­in­ 1931­was­anticipated­in­the­Comintern’s­December­Theses­of­1928,­which­ pointed­to­the­error­of­ceding­leadership­of­the­united­front­to­the­nationalists.­But­the­actual­dissolution­came­as­a­response­to­the­sharply­different­ context­of­1931:­Japan’s­invasion­of­Manchuria,­the­strengthening­of­fascist­ movements­around­the­world,­and­the­heightened­necessity­of­differentiating­revolutionary­international­solidarity­from­nationalist­politics.­After­ the­dissolution­of­the­Sin’ganhoe­until­the­beginning­of­the­Pacific­War,­the­ remaining­Korean­communists­focused­their­effort­on­carrying­out­revolution­from­below. ­ It­was­in­this­political­and­intellectual­context,­as­ideological­divisions­ among­ Korean­ intellectuals­ became­ much­ more­ pronounced,­ that­ Paek­ Nam-­un­published­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­in­1931­and­Chōsen hōken shakai keizaishi­ (Economic­ History­ of­ Korean­ Feudal­ Society)­ in­ 1937.15­ In­ both­ books­Paek­took­issue­with­“stagnation­theory,”­then­prevalent­in­Japanese­

universaLizinG korea’s pasT

socioeconomic­historiography­on­Korea,­reacting­specifically­to­Fukuda­Tokuzō’s­assertion­that­feudalism­and­private­ownership­of­land­had­failed­to­ emerge­in­Korea.­For­Fukuda,­despite­dramatic­social­and­dynastic­changes­in­ Korean­history,­such­as­the­transition­from­the­Koryŏ­dynasty­to­the­Chosŏn­ dynasty,­Korea’s­social-­economic­structure­had­failed­to­change,­and­thus­ the­level­of­development­in­late­nineteenth-­century­Korea­was­comparable­ to­that­of­tenth-­century­Fujiwara­Japan.­Fukuda’s­assumptions­regarding­the­ stages­of­economic­development­came­from­the­work­of­Karl­Bücher,­who­ wrote­that­economic­development­advances­in­stages,­from­a­natural­economy­to­a­city­or­burg­economy­to­a­national­economy.­Based­on­a­twenty-­day­ trip­to­Korea­in­1902,­Fukuda­was­able­to­conclude­that,­without­a­feudal­ class,­transactions­between­producer­and­consumer­could­not­evolve­from­ credit­to­a­fully­monetary­economy,­and­Korea­remained­stuck­at­the­stage­of­ an­ancient­village­economy­(Bücher’s­natural­economy).16­In­opposition­also­ to­Japanese­Marxist­historiography­on­Korea,­which­tended­to­view­Korean­ society­as­truly­“Asiatic,”­Paek’s­aim­was­to­show­that­the­Korean­society­and­ economy­had­developed­in­accordance­with­universal­stages­of­development­ and­as­a­result­of­social-economic­forces­internal­to­Korea. ­ Paek­ also­ took­ to­ task­ Korean­ nationalist­ historians­ like­ Sin­ Ch’ae-­ho­ and­Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn­(1890–1957)­for­their­idealist,­particularist­view­of­history,­which­he­saw­as­an­antique­inheritance­from­the­nineteenth­century,­ suited­to­the­needs­of­emerging­capitalist­nations­like­Germany­and­Japan­ in­their­confrontation­with­advanced­capitalist­powers­like­England.­But­ this­historiography,­which­depicted­Korea’s­past­as­if­it­formed­a­unique­ “mikrokosmus,”­did­not­suit­the­political­needs­of­the­people­in­colonial­ Korea;­it­suited­the­needs­only­of­“wandering­scholars”­(p’yŏnnyŏk hakdo; fahrender Shüler)­fond­of­collecting­“antiques.”­By­grounding­their­historical­narrative­on­idealist­concepts­like­hon­or­ŏl­(Spirit,­Mind,­or­Geist),­Paek­ argued,­the­idealist­and­particularist­histories­in­the­end­only­reinforced­ colonialist­historiography­by­emphasizing­Korean­uniqueness.17­For­Paek,­ the­particularity­of­Korean­social­formations­represented­only­the­particularity­of­universal­history­as­manifested­in­Korea.

Paek­Nam-­un’s­Social­Economic­History The­ characterization­ of­leftists­ as­ embracing­ universalism­ and­ nationalists­as­embracing­particularism­reduces­to­a­simple­but­nevertheless­useful­ dichotomy­what­is­actually­a­very­complicated­intellectual­terrain­in­the­

119

120

ChapTer Four

early­1930s.­Many­aspects­of­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­went­against­the­grain­ of­nationalist­historiography,­including­Paek’s­treatment­of­Tan’gun­(檀君),­ the­mythical­progenitor­of­the­Korean­nation.­In­the­precolonial­period,­ starting­in­the­latter­half­of­the­1890s,­the­story­of­Tan’gun­was­central­to­ the­historical­narrative­that­de-­centered­China­and­established­Korean­sovereignty­in­the­nation-­state­system.­Since­its­establishment­in­1895,­all­of­ the­history­textbooks­published­by­the­Korean­government’s­Ministry­of­ Education­(hakmun­amun,­hakbu)­presented­Tan’gun­as­the­founder­of­the­ first­Korean­state.­Textbooks­published­until­1906­presented­Tan’gun­as­a­ deity­(sinin,­ 神人)­and­the­founding­of­ancient­Chosŏn­as­a­sacred­event.­ Chosŏn yŏksa,­the­first­history­textbook­published­by­the­newly­established­ Ministry­of­Education,­referred­to­Tan’gun­as­a­deity.­Published­in­1895,­ the­Tan’gun­story­in­Chosŏn yŏksa­was­taken­from­Kwŏn­Kŭn’s­text­Ŭnjesiju­ (1396).­Confucian­literati­like­Kwŏn­claimed­Tan’gun­as­the­first­ruler­of­ the­Korean­state.­The­passage­taken­from­Ŭnjesiju­reads,­“Long­ago­when­ the­deity­[sinin]­descended­by­the­pakdal­tree­[Betula schmidtii]­the­people­ [kugin,­國人]­accepted­him­as­their­sovereign.”18 ­ Japanese­historians,­on­the­other­hand,­starting­in­the­late­nineteenth­ century­and­continuing­through­the­end­of­the­colonial­period,­treated­the­ Tan’gun­story­as­myth­(mythos)­not­just­in­the­sense­of­not­being­history­ (historia­and­logos),­but­as­a­fable­created­only­centuries­earlier.­In­the­ 1890s­ Naka­ Michio­ and­ then­ Shiratori­ Kurakichi­ dismissed­ the­Tan’gun­ story­as­a­story­fabricated­in­the­thirteenth­century­by­the­Buddhist­monk­ Iryŏn.­In­the­1920s­historians­like­Inaba­Iwakichi­continued­to­dismiss­the­ Tan’gun­story­as­a­narrative­created­in­the­thirteenth­century,­even­while­ speculating­about­the­shamanistic­elements­in­the­story­that­belonged­to­a­ much­more­distant­past.­For­Japanese­historians­to­give­historical­veracity­ to­the­Tan’gun­story­would­have­meant­confirming­not­just­the­sovereign­ origins­of­the­first­Korean­state­but­also­Korea’s­claim­to­a­much­older­history:­Tan’gun’s­birth­dated­to­2333­bcE;­Iwarebiko,­or­Emperor­Jimmu,­the­ first­legendary­emperor­of­Japan,­was­said­to­have­established­his­throne­in­ 660­bcE. ­ Starting­with­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­the­initial­nationalist­response­to­Japanese­ (and­Western)­ discrediting­ of­the­Tan’gun­ story­was­to­separate­out­the­ mythic­ elements­ from­ the­ “historical,”­ to­ trace­ Koreans’­ ethnic-­national­ origin,­and­essential­culture,­back­to­Tan’gun­as­a­historical­figure­who­had­ established­Ancient­Chosŏn.­In­the­1920s,­with­greater­freedom­in­pub-

universaLizinG korea’s pasT

lishing­afforded­by­the­colonial­government’s­“Cultural­Policy,”­and­with­ ethnographic­and­folklore­studies­introduced­by­Japanese­scholars­that­reconstituted­myth,­and­the­study­of­myth,­as­anything­but­an­antithesis­to­ science,­ Korean­ historians­ found­ new­ ways­ of­ historicizing­ the­ Tan’gun­ story.19­Drawing­on­scholarship­on­totems,­taboos,­and­shamanism,­Ch’oe­ Nam-­sŏn­drew­attention­to­the­practice­of­heaven­worship­and­theocracy­ as­exemplified­in­the­Tan’gun­narrative.­As­a­nationalist­historian,­Ch’oe­ Nam-­sŏn­ read­ the­ Tan’gun­ story­ as­ the­ expression­ of­ religious­ practice­ dating­to­prehistoric­times,­an­ancient­narrative­that­indicated­a­common­ cultural­sphere­for­all­of­northeast­Asia­centered­around­Ancient­Chosŏn,­ which­he­referred­to­as­a­Purham­cultural­sphere,­a­cultural­sphere­that­in­ its­importance­and­geographic­scope­rivaled­that­of­the­Chinese,­Indian,­ and­European­cultural­spheres.20 ­ In­Chōsen shakai keizaishi,­Paek­also­treated­the­Tan’gun­foundation­story­ as­a­myth,­but­a­myth­that­opens­a­window­into­social relations­in­Korea’s­ prehistoric­ era.­ Paek­ rejected­ both­ nationalist­ (religious)­ readings­ of­ Tan’gun­that­were­“far-­fetched”­and­colonialist­readings­that­were­“fraudulently­ rational.”21­ In­ the­ genealogy­ of­ Tan’gun­ that­ begins­ with­ Hwanin­ (Ruler­of­Heaven),­Hwanung­(son­of­Hwanin),­and­the­bear­whom­Hwanin­ transformed­into­a­woman­and­whom­Hwanung­married,­giving­birth­to­ Tan’gun,­the­founder­of­ancient­Chosŏn,­Paek­saw­evidence­of­the­beginnings­of­both­class­differentiation­and­the­privileging­of­the­male­over­the­ female­descent­line­in­primitive­times.­Drawing­on­theories­of­phonological­change­in­historical­linguistics,­Paek­argued­that­the­name­Tan’gun­was­ originally­an­honorific­title­for­a­male­aristocratic­chieftain­(wŏnsi kwijokin namgye ch’ujang).22 ­ In­addition­to­his­interpretation­of­the­Tan’gun­story,­Paek­also­thought­ he­had­found­evidence­of­matrilineality­and­promiscuity­in­Korea’s­primitive­communal­society.­He­thought­he­had­found­evidence­of­a­Punaluan­ family­ structure­ in­ Korea’s­ ancient­ past­ based­ on­ his­ philological­ study­ of­ kinship­ terms­ such­ as­ menuri­ (daughter-­in-­law),­ manura­ (wife),­ and­ nui­(sister);­according­to­Paek,­these­terms­all­originated­from­an­older­ Korean­word—not­derived­from­Chinese­compounds—that­meant­sleeping companion.­For­Lewis­H.­Morgan,­Hawaiian­kinship­terms­like­Punalua­ referred­to­the­earliest­marriage­forms­in­human­evolutionary­history.23­ Drawing­on­Morgan’s­work,­via­Frederick­Engels,­Paek­assumed­that­kinship­terminology­referred­to­consanguinity­and­family­structures;­he­as-

121

122

ChapTer Four

sumed,­in­other­words,­that­terms­like­menuri, manura,­and­nui­were­the­ “precipitates”­of­extinct­forms­of­sexual­practices­and­family­structures.­For­ Paek,­the­Korean­equivalent­to­the­Punaluan­family­was­the­tongsŏ kajok­ of­Korea’s­distant­past.24­As­in­Morgan’s­work,­Paek’s­could­provide­little­ evidence­that­specific­nomenclature­indicates­consanguinity­rather­than­ simply­terms­of­address­or­labels­for­social­relations.­Moreover­Paek­did­ not­problematize­the­kind­of­historicism­that­rendered­sexual­practices­and­ family­organizations­associated­with­contemporary­“primitive”­societies­as­ survivals­of­early­historical­stages. ­ Like­many­others­in­the­mid-­nineteenth­century,­Morgan­aimed­to­articulate­ a­ grand­ theory­ of­ human­ history,­ a­ theory­ of­ cultural­ evolution­ that­would­replace­the­“theory­of­human­degradation­to­explain­the­existence­of­savages­and­barbarians”:­“As­it­is­undeniable­that­portions­of­the­ human­family­have­existed­in­a­state­of­savagery,­other­portions­in­a­state­ of­barbarism,­and­still­others­in­a­state­of­civilization,­it­seems­equally­so­ that­ these­ three­ distinct­ conditions­ are­ connected­ with­ each­ other­ in­ a­ natural­as­well­as­necessary­sequence­of­progress.”25­Adopting­Morgan’s­ vision­of­human­cultural­evolution­in­toto,­Engels­argued­in­Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State­that­the­concept­of­incest­and­the­emotion­referred­to­as­jealousy­emerged­as­humanity­evolved­out­of­the­primitive­ stage.­ In­ primitive­ society,­ promiscuous­ sexual­ intercourse­ was­ the­ rule:­every­woman­belonged­equally­to­every­man,­and­every­man­to­every­ woman.­In­the­evolution­of­the­family,­then,­the­first­stage­was­the­Consanguine­Family,­wherein­parents­and­children­were­proscribed­from­having­ sexual­relations.­At­this­stage,­marriage­groups­were­arranged­according­to­ generations:­all­the­grandfathers­and­grandmothers­within­the­limits­of­the­ family­were­all­mutual­husbands­and­wives,­the­same­being­the­case­with­ their­children;­brothers­and­sisters,­male­and­female­cousins­of­the­first,­ second,­and­more­remote­degrees­were­all­mutually­brothers­and­sisters,­ and­precisely­because­of­this,­they­were­all­mutually­husbands­and­wives. ­ The­second­stage­in­the­evolution­of­the­family­was­the­Punaluan­Family­ (the­ Hawaiian­ system­ of­ consanguinity).­ At­ this­ stage,­ not­ only­ parents­ and­children­but­brothers­and­sisters­were­proscribed­from­having­sexual­ relations.­This­was­accomplished­gradually,­commencing­with­the­exclusion­of­brothers­and­sisters­(on­the­maternal­side)­from­sexual­relations;­ one­or­more­groups­of­sisters­became­the­nucleus­of­one­household,­their­ natural­brothers­the­nucleus­of­the­other.­This­meant­that­a­group­of­natu-

universaLizinG korea’s pasT

ral­or­collateral­brothers­held­in­common­marriage­a­number­of­women,­ who­ were­ not­ their­ sisters,­ and­ these­ women­ addressed­ one­ another­ as­ punalua.­Similarly­a­number­of­sisters,­either­natural­or­collateral,­were­ the­common­wives­of­their­common­husbands,­excluding­their­brothers.26­ Paek’s­(erroneous)­discovery­of­the­Punalua­Family­structure­prior­to­the­ Three­Kingdoms­period­was­nevertheless­significant­not­only­in­the­sense­ that­it­initiated­social­economic­studies­of­Korea’s­ancient­past,­but­also­because­it­placed­Korea­within­a­linear­evolutionary­narrative­that­coincided­ with­“historical­laws”­at­work­in­all­societies:­the­Korean­nation­(minjok)­ started­ from­ primitive­ communal­ tribes,­ giving­ rise­ to­ the­ slave­ society­ in­the­Three­Kingdoms­period­(first­to­seventh­centuries),­Asiatic­feudal­ society­beginning­with­the­“Unified”­Silla­period­(seventh­to­tenth­centuries),­with­incipient­capitalism­emerging­in­late­Chosŏn­starting­in­the­ eighteenth­century. ­ Paek­expected­an­angry­reaction­from­nationalist­intellectuals,­since­he­ had­ deliberately­ set­ out­ to­ demolish,­ in­ one­ stroke,­ the­ epistemological­ foundations­ of­colonialist­ historiography­and­Korean­nationalist­ historiography,­asserting­that­they­shared­a­common­epistemological­ground.27­ Elsewhere­ he­ stated­ unequivocally­ that,­ in­ his­ trek­ back­ and­ forth­ over­ four­to­five­thousand­years­of­Korean­history,­he­did­not­discover­anything­ that­particularly­distinguished­the­Korean­social­system­from­that­of­other­ “cultured­nations”­(munhwa minjok).28­He­admitted,­however,­that­the­particularist­view­of­Korea’s­past­had­stubbornly­persisted.­In­truth,­the­“culture­movement”­(munhwa undong)­of­the­1920s­had­taken­on­new­life­in­ the­aftermath­of­the­dissolution­of­the­Sin’ganhoe­in­1931.­Korean-­language­ dailies­ like­ the­Tonga ilbo­ and­Chosŏn ilbo,­under­ the­leadership­of­Song­ Chin-­u­ (1889–1945)­ and­ An­ Chae-­hong­ (1891–1965),­ respectively,­ were­ able­to­mobilize­broad­public­support­in­the­early­1930s­for­the­Movement­ to­ Preserve­ Historical­ Relics­ (Kojŏk­ pojŏn­ undong)­ and­ the­ Movement­ to­Revitalize­ Korean­ Studies­ (Chosŏnhak­ undong).29­These­ movements,­ launched­in­defense­of­Korean­culture,­drew­strength­from­and­in­turn­bolstered­reactionary­politics­and­nationalist-­essentialist­(kuksujuŭijŏk)­historiography­that­reified­a­unified,­continuous­past. ­ Two­fairly­typical­editorials­in­the­Tonga ilbo­and­an­essay­by­Yi­Kwang-­su­ made­the­case­for­building­a­national­culture­this­way.­In­1932­Yi­wrote,­ “Religion­and­ideology­emerge,­vanish,­and­change.­[But]­the­nation­[minjok]­is­unchangeable!­The­nation­is­an­enduring­entity,­and­the­term­minjok­

123

124

ChapTer Four

should­not­be­belittled.”­In­January­1934­an­editorial­in­Tonga ilbo­declared,­ “National­ culture­ cannot­ be­ completed­ with­ one­ class­ or­ region,­ and­ it­ should­not­be­completed­with­one­class­or­region.­.­.­.­The­whole­nation­ [minjok]­has­to­gather­its­strength­and­work­together­to­build­a­national­ culture­that­would­not­be­inferior­to­that­of­any­other­nation.”30­Regardless­of­their­intention,­from­Paek’s­point­of­view,­the­essentialist­views­of­ Korean­nationalists,­along­with­calls­for­unity,­integrity,­and­trust,­dovetailed­with­the­Japanese­ colonialist­ discourse­on­“Korea’s­ unique­condition”­(Chōsen tokushū jijō),­which­also­served­as­ideological­justification­for­ coercive­and­autocratic­methods­employed­by­the­colonial­state.­Paek,­of­ course,­was­careful­to­distinguish­between­the­two.­But­to­the­extent­that­ both­rejected­the­applicability­of­laws­of­historical­development­(that­is,­ the­Marxist­worldview),­fundamentally­their­politics­ran­parallel­to­each­ other­ and­ consequently­ both­ were­ reactionary.31­ Thus,­ although­ Paek’s­ polemics­seemed­to­be­directed­at­multiple­targets,­he­was­in­fact­suggesting­that­Korean­nationalists­shared­a­common­philosophical­and­political­ ground­ with­ the­ Japanese­ colonial­ state.­ He­ chose­ to­ call­ this­ common­ ground­“­particularism.” ­ Paek’s­indictment­of­particularism­was­not­a­mere­academic­exercise.­ The­Wanpaoshan­Incident­of­1931­illustrated­the­complicity­between­the­ particularism­of­Korean­nationalism­and­the­Japanese­Empire.­In­the­late­ 1920s­and­early­1930s,­as­the­Korean­population­in­Manchuria­expanded­ to­about­two­million,­the­persecution­of­Koreans­by­Chinese­authorities­ intensified;­Koreans­were­seen­as­an­instrument­of­Japanese­land­investors­ and­a­pretext­for­expansion­of­Japanese­control­over­Manchuria.­The­Chinese­government­had­tried­to­prevent­the­acquisition­of­land­by­Japanese­ individuals­or­corporations.­On­the­other­hand,­Koreans­who­obtained­Chinese­citizenship,­numbering­48,000­in­1931,­were­allowed­to­reside­anywhere—that­is,­they­were­not­limited­to­the­Chientao­region—and­to­purchase­or­lease­land.­According­to­Chinese­reports,­Koreans­with­Chinese­ citizenship­frequently­resold,­mortgaged,­or­leased­the­land­to­Japanese­ investors.­Unofficial­sources­suggest­that,­of­the­total­643,242­acres­of­land­ cultivated­by­Koreans­in­Manchuria­in­1929,­at­least­40­percent­was­really­ under­the­control­of­Japanese­land­speculators­and­mortgage­companies.32­ Japanese­consular­police­based­in­Chientao­intervened­on­behalf­of­Koreans­in­disputes­between­Koreans­and­Chinese,­based­on­the­argument­that­ Koreans­living­in­China­were­Japanese­subjects­and­thus­entitled­to­the­ protection­and­privileges­of­extraterritorial­status­granted­under­the­Treaty­

universaLizinG korea’s pasT

of­1915.­Indeed­many­Korean­settlers­in­Manchuria­who­had­obtained­Chinese­citizenship­in­order­to­reside­there­and­purchase­or­lease­land­outside­ of­the­Chientao­district­shifted­back­to­Japanese­citizenship­ in­order­to­ claim­protection­from­the­Japanese­consular­police.33 ­ In­ 1931,­ in­ a­ small­ town­ called­ Wanpaoshan­ in­ Manchuria,­ violent­ clashes­took­place­between­Chinese­and­Koreans.­Exaggerated­accounts­of­ “Chinese­landlords­massacring­Korean­peasants”­were­reported­in­Korean-­ language­newspapers­in­Korea­(Tonga ilbo,­Chosŏn ilbo).­The­newspapers­ failed­to­point­out­that­Japanese­consular­police­were­dispatched­to­protect­the­Korean­farmers.­It­seems­likely­that­the­rush­to­sensationalize­the­ incident­ was­ fueled­ by­ competition­ between­ Tonga ilbo­ and­ Chosŏn ilbo.­ Anti-­Chinese­ riots­ broke­ out­ in­ nearly­ all­ the­ major­ urban­ areas.­ In­ Inch’ŏn,­ Chinese­ stores­ were­ targeted.­ In­ Pyongyang,­ organized­ mobs­ attacked­ the­ Chinese­ quarter,­ breaking­ into­ houses­ and­ hacking­ to­ death­ scores­of­people,­including­women­and­children.­Approximately­127­Chinese­were­killed­and­393­were­injured.34­The­nationalist­press­had­whipped­ up­a­frenzy­of­anti-­Chinese­sentiment­that­suited­Japanese­plans­for­creating­the­puppet­state­of­Manchukuo.­Paek­Nam-­un’s­polemic­against­both­ nationalist­and­colonialist­historiography­was­very­much­grounded­in­concrete­political­questions­of­the­day.­The­communists­took­the­line­of­minjung yŏnhap:­unity­between­the­oppressed­Chinese­and­Korean­peoples.­It­ was­in­this­context­that­Paek­criticized­Korean­nationalist­(especially­nativist)­historiography­as­being­a­mirror­image­of­colonialist­historiography­in­ that­it­sought­to­narrate­Korean­history­in­terms­of­its­ancient­origins­and­ former­glory­and­power.­Irredentist­yearnings­(recovery­of­Manchuria­as­ the­ancient­birthplace­of­the­Korean­minjok),­on­the­one­hand,­and­Orientalist­representations­of­the­Chinese,­on­the­other,­displaced­attention­and­ resentment­away­from­Japanese­imperialism.­In­this­way,­nationalist­discourse­could­(and­did)­complement­or­reinforce­Japan’s­imperial­project.­ By­opposing­Japanese­exceptionalism­with­Korean­exceptionalism,­nationalist­historiography­only­reinforced­the­modes­of­thought­that­legitimated­ Japanese­imperialism.

Nationalist­Historiography­in­the­1930s After­Japan’s­invasion­of­Manchuria­in­1931,­open­and­legal­forms­of­political­resistance­became­impossible,­and­“unwavering­nationalists”­focused­ their­efforts­on­defending­the­knowledge­and­practice­of­things­Korean—

125

126

ChapTer Four

especially­Korean­language­and­history.­Forced­to­resign­from­Chosŏn ilbo­ in­1932,35­An­Chae-­hong­turned­his­full­attention­to­the­study­of­Korea’s­ past,­writing­historical­narratives­that­affirmed­difference­and­particularistic­claims­in­contradistinction­to­both­Japanese­policies­of­assimilation­and­ Marxist­politics­of­class­struggle.­His­inspiration­came­from­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­ the­brilliant­nationalist­historian­who­went­into­self-­imposed­exile­in­1910.­ An’s­appropriation­of­Sin’s­earlier­nationalist­historiography­resulted­in­a­ socially­grounded­nationalist­historiography­and­a­political­program­that­ he­ would­ later­ call­ “new­ nationalism”­ (sin-minjokjuŭi).­ As­ a­ nationalist­ historian­who­thought­seriously­about­the­category­of­subjugated­masses­ (minjung)­exploited­by­capitalism,­An­created­“new­nationalism”­as­a­progressive­form­of­nationalism­that­would­strive­to­resolve­conflict­between­ social­classes,­even­as­it­continued­to­privilege­the­unity­of­the­nation­and­ maintain­an­anticommunist­stance. ­ For­An,­Korea’s­ancient­past­was­a­kind­of­golden­age.­While­his­narrative­differed­sharply­from­colonialist­historiography­on­the­ancient­period,­ there­was­also­a­similarity,­as­in­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­historiography,­in­narrating­ subsequent­Korean­history­in­terms­of­a­decline.­Rejecting­Marxism­and­ Marxist­ historiography,­ An­ maintained­ that­ materiality­ and­ subjectivity­ were­always­mutually­constitutive,­and­he­sought­to­locate­in­Korea’s­ancient­past­an­intellectual,­religious,­and­cultural­chŏngsin­(Geist)­that­both­ identified­and­unified­the­Korean­ethnic­nation­in­relation­to­other­peoples.­ Just­as­subjectivity­could­constitute­a­material­force­in­history,­universality­ and­particularity­were­also­mutually­constitutive.­In­that­sense,­the­particularity­of­Korea’s­past­was­already­universal,­and­Korean­historians­need­ not­be­self-­conscious­about­accentuating­the­Korean­nation’s­distinctive­ subjectivity­that­linked­contemporary­Koreans­to­their­(brilliant)­ancient­ past.­An­identified­this­distinct­subjectivity­as­tasari chuŭi,­from­the­ancient­ Korean­word­for­the­number­five­(“all­digits­of­one­hand”)­that­he­claimed­ also­meant­“make­all­live.”­This­communitarian­and­democratic­ethos­produced­in­Korea’s­ancient­past­a­democratic­aristocracy,­a­community­in­ which­all­free­native­males­were­active,­participatory­citizens.­In­contemporary­times,­then,­tasari chuŭi­could­serve­as­the­historical­basis­for­a­new­ nationalism­and­new­democracy­that­would­obviate­class­exploitation­and­ conflict. ­ In­defense­of­Korea’s­sovereign­past,­An­refuted­the­notion­that­Kija­was­ a­nobleman­of­Shang­who­went­east­to­establish­(Kija)­Chosŏn­toward­the­ end­of­the­second­millennium­bcE.­According­to­texts­such­as­the­Shang-

universaLizinG korea’s pasT

shu dazhuan­and­the­Shiji,­following­Zhou’s­conquest­of­Shang,­King­Wu­of­ Zhou­enfeoffed­Kija­as­a­ruler­of­Chosŏn.­Such­texts,­written­centuries­after­ the­event,­when­incorporated­into­the­narrative­framework­of­Mansenshi­ and­ tōyōshi,­ presented­ Kija­ Chosŏn­ as­ a­ “Chinese”­ colony,­ undercutting­ any­notion­of­a­sovereign,­autochthonous­origin­for­Korea.­This­was­especially­so­because­Kija­was­an­object­of­reverence­from­the­Three­Kingdoms­ period­up­through­the­end­of­the­Chosŏn­dynasty.­From­the­early­years­of­ the­Chosŏn­dynasty,­Kija­became­an­object­of­the­dynastic­state’s­veneration,­as­the­Sage­King­who­elevated­rites­and­civilization.36­An­Chae-­hong,­ like­Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn­and­Paek­Nam-­un,­turned­to­historical­linguistics­and­ the­study­of­phonological­change,­and­taking­those­texts­as­an­interpretive­ springboard,­arrived­at­the­conclusion­that­Kija­must­have­been­a­common­ noun­rather­than­a­proper­noun,­denoting­a­feudal­vassal­of­Tan’gun­(ancient)­Chosŏn.37­In­this­way,­An’s­historiography­defended­Korean­claims­ to­ a­ national,­ sovereign­ past­ and­ identified­ a­ uniquely­ Korean­ chŏngsin,­ relevant­to­the­present,­that­was­not­only­transmitted­down­through­time­ but­also­manifested­concretely­in­Korean­institutions­and­practices. ­ Nationalist­narratives­such­as­An’s­did­not­make­any­obvious­impact­on­ university-­trained­historians­who­were­affiliated­with­the­Chindan­Society,­ an­academic­society­organized­in­1934­to­“compete”­with­the­Japanese­in­ rigorous­empirical­research­in­Korean­history­and­culture.­Trained­in­silchŭng sahak­ (positivist­ historiography)­ that­ built­ on­ the­ historiographic­ tradition­of­munhŏn kojŭng sahak­(critical-­textual­historiography;­J:­kōshōgaku),38­most­historians­affiliated­with­the­Chindan­Society­during­the­colonial­period­distanced­themselves­from­both­nationalist­and­Marxist­historiography­in­their­academic­writing.­Among­historians­who­formed­the­core­ of­the­Chindan­Society­most­were­graduates­of­Waseda­University­and­Keijō­ Imperial­University.­Organized­by­Yi­Pyŏng-­do­along­with­the­folklorist­and­ historian­Son­Chin-­t’ae­and­other­leading­scholars­of­Korean­history,­language,­linguistics,­and­classical­literature,­the­Chindan­Society­provided­a­ focal­point­of­institutional­affiliation­in­the­mid-­1930s­for­Korean­scholars­ working­in­Korean­studies­(Chindan­being­a­sobriquet­for­Korea),­consolidating­networks­that­had­formed­among­graduates­of­select­universities,­ especially­Waseda­and­Keijō.39­Chindan hakbo,­the­journal­published­by­the­ Society,­provided­a­venue­for­these­Korean­scholars­to­publish,­in­Korean,­ scholarly­work­in­Korean­studies. ­ While­Yi­Pyŏng-­do­took­the­leading­role­in­organizing­the­Chindan­Society­and­published­much­of­his­work­in­Chindan hakbo,­he­also­maintained­

127

128

ChapTer Four

his­membership­in­Seikyō­gakkai­(靑丘學會),­an­academic­society­led­by­ Japanese­scholars,­and­published­in­Japanese­academic­journals.­Although­ the­Chindan­Society­and­its­journal­were­outside­the­direct­control­of­the­ colonial­Japanese­academy,­Yi­remained­committed­to­“pure”­(that­is,­nonpolitical)­scholarship,­and­until­it­was­closed­down­in­1940­colonial­censors­did­not­need­to­closely­monitor­Chindan hakbo.40­That­is­to­say,­from­ the­ 1930s­ until­ the­ end­ of­ the­ colonial­ period,­ most­ university-­trained­ Korean­scholars­in­Korean­studies­were­not­dissidents;­they­did­not­challenge­colonial­rule­or,­for­that­matter,­colonialist­scholarship­in­any­fundamental­way.­Toward­the­end­of­the­colonial­period,­however,­Chindan­hakhoe­members­like­Son­Chin-­t’ae­began­to­rethink­certain­historiographic­ questions­by­way­of­theories­and­methodologies­taken­from­anthropology,­ archaeology,­and­folklore­studies,­and­from­the­late­1930s­onward­it­is­not­ possible­to­wholly­conflate­positivist­historiography­(silchŭng sahak)­with­ textual-­critical­ historiography­ (kojŭnghak).­ Moreover­ in­ comparing­ the­ work­of­Ikeuchi­Hiroshi­and­Kim­Sang-­gi,­Remco­Breuker­has­argued­that­ while­textual-­critical­historiography­was­highly­derivative­of­tōyōshi,­Chindan­hakhoe­historians­like­Kim­Sang-­gi­were­still­able­to­portray­Koreans­ as­historical­subjects:­relations­between­China­and­Korea­had­been­based­ on­reciprocity;­Koreans­participated­in­the­tributary­system­for­the­purpose­of­international­trade;­and­while­foreign­power­and­influence­were­ still­central­themes,­Kim­Sang-­gi­shifted­the­focus­from­invasion­to­resistance.41­Without­doubt­Chindan­Society­scholars­chafed­at­disparaging­or­ condescending­views­of­Korean­history,­people,­and­culture­that­were­quite­ palpable­in­Japanese­colonialist­discourse­on­Korea.­In­1942­the­Chindan­ Society­was­dissolved­when­several­of­its­leading­members­were­arrested­ in­connection­with­the­Society­of­Korean­Language­Research­incident,­including­Yi­Yun-­jae,­Yi­Hŭi-­sŭng,­and­Ch’oe­Hyŏn-­bae. ­ In­1927­Yi­Pyŏng-­do­began­working­for­the­Chōsenshi­henshūkai­(Society­ for­ the­ Compilation­ of­ Korean­ History),­ an­ organization­ directed­ and­ funded­ by­ the­ office­ of­ the­ Japanese­ governor-­general.42­ At­ Waseda­ (1916–19)­he­had­studied­under­Tsuda­Sōkichi­and­also­Ikeuchi­Hiroshi,­ the­first­lecturer­of­Korean­history­at­Tokyo­Imperial­University.­It­was­on­ Ikeuchi’s­recommendation­that­Yi­was­hired­on­a­part-­time­basis­in­1927­ by­ the­ Chōsenshi­ henshūkai.­ Ch’oe­ Nam-­sŏn­ joined­ Chōsenshi­ henshūkai­in­1928.­As­the­central­figure­in­positivist­and­critical-­textual­historiography­among­Korean­scholars,­Yi­conceded­a­great­deal­to­the­narrative­

universaLizinG korea’s pasT

framework­of­Mansenshi­and­tōyōshi­and­to­that­mode­of­historical­writing­ as­ objective,­ academic,­ and­uniquely­ legitimating­ historical­ scholarship.43­While­the­Chindan­Society­provided­an­institutional­platform­and­ venue­ for­publishing­ academic­ papers­ written­ by­Korean­ academics,­ an­ additional­motivation­for­organizing­the­Chindan­Society­had­to­do,­in­part,­ with­countering­Marxists­like­Paek­Nam-­un.44­Staying­largely­within­the­ framework­of­Mansenshi­and­tōyōshi,­historians­who­self-­identified­with­the­ positivist­and­textual-­critical­school­helped­create­new­archives,­gathering­ texts­ and­ writing­ histories­ that­ focused­ on­ very­ narrow,­ specific­ topics,­ to­fill­what­Walter­Benjamin­called­the­“homogenous,­empty­time”­of­the­ nation’s­past,­in­marked­contrast­to­Paek’s­effort­to­blast­apart­that­history­ to­reveal­class­conflict­and­the­material­basis­for­Korea’s­historical­development.­In­South­Korea,­after­liberation­and­the­Korean­War,­the­work­of­ Yi­and­other­scholars­affiliated­with­Chindan­hakhoe­formed­the­basis­for­ academic­studies­of­Korean­art,­architecture,­folklore,­history,­language,­ literature,­ and­ religious­ traditions.­ Cho­ Tong-­gŏl­ suggests­ that­ criticism­ of­positivist­historiography­in­contemporary­South­Korea­may­stem­more­ from­the­textual-­critical­school’s­submission­to,­if­not­complicity­with,­authoritarian­governments­in­South­Korea­after­1945­than­from­complicity­ with­colonialist­historiography­under­Japanese­colonial­rule.45

Universalizing­Korea’s­Past There­were­a­few­Marxist­scholars­in­the­Chindan­Society,­most­notably,­Pak­ Mun-­kyu,­an­economic­historian,­and­Kim­T’ae-­jun,­a­scholar­of­Chosŏn-­ period­literature,­both­graduates­of­Keijō­Imperial­University.­In­an­article­ published­in­1933,­Pak­pointed­to­the­colonial­land­survey­conducted­between­1910­and­1918­as­pivotal­in­establishing­exclusive­property­rights,­ commodification­of­land,­and­thereafter­capitalist­relations­in­the­countryside.­ In­ the­ immediate­ postliberation­ period­ (1945–48),­ Pak­ became­ a­ member­of­the­Central­Committee­of­the­South­Korean­Workers’­Party­and­ then­went­north­in­1948.­Kim­T’ae-­jun­studied­Chinese­and­Korean­literature­at­Keijō­Imperial­University­and­in­1939­became­a­lecturer­in­Korean­ literature­there.­In­1931,­at­the­age­of­twenty-­six,­he­published­Chosŏn hanmunhaksa­(History­of­Chinese­Literary­Studies­in­Chosŏn),­and­in­1933­he­ published­Chosŏn sosŏlsa­(History­of­Chosŏn-­period­Fiction),­serialized­in­ Tonga ilbo.­Beyond­being­a­brilliant­scholar,­Kim­was­also­an­activist,­more­

129

130

ChapTer Four

so­than­Paek­Nam-­un­or­Pak­Mun-­kyu.­While­a­lecturer­at­Keijō­Imperial­ University,­he­was­a­member­of­the­Kyŏngsŏng­kom­group­(Seoul­communists)­in­charge­of­the­Bureau­of­People’s­Front.­Arrested­in­1941,­he­was­ released­from­prison­in­1944­for­health­reasons.­Soon­after­his­release­Kim­ made­his­way­to­Yenan,­returning­to­Korea­soon­after­liberation.­He­was­ (re)appointed­to­the­faculty­of­Kyŏngsŏng­University­(formerly­Keijō­Imperial­University,­later­Seoul­National­University),­and­he­was­one­of­three­ faculty­members­recommended­by­the­faculty,­students,­and­alumni­for­ the­position­of­university­president.­But­he­was­fired­from­the­faculty­in­ connection­with­protests­against­usAMgik’s­plans­for­reorganization­of­ Kyŏngsŏng­University,­and­in­1949­he­was­executed­by­the­South­Korean­ Army­for­his­links­with­armed­partisans.46 ­ Paek­Nam-­un­(1894–1979)­studied­in­Japan­at­Tōkyō­Kōshō­(today,­Hitotsubashi­University)­from­1919­to­1924­and­returned­to­Korea­in­1925­to­ teach­economic­history­at­Yŏnhŭi­chŏnmun­(later,­Yonsei­University).­Outside­of­teaching,­he­joined­the­Chosŏn­sajŏng­chosa­yŏn’guhoe­(Association­ for­Research­on­Korea’s­Situation).­Aside­from­one­article­on­the­kye­system­(credit­societies­organized­for­aid­or­mutual­benefit),­all­of­Paek’s­published­writings­from­this­period­are­relatively­simple­articles­on­economic­ issues­and­contemporary­events,­and­he­was­not­active­in­the­Sin’ganhoe.­ Chōsen shakai keizaishi,­published­in­1933,­was­Paek’s­first­book,­and­very­ soon­after­its­publication­he­became­Korea’s­foremost­scholar.­When­he­ wrote­Chōsen shakai keizaishi,­he­conceived­it­as­the­first­book­of­a­comprehensive­history­of­Korea’s­historical­development.­To­provide­the­basis­ for­such­a­history,­he­outlined­in­the­preface­to­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­six­ issues­he­hoped­to­eventually­address: ­ 1.­Forms­of­primitive­tribal­communism ­ 2.­The­slave­economy­in­the­Three­Kingdoms­period ­ 3.­The­character­of­Asiatic­feudal­society­in­Korea­from­the­end­of­the­ Three­Kingdoms­period­to­contemporary­times ­ 4.­The­disintegration­of­Asiatic­feudal­society­and­the­sprouts­of­ ­capitalism ­ 5.­International­relations­and­the­agenda­behind­the­development­of­ transplanted­capitalism ­ 6.­A­comprehensive­survey­of­the­development­of­ideology ­ After­the­publication­of­his­second­book,­volume­1­of­Chōsen hōken shakai keizaishi,­in­1937,­Paek­was­not­able­to­follow­through­on­the­rest­of­his­re-

universaLizinG korea’s pasT

search­agenda:­locating­the­“sprouts­of­capitalism”­in­the­latter­part­of­the­ Chosŏn­period­and­delineating­the­historical­development­of­ideology­in­ Korea­and­the­development­of­“transplanted­[colonial]­capitalism.”­In­1938­ he­was­imprisoned­for­violation­of­the­Peace­Preservation­Order;­he­was­ subsequently­released­in­1940­but­forced­to­relinquish­his­position­at­Yŏnhŭi­chŏnmun.­As­outlined­here,­Paek’s­project­had­been­to­rewrite­Korean­ history­ from­ the­ perspective­ of­ historical­ materialism,­ starting­ with­ the­ primitive­communal­stage­all­the­way­up­to­Korea’s­annexation­by­Japan.­ As­opposed­to­Japanese­Marxist­historiography­on­Korea,­which­tended­to­ view­Korea­as­truly­“Asiatic”­(that­is,­stagnant,­not­having­reached­even­the­ feudal­stage­of­historical­development),­Paek’s­aim­was­to­show­how­each­ stage­of­Korean­history­emerged­as­a­result­of­social­forces­internal­to­Korea. ­ Paek’s­agenda­of­demonstrating­Korea’s­universal­and­yet­autonomous­ subjectivity­ led­ him­ to­ participate­ in­ the­ centennial­ commemoration­ of­ the­ death­ of­ Chŏng­ Yag-­yong­ (1762–1836;­ pen­ name­ Chŏng­ Tasan).­ The­ commemoration­was­part­of­a­nationalist­effort­to­develop­Korean­studies­ (Chosŏnhak),­a­project­spearheaded­by­An­Chae-­hong­and­others.47­While­ Marxists­ like­ Yi­ Ch’ŏng-­wŏn­ were­ contemptuous­ of­ such­ projects,­ Paek­ took­part­with­the­intention­of­establishing­Chŏng­Tasan­as­a­transitional­ figure.­According­to­Paek,­Chŏng­Tasan­was­the­leading­light­among­Sirhak­ (practical­learning)­thinkers,­advocating,­in­nascent­form,­what­some­postcolonial­scholars­would­characterize­as­“communistic,­socialistic­economic­ theory.”­Certainly­Chŏng­Tasan­could­fully­transcend­his­historical­milieu.­ He­was­a­great­scholar­who­was­not­completely­emancipated­from­feudal­ thinking.­ He­ could­ not­ have­ produced­ modern­ revolutionary­ ideas,­ and­ yet,­being­born­in­the­feudal­age,­he­was­critical­of­feudalism,­and­though­ trained­in­the­Confucian­classics,­he­was­not­a­mere­Confucianist­(sun yuhakja).­The­tribute­that­Paek­paid­to­Chŏng­Tasan,­then,­had­to­do­with­ Chŏng’s­prescient­and­progressive­political­and­epistemological­stance,­a­ stance­worth­adopting­even­in­the­present.48 ­ Thus,­time­and­again,­Paek­argued­that­despite­local­variations­and­consistent­with­all­of­human­history­(including­European­and­Japanese­history),­Korean­history­developed­in­accordance­with­historical­laws­and­by­ way­of­universal­stages­of­development.­The­particularity­of­Korean­social­ formations,­starting­from­primitive­tribal­communities­and­continuing­to­ the­slave­society­of­the­Three­Kingdoms­period,­to­the­Asiatic­feudal­society­ beginning­with­the­“Unified”­Silla­period,­and­the­transplanted­capitalist­ society­(isik chabonjuŭi sahoe)­of­Paek’s­time,­represented­the­particularity­

131

132

ChapTer Four

of­ universal­ history­ as­ manifested­ in­ Korean­ history.­ Paek­ rejected­ the­ notion­of­Korean­uniqueness—that­is,­Korean­history­as­outside­of­universal­historical­development—with­the­argument­that­while­Korean­society­ may­be­“Asiatic,”­the­development­of­the­productive­forces­in­Korean­history­was­entirely­“world-­historical.”­He­wrote,­“In­historical­science,­the­ only­particularity­to­be­accounted­for­is­the­particularity­of­the­stage­of­a­ society’s­historical­development,­and­[Korea’s]­particularity­has­to­do­with­ a­specific­reality,­rather­than­a­phantasmic­uniqueness.­Moreover,­due­to­ its­manifestly­progressive­quality,­[the­particularity­of­Korean­history]­constitutes­a­single­fundamental­correlation­[with­world­history].”49­What­we­ have­here­is­a­clear­rejection­of­the­most­insulting­aspects­of­the­“Asiatic­ mode­of­production”­as­conceived­by­Marx­and­Engels. ­ Marx­and­Engels­used­the­term­Asiatic society­to­describe­not­only­China­ and­ India,­ but­ also­ Spain,­ the­ Middle­ East,­ Java,­ and­ pre-­Columbian­ America.­That­is,­the­concept­of­the­Asiatic­society,­or­the­Asiatic­mode­ of­production,­was­used­to­describe­almost­any­society­based­on­communal­ownership­and­self-­sufficient­villages­where­capitalist­market­relations­ are­absent.­As­described­in­the­German Ideology,­Grundrisse­(unpublished­ notes),­Critique of Political Economy,­and­Anti-Dühring,­the­essential­characteristics­of­the­Asiatic­society­were­communal­ownership­of­land­by­self-­ sufficient­villages­(that­is,­the­absence­of­private­property),­unity­of­handicrafts­and­agriculture,­simplicity­of­production­methods,­and­dominance­ of­the­state­over­public­(irrigation)­works.­In­creating­the­category­of­Asiatic­ society,­ Marx­ sought­ to­ explain­ and­ contrast­ the­ dynamic­ and­ progressive­character­of­the­West­with­the­static­and­despotic­character­of­the­ Orient.­But­aside­from­numerous­empirical­objections­that­can­be­raised­ with­respect­to­the­concept­of­an­Asiatic­mode­of­production,­it­also­contained­theoretical­contradictions­internally­as­well­as­externally­with­regard­to­historical­materialism.­Within­the­framework­of­the­Asiatic­mode­ of­production,­self-­sufficient,­autonomous­villages­seemed­to­argue­against­ a­centralized­state­that­intervenes­in­the­village­economy.­As­for­historical­ materialism,­its­inapplicability­outside­of­Europe­could­be­explained­only­ in­terms­of­geographic­(that­is,­ecological)­incongruity­with­Europe. ­ At­the­Leningrad­Conference­of­1931,­the­concept­of­a­distinct­Asiatic­ mode­of­production­was­rejected­by­Soviet­scholars.50­Thereafter­the­unilinear­(or­monistic)­scheme—moving­from­primitive­communism­to­slave,­ feudal,­ capitalist,­ and­ socialist­ societies—became­ the­ prevailing­ ortho-

universaLizinG korea’s pasT

doxy,­and­various­aspects­of­Asiatic­society­were­subsequently­subsumed­ under­ the­ categories­ of­ slavery­ or­ feudalism.­ In­ Chōsen shakai keizaishi,­ Paek­located­class­differentiation­and­class­domination­at­the­very­origin­ of­ the­ Korean­ ethnic­ nation:­ it­ was­ the­ effort­ to­ establish­ durable­ class­ domination­that­drove­the­process­of­unifying­various­tribal­federations­by­ a­centralizing­state.­In­general­agreement­with­Mikhail­Godes’s­critique­ of­the­Asiatic­mode­of­production,­Paek­argued­that­Korean­feudal­society­ might­have­been­“Asiatic,”­but­not­in­the­sense­that­there­could­be­a­distinct­mode­of­production­particular­to­Korea,­or­Asia.­In­Chōsen hōken shakai keizaishi,­he­finessed­the­(colonialist)­assertion­about­state­ownership­ of­land­by­characterizing­feudalism­in­Korea­as­a­particular­(Asiatic)­manifestation­of­the­same­form­in­Europe’s­historical­development.­In­this­way,­ he­disposed­of­the­notion­of­the­Asiatic­mode­of­production­that­echoed­ the­colonialist­narrative­of­a­dynamic­and­progressive­West­and­Japan­contrasted­with­a­static­and­despotic­Orient­saddled­with­debilitating­customs­ and­a­long­troubled­past.­In­fact­Paek’s­monistic­view­of­history­took­aim­at­ two­different­targets:­colonialist­historiography­but­also­the­particularistic­ view­of­history­that­dominated­Korean­nationalist­historiography. ­ Paek’s­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­ (1933)­and­Chōsen hōken shakai keizaishi­ (1937)­ were­ both­ written­ in­ Japanese­ and­ published­ in­ Japan.­ In­ both­ books,­he­took­issue­with­“stagnation­theory”­then­prevalent­in­Japanese­ historiography­on­Korea,­especially­the­historiography­of­Fukuda­Tokuzō.­ At­the­same­time,­he­polemicized­ against­ nationalist­ historians­ like­Sin­ Ch’ae-­ho­and­Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn­for­their­“idealist”­approach,­faulting­them­ for­ adopting­ outdated­ German­ methodologies.­ By­ grounding­ their­ historical­narrative­on­essentialist­concepts­like­hon­and­ŏl,­he­argued,­these­ idealist­histories­in­the­end­only­reinforced­colonialist­historiography­by­ emphasizing­Korean­uniqueness.­In­Paek’s­work,­we­see­a­consistent­and­ sustained­polemic­against­nationalist­historiography­for­its­commitment­ to­a­particularistic­(idealist,­culturalist)­view­of­history.­The­alternative,­as­ proposed­by­Paek,­was­to­narrate­Korean­history­from­a­materialist­stance,­ as­part­of­monistic­(universal)­history­wherein­Korea­is­seen­as­having­developed­along­universally­applicable­principles­or­laws. ­ We­ should­ remember­ that­ particularism­ in­ Japan­ (especially­ in­ the­ 1930s)­appeared­as­a­rejection­of­the­West­and­as­a­critique­of­“universalism”­which­was­in­fact­European­particularism­imposed­on­the­rest­of­the­ world.­But­Japanese­particularism­(or­exceptionalism)­was­presented­as­

133

134

ChapTer Four

being­fated­to­absorb­the­other­“particularities”­in­Asia­(Korea,­China,­etc.).­ By­opposing­Western­imperialism,­Japanese­particularism­assumed­a­moral­ superiority­toward­the­rest­of­Asia.­But­ultimately­it­was­the­(temporary)­ military­and­economic­superiority­toward­the­rest­of­Asia­which­made­Japanese­exceptionalism­a­hegemonic­discourse.­Korean­particularism­pitted­ itself­against­Japanese­particularism,­but­because­the­rationales­underlying­ both­were­so­similar,­Korean­particularism­was­fated­to­be­subsumed.­Indeed­when­repression­heightened­with­the­second­Sino-­Japanese­War­(beginning­in­1937)­and­Japanese­particularism­demanded­homogeneity­both­ in­Japan­and­Korea­(Naisen ittai),­many­of­the­cultural­nationalists­argued­ that­ Korea­ should­ actively­ support­ the­ war­ effort­ in­ order­ to­ ensure­ its­ proper­place­in­the­Japanese­Empire.51 ­ It­is­in­this­sense­that­Paek­saw­the­danger­of­particularistic­historiography­in­Korea.­Only­a­materialist­view­of­history­could­truly­resist­colonialist­claims.­Historical­materialism­offered­a­monistic­view­of­history­that­ did­not­permanently­privilege­the­capitalist­West.­The­capitalist­West­(and­ Japan)­did­not­represent­the­end­of­History.­The­wealth­and­power­these­ capitalist­nations­had­accumulated­from­the­exploitation­of­their­working­ class­(at­home­as­well­as­in­their­colonies),­the­maintenance­of­which­ultimately­depended­on­the­power­of­their­armies­and­police­forces,­would­give­ way­to­a­higher­civilization­and­a­new­universalism­created­by­a­revolutionary­working­class­united­across­national­boundaries.­This­universalism­ offered­the­possibility­that­a­backward­Korea­could­become­the­sovereign­ subject­of­its­own­history,­on­an­equal­plane­with­the­forces­of­revolution­ in­the­West­and­elsewhere­in­the­world. ­ In­Chōsen shakai keizaishi,­Paek­equated­the­primitive­communal­stage­ with­the­pre–Three­Kingdoms­period,­the­classical­stage­based­on­slavery­ with­the­Three­Kingdoms­period,­the­feudal­stage­with­the­period­beginning­ in­ “Unified”­ Silla­ up­ through­ the­ late­ nineteenth­ century,­ and­ the­ capitalist­stage­with­incipient­capitalism­which­emerged­in­late­Chosŏn­ that­ was­ displaced­ by­ transplanted­ capitalism­ following­ Japan’s­ annexation­of­Korea.­When­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­was­published­in­1933,­Marxist­ intellectuals­like­Paek­were­marginalized­not­only­by­the­colonial­state­but­ also­ by­ Korean­ nationalist­ (especially­ nativist,­ kuksujuŭija)­ intellectuals.­ But­it­should­be­noted­that­Paek’s­book­also­came­under­criticism­from­the­ Left.­Yi­Ch’ŏng-­wŏn,­for­example,­attacked­it­as­a­mechanical­application­of­ Japanese­Marxist­(Kōza-ha)­historiography­(on­Japanese­history)­to­Korean­

universaLizinG korea’s pasT

history.52­Yi’s­critique­of­nationalistic­(nativist)­historiography­was­much­ more­sweeping­and­dismissive.­In­1936­he­wrote: The­recent­chain­of­events­both­on­the­international­front­and­domestically­ have­necessitated­the­promotion­of­efforts­to­understand­“Korea’s­past­and­ present.”­But­“Korean­Studies,”­which­is­Confucian-­moralistic,­pre-­ordained,­ and­semi-­feudal,­constitute­Korea’s­historical­development­as­entirely­autonomous­of­world­history,­passionate­[only]­in­its­investigation­of­Korea’s­sacred­ and­ inviolable­ “five­ thousand­ years­ old­ ŏl.”­ The­ genius[es]­ behind­ this­ discourse­(kongsik:­formula)­who­paint­themselves­[in­the­likeness­of]­“Tan’gun,”­ the­tyrannical­heroes­[chŏnch’ejŏk yŏngung]­who­borrow­the­clothes­of­“Yi­Sun-­ sin,”­and­those­with­ability­who­put­on­the­mask­of­“Chŏng­Tasan,”­are­all­falsifying­Korean­history.­This­is­how­history­as­mystified­by­ŏl­emerged.53

This­kind­of­aggressive­polemic,­directed­against­Paek­Nam-­un­as­much­as­ against­nationalists­like­Chŏng­In-­bo,­might­be­explained­by­the­fact­that­Yi­ wrote­and­published­his­book­in­Japan,­where­his­primary­task­was­organizing­Korean­students­studying­in­Tokyo.­But­in­terms­of­both­temperament­ and­circumstance,­Paek­was­much­more­sensitive­to­how­his­work­was­received­by­nationalist­(nativist)­intellectuals,­especially­since­Chŏng­In-­bo­ was­a­close­colleague­and­friend­at­Yŏnhŭi­chŏnmun­and­Paek­benefited­ greatly­from­his­remarkable­mastery­of­literary­Chinese.54 ­ As­a­member­of­Yŏnhŭi­chŏnmun’s­faculty,­and­as­a­public­intellectual­ (rather­than­an­underground­activist­in­Tokyo)­under­close­surveillance­by­ the­colonial­police,­Paek­suffered­from­his­doubly­marginalized­position­ in­terms­of­both­the­colonial­state­and­conservative­nationalists­associated­ with­Tonga ilbo.­His­anxiety­is­quite­evident­in­an­interview­he­gave­following­Chōsen shakai keizaishi’s­publication.­He­expressed­sadness­over­the­fact­ that­he­had­the­“freedom”­to­assert­that­Tan’gun­was­merely­an­honorific­ title­for­a­primitive­aristocratic­chieftain­and­not­the­father­of­the­Korean­ minjok,­ whereas­ he­ was­ not­ free­ to­direct­ the­ same­ kind­ of­critical­ perspective­to­contemporary­history.­Here­he­was­referring­to­the­“freedom”­ granted­by­the­colonial­authorities­to­debunk­nativist­claims­about­Korea’s­ ancient­past,­a­freedom­that­did­not­extend­to­debunking­Japanese­claims­ about­its­role­in­colonial­Korea.­But­Paek­also­felt­obliged­to­make­the­point­ that­a­rigorous­and­critical­approach­to­understanding­Korea’s­past­was­the­ true­manifestation­of­a­love­for­Korean­history.­In­an­article­published­in­ the­Tonga ilbo­in­1934,­Paek­wrote,­“Rather­than­boasting­about­our­past,­

135

136

ChapTer Four

we­should­rigorously­criticize­it.­This­[critical­approach],­I­believe,­is­truly­ the­pure-­minded­means­to­‘loving’­our­past.”55 ­ In­the­interview­in­November­1933,­however,­he­had­gone­even­further,­ insisting­that,­“as­a­Korean­scholar”­(Chosŏnin hakdo ro sŏ nŭn),­he­must­ be­free­to­present­a­rigorously­critical­reading­of­genealogies,­that­is,­clan­ histories,­private­histories­(yasa),­and­official­histories,­and­be­prepared­to­ engage­in­a­scientific­debate­with­ordinary­popular­conceptions.56­While­ there­is­something­poignant­about­Paek’s­assertion­of­his­Korean­ethnicity­ as­sanctioning­his­critical­approach­to­Korean­history,­it­should­be­noted­ that­for­Paek,­the­Korean­nation­(minjok)­was­an­objective­historical­entity.­ He­referred­to­the­Korean­people­as­a­“precocious”­nation­(chosuksŏng ŭi minjok)­because­they­developed­quite­early­on­those­national­characteristics­associated­with­modern­nationalism,­that­is,­a­unified­culture,­language,­and­customs.57 ­ Paek­shared­with­other­Asian­Marxist­historians­of­his­time­an­approach­ to­ history­ writing­ wherein­ the­ objective­ was­ to­ reveal­ how­ laws­ which­ govern­universal­historical­development­were­manifested­in­a­particular­ nation’s­history­at­various­stages­of­its­development.­His­discovery­of­the­ Punalua­family­structure­prior­to­the­Three­Kingdoms­period­and­his­study­ of­slavery­in­the­Three­Kingdoms­period­were­significant­not­only­in­the­ sense­that­they­posited­a­radically­different­view­of­Korea’s­ancient­past­ (radically­different­from­the­nativist­conception)­but­also­because­they­signified­Korea’s­conformity­with­historical­laws­which­govern­all­societies— including­that­of­Europe.­In­that­sense,­the­discovery­of­the­Punalua­family­ structure­ and­ the­ specific­ nature­ of­ the­ social­ formation­ at­ a­ particular­ stage­were­less­important­as­evidence­of­what­was­happening.­Rather­they­ were­ important­ because­ they­ were­ evidence­ of­ certain­ classes­ of­ phenomena­that­in­turn­confirmed­the­regularity­(or­universality)­of­laws­that­ govern­history. ­ While­Paek’s­agenda­was­to­constitute­Korean­historiography­as­a­“science,”­he­was­not­oblivious­to­the­ideological­implications­inherent­in­this­ category.­Pointing­to­the­historicity­of­science­(kwahak ŭi yŏksasŏng),­he­argued­that­while­the­natural­sciences­did­not­inherently­contain­a­class­bias,­ their­ historical­ development­ was­ linked­ to­ the­ development­ of­ the­ productive­forces­and­was­at­times­hampered­by­limits­imposed­by­the­ruling­ class­of­each­epoch.­Moreover­if­the­natural­sciences­were­susceptible­to­ becoming­a­tool­for­class­exploitation,­then­the­social­sciences­much­more­

universaLizinG korea’s pasT

readily­ served­ class­ interests.­ But­ even­ as­ Paek­ considered­ science­ as­ a­ practice­with­determinate­conditions,­and­to­a­great­extent­as­an­ideological­reflection­of­those­historical­(social)­conditions,­he­retained­a­commitment­to­the­liberating­promise­of­science­and­the­historical­teleology­that­ Marxism,­as­science,­illuminates:­a­historical­direction­that­was­both­inevitable­and­emancipatory,­with­the­dispossessed­(the­proletariat)­as­the­ sovereign­subject­of­history.­By­demonstrating­the­historical­laws­at­work­ in­Korean­history,­Paek­showed­that­Marxist­historiography­was­a­“historiography­that­does­not­know­despair.”

137

chapter five DiviDeD sovereiGnTy anD souTh korean hisTorioGraphy If­Japan­had­won­rather­than­lost­the­Pacific­War,­what­would­we­be­thinking?­In­that­moment,­what­would­be­going­through­our­minds­as­each­of­ us­pondered­how­to­go­on­with­our­lives?­I­think­this­has­to­be­the­basis­for­ our­self-­criticism.­Would­we­[still]­have­had­the­resolve­to­live­out­our­lives­ as­backwoodsmen,­buried­in­the­remote­countryside? —iM­HwA,­“Declaration­of­Conscience”

In­late­December­1945,­in­Seoul,­now­occupied­by­the­U.S.­Army,­a­group­of­ prominent­writers­and­critics—Kim­Nam-­ch’ŏn,­Yi­T’ae-­jun,­Han­Sŏl-­ya,­Yi­ Ki-­yŏng,­Kim­Sa-­ryang,­Yi­Wŏn-­jo,­Han­Hyo,­and­Im­Hwa—came­together­ for­ a­ key­ session­ of­ criticism­ and­ self-­criticism.1­ As­ politically­ engaged­ intellectuals­ they­ were­ all­ intensely­ involved­ in­ political­ and­ organizational­struggles­of­the­day.­That­particular­day,­however,­the­object­of­their­ struggle­was­their­conception­of­themselves,­and­the­truth­of­how­they­had­ lived­under­Japanese­colonial­rule.­Who­were­they­when­liberation­came­ upon­them,­and­what­should­be­the­basis­for­criticism­and­self-­criticism­of­ what­they­had­done,­said,­and­wrote­during­the­colonial­period?­Im­Hwa’s­ question­went­to­the­heart­of­the­matter.­If­Japan­had­won­the­war,­what­ would­ they­ be­ doing?­ What­ would­ they­ be­ thinking?­ If­ Japan­ had­ been­ victorious,­would­they­not­have­felt­tempted­to­compromise,­and­to­embrace­the­victorious­empire?­Turning­from­the­hypothetical­to­a­definite­acknowledgment­of­their­collective­and­individual­responsibility,­Im­argued­ that­even­if­a­writer­had­not­outwardly­supported­imperial­Japan­in­action,­ speech,­or­writing,­and­even­if­no­one­had­noticed­one’s­concealed,­latent­ urge­to­compromise,­the­self-­reflective­and­self-­critical­“I”­cannot­help­but­ know.­Therefore,­in­struggling­for­Korea’s­postcolonial­present­and­future,­ it­was­imperative­that­writers­publicly­acknowledge­and­struggle­against­ such­defeatist,­reactionary­potential­in­themselves. ­ The­other­writers­agreed­with­Im­that­only­a­thorough­self-­examination­ that­yielded­a­complete,­detailed,­and­truthful­accounting­of­one’s­offenses,­

DiviDeD sovereiGnTy

weaknesses,­and­shortcomings,­along­with­sincere­acknowledgment­and­ contrition­for­those­offenses­and­shortcomings­in­a­collective­or­public­setting,­constituted­a­rigorous­self-­critique.­Indeed­these­writers­were­at­the­ forum­because­they­agreed­with­the­contention­that­self-­critique­had­to­ be­the­point­of­departure­for­dealing­with­the­personal­and­collective­past­ and­constructing­a­sovereign,­postcolonial,­emancipatory­future.­Calls­for­ self-­criticism,­or­“declarations­of­conscience,”­had­appeared­in­a­variety­of­ publications­almost­immediately­after­liberation.2­With­the­collapse­of­the­ Japanese­Empire­and­the­euphoria­and­public­celebrations­that­followed,­ the­Korean­people’s­aspiration­to­usher­in­a­sovereign,­postcolonial­future­ was­made­manifest,­wholly­palpable,­and­unequivocal.­For­these­writers,­ criticism­and­self-­criticism­were­not­debilitating­and­were­not­meant­to­be­ debilitating.­Through­criticism­and­self-­criticism,­the­writer,­and­by­extension­the­proletariat­and­the­multitude­(inmin),­would­become­more­aware­ of­how­and­to­what­extent­their­thoughts­and­urges­had­been­shaped­(distorted)­by­their­historical­(colonial)­condition.­As­the­writer­constituted­ himself­or­herself­as­an­object­of­collective­and­self-­scrutiny,­the­possibility­ opened­ up­ for­an­ ongoing­ transformation­ wherein­ the­writer,­ alongside­ the­masses,­would­become­a­truly­self-­conscious,­historical­(revolutionary)­ subject.­In­this­process­of­subjectification,­ethical­responsibility­to­nation­ and­class­was­to­precede­and­establish­the­ground­for­(re)shaping­one’s­ subjective­being­in­the­world,­in­turn­making­possible­decolonization­of­ society­and­culture,­and­the­assumption­of­national­sovereignty. ­ The­necessity­of­a­thorough­self-­critique­in­a­public­setting­and­the­presumption­of­collective­fault­pointed­to­at­least­two­realities­that­leftist­intellectuals­like­this­group­of­writers­had­to­confront­soon­after­liberation­from­ Japanese­colonial­rule.­All­of­the­writers­at­the­forum­had­been­complicit­to­ some­degree­with­Japanese­imperial­policies,­especially­after­the­invasion­ of­China­in­1937­and­the­intensification­of­war­mobilization.­Moreover­liberation­had­been­conferred­rather­than­won.­If­Koreans­had­won­their­own­ liberation,­the­issue­of­complicity­with­Japanese­colonial­rule­would­have­ been­settled­in­the­course­of­the­anti-­imperialist­struggle­itself,­with­collaborators­sidelined,­and­the­worst­collaborators­executed,­as­the­national­ liberation­movement­overthrew­Japanese­colonial­rule­and­established­its­ own­hegemony.­But­as­it­happened,­the­liberation­on­August­15­“came­like­ a­thief­in­the­night.”3­In­the­aftermath­of­a­liberation­that­was­given­to­Koreans­by­the­Allies,­following­Japan’s­(too­early)­surrender,­and­in­the­context­

139

140

ChapTer Five

of­occupation­by­Soviet­and­American­troops­who­had­agreed­on­the­38th­ parallel­as­their­dividing­line­for­occupation,­Koreans­who­had­actively­supported­the­Japanese­Empire­as­officials­in­the­colonial­government­or­as­ officers­in­the­Japanese­Imperial­Army­and­police­were­still­in­positions­of­ power­in­southern­Korea,­this­time­aiding­and­protected­by­the­U.S.­occupation­forces. ­ Marxists­were­central­to­confirming­criticism­and­self-­criticism­as­principled­practice,­as­the­way­to­subvert­“commonsense”­notions­about­the­ world­and­one’s­place­in­it,­referred­to­in­shorthand­as­a­(petit)­bourgeois­ outlook­or­a­slavish­mentality,­notions­that­worked­to­naturalize­selfishness,­ opportunism,­or­the­idea­that­Koreans­had­no­choice­but­to­rely­on­imperial­ powers—Imperial­Japan­previously,­and­now,­as­it­was­becoming­increasingly­apparent­in­southern­Korea,­the­United­Sates.­For­Marxists,­the­point­ of­criticism­and­self-­criticism­was­to­establish­an­unshakeable­unity­based­ on­“scientific­truth”­and­absolute­dedication­to­national­and­class­emancipation,­a­unity­to­be­established­among­members­of­the­Korean­Communist­Party­(kcP),­and­then­a­broader­unity­in­the­form­of­a­united­front­encompassing­workers,­peasants,­and­intellectuals­capable­of­carrying­out­a­ national­democratic­revolution.4­But­with­the­People’s­Committees­forcibly­ “disestablished”­by­the­U.S.­Army­Military­Government,­and­the­usAMgik­exercising­all­sovereign­power­previously­held­by­the­Japanese­colonial­ state­south­of­the­38th­parallel,­it­was­the­leftists­who­were­being­sidelined­ and­pushed­underground­in­southern­Korea.5 ­ This­was­the­context­to­which­Yi­T’ae-­jun­referred­in­a­roundabout­way­ early­on­in­the­forum­with­his­observation,­“Genuine­liberation­and­freedom­still­seem­remote.”­Not­raised­explicitly­was­the­question,­the­political­ question,­of­what­it­meant­to­(still)­refer­to­August­15­as­Liberation­Day,­as­ did­all­the­writers­at­the­forum,­if­genuine­liberation­still­seemed­remote.­ Han­Sŏl-­ya’s­comment­indirectly­acknowledged­such­uncertainty­over­how­ to­assess­the­present:­he­found­it­easy­to­write­about­the­period­before­August­15,­but­he­found­it­very­difficult­to­grasp­and­write­about­“reality­after­ liberation.”­For­Yi­Ki-­yŏng­as­well,­August­15­was­an­ambiguous­marker,­a­ fissure­or­break­that­confounded­narrativization.­Yi­remarked­that­it­would­ be­strange­to­write­only­about­the­period­before­August­15­or­to­write­only­ about­the­period­after­August­15.­But,­he­asked,­as­if­raising­a­rhetorical­ question,­how­does­one­link­the­period­before­August­15­to­what­comes­ after­liberation?­What­narrative­strategy­could­connect­the­colonial­past­

DiviDeD sovereiGnTy

to­a­postliberation­present­in­which­genuine­liberation­and­freedom­still­ seemed­remote?­In­lieu­of­a­ready­answer­the­focus­shifted­to­the­purpose­ at­hand. ­ It­was­Kim­Sa-­ryang,­the­youngest­writer­in­the­group,­who­first­offered­ specific­self-­criticism.­In­early­1940­Kim’s­short­story­“Hikari­no­naka­ni”­ (Into­the­Light)­had­been­nominated­for­the­prestigious­Akutagawa­Prize.6­ The­story­was­written­in­1939,­soon­after­Kim­graduated­from­Tokyo­Imperial­University;­the­protagonist,­like­the­author­at­the­time,­is­a­Korean­ student­at­a­prestigious­university­in­Tokyo­and­a­teacher­at­a­night­school.­ In­ addition­ to­ being­ a­ university­ student,­ the­ Japanese­ kun­ reading­ of­ the­ protagonist’s­ family­ name­ is­ Minami,­ making­ it­ relatively­ easy­ for­ the­teacher­to­pass­as­Japanese.­In­the­end,­his­inner­conflict­over­ethnic­ passing­finds­a­resolution­of­sorts­as­one­of­his­students,­whose­mother­is­ Korean,­pronounces­the­teacher’s­family­name­using­the­on­reading­Nan,­ close­to­the­Korean­pronunciation­Nam­rather­than­Minami.7­This­reciprocal­recognition,­up­to­the­point­of­attempting­to­pronounce­a­Korean­name,­ and­acceptance­and­embrace­of­biethnicity,­follows­a­literal­coming-­out­as­ the­teacher­and­the­student­enjoy­a­day­at­Ueno­Park­and­shopping.­The­ short­story­can­be­read­as­an­indictment­of­Japanese­racism­and­the­policy­ of­having­Koreans­adopt­Japanese­family­names.­But­it­also­suggests­that­ recognition­of­ethnic­difference,­and­a­near­future­when­stigma­attached­ to­Koreans­might­be­overcome,­become­possibilities­(only)­in­the­light­of­ empire—thus­the­title­“Into­the­Light.” ­ In­his­self-­criticism,­Kim­Sa-­ryang­explained­that­he­had­written­“Hikari­ no­naka­ni”­with­grit­and­zeal­to­convey­in­a­very­real­way­the­emotions­of­ Koreans­in­Japan­in­their­everyday­encounters­with­Japanese­racism,­social­ isolation,­and­poverty.­But­looking­back,­he­confessed­that­“in­terms­of­the­ content,”­he­had­committed­an­error.­He­did­not­elaborate­on­what­made­ the­content­problematic.­Perhaps­it­was­obvious­to­the­other­writers­that­ Kim’s­ depiction­ of­ poverty,­ discrimination,­ and­ social­ isolation­ of­ Koreans­in­Japan­could­have­had­the­effect,­ultimately,­of­affirming­rather­than­ subverting­Japan’s­imperial­aims.­More­than­content,­however,­Han­Sŏr-­ya­ seized­on­the­issue­of­language:­even­if­the­content­had­not­required­any­ blame­or­censure,­the­fact­that­the­author­had­written­in­Japanese­required­ self-­criticism.­Later­in­the­forum­Yi­T’ae-­jun­returned­to­the­issue­of­language­ by­ pointing­ to­ a­ structural­ relationship­ between­ language,­ literature,­and­culture.­More­than­literature,­and­more­than­culture,­Yi­saw­the­

141

142

ChapTer Five

attempted­obliteration­of­the­Korean­language­as­the­principal­crisis­that­ should­have­been­all­too­evident­to­Korean­writers.­In­the­late­1930s­and­ 1940s,­with­Korean-­language­newspapers­and­magazines­shut­down­and­ Korean-­language­ education­ eliminated,­ how­ could­ one­ even­ talk­ about­ (other)­predicaments­facing­Korean­literature­or­culture? ­ Following­Kim­Sa-­ryang’s­self-­criticism­and­the­focus­of­criticism­shifting­to­Korean­writers­writing­in­Japanese—that­is,­writing­in­the­language­ of­the­colonizer—a­number­of­writers­at­the­forum­chimed­in­on­the­kind­ of­ self-­criticism­ that­ should­ be­ undertaken­ but­ in­ most­ cases­ was­ not.­ Kim­Nam-­ch’ŏn,­who­oversaw­the­process­for­approving­membership­in­ the­newly­formed­Chosŏn­ munhakga­ tongmaeng­ (Federation­ of­Korean­ Writers),­expressed­disappointment­at­many­writers­who­failed­to­engage­ in­criticism­and­self-­criticism­or­whose­self-­criticism­was­inadequate­or­insufficient.8­Han­Hyo­agreed:­too­many­writers­went­to­great­lengths­to­try­ to­rationalize­what­they­wrote­or­did­prior­to­August­15.­During­the­Pacific­ War­it­could­be­said­that­there­was­not­a­single­Korean­who­didn’t­cooperate­in­some­way­with­Japan’s­war­effort.­It­was­at­this­point­that­Im­Hwa­ intervened.­Self-­criticism­should­not­devolve­into­a­discourse­of­We were all guilty;­that­is,­the­(end)­point­of­self-­criticism­is­not­to­say­Others were bad and I was bad too.­Even­with­the­knowledge­that­no­one­was­entirely­exemplary,­one’s­attitude­toward­self-­criticism­nevertheless­has­to­be­Others were virtuous (ch’akhada) and exemplary (hulryunghada), whereas I was the worst.­ For­ Im,­ this­ was­ the­ type­ of­ attitude­ necessary­ for­ self-­(re)making,­ and­ from­one’s­conscience­(yangsim)­one­had­to­draw­the­courage­and­the­will­ needed­to­engage­in­that­kind­of­painful­self-­examination­and­contrition.­ That­is,­in­spite­of­structural­reasons­for­consciousness,­one’s­conscience­is­ not­wholly­determined­by­historical­or­material­circumstances,­thus­the­ possibility­of­reconstituting­oneself­anew. ­ In­ contrast­ to­ the­ other­ writers­ at­ the­ forum,­ Im’s­ approach­ to­ self-­ criticism­was­to­ground­it­in­reflexive­interiority.­It­was­an­approach­that­refused­to­relativize­one’s­complicity­with­colonial­rule.­Indeed­if­one’s­complicity­was­evaluated­against­a­defined­hierarchy­of­offenses,­from­the­most­ terrible­(treason)­to­the­not­so­terrible,­then­criticism­and­self-­criticism,­ the­purpose­of­which­is­self-­(re)making,­can­be­misdirected.­Ultimately­the­ self’s­other­has­to­be­an­exemplary­(imagined)­self-­consciousness­which­ alone­can­act­as­a­witness­to­confirm­the­truth­of­one’s­confession,­contrition,­and­subjective­transformation.­Perhaps­Im’s­admonition­was­utopian.­

DiviDeD sovereiGnTy

Perhaps­such­an­ethic­of­self-­(re)making­could­never­have­been­put­into­ practice­in­an­organized­way,­on­a­mass­scale.­Even­if­such­an­ethic­could­ have­been­interpolated­into­public­discourse,­perhaps­the­inevitable­result­ would­have­been­a­disciplinary­system,­a­form­of­modernity­as­totalizing­ as­the­wartime­system­of­controls­in­the­last­years­of­the­colonial­period.­ But­ with­ Korea­ divided­ and­ occupied­ by­ Soviet­ and­ American­ troops,­ doubt­about­Korea’s­sovereign,­postcolonial­future­coalesced­around­the­ fear­ that­ refusal­ of­ self-­criticism,­ especially­ on­ the­ part­ of­ intellectuals,­ would­perpetuate­a­political­culture­that­in­the­past­had­acquiesced­to­imperial­powers­and­surrendered­the­dream­of­sovereignty,­of­postcolonial­ self-­realization. ­ Yi­Wŏn-­jo­pointed­out­that­some­Korean­writers­wrote­in­Japanese­because­it­became­impossible­to­publish­in­Korean,­and­one­could­more­easily­ avoid­censorship­if­the­text­was­written­in­Japanese.­Just­because­a­writer­ wrote­in­Japanese­didn’t­mean­that­he­or­she­cooperated­with­Japan.­But,­ he­added,­the­right­decision­was­to­have­not­written­anything­at­all.­Han­ Hyo­agreed.­The­colonial­authorities­did­not­persecute­writers­for­writing.­ As­long­as­writers­rationalized­the­imperialist­war­it­did­not­matter­how­ much­they­wrote.­In­that­sense,­not­writing­anything­at­all­was­a­form­of­ resistance.­Kim­Sa-­ryang­tried­to­shift­the­focus­of­critique:­In­what­sense­ can­a­writer­talk­about­conscience­or­dedication­if­he­or­she­did­not­write­ anything?­As­writers,­what­one­wrote­and­how­one­wrote­had­to­be­the­ focus­of­discussion.­Kim­admired­the­writer­who­retreated­into­a­hovel­and­ kept­on­writing.­Yi­T’ae-­jun­had­the­last­word­and­turned­the­focus­back­to­ language.­More­so­than­the­writer­who­put­away­his­brush­and­kept­silent,­ he­admired­the­writer­who,­without­causing­harm­to­the­people­(minjok),­ wrote­in­Korean­simply­to­keep­the­Korean­language­alive.9­The­writers­ who­participated­in­this­forum,­all­of­them,­went­to­North­Korea­prior­to­ the­outbreak­of­the­Korean­War.

Historiography­after­Liberation For­historians,­self-­criticism­was­more­problematic.­Positivist­historians’­ claim­to­objectivity­had­rested­on­the­notion­that­the­narratives­they­produced­ were­ immanent­ in­ the­ empirical­ evidence:­ the­ facts­ forming­ the­ story,­facts­confirmed­by­careful­and­dispassionate­reading­of­the­sources,­ the­ sources­ themselves­ having­ been­ subjected­ to­ rigorous­ scrutiny,­ and­

143

144

ChapTer Five

causal­relations­(which­structure­the­narrative)­arrived­at­through­scientific­ principles.10­ To­ the­ extent­ that­ these­ historians­ remained­ rigorous­ and­objective­in­their­research­and­methodology,­what­would­they­have­to­ apologize­for?­On­what­basis­could­historians­who­had­been­committed­to­ positivist­historiography­disavow­their­previous­work,­other­than­discovery­ of­additional­sources­or­minor­revisions­in­explanations­of­causal­relations?­ In­ other­ words,­ how­ could­ historians­ who­ had­ written­ histories­ that­ fit­ the­narrative­framework­of­colonialist­historiography,­under­the­banner­of­ scientific­objectivity,­now­reinvent­themselves­as­postcolonial­nationalist­ historians?­In­the­immediate­postliberation­period­it­seems­most­historians,­including­Marxist­historians,­were­not­ready­to­present­a­systematic­ critique­of­positivist­historiography­and­the­narrative­strategies­it­helped­ legitimate­in­the­form­of­Mansenshi­and­tōyōshi.­A­systematic­critique­of­ colonialist­ historiography­ would­ come­ later­ in­ South­ Korea,­ starting­ in­ 1961,­eight­years­after­the­end­of­the­Korean­War­and­in­the­immediate­ aftermath­of­the­April­19­revolution­that­forced­President­Rhee­Syngman­ from­office.­Subsequently,­and­as­a­cold­war­nationalist­project,­positivist­ and­idealist­strands­in­historiography­were­brought­together­as­nationalist­ and­anticommunist­historiography,­largely­in­the­form­of­cultural­history.11 ­ For­historians­who­were­well­regarded­during­the­colonial­period­and­at­ the­same­time­managed­to­keep­some­distance­between­themselves­and­ Japan’s­ imperialist­ project,­ liberation­ from­ Japanese­ colonial­ rule­ presented­an­opportunity­to­take­the­leading­role­in­reconstructing­historical­ narratives­and­reorganizing­Korea’s­educational­and­academic­institutions.­ In­the­months­following­liberation,­Paek­Nam-­un­focused­his­efforts­on­laying­the­foundations­for­Korea’s­higher­academic­institutions.­The­day­after­ Japan’s­ surrender,­ Paek­ began­ organizing­ the­ National­ Academy­ of­ Sciences­(Chosŏn­haksulwŏn),­which­was­to­comprise­leading­scholars­across­ the­disciplines­and­across­the­political­spectrum­in­the­natural­sciences,­ social­sciences,­and­humanities.12­This­academy­would­have­had­tremendous­influence­over­the­reorganization­of­higher­education­and­research­ institutions­in­Korea.­That­is­to­say,­in­the­immediate­postliberation­period­ Marxist­intellectuals,­with­Paek­taking­the­leading­role,­sought­to­establish­hegemony­over­intellectual­production,­reaching­out­to­non-­Marxist­ scholars,­including­nationalist­historians­who­had­not­capitulated­to­colonial­power.­But­this­reaching­out­did­not­preclude­Marxists­from­taking­a­ polemical­and­partisan­stance:­even­Paek,­who­was­critical­of­the­“exces-

DiviDeD sovereiGnTy

sively­leftist”­line­taken­by­the­Korean­Communist­Party,­depicted­all­non-­ Marxist­historiography­as­reactionary.13 ­ Most­of­the­leading­scholars­who­had­been­Chindan­hakhoe­members­ chose­not­to­affiliate­with­Paek’s­National­Academy­of­Sciences.­On­August­16,­1945,­the­same­day­Paek­launched­the­academy,­Son­Chin-­t’ae­and­ Cho­Yun-­jae­took­the­lead­in­reconstituting­the­Chindan­hakhoe,­and­according­to­Pang­Kie-­chung,­they­did­so­in­order­to­establish­and­maintain­ a­nationalist­(that­is,­noncommunist)­stance­while­participating­in­Left-­ Right­coalition­efforts.14­In­reconstituting­the­Chindan­hakhoe,­Cho­called­ for­the­expulsion­of­“pro-­Japanese­scholars”­from­its­ranks.­The­target­of­ his­critique­included­historians­like­Yi­Pyŏng-­do.­Excluded­from­a­leadership­position­in­Chindan­hakhoe,­Yi­organized­a­separate­organization,­the­ Association­for­Korean­History­Research­(Chosŏnsa­yŏn’guhoe),­but­nevertheless­maintained­an­influential­presence­in­Chindan­hakhoe.­Younger­ historians,­however,­did­not­join­Yi’s­association;­they­either­sought­membership­in­the­Marxist­League­of­Scientists­(Kwahakja­tongmaeng)­or­the­ newly­organized­Korean­Historical­Association­(Yŏksa­hakhoe),­which­included­Marxist­and­non-­Marxist­historians.15 ­ The­haste­with­which­these­historians­sought­to­distance­themselves­from­ scholars­like­Yi­Pyŏng-­do­is­understandable­in­light­of­an­intense­antip­athy­ that­emerged­in­the­immediate­postliberation­period­toward­those­who­had­ held­positions­of­authority­under­Japanese­colonial­rule.­As­Tocqueville­had­ observed­about­hatred­toward­the­aristocracy—that­the­people­hated­aristocrats­who­were­about­to­lose­their­authority—so­too­in­the­immediate­ postliberation­period­it­seemed­as­if­those­who­had­flourished­and­had­held­ official­positions­under­the­Japanese­would­no­longer­be­able­to­exercise­ their­authority,­as­popular­sentiment­toward­collaborators­shifted­radically.­ Collaborators­who­were­not­only­tolerated­but­respected­during­the­colonial­period­came­to­be­reviled­precisely­because,­as­Hannah­Arendt­put­it,­ “wealth­without­visible­function­is­much­more­intolerable­because­nobody­ can­understand­why­it­should­be­tolerated”:­“What­makes­men­obey­or­tolerate­real­power­and,­on­the­other­hand,­hate­people­who­have­wealth­without­power,­is­the­rational­instinct­that­power­has­a­certain­function­and­is­ of­some­general­use.­Even­exploitation­and­oppression­still­make­society­ work­and­establish­some­kind­of­order.­Only­wealth­without­power­or­aloofness­without­a­policy­are­felt­to­be­parasitical,­useless,­revolting,­because­ such­conditions­cut­all­the­threads­which­tie­men­together.”16­When­the­

145

146

ChapTer Five

Japanese­colonial­state­lowered­its­flag­in­August­1945,­collaborators­came­ to­be­viewed­as­parasites­on­the­national­body.­It­was­in­that­sense­that­the­ demand­for­land­reform­and­the­purge­of­collaborators­became­central­to­ postliberation­ politics,­ precisely­ because­ those­ who­ had­ lost­ real­ power­ when­the­Japanese­Empire­collapsed­still­possessed­considerable­wealth. ­ With­Yi­Pyŏng-­do­excluded­from­its­leadership,­some­Chindan­hakhoe­ historians­cooperated­closely­with­the­usAMgik,­while­others­participated­ in­organizations­led­by­the­Left,­including­the­Committee­on­Science­that­ was­part­of­the­National­Democratic­Front­(Minjujuŭi­minjok­chŏnsŏn).17­ The­National­Democratic­Front­in­southern­Korea­was­established­in­February­1946­and­led­by­a­five-­person­secretariat­that­included­Yŏ­Un-­hyŏng,­ Pak­Hŏn-­yŏng,­Hŏ­Hŏn,­Kim­Wŏn-­bong,­and­Paek­Nam-­un.­To­the­extent­ that­one­can­impute­a­political­orientation­to­Chindan­hakhoe­as­a­whole,­ in­the­immediate­postliberation­period­its­political­orientation­was­similar­ to­the­strategy­charted­by­An­Chae-­hong;­in­1947­Son­Chin-­t’ae­and­Yi­In-­ yŏng­explicitly­referred­to­their­historiographic­stance­as­“new­nationalist­ historiography”­(sin-minjokjuŭi yŏksahak).18­Cho­Yun-­jae’s­charge­against­Yi­ Pyŏng-­do­and­other­historians­focused­on­their­collaboration­with­colonial­government­institutions,­specifically­the­Chōsenshi­henshūkai.­It­was­ generally­accepted­that­the­fundamental­aim­of­Chōsenshi­henshūkai­as­ an­organ­of­the­colonial­state­was­to­legitimize­Japanese­colonial­rule,­and­ that­it­did­so­by­distorting­Korean­history,­specifically­by­suppressing­or­delegitimizing­important­texts­(for­example,­the­Samguk yusa)­and­by­producing­histories­that­downplayed­the­degree­to­which­Koreans­were­subjects­ of­their­own­history.19 ­ One­focal­point­for­this­kind­of­criticism­was­the­thirty-­eight-­volume­ Chōsenshi­(Korean­History)­published­by­Chōsenshi­henshūkai,­a­work­that­ was­both­a­history­and­a­compilation­of­primary­sources.­Yi­Pyŏng-­do’s­self-­ defense­ran­along­a­theme­similar­to­those­presented­by­Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn,­Yi­ Kwang-­su,­and­other­prominent­intellectuals­who­had­actively­collaborated­ with­Japan’s­imperial­project.­He­had­worked­for­the­Chōsenshi­henshūkai­ to­prevent­a­worse­outcome:­to­the­degree­that­he­could,­he­tried­to­prevent­ Japanese­ distortion­ of­ Korean­ history.20­ Unlike­ Paek­ Nam-­un­ and­ many­ other­historians­who­were­deeply­involved­in­political­work­in­the­immediate­postliberation­period,­taking­leadership­positions­in­political­parties,­Yi­ continued­to­write­history.­The­Korean­history­textbook­Kuksa kyobon,­for­ example,­adopted­and­published­by­the­usAMgik­in­1946­for­use­in­junior­

DiviDeD sovereiGnTy

and­senior­high­schools,­was­written­by­Yi­and­Kim­Sang-­gi.­For­the­modern­ period­Kuksa kyobon­highlighted­the­March­First­Movement,­activities­of­ the­Korean­provisional­government­in­Shanghai,­and­the­Kwangju­student­ movement­in­1929.­Kuksa kyobon­did­not­mention­armed­struggle­waged­by­ the­communists­in­Manchuria­in­the­1930s,­nor­did­it­mention­the­Kwangbokgun­(Restoration­Army).21 ­ In­August­1946,­when­usAMgik­announced­its­plan­to­merge­Keijō­Imperial­University­with­nine­existing­professional­schools­to­form­Seoul­National­University,­Paek­Nam-­un­was­vocal­in­his­criticism­of­the­plan­(Kukdaean):­university­faculty­would­have­little­autonomy­from­the­usAMgik’s­ Department­of­Education,­and­academics­who­had­actively­collaborated­ in­support­of­the­Japanese­Empire­would­be­included­in­the­faculty.­During­the­colonial­period,­at­Keijō­Imperial­University­as­in­other­imperial­ universities,­the­faculty­of­each­school­had­significant­autonomy­from­the­ Ministry­of­Education.­Almost­all­issues­relating­to­faculty,­for­example,­ were­decided­by­the­faculty­of­each­school,­although­decisions­involving­ curriculum,­research,­and­personnel­were­subject­to­approval­by­the­Ministry.­This­autonomy­was­largely­affirmed­after­1918,­when,­in­practice,­the­ university­ president­ was­ appointed­ after­ nomination­ by­ secret­ ballot­ of­ the­faculty.­The­changes­introduced­by­the­usAMgik­shifted­the­organization­of­the­university­from­the­chair­system­of­the­nineteenth-­century­German­university­to­the­department­system­in­U.S.­universities,­but­in­this­ instance­was­centrally­organized­by­the­usAMgik’s­Department­of­Education.22­With­conservatives­in­control­of­the­Department­of­Education,­ the­Korean­historians­who­became­Seoul­National­University­faculty­were­ mostly­Chindan­hakhoe­members,­including­Yi­Pyŏng-­do,­who­became­the­ chairman­of­the­History­Department.­Those­appointed­to­the­social­sciences­faculty­were­close­colleagues­of­Paek­Nam-­un,­and­they­dominated­ the­Economics­Department.23 ­ As­stated­earlier,­the­political­strategy­of­An­Chae-­hong’s­“new­nationalism”­had­called­for­the­creation­of­a­Left-­Right­coalition­that­would­exclude­ communists.­In­September­1945­An­demanded­Pak­Hŏn-­yŏng’s­exclusion­ from­ the­ Korean­ People’s­ Republic­ (kPR),­ organized­ by­ Yŏ­ Un-­hyŏng.­ When­ Yŏ­ refused­ to­ exclude­ Pak,­ then­ general­ secretary­ of­ the­ Korean­ Communist­Party,­An­left­the­kPR.24­As­the­“middle­ground”­quickly­disappeared­in­the­context­of­a­divided­occupation­by­Soviet­and­American­ troops,­An­accepted­the­position­of­director­of­the­Interim­South­Korean­

147

148

ChapTer Five

Government­under­the­usAMgik.­As­the­usAMgik­and­Rhee­Syngman­ took­measures­to­establish­a­separate­state­south­of­the­38th­parallel,­Paek­ Nam-­un­went­north­in­1948,­ostensibly­to­attend­a­political­conference.­ But­he­stayed­on­to­become­the­first­minister­of­education­(1948–56)­in­ the­Democratic­People’s­Republic­of­Korea­(dPRk,­North­Korea),­established­later­that­year.­When­he­died­in­1979­at­the­age­of­eighty-­six,­Paek­ was­still­a­member­of­the­Central­Committee­of­the­Korean­Workers’­Party,­ ranked­forty-­sixth­in­the­leadership­hierarchy.­By­1948­many­Marxist­intellectuals­had­left­Seoul­and­gone­north­of­the­38th­parallel,­pushed­by­anticommunist­repression­in­the­South­and­pulled­by­offers­of­employment­ and­ opportunity­ to­ take­ part­ in­ the­ dPRk’s­ national­ democratic­ revolution.­Between­1946­and­1947­historians­like­Kim­Kwang-­jin­from­Kim­Il­ Sung­University­in­Pyongyang­went­south­to­recruit­many­of­the­best­historians­in­southern­Korea.­Yi­Ch’ŏng-­wŏn,­Kim­Sŏk-­hyŏng,­Pak­Si-­hyŏng,­ Chŏn­Sŏk-­dam,­and­others­went­north,­and­historiography­in­the­dPRk­ came­to­be­dominated­by­“historians­from­the­South.”­When­the­dPRk’s­ Chosŏn­ryŏksa­p’yŏnch’an­wiwŏnhoe­(Korean­History­Compilation­Committee)­was­established­in­1949,­Paek­Nam-­un­was­its­chairman.25­At­the­ same­time,­intellectuals­and­politicians­who­had­struggled­for­a­Left-­Right­ coalition—especially­those­who­had­opposed­the­un-­sponsored­election­ in­1948­which­created­South­Korea—were­subjected­to­repression­and­terror­from­the­South­Korean­police­and­right-­wing­groups.­With­American­ backing,­ those­ who­ had­ championed­ “objective”­ empirical­ research­ and­ “nonpolitical”­historiography­during­the­colonial­period­seized­nearly­all­ the­major­academic­posts­in­the­Republic­of­Korea­(ROk,­South­Korea). ­ Soon­after­the­establishment­of­separate­states­in­1948,­Marxists­in­South­ Korea­either­had­to­flee­to­the­North­or­go­underground.­The­Republic­of­ Korea­was­established­on­August­15,­1948,­with­Rhee­Syngman­as­president.­The­Democratic­People’s­Republic­of­Korea­was­established­on­September­3,­1945,­with­Kim­Il­Sung­as­premier.­With­the­passage­of­the­National­Security­Law­in­South­Korea­in­November­1948,­anticommunism­ was­institutionalized­as­South­Korea’s­overriding­political­principle,­and­ praising­or­supporting­North­Korea­in­any­way­became­an­act­of­treason.­ In­June­1949,­less­than­a­year­after­its­sovereignty­was­established­through­ un-­sponsored­elections,­the­South­Korean­state­created­the­Kungmin­podo­ yŏnmaeng­(National­Guidance­League,­ngl).­Podo­literally­translates­to­ caring and guiding.­In­the­late­1930s­and­1940s,­leftists­who­renounced­their­

DiviDeD sovereiGnTy

political­beliefs­had­great­difficulty­finding­work­and­caring­for­their­families,­ and­ the­ Japanese­ colonial­ state­ organized­ the­ League­ for­ Servicing­ the­State­to­guide­and­care­for­these­former­political­prisoners.­According­to­Kim­Dong-­choon,­this­colonial­policy­served­as­the­model­for­the­ ngl­as­South­Korean­authorities,­especially­prosecutors,­established­laws­ and­institutions­to­maintain­surveillance­and­control­over­political­dissidents.­Membership­in­the­ngl­was­supposed­to­be­voluntary,­but­in­actuality­former­communists­and­political­dissidents­were­forced­to­register.­ By­late­1949­membership­in­the­ngl­had­reached­300,000.­As­an­institutional­innovation­from­the­late­colonial­period­revived­by­the­South­Korean­ state,­the­ngl­not­only­maintained­surveillance­over­political­dissidents;­it­ also­institutionalized,­in­a­comprehensive­way,­social­isolation­and­political­containment­of­former­militants­and­fellow­travelers,­including­leftist­ intellectuals.­In­1950,­soon­after­the­outbreak­of­the­Korean­War,­South­ Korean­ security­ forces­ systematically­ executed­ thousands­ of­ ngl­ members.26 ­ In­November­1949­Yi­Pyŏng-­do­became­the­chairman­when­the­Association­for­Korean­History­Research­(Chosŏnsa­yŏn’guhoe)­merged­with­ Chindan­hakhoe.­In­late­1949­the­remaining­progressive­scholars­on­the­ Seoul­National­University­faculty­were­fired.­After­the­Korean­War,­with­ Son­Chin-­t’ae­dead,­the­remaining­Marxists­turned,­and­nationalist­historians­who­had­participated­in­Left-­Right­coalition­efforts­were­now­isolated.­ Yi­Pyŏng-­do­and­Chindan­hakhoe­absolutely­dominated­South­Korean­historiography.­Beyond­the­horrific­anticommunist­witch­hunts­during­and­ after­the­Korean­War,­Yi’s­return­to­Chindan­hakhoe­was­made­possible,­in­ part,­by­money­from­the­United­States.­Both­before­and­after­the­Korean­ War,­ Chindan­ hakhoe­ received­ financial­ support­ from­ the­ Rockefeller­ Foundation.­In­1954­Yi­was­named­as­the­primary­investigator­in­an­ambitious­project­of­publishing­a­comprehensive­history­of­Korea,­funded­by­ a­large­grant­from­the­Rockefeller­Foundation.­The­seven-­volume­history,­ published­between­1959­and­1965,­focused­on­political,­institutional,­and­ cultural­history,­starting­with­the­question­of­Tan’gun­and­ancient­Chosŏn,­ and­ending­in­1910­with­Korea’s­annexation­by­Japan.­Yi­wrote­the­bulk­ of­volume­1­and­all­of­volume­2,­from­ancient­Chosŏn­to­the­end­of­the­ Koryŏ­ period.­ It­ was­ not­ until­ the­ student­ revolution­ of­ April­ 19,­ 1960,­ which­toppled­the­Rhee­regime­and­created­for­a­brief­moment­a­democratic­opening,­that­nationalist­historians­of­a­younger­generation­could­

149

150

ChapTer Five

challenge­the­political­and­intellectual­authority­of­Yi­and­the­positivist­and­ textual-­critical­tradition.

Postcolonial­Historiography:­1960–1980 Although­the­student­revolution­of­April­19,­1960,­that­toppled­the­Rhee­ regime­was­crushed­by­a­military­coup­in­1961,­that­democratic­opening­ nevertheless­ allowed­ a­ younger­ generation­ of­ historians­ to­ narrate­ history­in­new­ways.­In­the­introduction­ to­Kuksa sillon,­ published­ in­1961­ (just­prior­to­Park­Chung­Hee’s­military­coup),­Yi­Ki-­baek,­who­had­studied­ under­Yi­Pyŏng-­do,­presented­a­comprehensive­account­of­colonialist­historiography,­specifically­Il-Sŏn tongjoron,­the­narrative­of­Japanese­and­Koreans­sharing­common­origins,­and­thus­Japan’s­colonization­of­Korea­in­1910­ as­the­restoration­of­ancient­ties;­tangp’asŏngnon,­factionalism­as­deeply­ ingrained­in­the­Korean­political­culture,­evidenced­by­successive­purges­ of­literati­and­factional­strife­during­the­Chosŏn­period;­chŏngch’esŏngnon,­ the­notion­that­the­Korean­economy­and­society­had­been­stagnant­for­a­ thousand­years;­and­t’ayulsŏngnon,­a­narrative­denying­autochthonous­development,­focusing­on­how­external­forces­from­China­and­Manchuria­ had­determined­Korea’s­historical­development.27 ­ Written­ as­ a­ history­ textbook,­ Kuksa sillon­ aimed­ to­ dismantle­ such­ “prejudiced­ views­ and­ theories­ that­ impede­ a­ correct­ understanding­ of­ Korean­history.”­Yi­Ki-­baek­used­the­word­kŭndaehwa­(modernization),­the­ first­Korean­historian­to­make­reference­to­modernization­theory­that­was­ being­promoted­by­American­academics­and­advisors.­Kuksa sillon,­in­other­ words,­created­a­narrative­framework­that­was­safely­postcolonial:­anti-­ Japanese­but­uncritical­of­American­intervention­in­post-­1945­Korea.­This­ type­of­historiography,­a­marriage­of­modernization­theory­with­the­positivist­and­textual-­critical­tradition,­quickly­became­the­dominant­mode­of­ narrating­Korean­history­in­the­context­of­the­cold­war.­The­question­of­ neocolonialism­(a­critique­of­the­United­States),­suppressed­by­the­anticommunist­state,­would­be­sublimated­through­developmental­time:­South­ Korea­ was­ developing­ with­ American­ assistance­ but­ also­ from­ its­ own­ sources­of­modernity.28 ­ As­the­effort­to­“overcome”­colonialist­historiography­gathered­momentum,­ however,­ closet­ Marxists­ began­ to­ venture­ beyond­ the­ ideological­ boundaries­imposed­by­South­Korea’s­place­in­the­cold­war­system­under­

DiviDeD sovereiGnTy

the­banner­of­“nationalist”­historiography.­It­was­in­that­context­that­Yi­Ki-­ baek­took­to­task­historians­like­Kim­Yong-­sŏp­for­drawing­on­the­work­of­ Paek­Nam-­un­and­other­Marxist­historians,­and­for­“turning­a­blind­eye”­ to­the­fact­that­Paek­had­been­hostile­to­nationalist­historiography­during­ the­colonial­period.29­But­ignoring­Paek’s­critique­of­nationalist­historiography­was­a­self-­preservation­measure.­For­progressive­historians­like­Kim­ Yong-­sŏp­and­Kang­Man-­gil,­Paek’s­historiography­offered­a­way­not­just­to­ overcome­the­legacy­left­by­colonialist­historiography­but­also­to­reinsert­ class­struggle­in­historiography. ­ Because­he­had­left­South­Korea­to­go­to­the­North,­Paek­could­not­be­ cited­in­print­nor­claimed­as­an­intellectual­forbear;­the­only­way­to­appropriate­his­work­was­by­casting­him­as­a­nationalist­historian­who­took­ part­in­the­Korean­studies­movement­(Chosŏnhak undong)­in­the­mid-­1930s.­ Through­their­empirical­studies­of­land­tenure,­the­growth­of­commerce­ (merchant­capital),­and­the­development­of­a­commodity-­monetary­economy­in­the­latter­half­of­Chosŏn,­Kim­Yong-­sŏp­and­Kang­Man-­gil­revived­ and­confirmed­Paek’s­disclosure­of­the­internal­dynamic­underlying­Korea’s­ historical­development,­in­which­class­struggle­was­central.­Under­a­nationalist­canopy,­Kim­and­Kang­reestablished­intellectual­links­to­a­form­of­history­writing­that­had­been­suppressed­in­South­Korea­after­the­Korean­War.­ Their­view­of­history­was­based­on­an­anticolonial,­oppositional­nationalism,­and­their­historiography­contributed­greatly­to­understanding­the­dynamic­nature­of­Korea’s­social­and­economic­development­in­late­Chosŏn.­ In­a­very­limited­sense,­Kim­and­Kang­shared­common­ground­with­nationalist­historians­who­preferred­modernization­theory;­their­agenda­was­to­ write­a­Korea-­centered­history.­But­the­implications­of­their­historical­narrative­could­not­be­more­different.­For­modernization­historians,­the­origins­of­Korea’s­modernity­was­the­cultural­and­scientific­developments­in­ the­eighteenth­century,­traced­forward­to­Westernized­and­Westernizing­ elites­of­the­nineteenth­century­and­to­noncommunist­nationalists­in­the­ twentieth­century­who­would­eventually­establish­South­Korea. ­ In­contrast,­Kim­Yong-­sŏp,­along­with­Kang­Man-­gil,­laid­the­basis­for­ the­argument­that­there­were­two­possible­paths­to­modernity:­a­relatively­ more­ egalitarian­ and­ autonomous­ path­ from­ below,­ with­ peasant­ rebellions­providing­the­main­impetus­for­progressive­change,­and­a­more­exploitative,­dependent­path­from­above,­led­by­elites­who­would­ultimately­ capitulate­to­imperialist­demands­starting­in­the­late­nineteenth­century.30­

151

152

ChapTer Five

Thus­ Kim­ and­ Kang­ located­ the­ Westernized­ and­ Westernizing­ elites­ within­a­historical­trajectory­that­had­roots­in­the­cultural­and­political­ world­ of­ the­ landed­ class­ in­ the­ late­ Chosŏn­ period,­ whose­ modernization­efforts­from­the­late­nineteenth­century­to­the­present­reflected­their­ narrow­class­interests,­and­for­that­reason­tended­toward­dependency­on­ outside­powers:­collaboration­with­the­Japanese­in­the­colonial­period­and­ with­the­Americans­after­1945.­This­was­a­trajectory­that­paved­the­way­for­ Korea’s­colonization­by­Japan,­the­formation­of­separate­states­in­1948,­and­ dictatorship­and­dependent­capitalist­development­in­South­Korea. ­ By­the­late­1970s­the­argument­that­there­were­two­possible­paths­to­ modernity­was­an­academic­formulation­of­more­bracing­narrative­strategies­ employed­ by­ student­ activists­ and­ dissident­ intellectuals­ in­ South­ Korea­as­they­reimagined­the­present­as­a­conjuncture­of­conflicting­historical­trajectories.­In­the­lead­essay­of­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­(Korean­ History­ Before­ and­ After­ Liberation),­ published­ in­ 1979,­ Song­ Kŏn-­ho­ presented­an­ethical­critique­of­how­1945­marked­the­beginning­point­of­ the­most­horrific­chapter­in­Korean­history.31­Liberation,­coming­after­decades­of­colonial­rule,­should­have­marked­the­beginning­of­a­new­history­ wherein­the­oppressed­people,­the­minjung­(the­masses,­the­multitude),­ could­finally­and­rightly­become­the­sovereign­subject­(chuch’e)­of­history.­ Instead,­with­the­partition­of­Korea­along­the­38th­parallel­coming­simultaneously­with­liberation,­former­collaborators­and­those­willing­to­serve­ the­ new­ occupying­ powers—the­ Soviet­ Union­ and­ the­ United­ States—­ diverted­history­from­its­true­path­and­brought­about­a­terrible­ordeal­for­ the­Korean­people.32 ­ The­primary­target­of­Song­Kŏn-­ho’s­essay­was­not­American­imperialism­but­Rhee­Syngman,­the­arch­anti-communist,­conservative­politician­ who­became­the­first­president­of­South­Korea­in­1948.­While­avoiding­detailed­discussion­of­the­role­of­Pak­Hŏn-­yŏng­and­the­Korean­Communist­ Party­(kcP)­(later,­the­Korean­Workers’­Party),­Song­reminded­his­readers­ that­it­was­Rhee­who­had­allowed­notorious­collaborators­to­evade­punishment,­including­former­Korean­police­officials­who­had­hunted­down,­tortured,­and­killed­independence­activists.­As­a­whole,­the­essays­in­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­drew­a­link­between­Rhee’s­refusal­to­punish­collaborators­with­other­acts­that­aborted­justice­and­stripped­liberation­of­any­real­ meaning:­delaying­land­reform­and­weakening­its­impact;­sabotaging­the­ work­of­the­U.S.-­Soviet­Joint­Commission­to­prevent­the­formation­of­a­uni-

DiviDeD sovereiGnTy

fied­coalition­government;­and­taking­the­lead­in­manipulating­anticommunist­discourse­to­establish­a­separate­state­in­the­South,­thus­making­the­ 38th­parallel­drawn­by­the­United­States­and­the­Soviet­Union­a­permanent­ (and­militarized)­line­dividing­the­Korean­nation­in­two.33 ­ Through­this­critique­of­Rhee,­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­reinterpreted­ history­after­1945­in­terms­of­powerful­binaries­that­inspired­opposition­ discourse:­ genuine­ nationalism­ versus­ mindless­ anticommunism,­ and­ minjung-­oriented­democracy­versus­mere­formal­democracy.34­Song’s­essay­ not­only­exposed­the­rather­inglorious­origins­of­the­South­Korean­state;­ it­also­negated­cold­war­historiography­by­positing­as­nationalist­resistance­ to­the­un-­sponsored­separate­elections­in­1948­on­which­the­ROk­claimed­ its­legal­basis.­Song’s­essay­was­part­of­a­sustained­and­courageous­effort­ by­dissident­intellectuals­in­South­Korea­to­constitute­the­minjung­as­a­national­(and­nationalist)­subject­and­to­imagine­a­subjectivity­that­could­be­ an­alternative­to­and­autonomous­from­nationalist­narratives­authorized­by­ either­the­North­or­the­South­Korean­state.35 ­ It­was­the­people’s­uprising­in­Kwangju­in­1980,­however,­and­the­massacre­perpetrated­by­South­Korean­government­troops,­which­broke­the­ state’s­ideological­hold­over­the­democratic­movement­in­South­Korea.36­ The­magnitude­of­the­state­violence­drove­young­intellectuals­to­search­for­ the­structural­origins­of­their­predicament.­Whereas­dissident­intellectuals­ like­Song­Kŏn-­ho­had­previously­skirted­the­issue­of­communism­and­the­ role­played­by­Pak­Hŏn-­yŏng­and­the­kcP,­for­example,­by­the­mid-­1980s­ such­taboos­no­longer­evoked­automatic­self-­censorship.37­In­introducing­ the­second­volume­of­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­published­in­1985,­Kang­ Man-­gil­noted­that­history­departments­in­Korean­universities­had­up­to­ then­avoided­the­modern­period.38­Past­attempts­to­write­the­history­of­ colonial­and­postcolonial­Korea­from­an­“objective”­viewpoint­had­been­ repressed,­while­histories­that­did­get­published­either­consciously­or­unconsciously­conferred­legitimacy­on­the­political­forces­responsible­for­the­ division­of­Korea.­Such­historiography­naturalized­the­present.­They­were­ written­from­within­the­structure of division. ­ The­historian’s­most­pressing­task,­then,­was­to­write­a­history­of­modern­ Korea­from­a­perspective­unfettered­by­this­structure­of­division.­Such­a­ perspective­was­accessible,­Kang­Man-­gil­argued,­when­historians­understood­ the­ political­ struggles­ of­ the­ immediate­ postliberation­ period­ not­ simply­as­the­denouement­of­the­colonial­experience­but­also­as­a­struggle­

153

154

ChapTer Five

to­ overcome­ national­ division.­ Beyond­ objective­ analysis­ of­ the­ history­ that­led­to­national­division,­a­unification-­oriented­historiography­(t’ongil chihyangjŏk yŏksa insik)­had­to­pay­special­attention­to­efforts­at­creating­ a­united­front­between­the­Left­and­the­Right­at­the­end­of­the­colonial­ period­and­efforts­to­overcome­national­division­after­1945.­Similar­to­Song­ Kŏn-­ho’s­essay,­Kang­Man-­gil’s­essay­was­a­historical­narrative­that­vindicated­movements­in­opposition­to­the­establishment­of­separate­states,­including­the­boycott­of­un-­sponsored­elections­in­1948,­led­by­communists­ as­well­as­nationalists­like­Kim­Ku. ­ If­Kang­Man-­gil’s­narrative­strategy­aimed­to­recenter­Koreans­(rather­ than­foreign­powers)­in­history­after­1945,­the­lead­chapter­in­the­fourth­ volume­of­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­published­in­1989­and­cowritten­by­ Choi­Jang-­jip­and­Chŏng­Hae-­gu,­looked­at­the­Korean­War­in­terms­of­its­ structural­origins,­both­domestic­and­international,­while­not­losing­sight­ of­the­dynamic­character­of­political­struggle.39­In­describing­this­dynamic,­ Choi­and­Chŏng­began­with­explanations­of­why­liberation­brought­forth­ a­revolutionary­situation.­Simply­put,­it­was­the­breakdown­of­the­colonial­ state­at­the­end­of­the­Pacific­War­which­unleashed­demands­for­revolutionary­change.­These­demands­were­anti-­imperialist­and­antifeudal­in­nature:­ the­vast­majority­of­the­people­wanted­former­collaborators­purged­from­ government­ posts­ and­ nationalization­ of­ land,­ factories,­ and­ businesses­ that­had­been­owned­by­the­Japanese­and­comprador­capitalists.40 ­ In­marked­contrast­with­anticommunist­historiography,­the­appearance­ of­ People’s­ Committees­ throughout­ Korea­ immediately­ after­ liberation­ marked­the­first­steps­toward­the­establishment­of­a­postcolonial­government­which­would­have­carried­out­the­anti-­imperialist,­antifeudal­revolution.­On­the­question­of­the­American­role­in­postliberation­Korean­politics,­Choi­and­Chŏng­agreed­with­the­arguments­made­by­Bruce­Cumings­ in­Origins 1:­while­Soviet­troops­did­not­need­to­force­a­revolutionary­program­on­northern­Korea,­the­tide­of­revolution­was­reversed­in­southern­ Korea­only­with­considerable­coercive­power­by­the­usAMgik.41­Moreover,­ in­the­period­1945–47,­even­as­the­United­States­participated­in­the­Joint­ Commission­talks,­which­were­to­have­laid­the­basis­for­a­unified­Korean­ state,­the­usAMgik­had­pursued­a­policy­of­containment,­as­evidenced­by­ the­outlawing­of­the­kcP,­strengthening­of­the­repressive­state­apparatuses,­ and­support­for­right-­wing­youth­groups. ­ North­of­the­38th­parallel,­immediately­after­liberation,­both­the­Soviet­

DiviDeD sovereiGnTy

Army­and­Kim­Il­Sung­wanted­to­establish­the­party­center­in­Pyongyang,­ and­Choi­and­Chŏng­linked­this­to­what­later­came­to­be­called­minju kijiron,­ the­strategy­of­creating­a­democratic­base­area­as­a­preliminary­to­seizing­ the­whole.42­The­use­of­conventional­military­force­to­overcome­Korea’s­ division­was­not­inherent­in­minju kijiron.­But­after­the­failure­of­the­U.S.-­ Soviet­Joint­Commission­talks­and­the­establishment­of­separate­states­in­ 1948,­the­formal­leadership­structure­of­the­North­Korean­Workers’­Party­ and­the­South­Korean­Workers’­Party­were­merged­into­one,­and­thereafter­ minju kijiron­was­understood­in­military­terms.­Thus,­from­liberation­to­ the­eve­of­the­Korean­War,­the­intent­and­effect­of­minju kijiron­produced,­ in­sequence,­an­independent­kcP­leadership­in­northern­Korea,­political­ consolidation­by­way­of­anti-­imperialist­and­antifeudal­struggles,­central­ leadership­for­the­united­front­struggle­against­the­U.S.-­sponsored­movement­to­establish­a­separate­state­in­the­South,­and­finally­North­Korea­as­ a­military­base­from­which­a­war­of­national­liberation­could­be­launched. ­ On­the­question­of­who­started­the­Korean­War,­Choi­and­Chŏng­dismissed­both­namch’imnon­(North­attacked­South)­and­pukch’imnon­(South­ attacked­North)­as­exercises­in­assigning­blame.­But­they­did­express­more­ interest­in­speculations­about­entrapment­(hamchŏngsŏl)­by­way­of­nsc­ 68­and­Dean­Acheson’s­Press­Club­speech­and­the­North­Korean­attack­as­ limited­war­meant­to­force­quick­negotiations.43­This­volume­of­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­was­important­for­the­number­of­issues­it­raised­and­was­ instructive­in­how­it­recaptured­the­dynamic­nature­of­postliberation­politics­even­while­pointing­to­the­structural­causes­for­the­Korean­War.44

A­Rightist­Critique­of­Nationalist­Historiography As­“revisionist”­historical­narrative­gained­currency­in­the­1980s,­conservative­historians­became­increasingly­frustrated­at­historiography­that­conceded­ nationalist­ credentials­ to­ North­ Korea­ and­ seemingly­ denied­ historical­legitimacy­to­South­Korea.45­But­the­fall­of­communism­in­Eastern­ Europe­in­1989­and­the­dissolution­of­the­Soviet­Union­in­1991­brought­ about­a­shift,­and­so­did­the­emergence­of­postcolonial­theory­in­Korean­ academic­scholarship.­The­New­Right­welcomed­scholarship­inspired­by­ postcolonial­theory­for­its­refusal­to­narrate­the­colonial­period­as­a­Manichaean­struggle­between­a­colonizing­Japan­that­was­racist­and­exploitative­ and­a­resisting­and­enduring­people,­or­nation­(minjung, minjok).­With­this­

155

156

ChapTer Five

the­New­Right­turned­to­criticism­of­nationalism­in­general,­and­nationalist­historiography­of­the­1980s­in­particular,­attacking­the­latter­for­being­ “critical­of­South­Korea.” ­ Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik­(Reconsideration­of­Korean­History­Before­and­After­Liberation)­was­published­in­February­2006­with­enthusiastic­reviews­from­conservative­dailies­like­the­Chosŏn ilbo.­Compiled­by­ four­scholars­identified­either­with­postmodern­theory­or­with­the­New­ Right,­the­title­of­this­two-­volume­anthology­deliberately­evoked­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­as­its­polemical­target,­signaling­the­editors’­intention­of­ restoring­balance­to­a­historical­understanding­of­colonial­and­postcolonial­ history.­In­their­introduction,­the­editors­charged­that­leftist-­nationalist­ historiography,­as­epitomized­by­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­was­responsible­for­the­“dangerously­distorted”­historical­perspective­held­by­a­sizable­segment­of­the­public­(mostly­the­younger­generation)­as­well­as­by­ the­left-­leaning­Roh­Moo-­hyun­administration.46­For­the­editors­of­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­leftist-­nationalist­historiography­of­the­1980s,­ as­epitomized­by­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­had­achieved­near­hegemony­ in­ politics,­ and­ in­ spite­ of­ subsequent­ research­ that­ should­ have­ corrected­such­a­skewed­view,­leftist-­nationalist­historiography­remained­entrenched,­discouraging­the­publication­of­more­“objective”­scholarship,­attacking­those­who­strayed­beyond­leftist-­nationalist­narratives­of­colonial­ exploitation,­anti-­Japanese­resistance­during­the­colonial­period,­and­the­ privileging­of­leftist-­nationalist­struggles­in­the­postliberation­period. ­ As­Cumings­points­out,­what­the­New­Right­saw­as­a­“dangerously­distorted”­historical­perspective­in­fact­appeared­time­and­again­in­U.S.­classified­reports­leading­up­to­the­Korean­War,­in­reports­written­by­American­ military­and­intelligence­officers­who­were­critical­of­America’s­decision­ to­ divide­ Korea­ and­ distressed­ about­ American­ involvement­ in­ political­ assassinations,­for­example,­during­counterinsurgency­operations­in­Yŏsu­ in­1948­and­Cheju­Island­in­1948–49.47­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik­did­ include­a­number­of­essays,­both­older­and­more­recent,­that­presented­evidence­as­well­as­compelling­narratives­on­a­range­of­issues­that­add­complexity­to­narratives­about­the­colonial­experience­and­history­after­1945.48­ Some­essays­ challenged­ Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­ and­leftist-­nationalist­ historiography­much­more­directly.­On­land­reform,­for­example,­Chang­ Si-­wŏn’s­chapter­argued­that­South­Korea’s­land­reform­succeeded­in­transforming­peasants­into­independent­farmers­and­helped­put­an­end­to­status­

DiviDeD sovereiGnTy

distinctions.49­On­the­creation­of­separate­states,­Yi­Chŏng-­sik’s­chapter,­ originally­published­in­1998,­presented­evidence­that­as­early­as­October­ 1945­the­Soviet­Union­was­committed­to­establishing­a­separate­state­in­the­ North.50 ­ According­to­Kim­Chul­(Kim­Ch’ŏl),­one­of­the­editors­of­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­political­discourse­had­shifted­to­such­an­extent­during­ the­Kim­Dae­Jung­and­Roh­Moo-­hyun­administrations­that­scholars­who­ questioned­ leftist-­nationalist­ narratives­ experienced­ a­ backlash­ comparable­to­the­anticommunist­witch­hunts­of­the­past.51­The­immediate­political­context­to­which­Kim­and­the­other­editors­were­referring­had­to­do­ with­the­twenty­or­so­Truth­Commissions­established­since­the­year­2000.­ The­ first­ was­ the­ Presidential­ Truth­ Commission­ on­ Suspicious­ Deaths,­ formed­to­investigate­suspicious­deaths­of­citizens­between­1975­and­1987­ and­to­identify­perpetrators­for­prosecution.­Other­Truth­Commissions­investigated­the­killings­on­Cheju­Island­in­1948­(when­approximately­30,000­ people­were­killed),­collaboration­during­the­colonial­period,­and­responsibility­for­massacres­and­killings­of­civilians­by­U.S.­and­South­Korean­military­and­police­before,­during,­and­after­the­Korean­War.­For­the­editors­ of­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­these­investigations­into­the­past­were­ aimed­at­consolidating­leftist­hegemony­and­undermining­South­Korea’s­ legitimacy­through­a­one-­sided­attack­on­anticommunist­conservatives­in­ South­Korea—because­conservatives­were­much­more­likely­to­have­had­ family­members­who­had­collaborated­with­Japanese­imperialists­as­well­ as­close­personal­ties­to­authoritarian­regimes­of­the­past.52 ­ Thus,­in­the­conservative­press,­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik­was­presented­as­a­full-­throated­and­much­needed­corrective­to­leftist-­nationalist­ historiography.­That­the­leading­conservative­newspaper­in­South­Korea­ was­ at­ the­ forefront­ of­ criticizing­ nationalism­ and­ nationalist­ historiography,­and­actively­cultivating­(and­supporting)­postcolonial­scholarship,­ testifies­to­how­closely­nationalism­had­come­to­be­associated­with­leftist­ politics­and­historiography.­The­New­Right­embraced­postcolonial­theory’s­ critique­of­nationalism­and­nationalist­historiography­as­totalizing­and­undemocratic.­Economic­historians­like­Yi­Yŏng-­hun­welcomed­postcolonial­ theory­for­subverting­unities­such­as­class­and­nation­imposed­by­nationalist­narratives.­For­Yi,­postcolonial­scholarship­provided­the­opening­for­recentering­the­individual­and­as­a­way­to­restore­legitimacy­to­South­Korea’s­ anticommunist­legacy,­now­reconfigured­as­civilizational­progress.53

157

158

ChapTer Five

­ Intellectually,­however,­the­accommodation­between­the­New­Right­and­ postcolonial­scholarship­was­tenuous,­resting­solely­on­their­common­antipathy­ toward­ nationalism­ and­ nationalist­ historiography.­ For­ the­ New­ Right,­intensely­anticommunist­and­fiercely­unapologetic­about­capitalism­ and­capitalist­development­in­South­Korea,­accommodation­with­postcolonial­scholarship­was­tactical,­and­the­strategic­target­was­leftist,­nationalist­ historiography­and­its­political­expression.­On­the­other­hand,­a­number­of­ contributors­to­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­either­implicitly­or­explicitly,­took­issue­with­the­kind­of­“universalism”­advocated­by­the­New­Right,­ a­universalism­based­on­uncritical­notions­of­progress­and­capitalist­development­that­sought­to­sweep­under­the­rug­histories­of­racism,­violence,­ class­exploitation,­and­the­reinvention­of­patriarchy­both­under­Japanese­ colonial­rule­and­under­U.S.-­supported­South­Korean­governments.

In­Lieu­of­a­Conclusion While­the­genealogies­presented­here­were­unavoidably­schematic,­the­aim­ of­this­chapter­was­to­situate­different,­competing­modes­of­history­writing­within­and­against­the­distinctive­political­and­intellectual­configurations­that­dominated­a­particular­conjuncture­in­modern­Korean­history.­ In­socioeconomic­(Marxist)­historiography,­for­example,­Paek­Nam-­un’s­ critique­of­both­colonialist­and­nationalist­historiography­in­the­early­1930s­ drew­on­and­reinforced­the­idealist / materialist­and­universality / particularity­binaries­that­nationalist­historians­like­An­Chae-­hong­had­to­contend­with­later.­Even­as­Paek­affirmed­a­unilinear­view­of­historical­development,­his­rendering­of­Korea’s­ancient­past­as­consistent­with­universal­ development­included­finding­what­he­thought­was­Korea’s­equivalent­of­ the­Punaluan­family­structure,­thus­transforming­ancestors­into­(interesting)­strangers. ­ In­the­immediate­postliberation­period,­with­Korea­under­divided­occupation­by­Soviet­and­American­forces,­Paek’s­stance­became­more­nationalist,­calling­for­a­broad­united­front­that­could­bring­about­a­unified­and­ sovereign­ nation-­state.­ In­ this­ revolutionary­ context,­ Chindan­ hakhoe­ members­such­as­Son­Chin-­t’ae­and­Yi­In-­yŏng­turned­to­narrating­the­nation’s­past­on­the­basis­of­a­“new­nationalism,”­trying­to­identify­an­essential­and­abiding­unity­that­might­transcend­and­mitigate­class­conflict.­It­ was­the­revolution­on­April­19,­1960,­however,­that­prompted­Yi­Ki-­baek­

DiviDeD sovereiGnTy

to­offer­a­systematic­critique­of­colonialist­historiography,­at­last­rendering­ positivist­historiography­safely­postcolonial­and­more­effective­in­naturalizing­capitalist­modernity,­that­is,­critical­of­colonialist­historiography­and­ Marxist­historiography­but­uncritical­of­American­intervention­in­Korea­ after­1945. ­ As­the­effort­to­“overcome”­colonialist­historiography­gathered­momentum,­in­tandem­with­an­increasingly­vibrant­democracy­movement,­historians­ like­Kim­Yong-­sŏp­ and­Kang­Man-­gil­ reengaged­ with­Paek’s­disclosure­of­an­internal­dynamic­underlying­Korea’s­historical­development,­ wherein­ class­ struggle­ was­ central­ to­ that­ internal­ dynamic.­ It­ was­ the­ people’s­uprising­in­Kwangju­in­1980,­however,­and­the­massacre­perpetrated­by­government­troops,­which­pushed­historians­like­Kang­to­narrate­ colonial­and­postliberation­history­from­outside­the­“structure­of­division.”­ This­historiography­was­explicitly­nationalist.­But­it­should­be­kept­in­mind­ that,­for­Kang,­this­convergence­of­Marxist­historiography­with­nationalist­ historiography­was­historically­contingent.54 ­ Postnationalist­scholarship,­which­emerged­in­the­first­decade­of­the­new­ millennium,­began­with­studies­of­the­colonial­period.­Rather­than­taking­ ethnicity,­sexuality,­and­class­as­fixed,­objective­categories,­a­younger­generation­of­historians­and­literary­scholars­focused­attention­on­the­process­ by­which­ethnicity,­sexuality,­and­class­came­to­be­(re)constituted­under­ colonial­ rule.­ As­ these­ scholars­ eschewed­ a­ simple­ colonizer/colonized­ binary,­their­work­elicited­hostile­reaction­from­leftist-­nationalist­historians­but­enthusiastic­interest­from­the­New­Right,­in­large­part­because­of­ their­deployment­of­the­notion­of­colonial­modernity,­in­which­the­colonial­ sometimes­receded­into­the­background,­leaving­only­the­modern—but­ not­always­as­an­object­of­critique.­As­suggested­here,­the­accommodation­ between­New­Right­intellectuals­and­postnationalist­scholarship­was­also­ contingent,­and­it­remains­to­be­seen­whether­postnationalist­historiography­can­remain­critical­of­the­workings­of­power­without­strong­links­to­ socioeconomic­(Marxist)­historiography.55 ­ What­began­in­the­late­nineteenth­century­as­an­effort­on­the­part­of­ the­dynastic­state­to­attain­equal­sovereignty­developed­into­a­mass­enterprise­that­demanded­perseverance­and­fidelity.­Many­historians­dutifully­ did­their­part­by­sustaining­a­normative­understanding­of­sovereignty­as­ both­the­embodiment­and­the­exercise­of­reason,­autonomy,­and­freedom.­ Through­narratives­they­compiled,­activist­historians­sought­to­induce­the­

159

160

ChapTer Five

subject­ that­ would­ be­ the­ master­ and­ sole­ author­ of­ that­ enterprise.­ To­ paraphrase­Alain­Badiou,­from­nationalist­historians­like­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­to­ Marxist­historians­like­Paek­Nam-­un,­or­New­Right­historians­in­contemporary­South­Korea,­historians­imagined­sovereignty­to­be­not­just­a­goal­ but­an­axiom,­an­idea­that­demands­fidelity.56­As­a­record­of­that­fidelity,­ this­book­presented­an­outline­of­the­situation­that­elicited­various­modes­ of­history­writing,­but­very­little­in­terms­of­what­that­fidelity­meant­as­ lived­experience.­As­a­legal­and­ideological­principle­in­capitalist­modernity,­equal­sovereignty­as­an­axiom­engendered­attachment­and­attendant­ range­ of­ emotions,­ including­ joy,­ exhaustion,­ and­ what­ Laurent­ Berlant­ calls­“cruel­optimism.”­For­Berlant,­a­relation­of­cruel­optimism­emerges­ when­the­object­that­drew­your­attachment­begins­to­impede­the­aim­that­ brought­you­to­it­initially.­“It­is­cruel­insofar­as­the­very­pleasures­of­being­ inside­a­relation­have­become­sustaining­regardless­of­the­content­of­the­ relation.”57­From­“K.­Y.,”­a­student­at­“X­Women’s­School”­in­the­1930s­who­ could­like­her­short­hair­but­only­at­the­cost­of­contending­with­social­conventions,­ to­ writers­ like­ Im­ Hwa,­ who,­ in­ the­ immediate­ postliberation­ period,­felt­that­only­a­thorough­self-­examination­and­self-­critique­within­ a­collective­setting­could­produce­a­genuinely­revolutionary­and­sovereign­ subject,­fidelity­to­sovereignty,­as­lived­experience,­was­(and­is)­at­once­ threatening­and­profoundly­confirming.

appenDix 1

Names­and­Vital­Dates: ­ Akiba­Takashi­ ­ An­Chae-­hong­ ­ An­Hwak­ ­ Chang­To-­bin­ ­ Cho­Pak­ ­ Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn­ ­ Chŏng­To-­jŏn­ ­ Chŏng­In-­bo­ ­ Chŏng­Yag-­yong­ ­ Chu­Si-­g yŏng­ ­ Fukuda­Tokuzō­ ­Fukuzawa­Yukichi­ ­ Han­Paek-­kyŏm­ ­ Han­Sŏl-­ya­ ­ Hayashi­Taisuke­ ­ Hong­Tae-­yong­ ­ Hoshino­Hisashi­ ­ Huang­Zunxian­ ­ Hwang­Hyŏn­ ­ Hyŏn­Ch’ae­ ­ Im­Hwa­ ­ Imamura­Tomo­ ­ Inoue­Kaoru­ ­ Iryŏn­ ­ Itō­Hirobumi­ ­ (Empress)­Jingū­ ­ Kanda­Naibu­ ­ Kija­(C:­Jizi)­ ­ Kim­Chŏng-­ho­

1888–1954­ 1891–1965­ 1886–1946­ 1888–1963­ 1356–1408­ 1890–1957­ 1342­(?)–98­ 1893–1950­ 1762–1836­ 1876–1914­ 1874–1930­ 1834–1901­ 1552–1615­ 1900–1976­ 1854–1922­ 1731–83­ 1839–1917­ 1848–1905­ 1855–1910­ 1856–1925­ 1908–53­ 1870–1943­ 1836–1915­ 1206–89­ 1841–1909­ ca.­169–269­ 1857–1923­ ­ 1804­(?)–1866­(?)­

秋葉隆 安在鴻 安廓 張道斌 趙璞 崔南善 鄭道傳 鄭寅普 丁若鏞­(茶山) 周時經 福田德三 福澤諭吉 韓百謙 韓雪野 林泰輔 洪大容 星野彬 黄遵黄 黃玹 玄采 林和 今村黄 井上馨 一然 伊藤博文 神功天皇­(legendary­figure) 神田乃武 箕子 金正浩

162

appenDix one

­ Kim­Hong-­jip­ ­ Kim­Hwal-­lan­ ­ Kim­Ki-­rim­ ­ Kim­Nam-­ch’ŏn­ ­ Kim­Ok-­kyun­ ­ Kim­Pu-­sik­ ­ Kim­Sa-­ryang­ ­ Kim­T’ae-­jun­ ­ Kim­Yun-­sik­ ­ Kojong­(Yi­Chae-­hwang)­ ­ Kume­Kunitake­ ­ Li­Hongzhang­ ­ Liang­Qichao­ ­(Queen)­Min­(Min­Cha-­yŏng)­ ­ Min­Yŏng-­ik­ ­ Minami­Jirō­ ­ Murayama­Jijun­ ­ Mutsu­Munemitsu­ ­ Myoch’ŏng­ ­ Okakura­Kakuzō­ ­ Paek­Nam-­un­ ­ Pak­Che-­ga­ ­ Pak­Chi-­wŏn­ ­ Pak­Hŏn-­yŏng­ ­ Pak­Si-­hyŏng­ ­ Pak­Ŭn-­sik­ ­ Pak­Yŏng-­hyo­ ­ ­ ­ Rhee­Syngman­ ­ Saitō­Makoto­ ­ Sejong­(Yi­To)­ ­ Sekino­Tadashi­ ­ Shigeno­Yasutsugu­ ­ Shiratori­Kurakichi­ ­ Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­ ­ Sŏ­Chae-­p’il­ ­ Sŏ­Kwang-­bŏm­

1842–96­ 1899–1970­ 1908–?­ 1911–53­ 1851–94­ 1075–1151­ 1914–50­ 1905–49­ 1835–1922­ (r.­1863–1907) 1839–1931­ 1823–1901­ 1873–1929­ 1851–1895­ 1860–1914­ 1874–1955­ 1891–1968­ 1844–97­ d.­1136­ 1862–1913­ 1894–1979­ 1750–1805­ 1737–1805­ 1900–1955­ 1910–2001­ 1859–1925­ 1861–1939­ ­ 1875–1965­ 1858–1936­ (r.­1418–50) 1868–1935­ 1827–1910­ 1865–1942­ 1880–1936­ 1864–1951­ 1859–97­

金弘集 金活蘭­(Helen,­天城活蘭) 金起林 金南天 金玉均 金富軾 金史良 金台俊 金允埴 久米 邦武 李鴻章 梁黄超 明成皇后 閔泳翊 南次黄 村山智順 陸黄 宗光 妙淸 岡倉黄三­(Okakura­Tenshin) 白南雲 朴齊家 朴趾源 朴憲永 朴時亨 朴殷植 朴泳孝­(Yamazaki­Eiharu

 山崎永春) 李承晩 黄藤黄 黄野貞 重野安繹 白鳥庫吉 申采浩 徐載弼­(Philip­Jaisohn) 徐光範

names anD viTaL DaTes

­ Son­Chin-­t’ae­ ­ Son­Pyŏng-­hŭi­ ­ Sone­Arasuke­ ­ Song­Si-­yŏl­ ­ Suiko­ ­Taewŏn’gun­(Yi­Ha-­ŭng)­ ­ Tan’gun­ ­ Terauchi­Masatake­ ­ Torii­Ryūzō­ ­ Wang­Kŏn­ ­ Yanagi­Sōetsu­ ­ Yi­Ch’ŏng-­wŏn­ ­ Yi­Hwang­ ­ Yi­Ki-­yŏng­ ­ Yi­Kwang-­su­ ­ Yi­Nŭng-­hwa­ ­ Yi­Pyŏng-­do­ ­ Yi­Sang­ ­ Yi­Sŏng-­g ye­ ­ Yi­Sŭng-­hyu­ ­ Yi­T’ae-­jun­ ­ Yi­Yi­ ­ Yu­Kil-­chun­ ­ Yu­Tŭkkong­ ­ Yuan­Shikai­ ­ Yun­Ch’i-­ho­ ­ Zhu­Xi­

1900–1950­ 1861–1922­ 1849–1910­ 1607–89­ 554–628­ 1820–98­ (r.­2333­bcE–)­ 1852–1919­ 1870–1953­ (r.­918–43)­ 1889–1961­ ?–?­ 1501–70­ 1895–1984­ 1892–1950­ 1869–1943­ 1896–1989­ 1910–37­ (r.­1392–98)­ 1224–1300­ 1904–56­ 1536–84­ 1856–1914­ 1749–1807­ 1859–1916­ 1865–1945­ 1130–1200­

孫晋泰 孫秉熙 曾禰 荒助 宋時烈 推古天皇­(Empress­Suiko) 大院君­(李昰應) 檀君­(legendary­figure) 寺黄 正毅 鳥居 龍黄 王建­(高麗太祖) 柳 宗黄 李淸源 李滉­(courtesy­name­Toegye) 李箕永 李光洙­(香山光郞) 李能和 李丙燾 李箱 李成桂­(朝鮮太祖) 李承休 李泰俊 李珥­(courtesy­name­Yulgok) 兪吉濬 柳得恭 袁世凱 尹致昊­(Itō­Jikko­伊東致昊) 朱熹­(K:­Chu­Hŭi)

163

appenDix 2

Character­List ­ chaju­chi­pang­ ­ chaju­tongnip­ ­ che­ ­ chehu’guk­ ­ (C:­Chenfan)­ ­ ch’in-­Il­ ­ chin’gongguk­ ­ chŏngch’esŏngnon­ ­ chongmyo­ ­ chongmyo­cherye­ ­ chŏngsin­ ­ chŏngt’ong­ ­ ch’ŏnha­ ­ ch’ŏnja­ ­ ch’ŏnmyŏng­ ­ (J:­Chōsenjin)­ ­ Chosŏn­ chuch’e;­chuch’esŏng­ ­ ­ ­ chukwŏn­ ­ chungin­ ­ ch’ung­ŏ­kukka­ ­ chungwŏn­ ­ (J:­futei­senjin)­ ­ (J:­genrō)­ ­ Haedong­ ­ hanmun­ ­ hon­ ­ ­ ­ ­

自主之邦­ 自主獨立­ 帝­ 諸侯國­ 唇番郡­ 親日­ 進貢國­ 停滯性論­ 宗廟­ 宗廟祭禮­ 精神­ 正統­ 天下­ 天子­ 天命­ 朝鮮人­ 朝鮮­ 主體,­主體性­

­ 主權­ 中人­ 忠於國家­ 中原­ 不逞鮮人­ 元老­ 海東­ 漢文­ 魂­

­ ­

independent­country autonomy­and­independence emperor vassal­state (K:­Chinbŏn)­Han­Chinese­commandery Japanophile tributary­state theory­about­stagnation Royal­Ancestral­Temple grand­sacrificial­rite mind,­spirit,­Geist legitimate­line,­legitimate­succession world,­All­under­Heaven Son­of­Heaven Heaven’s­mandate Koreans 1392–1910 (sovereign)­subject,­subjectivity,­  subjective­will sovereignty hereditary­class­of­technical­specialists loyalty­to­the­state Central­Plain­(North­China­Plain) malcontent­Koreans Meiji­elder­statesmen East,­Korea literary­Chinese soul,­spirit;­its­vitality­comes­from­  Heaven,­and­thus­can­be­detached­­  from­the­body

166

appenDix Two

­

hongik­in’gan­ Hunmin chŏngŭm­ ­ ­ ­ hwangje­ ­ hwa-­yi­ Hwangsŏng sinmun­ ­ hyangch’al­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ hyangga­ ­ ­ ­ hyangyak­ ­ hyo­ŏ­pumo­ ­ idan­ ­ idu­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Il-­Sŏn­tongjoron­ ­ ­ ­ inmin­ ­ (J:­Jiji sinpo)­ ­ ­ ­ (J:­Keijō)­ ­ ki­ ­ (J:­Kojiki)­ ­ Koguryŏ­ ­ (J:­kokumin)­ ­ (J:­kokutai)­ ­ Koryŏ­ ­ kukka­ ­ kŭndaehwa­ ­kun’guk­kimuch’ŏ­ ­ kungmin­ ­ kungmun­ ­ kunmin­ilch’e­ ­ kyŏre­ ­ kwanbo­

弘益人間­ 訓民正音­

­ 皇帝­ 華 夷­ 皇城新聞­ 鄕札­

­ ­ 鄕歌­

­ 鄕約­ 孝於父母­ 異端­ 吏讀­/­吏頭­

­ ­ 日鮮同祖論­

­ 人民­ 時事新報­

­ 京城­ 氣­ 古事記­ 高句麗­ 國民­ 國體­ 高麗­ 國家­ 近代化­ 軍國機務處­ 國民­ 國文­ 君民一體­ 겨레­ 官報­

devotion­to­welfare­of­humankind published­in­1443,­Instruct­the­people­on­the­  proper­sounds, emperor civilization-­barbarism September­5,­1898–1910 local­letters,­archaic­Korean­vernacular­that­  used­Chinese­characters­for­meaning­and­­  sound poems­from­the­Three­Kingdoms­period­to­  the­Koryŏ­period­recorded­in­hyangchal community­compacts filiality­toward­parents heresy,­deviance archaic­writing­systems­that­used­Chinese­  characters­and­their­abbreviations­to­­  transcribe­Korean (J:­Nissen­dōsoron)­theory­about­Japanese­  and­Koreans­sharing­common­origins the­people Current Events,­a­newspaper­started­by­  Fukuzawa­Yukichi Seoul life­force­or­breath,­energy Record­of­Ancient­Matters,­completed­in­712 37­bcE–668 national­citizen,­subject national­body/structure 918–1392 the­state,­polity modernization deliberative­council national­citizen,­subject national­script ruler­and­his­people­as­one­body ethnic­nation Official Gazette­(1894–1910)

CharaCTer LisT

­ kwangmu­ ­ ­ ­ kwinsin­ ­ kwŏlli­ ­ kwŏn­ ­ (C:­Lelang)­ ­ ­ ­ Liao­ ­ (C:­Lintun)­ ­ ­ ­ man’guk­kongbŏp­ Manmin­Kongdonghoe­ ­ (J:­Mansenshi)­ ­ min­ ­ minjok­ ­ minjung­ ­ mujing­pulsin­ ­ munhŏn­kojŭng­sahak­ ­ (J:­Naisen­ittai)­ ­ (J:­Naisen­yūwa)­ ­ (J:­Nihon Shoki)­ ­ ­ ­ kuk’ŏ­ ­ ŏl­ ­ ŏnmun­ ­ ­ ­ Paekche­ ­ ŏp­ ­ paeksŏng­ ­ Parhae­ ­ Parhaego­ ­ ­ ­ pongkŏn­ ­ puma’guk­ ­ P’ungipsong­ ­ p’yeha­ ­ sadae­

光武­

­ 鬼神­ 權利­ 權­ 樂浪郡­

­ 遼­ 臨屯郡­

­ 萬國公法­ 萬民共同會­ 滿鮮史­ 民­ 民族­ 民衆­ 無徵不信­ 文獻考證史學­ 內鮮一體­ 黄鮮融和­ 日本書紀­

­ 國語­ 얼­ 諺文­

­ 白濟­ 業­ 百姓­ 渤海­ 渤海考­

­ 封建­ 駙馬國­ 風入松­ 陛下­ 事大­

era­name,­August­17,­1897­to­  August­11,­1907 ghost authority,­privilege,­rights rights,­prerogative (K:­Nangnang)­103­bcE–313­cE,­  Han­Chinese­commandery (Khitan­Empire)­907–1125, (K:­Imdun)­107–82­bcE,­Han­  Chinese­commandery international­law Assembly­of­All­(People) history­of­Manchuria­and­Korea people ethnic­nation people,­the­subaltern fidelity­to­historical­sources critical-­textual­historiography Japan­and­Korea­as­one­body harmony­between­Japan­and­Korea The­Chronicles­of­Japan,­completed­  in­720 national­language mind,­spirit disparaging­term­for­Korean­letters­  invented­by­King­Sejong 18­bcE–660 work,­enterprise the­people (C:­Bohai)­696–926 history­of­Parhae­by­eighteenth-­  century­scholar­Yu­Tŭk-­kong feudal son-­in-­law­state a­Koryŏ­period­“folk”­song Your­Majesty­(form­of­address) serve­the­superior

167

168

appenDix Two

­ sadaebu­ ­ sajikdan­ ­ sangha­kwich’ŏn­ ­ sarim­ ­ Silla­ ­ sim­ ­ sinkungmin­ ­ sinyŏsŏng­ ­ soChunghwa­ ­ ­ ­ sŏgomun­ ­ sokkuk­ ­ Sŏkkuram­ ­ ­ ­ sŏnghwang­ Sŏyu kyŏnmun­ ­ Ssangsŏng­ ­ suri­pujak­ ­ Taehan­cheguk­ ­ ­ ­ taeŏp­ ­ taesa­ ­ tanbalryŏng­ ­ tangp’asŏngnon­ ­ ­ ­ t’ayulsŏngnon­ ­ ­ ­ Tongbang­ ­ Tongguk­ ­ tongnip­ To­ngnip­hyŏphoe­ ­ ­ ­ Tongŭi­pogam­ ­ ­ ­ (J:­tōyōshi)­ ­ ŭm,­yang­ ­ wae­

士大夫­ 社稷壇­ 上下貴賤­ 士林­ 新羅­ 心­ 新國民­ 新女性­ 小中華­

­ 誓告文­ 屬國­ 石窟庵­

­ 聖皇­ 西遊見聞­ 雙城(摠管府)­ 述而不作­ 大韓帝國­

­ 大業­ 大祀­ 斷髮令­ 黨派性論­

­ 他律性論­

­ 東方­ 東國­ 獨立­ 獨立協會­

­ 東醫寶鑑­

­ 東洋史­ 陰陽­ 倭­

scholar-­official­class Altars­of­Land­and­Harvest people­of­all­ranks literati­in­the­countryside 57­bcE–668­cE;­“Unified”­Silla,­668–935 mind,­heart new­citizen-­subject new­woman Korea­as­a­lesser­(but­only­remaining)­  civilization royal­oath vassal­state,­dependency man-­made­stone­grotto­with­Buddhist­  statue emperor Observations on a Journey to the West Yüan­commandery transmission­without­creative­elaboration Han­(Korean)­Empire­(October­12,­  1897–August­29,­1910) great­/­grand­enterprise great­offerings topknot­decree factionalism­(ingrained­in­Korean­political­  culture) heteronomous­evolution,­lack­of­  autochthonous­development Eastern­Country,­Korea Eastern­Country,­Korea independence Independence­Club,­July­1896–  December­25,­1898 completed­1613,­Precious­Mirror­of­Korean­  Medicine Oriental­history yin,­yang Japan­(pejorative)

CharaCTer LisT

Wanpaoshan­Incident­ ­ wŏndan­ ­ wŏn’gudan­ ­ (C:­Xuantu)­ ­ ­ ­ yushin­

萬寶山事件­ 圜壇­ 圜丘壇­ 玄菟郡­

­ 維新­

(K:­Manbosan)­July­1931 Round­Altar Round­Hill­Altar (K:­Hyŏndo)­Han­Chinese­Commandery­  107­bcE–302 restoration

169

noTes

Introduction ­ 1.­Sŭpotssŭ,­sŭpidŭ,­and­saeksŭ,­along­with­the­explanation­for­the­bob­haircut,­ are­ in­ parentheses­ in­ the­ original.­ Other­ foreign­ words­ like­ Nora,­ the Bob,­ and­ harem­are­in­quotation­marks.­Kim­Ki-­rim­was­a­modernist­poet­and­literary­critic.­ His­essay­“‘Missŭ­Koria’­tanbal­hasio”­(“Miss­Korea,”­Cut­Your­Hair)­appeared­in­ Tongkwang,­no.­37­(September­1932)­without­attribution. ­ 2.­The­text­refers­to­sŏppun tchari ka’gŭk,­Kurt­Weil­and­Bertolt­Brecht’s­Die Dreigroschenoper,­first­performed­in­Berlin­in­1928. ­ 3.­X’s­were­inserted­to­avoid­censorship.­The­Kwantung­Army­had­seized­Manchuria­in­September­1931­and­invaded­Shanghai­in­January­1932.­Thus­when­Kim­ Ki-­rim­wrote­the­essay­anti-­imperialism­had­taken­precedence­in­Chinese­politics. ­ 4.­Established­in­1886­by­Mary­Scranton,­Ehwa­began­as­a­mission­school­for­ girls.­In­the­early­1930s­Ewha­College­admitted­about­a­hundred­students­each­year.­ Of­the­thirty-­seven­faculty­members,­twenty-­one­were­Korean.­Kim­Hwal-­lan­was­a­ graduate­of­Ewha,­and­in­1922­she­helped­organize­the­Korean­ywcA.­Yun­Ch’i-­ho,­ who­founded­the­yMcA­in­Korea,­was­her­mentor.­She­was­also­a­member­of­the­ Kŭnŭhoe,­a­nationalist­women’s­organization­founded­in­1927.­But­she­resigned­ soon­afterward,­unwilling­to­work­with­women­who­were­Marxists­and­socialists.­ Kim­Hwal-­lan,­“Na­nŭn­tanbal­ŭl­irrŏkkye­ponda,”­Tongkwang,­no.­37­(September­ 1932).­See­also­Ihwa­Yŏksagwan,­Ewha Old and New: 110 Years of History (1886–1996)­ (Seoul:­Ewha­Woman’s­University­Press,­2005),­and­Insook­Kwon,­“Feminists­Navigating­the­Shoals­of­Nationalism­and­Collaboration:­The­Post-­Colonial­Korean­Debate­over­How­to­Remember­Kim­Hwal-­lan,”­Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies­ 27,­no.­1­(2006). ­ 5.­Achille­Mbembe,­“Necropolitics,”­Public Culture­15,­no.­1­(2003),­13.­I­thank­ Alexis­Dudden­for­referring­me­to­this­article. ­ 6.­K.­Y.,­“Tanbalhan­kamsang,”­Tongkwang,­no.­37­(September­1932). ­ 7.­ On­ the­ historical­ relationship­ between­ imperialism­ and­ international­ law,­ see­Antony­Anghie,­Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law­ (Cambridge:­Cambridge­University­Press,­2004).­See­also­Martti­Koskenniemi,­The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960­(Cambridge:­Cambridge­University­Press,­2001). ­ 8.­There­were­other,­less­dramatic­changes­to­sumptuary­laws,­for­example,­laws­ that­regulated­the­length­of­the­pipe­and­the­length­and­width­of­the­sleeves. ­ 9.­According­to­Hwang­Hyŏn,­King­Kojong­turned­to­Chŏng­Pyŏng-­ha,­an­official­ who­was­born­in­the­nonaristocratic­chungin­class,­and­told­him­to­cut­the­topknot.­

172

noTes To inTroDuCTion

Yu­Kil-­jun­cut­the­crown­prince’s­hair.­Cited­in­Lee­Kwang-­rin­(Yi­Kwang-­rin),­Yu Kil-chun­(Seoul:­Tonga­ilbosa,­1992),­122–23. ­ 10.­Across­East­Asia,­writers­wrote­about­hair.­In­Lu­Xun’s­“Toufa­de­gushi”­(A­ Story­about­Hair,­1920),­for­example,­a­student­cut­his­queue­when­he­went­to­ Japan­to­study.­Upon­his­return­to­China­he­purchased­a­fake­queue­in­Shanghai.­ But­it­was­1910,­and­he­was­ridiculed­for­wearing­a­fake­queue.­He­took­off­the­ queue­and­put­on­a­Western­suit.­He­was­jeered­in­the­streets.­He­put­on­the­long­ Chinese­gown,­and­he­was­still­ridiculed.­The­protagonist­in­the­story,­N,­finally­ lashed­out­at­his­tormentors­with­his­cane,­after­which­he­was­left­alone.­N­says,­ “It­[hitting­others]­made­me­feel­sorrowful.”­In­an­essay­published­in­1935,­Lu­Xun­ revealed­that­“Toufa”­was­autobiographical.­See­Evan­Shan­Chou,­“‘A­Story­about­ Hair’:­A­Curious­Mirror­of­Lu­Xun’s­Pre-­Republican­Years,”­Journal of Asian Studies­ 66,­no.­2­(2007). ­ 11.­In­the­English­translation­released­by­the­Home­Office­and­signed­by­Yu­Kil-­ chun,­taeŏp­was­translated­as­“the­great­work.”­Cited­in­Isabella­L.­Bird,­Korea and Her Neighbors­(1897;­Boston:­KPI,­1985),­363.­The­phrase­“Our­subjects”­(sinmin)­ is­actually­a­compound­that­refers­to­two­groups:­“subjects”­or­officials­(sin),­and­ the­rest­(min,­or­people).­For­the­Korean­text,­see­Kojong sillok,­33-­kwŏn,­32-­nyŏn­ (1895),­11/15.­Kuksa­pyŏnch’an­wiwŏnhoe­(National­Institute­of­Korean­History):­ http://sillok.history.go.kr/main/main.jsp.­For­Kojong sillok,­as­with­other­annals­in­ the­Chosŏn wangjo sillok­(Annals­of­the­Chosŏn­Dynasty),­the­citation­begins­with­ the­ruler’s­temple­name­identifying­the­record­(sillok),­followed­by­volume­number­(kwŏn),­the­reign­year­(nyŏn)­with­the­Common­Era­year­in­parentheses,­the­ month­and­day­by­lunar­calendar,­and­when­necessary­the­entry’s­location­on­the­ page.­November­15­by­the­lunar­calendar,­32nd­year­of­Kojong’s­reign,­was­December­30,­1895,­in­the­Gregorian­calendar. ­ 12.­The­best­work­on­this­period­is­Andre­Schmid’s­Korea between Empires, 1895– 1919­(New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­2002). ­ 13.­Regarding­Japanese­use­of­international­law­to­legitimate­Japan’s­empire,­see­ Alexis­Dudden,­Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power­(Honolulu:­University­of­Hawaii­Press,­2004). ­ 14.­Human­tribute­began­during­the­Yüan­dynasty.­The­number­of­children­requisitioned­ was­small,­and­they­were­taken­on­an­irregular­ basis.­The­girls­were­ selected­from­daughters­of­low-­to­middle-­grade­officials.­Donald­N.­Clark,­“Sino-­ Korean­Tributary­Relations­under­the­Ming,”­The Ming Dynasty, 1398–1644,­part­2,­ ed.­Denis­Twitchett­and­Frederick­W.­Mote,­The Cambridge History of China,­vol.­8­ (Cambridge:­Cambridge­University­Press,­1998). ­ 15.­ Benedict­ Anderson,­ Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism­(London:­Verso,­1983),­77. ­ 16.­Yun­Ch’i-­ho,­Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi­(Seoul:­Kuksa­py’ŏnchan­wiwŏnhoe,­1973–1989),­ entry­for­October­14,­1893,­3:187–88. ­ 17.­See­Uday­Singh­Mehta,­Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth Century British Liberal Thought­(Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­Press,­1999).

noTes To inTroDuCTion

­ 18.­My­argument­here­has­an­affinity­to­the­historical­trajectories­suggested­by­ Kim­Yong-­sŏp.­See­below,­and­note­30­in­chapter­2. ­ 19.­See­note­60­in­chapter­2,­my­reference­to­Paul­Ricoeur’s­The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning of Language­(Toronto:­University­ of­Toronto­Press,­1975). ­ 20.­See­Ross­King,­“Western­Protestant­Missionaries­and­the­Origins­of­Korean­ Language­Modernization,”­Journal of International and Area Studies­11,­no.­3­(2004). ­ 21.­Rey­Chow,­Women and Modernity: The Politics of Reading between East and West­ (Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­1991),­xv. ­ 22.­The­Sŏkkuram­is­one­of­South­Korea’s­national­treasures­and­recognized­by­ unEscO­as­a­World­Heritage­site.­It­was­constructed­in­the­mid-­eighth­century­on­ Mt.­T’oham­near­Kyŏngju. ­ 23.­See­Hyung­Il­Pai,­Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State-Formation Theories­ (Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Asia­Center,­2000). ­ 24.­See­Jun­Uchida,­Brokers of Empire: Japanese Settler Colonialism in Korea, 1876– 1945­ (Cambridge:­ Harvard­ University­ Asia­ Center,­ 2011).­ See­ also­ Uchida­ Jun,­ “Ch’ongnyŏkjŏn­sigi­chae-­Chosŏn­Ilbonin­ŭi­‘NaeSŏn­Ilch’e’­chŏngchaek­e­taehan­ hyŏmnyŏk,”­Asea yŏn’gu­51,­no.­1­(2008),­and­Micah­Auerback,­“‘Ch’in-­Il­Pulgyo’­ yŏksahak­ŭi­chae’go:­Chosŏn­Pulgyodan­kwa­1920-­nyŏndae­Chosŏn­esŏ­ŭi­sŭngryŏ­ kyŏlhon­e­taehan­nonjaeng,”­Asea yŏn’gu­51,­no.­3­(2008). ­ 25.­See­Rebecca­Karl,­Staging the World: Chinese Nationalism at the Turn of the Twentieth Century­(Durham:­Duke­University­Press,­2002),­5–7. ­ 26.­See­Kume­Kunitake,­“Nihon­fukuin­no­enkaku,”­Shigakkai zasshi­1­(December­ 1889),­and­also­Stefan­Tanaka,­Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pasts into History­(Berkeley:­ University­of­California­Press,­1993),­71–75. ­ 27.­Fukuda­Tokuzō,­“Kankoku­no­keizai­soshiki­to­keizai­tani,”­Keizaigaku kenkyū,­ (Tokyo:­Dōbunkan,­1904),­147.­My­English­translation­is­based­on­Yi­Ch’ŏl-­sŏng’s­ Korean­language­translation.­See­Yi­Ch’ŏl-­sŏng,­“Singminjisigi­yŏksainsik­kwa­yŏksasŏsul,”­Han’guksa­23­(Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1994),­129.­See­also­Owen­Miller,­“The­ Idea­of­Stagnation­in­Korean­Historiography,”­Korean Histories­2,­no.­1­(2010):­4–5. ­ 28.­Both­were­written­ in­Japanese­ and­published­ in­Japan­ to­avoid­ the­more­ stringent­censorship­laws­in­colonial­Korea. ­ 29.­Tanaka,­Japan’s Orient. ­ 30.­W.­W.­Rostow,­A Proposal: Key to an Effective Foreign Policy­(New­York:­Harper­ and­Brothers,­1957),­and­The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto­ (Cambridge:­Cambridge­University­Press,­1960).­See­also­Tae-­g yun­Park,­“Different­Roads,­Common­Destination:­Economic­Discourses­in­South­Korea­During­the­ 1950s,”­Modern Asian Studies­39,­no.­3­(2005). ­ 31.­See­Pak­Chi-­hyang­et­al.,­eds.,­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­vols.­1­and­2­ (Seoul:­Ch’aek­Sesang,­2006). ­ 32.­Bruce­Cumings,­“The­Korea­War:­What­Is­It­That­We­Are­Remembering­to­ Forget?,”­Ruptured Histories: War, Memory, and the Post–Cold War in Asia,­ed.­Sheila­

173

174

noTes To ChapTer one

Miyoshi­ Jager­ and­ Rana­ Mitter­ (Cambridge:­ Harvard­ University­ Press,­ 2007),­ 283–84. ­ 33.­Pak­et­al.,­“Taedam,”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­vol.­2. ­ 34.­Michael­Hardt­and­Antonio­Negri,­Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire­(New­York:­Penguin­Books,­2004),­212.

1.­Sovereignty­and­Imperialism ­ 1.­The­source­of­this­chapter’s­epigraph,­Carl­Schmitt’s­1933­lecture,­was­republished­in­Positionen und Begriffe­ and­cited­in­G.­L.­Ulmen’s­introduction­to­Carl­ Schmitt,­The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum­(New­York:­Telos­Press,­2003),­18–19. ­ 2.­The­official­English­translation­quoted­here­suitably­makes­use­of­the­royal­ “We.”­For­the­Korean­text,­see­Kojong sillok,­32-­kwŏn,­31-­nyŏn­(1894),­12/12,­first­ article.­Kuksa­pyŏnch’an­wiwŏnhoe:­http://sillok.history.go.kr/main/main.jsp.­The­ thirty-­first­year­of­Kojong’s­reign­was­1894.­But­December­12­(1894)­by­the­lunar­ calendar­was­January­7,­1895,­in­the­Gregorian­calendar. ­ 3.­Isabella­L.­Bird,­Korea and Her Neighbours­(1897;­Boston:­kPi,­1985),­247. ­ 4.­Grand­sacrificial­rites­(chongmyo cherye)­were­conducted­each­year­in­January,­April,­July,­and­October.­Special­rites­were­also­performed­on­auspicious­occasions­or­difficult­times.­The­Hall­of­Eternal­Peace­(yŏngnyŏngjŏn),­located­about­ fifty­meters­southwest­of­the­Main­Hall­(chŏngjŏn),­is­smaller­and­houses­the­spirit­ tablets­of­the­four­ancestors­of­King­T’aejo,­short-­reigned­kings,­queens,­and­consorts.­Both­the­Main­Hall­and­the­Hall­of­Eternal­Peace­stand­on­two-­tiered­stone­ terraces,­each­enclosed­by­a­square­wall.­Great­offerings­at­the­Altars­of­Land­and­ Harvest­(sajikdan)­were­conducted­three­times­a­year. ­ 5.­In­the­Oath,­King­Kojong­used­the­term­kukka:­“Only­as­an­independent­ruler­ can­We­make­our­country­[a-kukka]­strong.”­The­term­kukka­referred­directly­to­ the­dynastic­state­and­was­used­long­before­the­nineteenth­century.­Mid-­Chosŏn­ thinkers­like­Yi­I­(pen­name­Yulgok,­1536–84),­for­example,­used­the­term­to­denote­ the­ dynastic­ state,­ as­ in­ ch’ung ŏ kukka­ (loyalty­ to­ the­ dynastic­ state).­ See­ Martina­Deuchler,­“The­Practice­of­Confucianism:­Ritual­and­Order­in­Chosŏn­Dynasty­Korea,”­Rethinking Confucianism: Past and Present in China,­Japan,­Korea,­and Vietnam,­ed.­Benjamin­A.­Elman,­John­B.­Duncan,­and­Herman­Ooms­(Los­Angeles:­uclA­Asian­Pacific­Monograph­Series,­2002). ­ 6.­It­should­be­noted,­however,­that­for­scholars­like­Chŏng­Yag-­yong­(1762–1836)­ there­was­a­fundamental­distinction­to­be­made­between­the­Royal­Ancestral­Temple­ and­the­sajikdan:­unlike­the­Royal­Ancestral­Temple,­which­served­as­a­shrine­to­the­ spirits­of­deceased­ancestors,­the­sajikdan­was­a­shrine­to­heavenly­deities.­Thus,­unlike­the­Royal­Ancestral­Temple,­the­sajikdan­is­a­shrine­with­a­transcendent­status:­ the­Altars­of­Land­and­Grain­do­not­belong­to­a­particular­dynasty,­and­they­should­ not­be­torn­down­or­replaced­when­a­new­dynasty­comes­to­power.­See­Kŭm­Chang-­ t’ae,­“Tasan­ŭi­sajikje­wa­ch’eje­kojŭng,”­Chongkyohak yŏn’gu­16­(1997).

noTes To ChapTer one

­ 7.­Nobi­were­not­organized­in­familial­or­lineage­kinship­groups;­after­all,­adult­ as­well­as­adolescent­nobi­were­bought­and­sold,­and­they­could­not­perform­mortuary­rituals.­James­Palais­estimates­that­nobi­of­all­kinds­together­made­up­nearly­ one-­third­of­the­population­throughout­the­Chosŏn­period.­See­James­B.­Palais,­ Confucian Statecraft and Korean Institutions: Yu Hyŏngwŏn and the Late Chosŏn Dynasty­(Seattle:­University­of­Washington­Press,­1996),­208–70. ­ 8.­During­King­Sejong’s­reign­(1418–50)­a­separate­annex,­the­Hall­of­Eternal­ Peace­(yŏngnyŏngjŏn),­was­constructed­to­house­the­spirit­tablets­of­the­ancestors­ of­King­T’aejo­as­well­as­short-­reigned­kings­and­their­queens.­In­1545,­the­year­ King­Myŏngjong­took­the­throne,­four­kan­were­added­to­the­east­end­of­chŏngjŏn.­ In­1592,­the­first­year­of­Hideyoshi’s­invasion­of­Korea,­both­the­Main­Hall­and­the­ Hall­of­Eternal­Peace­were­completely­destroyed.­The­Main­Hall­was­rebuilt­as­an­ eleven-­kan­structure­in­1608,­and­the­Hall­of­Eternal­Peace­in­1668.­In­1726­the­ Main­Hall­chŏngjŏn­was­expanded­to­a­fifteen-­kan­structure,­and­in­1834­expanded­ again­to­its­current­size­of­nineteen­kan.­See­Dong-­Uk­Kim,­“Chongmyo,”­Korea Journal­40,­no.­3­(2000). ­ 9.­In­his­Ten­Injunctions,­T’aejo­refers­to­the­Khitan­as­“beasts,”­and­it­was­not­ until­960,­after­the­first­Khitan­invasion,­that­Koryŏ­accepted­the­suzerainty­of­the­ Liao.­Koryŏsa,­kwŏn-­2,­sega-­2,­T’aejo­15-­nyŏn­(932),­5/3.­(Kuksa­p’yŏnch’an­wiwŏnhoe)­http://db.history.go.kr/KOREA/. ­ 10.­See­Ro­Myoung-­ho­(No­Myŏng-­ho),­“Tongmyŏng­Wangpyŏn­kwa­Yi­Kyu-­bo­ ŭi­tawŏnjŏk­ch’ŏnhakwan,”­Chindan hakbo­83­(1997),­and­“Koryŏ­sidae­ŭi­tawŏnjŏk­ ch’ŏnhakwan­kwa­Haedong­Ch’ŏnja,”­Han’guksa yŏn’gu,­no.­105­(1999). ­ 11.­ In­ terms­ of­ Koryŏ­ rulers­ personally­ conducting­ the­ sacrifice­ to­ Heaven­ (chech’ŏnnye),­the­Koryŏsa­mentions­only­fourteen­instances. ­ 12.­ Remco­ E.­ Breuker,­ “Koryŏ­ as­ an­ Independent­ Realm:­ The­ Emperor’s­ Clothes?,”­Korean Studies­27­(2004),­53. ­ 13.­This­folk­song­most­likely­originated­prior­to­the­period­of­military­rule,­that­ is,­before­1170.­In­the­Koryŏsa,­as­edited­by­the­National­Institute­of­Korean­History­(Kuksa­p’yŏnchan­wiwŏnhoe),­the­first­stanza­is­punctuated­in­such­a­way­ that­che­(帝,­emperor)­and­pul­(佛,­Buddha)­appear­as­a­compound,­a­generic­term­ for­Buddha:­海東天子,­當今帝佛,­補天助敷化來.­Koryŏsa,­kwŏn-­71,­chi-­25.­Based­on­ other­references­to­the­emperor­in­both­the­lyrics­and­many­other­texts­from­this­ period,­Ro­Myoung-­ho­argues­that­che­and­pul­do­not­form­a­compound­and­that­ the­stanza­should­be­punctuated­thus:­海東天子,­當今帝,­佛補天助敷化來.­See­Ro,­ “Tongmyŏng­Wangpyŏn­kwa­Yi­Kyu-­bo­ŭi­tawŏnjŏk­ch’ŏnhakwan.” ­ 14.­The­Jurchen­referred­to­Koryŏ­as­their­“father­and­mother,”­and­in­the­Koryŏsa­ the­ Wan-­yen­ clan­ refers­ to­ Koryŏ­ as­ taebang­ (great­ country).­ Cited­ in­ Breuker,­ “Koryŏ­as­an­Independent­Realm,”­27n34. ­ 15.­Ro,­“Koryŏ­sidae­ŭi­tawŏnjŏk­ch’ŏnhakwan­kwa­Haedong­Ch’ŏnja.”­The­akji­ section­of­the­Koryŏsa­includes­three­types­of­music:­aak,­ritual­music­in­the­“authentic”­style;­tangak,­music­originating­from­Tang­and­Song;­and­sogak,­folk­songs­ sometimes­referred­to­as­hyangak.

175

176

noTes To ChapTer one

­ 16.­In­that­sense,­the­Chinese­emperor­was­haesŏ ch’ŏnja,­the­emperor­of­the­West­ (of­the­Sea).­Ch’u­Myŏng-­yŏp,­Han’guksa yŏn’gu,­no.­129­(2005). ­ 17.­Sem­Vermeersch,­The Power of the Buddhas: The Politics of Buddhism During the Koryŏ Dynasty­(Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Asia­Center,­2008),­83–84. ­ 18.­See­Yi­Pyŏng-­do,­Koryŏ sidae ŭi yŏn’gu: T’ŭkhi chiri toch’am sasang ŭi palchŏn ŭl chungsim ŭro­(1954;­Seoul:­Asea­munhwasa,­1980),­cited­in­Breuker,­“Koryŏ­as­an­ Independent­Realm,”­83n121. ­ 19.­At­the­beginning­of­the­Chosŏn­dynasty,­similar­geomantic­considerations­ prompted­Yi­Sŏng-­g ye­to­move­the­capital­from­Kaesŏng­to­present-­day­Seoul. ­ 20.­Breuker,­“Koryŏ­as­an­Independent­Realm,”­78n73. ­ 21.­Ro,­“Koryŏ­sidae­ŭi­tawŏnjŏk­ch’ŏnhakwan­kwa­Haedong­Ch’ŏnja,”­14–16. ­ 22.­ As­ the­ crown­ prince,­ Ch’ungnyŏl­ was­ married­ to­ a­ daughter­ of­ Khubilai­ Khan,­the­founder­of­the­Yüan­dynasty.­On­Koryŏ­as­a­son-­in-­law­state,­see­Hyŏn-­ ku­Min,­“Koryŏ­Politics­under­Mongol­Control:­Dynastic­Continuity­During­the­ Period­of­Royal­Absence,”­International Journal of Korean History­1­(2000). ­ 23.­Among­Chosŏn­dynasty­monarchs,­Sejo­was­the­only­king­to­personally­conduct­sacrifices­to­Heaven­at­the­wŏndan.­In­the­case­of­other­early­Chosŏn­monarchs,­during­times­of­severe­drought­the­sadaebu­acquiesced­only­to­the­extent­of­ allowing­the­king­to­send­one­of­the­state­councilors­to­offer­prayers­at­the­wŏndan.­ Pokee­Sohn,­Social History of the Early Chosŏn Dynasty: The Functional Aspects of Governmental Structure­(Seoul:­Jisik-­sanup­Publications,­2000). ­ 24.­Cho­Chun-­ha,­“Uri­nara­ŭi­chesa­munhwa­wa­chongmyo­taeje,”­Han’guk sasang kwa munhwa­12­(2001),­320. ­ 25.­This­wŏndan­seems­to­have­been­located­in­present-­day­Hannam-­dong,­in­ Seoul. ­ 26.­Hwanggung’u,­the­structure­that­remains­today,­was­built­in­1899­to­house­ the­tablets­used­in­sacrifices­to­Heaven. ­ 27.­ T’aejo sillok,­ 1-­kwŏn,­ 1-­nyŏn­ (1392),­ 8/11,­ second­ article.­ Kuksa­ pyŏnch’an­ wiwŏnhoe:­http://sillok.history.go.kr/main/main.jsp. ­ 28.­Tan’gun­named­the­state­he­founded­(purportedly­in­the­area­around­Pyongyang)­Chosŏn.­Historians­today­refer­to­this­state­as­Ancient­Chosŏn,­but­there­ is­insufficient­archaeological­evidence­that­Ancient­Chosŏn­actually­existed.­On­ Tan’gun­and­Kija­worship,­see­Han­Young-­woo,­“Kija­Worship­in­the­Koryŏ­and­ Early­ Yi­ Dynasties:­ A­ Cultural­ Symbol­ in­ the­ Relationship­ between­ Korea­ and­ China,”­The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea,­ed.­W.­M.­Theodore­de­Bary­and­JaHyun­Kim­Haboush­(New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­1985).­The­best­known­ account­of­Tan’gun­appears­in­the­Samguk yusa­(Memorabilia­of­the­Three­Kingdoms)­written­by­the­Buddhist­monk­Iryŏn­(1206–89).­Iryŏn­writes­that­in­the­fiftieth­year­of­the­Emperor­Yao,­Tan’gun­established­a­walled­city­at­Pyongyang­and­ called­his­country­Chosŏn.­He­then­moved­the­capital­to­Asadal,­where­he­ruled­ for­1,500­years.­When­the­king­of­Zhou­enfeoffed­Jizi­(K:­Kija)­to­Chosŏn,­Tan’gun­ went­into­the­mountains­and­became­a­mountain­god­at­the­age­of­1,908.­See­Iryŏn,­ Samguk yusa­(Seoul:­Sŏjŏng­Sihak,­2009).

noTes To ChapTer one

­ 29.­Cho­Pak­memorialized,­“Because­wŏndan­is­a­sacrificial­ritual­to­Heaven­that­ [only]­the­Son­of­Heaven­conducts,­we­request­that­this­ritual­be­stopped.”­T’aejo sillok,­1-­kwŏn,­1-­nyŏn­(1392),­8/11,­second­article. ­ 30.­According­to­John­Duncan,­the­capital-­based­scholar-­officials­who­helped­ bring­Yi­Sŏng-­g ye­to­power­constituted­a­central­aristocracy­that­had­developed­a­ consciousness­of­themselves­as­a­distinct­class­toward­the­end­of­the­Koryŏ­period.­ Using­self-­identifying­terms­like­sadaebu,­sajok,­and­yangban,­this­scholar-­official­ class­ was­ very­ conscious­ of­ the­ fact­ that­ their­ power­ and­ prestige­ flowed­ from­ their­status­as­officials­of­the­dynastic­bureaucracy.­The­Chosŏn­settlement­thus­ dismantled­ Koryŏ’s­ hyangni-­based­ territorial­ status­ system­ by­ curtailing­ hyangni­ participation­in­the­central­bureaucracy­and­by­putting­an­end­to­the­Koryŏ­monarchic­practice­of­delegating­power­to­foreign­retainers,­slaves,­and­eunuchs.­John­ Duncan,­The Origins of the Chosŏn Dynasty­(Seattle:­University­of­Washington­Press,­ 2000). ­ 31.­Cho­Chun-­ha,­“Uam­Song­Si-­yŏl­ŭi­chuch’e­ŭisik,”­Han’guk sasang kwa munhwa­ 42­(2008). ­ 32.­On­the­question­of­how­Song­Si-­yŏl­came­to­be­identified­as­the­central­figure­ behind­Punish­the­Qing,­see­Im­Pu-­yŏn.­“Yuggyo­ŭiryehwa­ŭi­chŏngchihak:­Mandongmyo­wa­Taebodan­ŭr­chungsim­ŭro,”­Chonggyo munhwa pip’yŏng­15­(2009),­ 159–84. ­ 33.­Adam­ Clarence­ Immanuel­ Bohnet,­ “Migrant­ and­Border­ Subjects­ in­Late­ Chosŏn,”­ Ph.D.­ dissertation,­ University­ of­ Toronto,­ 2008,­ 184–86.­ As­ Bohnet­ points­out,­this­line­of­argument—that­Ming­loyalist­ritualism­aimed­to­elevate­ the­Chosŏn­dynastic­state,­not­China­or­the­defunct­Ming­dynasty—appears­most­ forcefully­in­Chŏng­Okcha,­Chosŏn hugi Chosŏn Chunghwa sasang yŏn’gu­(Seoul:­Ilchisa,­1998). ­ 34.­Gari­Ledyard,­“Hong­Taeyong­and­His­Impressions­of­China­in­the­Year­1766:­ A­ Korean­ Intellectual’s­ Appraisal,”­ lecture­ given­ at­ the­ University­ of­ Michigan,­ November­2,­2000.­Also,­Gari­Ledyard,­“Hong­Taeyong­and­His­Peking Memoir,”­ Korean Studies­6­(1982). ­ 35.­James­Hevia­makes­use­of­the­concepts­of­deterritorialization­and­reterritorialization­to­explain­how­and­to­what­extent­British­imperialism­in­nineteenth-­ century­China­was­above­all­a­pedagogic­project.­As­theorized­by­Gilles­Deleuze­ and­Félix­Guattari­in­Anti-Oedipus,­deterritorialization­refers­to­how­Oedipal­capitalism­transgresses­and­destroys­territorial­limits,­the­centralizing­polity,­and­feudal­hierarchical­channels­and­sets­adrift­desire.­Reterritorialization­refers­to­how­ production­is­channeled­into­commodity­form,­and­desire­is­concentrated­into­a­ neurotic­(privatized)­father-­mother-­me.­Similarly,­from­the­whipping­of­Korean­ criminals­ (until­ 1920)­ to­ the­ implementation­ of­ bureaucratic­ rationality,­ Japanese­colonialism­was­a­transgressive­and­“pedagogic”­effort­that­sought­to­channel­desire­and­obtain­a­sufficient­degree­of­acquiescence­from­the­colonized.­See­ James­L.­Hevia,­English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteenth-Century China­(Durham:­Duke­University­Press,­2003).

177

178

noTes To ChapTer one

­ 36.­Kuroda­Kiyotaka­was­the­ambassador­plenipotentiary­at­the­time,­and­Inoue­ Kaoru­was­the­vice­envoy.­See­Martina­ Deuchler,­Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys: The Opening of Korea,­1875–1885­(Seattle:­University­of­Washington­ Press,­1977). ­ 37.­See­Yur-­bok­Lee,­“Establishment­of­a­Korean­Legation­in­the­United­States,­ 1887–1890,”­Illinois Papers in Asian Studies­3­(1983).­In­treaties­and­other­legal­documents,­and­as­cited­here,­sokkuk­or­sokbang­is­translated­as­dependency.­Elsewhere,­ I­translate­sokkuk­or­sokbang­as­vassal state. ­ 38.­Quoted­in­Deuchler,­Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys,­119. ­ 39.­Alexis­Dudden,­“Japan’s­Engagement­with­International­Terms,”­Tokens of Exchange:­The Problem of Translation in Global Circulations,­ed.­Lydia­H.­Liu­(Durham:­ Duke­University­Press,­1999).­See­also­Alexis­Dudden,­Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power­(Honolulu:­University­of­Hawaii­Press,­2005). ­ 40.­Lewis­Lancaster­reminds­us­that­“China”­of­the­fourth­century­cE­was­dominated­by­the­Han­in­the­south,­but­northern­ “China”­was­dominated­ by­Turkic­ nomadic­kingdoms.­Lewis­R.­Lancaster,­introduction­to­Buddhism in Koryŏ:­A Royal Religion,­ed.­Lewis­R.­Lancaster,­Kikun­Suh,­and­Chai-­Shin­Yu­(1996;­Fremont,­ Calif:­Asian­Humanities­Press,­2002). ­ 41.­Vermeersch,­The Power of the Buddhas,­42. ­ 42.­Even­during­the­Chosŏn­period,­when­Buddhist­institutions­not­only­lost­ state­patronage­but­were­driven­from­the­capital­and­other­urban­centers,­Buddhism­in­Korea­retained­its­hoguk pulgyo­(literally,­safeguard-­the-­state­Buddhism)­ character.­See­Robert­Buswell,­“Buddhism­in­Korea,”­Buddhism and Asian History,­ ed.­Joseph­M.­Kitagawa­and­Mark­D.­Cummings­(New­York:­Macmillan,­1989). ­ 43.­Buswell,­“Buddhism­in­Korea.”­Iryŏn­recorded­in­the­Samguk yusa­(Memorabilia­of­the­Three­Kingdoms)­that­“Hwanin,­the­Celestial­Emperor­(Hwanin­means­ Chesŏk),­sent­down­his­son,­Hwanung,­to­the­peak­of­T’aebaeksan­with­three­heavenly­seals­and­three­thousand­followers­to­rule­over­the­people.”­In­writing­the­ Samguk yusa,­Iryŏn­drew­from­earlier­histories­like­Tan’gun kogi,­but­those­earlier­ histories­are­not­extant. ­ 44.­ The­ inscription­ was­ for­ Kŭngyang­ (878–956),­ the­ founder­ (kaesanjo)­ of­ Paengŏm-­sa.­See­“Pongam-­sa­Chŏngjin­taesa­pimyŏng­(965),”­Yŏkchu namal yŏcho kŭmsŏngmun,­ed.­Han’guk­yŏksa­yŏn’guhoe­(Seoul:­Hyean,­1996),­270,­translated­ by­Sem­Vermeersch­and­cited­in­The Power of the Buddhas,­265. ­ 45.­Vermeersch,­The Power of the Buddhas,­265. ­ 46.­ My­ discussion­ of­ Confucian­ ritual­ and­ the­ disavowal­ of­ Buddhism­ in­ the­ Chosŏn­ period­ is­ indebted­ to­ Martina­ Deuchler’s­ seminal­ work­ The Confucian Transformation of Korea:­A Study of Society and Ideology­(Cambridge:­Council­on­East­ Asian­Studies,­Harvard­University,­1992).­On­affective­relations,­see­Jahyun­Kim­ Haboush,­“Filial­Emotions­and­Filial­Values:­Changing­Patterns­in­the­Discourse­of­ Filiality­in­Late­Chosŏn­Korea,”­Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies­55,­no.­1­(1995). ­ 47.­Ledyard,­“Hong­Taeyong­and­His­Impressions­of­China­in­the­Year­1766.” ­ 48.­ Andre­ Schmid,­ “Tributary­ Relations­ and­ the­ Qing-­Chosŏn­ Frontier­ on­

noTes To ChapTer one

Mount­Paektu,”­The Chinese State at the Borders,­ed.­Diana­Lary­(Vancouver:­ubc­ Press,­2008),­132. ­ 49.­Andre­Schmid,­Korea between Empires, 1895–1919­(New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­2002),­206–11. ­ 50.­Che-­ga­Pak,­“Chonju­ron,”­Pukhak ŭi, oep’yŏn, Chŏngyugak chŏnjip,­2­(Seoul:­ Yŏgang­ ch’ulp’ansa,­ 1986),­ 463–66,­ translated­ by­ Martina­ Deuchler,­ Sources of Korean Tradition,­ed.­Yŏngho­Ch’oe­et­al.­(New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­ 2000),­2:102. ­ 51.­Si-­yŏl­Song,­Songja taejŏn,­vol.­5,­cited­in­Tae-­yong­Huh,­“A­Critical­Review­on­ the­Issue­of­Proto-­Nationalism­During­Late­Chosŏn,”­International Journal of Korean History­12­(August­2008),­97. ­ 52.­ Huh,­ “A­ Critical­ Review­ on­ the­ Issue­ of­ Proto-­Nationalism­ during­ Late­ Chosŏn,”­98. ­ 53.­The­requisition­of­boys­and­girls­as­tribute­was­a­practice­that­began­with­the­ Yüan. ­ 54.­See­Peter­Yun,­“Rethinking­the­Tribute­System:­Northeast­Asian­Interstate­ Relations,­600–1600,”­Ph.D.­dissertation,­uclA. ­ 55.­Widely­reported­cases­of­cannibalism­indicate­the­magnitude­of­human­suffering­and­physical­destruction­wrought­by­the­Hideyoshi­invasions­(Imjin­Wars,­ 1592–98)­and­the­extent­to­which­Chosŏn’s­political­and­social­systems­of­control­ had­collapsed.­With­arable­land­reduced­to­one-­third­the­area­of­the­pre–Imjin­War­ period,­due­mostly­to­conscription­of­men­and­the­displacement­of­people­from­the­ land,­the­reduced­yields­in­harvested­grain­simply­could­not­support­the­armies­ and­the­population.­Sŏnjo sillok­records­cases­of­people­eating­the­flesh­of­those­ who­had­starved­to­death­(including­reports­of­numerous­bodies­in­the­streets­of­ the­capital­with­their­flesh­hacked­away)­and­active­cannibalism,­“even­cases­of­ father­and­sons,­and­brothers,­killing­and­eating­each­other.”­Sŏnjo sillok,­49-­kwŏn,­ 27-­nyŏn­(1594),­3,­cited­in­Yi­Chang-­hŭi,­“Oeran­chung­ŭi­sahoesang,”­Han’guksa­ (Seoul:­Kuksa­p’yŏnchan­wiwŏnhoe,­1995),­29:145–47.­During­the­first­Hideyoshi­ invasion,­after­King­Sŏnjo­(r.­1567–1608)­and­his­ministers­fled­the­capital­to­the­ jeers­of­the­residents,­slaves­(nobi)­in­the­capital­seized­the­opportunity­to­burn­ the­slave­registers­(and­perhaps­the­Royal­Ancestral­Temples­too).­There­were­a­ number­of­other­slave­revolts­during­the­Imjin­Wars.­Moreover­many­peasants­in­ Kyŏngsang­Province­who­aided­the­Hideyoshi­armies­seemed­to­have­agreed­with­ the­charge­ that­their­ king­ was­ tyrannical,­ and­the­participation­ of­a­number­of­ Righteous­Army­commanders­in­rebellions­led­by­Song­Yu-­jin­and­Yi­Mong-­hak­to­ overthrow­the­Chosŏn­dynasty­suggest­how­much­effort­the­dynasty­had­to­exert­ to­reestablish­control­and­legitimacy­after­these­wars.­The­“Confucianization”­of­ Chosŏn­society­during­the­seventeenth­century­must­be­understood­in­this­context.­The­denunciation­of­uxorilocal­residence­and­the­reorganization­of­Chosŏn­ society­on­the­basis­of­the­patrilineal­descent­group­(that­is,­the­attempt­to­reestablish­masculine­identity­in­the­form­of­Confucian­patriarchy)­were­part­and­parcel­ of­the­frantic­but­concerted­and­sustained­attempts­on­the­part­of­the­Yi­monarchy­

179

180

noTes To ChapTer one

and­the­yangban­in­the­countryside­to­reestablish­control­over­life­(and­memory),­ labor,­and­language—especially­discourses­that­we­would­recognize­as­didactic­ narratives­on­masculine­as­well­as­feminine­identity. ­ 56.­On­the­different­intellectual­reactions­to­Ming’s­demise,­see­JaHyun­Kim­Haboush,­“Constructing­the­Center:­The­Ritual­Controversy­and­the­Search­for­a­New­ Identity­in­Seventeenth-­Century­Korea,”­Culture and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea,­ ed.­JaHyun­Kim­Haboush­and­Martina­Deuchler­(Cambridge:­Harvard­University­ Asia­Center,­1999). ­ 57.­ After­ the­ general­ breakdown­ of­ political­ and­ social­ control­ following­ the­ Hideyoshi­(late­sixteenth­century)­and­Manchu­(early­seventeenth­century)­invasions,­the­literati­in­the­countryside­(sarim)­had­to­organize­local­structures­that­ could­maintain­their­own­status­identity­and­self-­discipline­and­provide­welfare­for­ and­moral­leadership­over­both­commoners­and­slaves­through­the­establishment­ of­community­compacts­(hyangyak),­communal­granaries,­rosters­of­local­residents­ (hyangan),­and­so­on. ­ 58.­According­to­Michael­Rogers,­the­concept­of­Korea­as­a­“Small­China”­first­ appeared­during­the­Koryŏ­period. ­ 59.­Pak­Chi-­wŏn’s­Yŏrha ilgi­is­a­record­of­the­embassy­that­Pak­accompanied­ to­the­seventieth­birthday­celebrations­of­the­Qianlong­emperor­in­his­summer­ palace.­This­book­is­a­composite­and­contains­essays­on­religion,­science,­and­philosophy.­See­Pak­Chi-­wŏn,­Yŏrha ilgi,­translated­(into­contemporary­Korean)­and­ edited­by­Kim­Hyŏl-­cho­(Kyŏnggi-­do­P’asju-­si:­Tolbegae,­2009). ­ 60.­Although­Hong­Tae-­yong­was­born­into­a­prestigious­yangban­family­at­the­ center­of­power­(Noron),­he­disputed­the­orthodox­view­that­science­and­technology­were­marginal­branches­of­knowledge.­Hong­rated­Western­science­and­ technology­superior­to­anything­created­during­the­Tang­or­Sung­periods.­He­took­ a­deep­interest­in­studies­of­the­earth’s­rotation,­eclipses,­and­mathematics­too.­ See­Hong­Tae-­yong,­Sinp’yŏn kugyŏk Hong Tae-yong Tamhŏnsŏ­(Kyŏnggi-­do­Paju-­si:­ Han’guk­Haksul­Chŏngbo,­2008). ­ 61.­In­1876­Inoue­was­the­deputy­envoy­sent­to­Chosŏn­to­negotiate­the­Kanghwa­Treaty,­Korea’s­first­“modern”­treaty.­In­1882,­after­the­emeute­during­which­ mutinous­ Korean­ soldiers­ killed­ forty­ Japanese­ residents­ and­ burned­ down­ the­ Japanese­ legation,­ it­ was­ Inoue­ who­ supervised­ the­ conclusion­ of­ the­ Treaty­ of­ Chemulp’o­that­gave­Japan­the­right­to­station­a­company­of­soldiers­in­the­capital.­ In­1884,­after­the­failure­of­the­Kapsin­coup­attempt­in­which­Korean­“reformers”­ with­ties­to­Japan­tried­to­seize­power,­Inoue­personally­signed­the­Treaty­of­Seoul,­ wherein­Korea­had­to­send­a­letter­of­apology­to­Japan­for­the­deaths­of­Japanese­ who­were­killed­in­the­aftermath­of­the­failed­coup­attempt.­Korea­was­also­made­ to­pay­110,000­yen­in­indemnities.­In­1884­Japan­was­unwilling­to­go­to­war­with­ China­over­Korea,­and­for­ten­years,­1885–94,­Chinese­interference­in­Korea­increased­to­a­level­not­seen­since­the­early­years­of­the­Qing­dynasty­(1644–1912).­ Inoue­also­sponsored­the­Convention­of­Tientsin,­signed­in­1885­by­Li­Hongzhang­ and­Itō­Hirobumi,­that­became­the­basis­of­the­Sino-­Japanese­cooperation­for­a­de-

noTes To ChapTer one

cade,­from­1885­to­1894.­It­is­significant­that­in­the­Convention­of­Tientsin,­Li­was­ not­able­to­induce­Itō­to­acknowledge­China’s­suzerainty­over­the­peninsula. ­ 62.­ See­ Young­ Ick­ Lew,­ “Minister­ Inoue­ Kaoru­ and­ the­ Japanese­ Reform­ Attempts­ in­ Korea­ During­ the­ Sino-­Japanese­ War,­ 1894–1895,”­ Journal of Asiatic Studies­27,­no.­2­(1984). ­ 63.­ Lew,­ “Minister­ Inoue­ Kaoru­ and­ the­ Japanese­ Reform­ Attempts­ in­ Korea­ During­the­Sino-­Japanese­War,”­163. ­ 64.­Yi­T’ae-­jin­argues­that­in­the­1870s,­King­Kojong­adopted­a­reformist­vision­ exemplified­by­the­concept­Kunmin­ilch’e­(the­ruler­and­his­people­as­one­body).­ Kojong’s­historical­model­was­King­Chŏngjo­the­Great­(1776–1800),­and­even­during­the­years­of­Yuan­Shikai’s­dominance­(1882–94),­Kojong­steadily­pursued­modernizing­reforms.­See­Yi­T’ae-­jin,­Kojong sidae ŭi chae-chomyŏng­(Seoul:­T’aehaksa,­ 2000). ­ 65.­Shin,­Yong-­ha.­“The­Revolutionary­Movement­of­the­Tonghak­Peasant­Army­ of­1894:­Seen­vis-­à-­vis­the­French­Revolution,”­Korea Journal­29,­no.­10­(1989). ­ 66.­Historically,­because­the­sadaebu­(or­yangban)­checked­the­power­of­the­monarchy­at­every­turn,­Chosŏn­monarchs­tended­to­favor­more­egalitarian­policies,­ policies­that­would­safeguard­the­throne­while­weakening­the­power­and­privilege­ of­the­yangban­class. ­ 67.­ It­ can­ be­ argued­ that­ the­ de-­centering­ of­ China,­ as­ described­ by­ Andre­ Schmid,­was­the­denouement­of­anti-­Chinese­sentiments­that­had­been­accumulating­since­1882.­See­Schmid,­Korea between the Empires.­As­for­the­Sino-­Japanese­ War,­Yi­T’ae-­jin­argues­that­it­was­at­the­bidding­of­Yuan­Shikai­that­King­Kojong­ formally­ requested­ military­ assistance­ from­ China­ to­ pacify­ the­ Tonghak­ insurgents,­allowing­prime­minister­Itō­Hirobumi­and­foreign­minister­Mutsu­Munemitsu­to­send­Japanese­troops­to­Korea.­See­Yi,­Kojong sidae ŭi chae-chomyŏng. ­ 68.­ Yu­ Kil-­chun,­ Sŏyu kyŏnmun: Chosŏn chisigin Yu Kil- chun, Sŏyang ŭl pŏnyŏk hada,­translated­into­contemporary­Korean­by­Hŏ­Kyŏng-­jin­(Seoul:­Sŏhae­munjip,­2004).­In­the­spring­of­1881,­at­the­age­of­twenty-­six,­Yu­Kil-­chun­accompanied­ the­Inspection­Mission­to­Japan­(chosa sach’aldan)­and­with­the­permission­and­ support­of­the­Chosŏn­court­stayed­behind­to­study­at­Fukuzawa­Yukichi’s­Keio­ Gijuku.­He­was,­in­that­sense,­the­first­Korean­student­in­Japan.­At­Keio­Gijuku,­ Yu­read­Fukuzawa’s­Seiyo jijo­(Conditions­in­the­West,­1867).­Returning­to­Korea­ in­1883,­Yu­continued­to­correspond­with­Fukuzawa­and­Inoue­Kaoru.­He­translated­Fukuzawa’s­Moji no oshie,­a­text­on­kanji­reform.­He­helped­establish­Hansŏng sunbo,­Korea’s­first­newspaper.­In­1884­he­accompanied­the­first­diplomatic­mission­ King­Kojong­sent­to­the­United­States.­He­again­stayed­behind­to­study,­first­with­ E.­S.­Morse­and­then­at­the­Governor­Dummer­Academy­and­Boston­University.­ He­traveled­in­Europe,­Southeast­Asia­(Singapore­and­Hong­Kong),­and­Japan­and­ returned­to­Korea­in­December­1885.­Under­house­arrest,­he­wrote­Sŏyu kyŏnmun­ in­mixed­script.­Begun­in­1887,­the­manuscript­was­completed­in­1889;­it­was­published­by­a­Japanese­press­in­1895.­Released­from­detention­in­1892,­Yu­held­a­number­of­high­offices­during­the­Kabo­reforms,­including­minister­of­home­affairs.­In­

181

182

noTes To ChapTer one

1896,­after­King­Kojong­took­refuge­at­the­Russian­Legation,­Yu,­implicated­in­the­ murder­of­Queen­Min,­was­forced­into­exile. ­ 69.­ “Nonsŏ­ Il-­choyak­ kaejŏngan”­ (A­ Proposal­ for­ Revising­ Our­ Treaty­ with­ Japan),­saŭi­(opinion),­Hanyang chubo,­May­24,­1886. ­ 70.­ See­ Joshua­ John­ Van­ Lieu,­ “Divergent­ Visions­ of­ Serving­ the­ Great:­ The­ Emergence­of­Chosŏn-­Qing­Tributary­Relations,”­Ph.D.­dissertation,­University­of­ Washington,­2010. ­ 71.­In­the­seventeenth­century,­even­when­the­Chosŏn­court­and­much­of­the­ scholar-­official­class­entertained­hopes­of­“punishing”­the­Manchus­who­had­overthrown­the­Ming,­they­did­so­with­the­idea­of­restoring­the­Ming­to­power.­Until­ Japan’s­victory­in­the­first­Sino-­Japanese­War,­the­vast­majority­of­Chosŏn­scholar-­ officials­would­have­found­it­hard­to­imagine­Korea­completely­separated,­politically­and­culturally,­from­China. ­ 72.­The­following­day,­as­was­customary,­Kojong­made­the­same­pledge­at­the­ Altars­ of­ Land­ and­ Harvest.­ George­ A.­ Lensen,­ in­ an­ otherwise­ carefully­ documented­history­of­imperialist­rivalry­in­late­nineteenth-­century­Korea,­mistakenly­ states­that­King­Kojong­inaugurated­the­new­policy­(of­independence)­on­January­7­at­the­“ancestral­tombs,”­and­that­he­repeated­the­oaths­at­the­“shrine­of­his­ ancestors”­the­following­day.­Lensen­also­describes­the­January­7­Oath­as­a­“festive­ declaration”­but­does­not­cite­his­source.­See­George­Alexander­Lensen,­Balance of Intrigue: International Rivalry in Korea and Manchuria, 1884–1899­(Tallahassee:­University­Press­of­Florida,­1982),­2:522. ­ 73.­ See­ Kim­ To-­hyŏng,­ “Han’guk­ kŭndaesa­ ŭi­ chaju,­ tongnip­ ŭi­ ŭimi,”­ Yŏksa pip’yŏng­29­(May­1995),­179.­Article­1­of­the­Treaty­of­Kanghwa,­signed­in­1876­by­ representatives­of­the­Chosŏn­and­Meiji­governments,­stated­that­Korea­was­an­ independent­state­with­the­same­sovereign­rights­as­Japan.­But­this­did­not­sever­ Chosŏn’s­tributary­ties­to­China. ­ 74.­In­the­Chosŏn wangjo sillok­the­word­tongnip­typically­referred­to­a­person­ who­stands­alone,­or­is­able­to­stand­alone,­keeping­his­own­counsel,­as­in­“tongnip­pulgu­tunse­pulmin”­(to­stand­alone­without­fear,­shunning­the­world­without­ anxiety).­See­Sukjong sillok,­10-­kwŏn,­6-­nyŏn­(1680),­8/14,­first­article.­Sometimes­ tongnip­implied­being­different,­or­isolated.­See,­for­example­Sŏngjong sillok,­104-­ kwŏn,­10-­nyŏn­(1479),­5/5,­third­article;­Chungjong sillok,­21-­kwŏn,­9-­nyŏn­(1514),­ 10/3,­ third­ article;­ and­ Yŏngjo sillok,­ 53-­kwŏn,­ 17-­nyŏn­ (1741),­ 5/22,­ first­ article.­ Tongnip­could­also­be­used­in­reference­to­a­local­administrative­unit,­like­a­county­ seat,­that­is,­to­make­it­a­separate­unit.­See­Kwanghae’gun ilgi,­25-­kwŏn,­2-­nyŏn­ (1610),­2/7,­sixth­article. ­ 75.­Lew,­“Minister­Inoue­Kaoru­and­the­Japanese­Reform­Attempts­in­Korea­During­the­Sino-­Japanese­War,”­163. ­ 76.­ Having­ “stolen­ the­ jewel”­ (the­ Meiji­ emperor),­ restoration­ activists­ like­ Ōkubo­Toshimichi­did­not­envisage­Emperor­Meiji’s­political­authority­as­going­ beyond­the­consensus­of­those­who­led­the­struggle­against­the­bakufu.­The­realm­ (Japan­ as­ a­ whole)­ belonged­ to­ the­ emperor,­ but­ it­ was­ to­ be­ “publicly­ admin-

noTes To ChapTer one

istered”­ by­ those­ who­ had­ led­ the­ anti-­bakufu­ struggle.­ Participation­ in­ politics­ would­be­expanded,­and­yet,­as­an­ethical­and­sacred­duty,­all­subjects­were­to­ submit­voluntarily­to­the­will­of­the­emperor.­Such­an­arrangement­would­provide­ the­leaders­of­the­restoration­movement­with­maximum­political­authority­and­ justification­for­suppressing­opposition­to­the­new­regime.­See­H.­D.­Harootunian,­ Toward Restoration: The Growth of Political Consciousness in Tokugawa Japan­(Berkeley:­University­of­California­Press,­1970). ­ 77.­ Mutsu­ Munemitsu,­ Kenkenroku: The Memoirs of Count Mutsu Munemitsu,­ trans.­Gorden­M.­Berger­(Tokyo:­University­of­Tokyo­Press,­1982),­29–30. ­ 78.­For­an­English­translation­of­the­Oath,­see­Spencer­J.­Palmer,­ed.,­KoreanAmerican Relations: Documents Pertaining to the Far Eastern Diplomacy of the United States,­vol.­2,­The Period of Growing Influence, 1887–1895­ (Berkeley:­University­of­ California­Press,­1963),­350–51. ­ 79.­The­other­public­holidays­were­Sundays,­New­Year’s­Eve,­and­the­first­three­ days­of­the­year. ­ 80.­Diplomatic­practices­were­largely­standardized­at­the­Congress­of­Vienna­ (1814–15). ­ 81.­F.­H.­Hinsley,­Sovereignty,­2nd­edition­(Cambridge:­Cambridge­University­ Press,­1986),­26. ­ 82.­Anthony­Giddens,­The Nation-State and Violence­(Berkeley:­University­of­California­Press,­1987),­263. ­ 83.­Stephen­D.­Krasner,­Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy­(Princeton:­Princeton­ University­Press,­1999). ­ 84.­Krasner,­Sovereignty,­24. ­ 85.­One­inequality­that­irked­Western­diplomats­in­Hanyang­(especially­on­rainy­ days)­was­not­being­able­to­ride­in­a­sedan­chair­within­the­walls­of­the­main­palace,­ as­the­Chinese­minister­did.­Western­diplomats­again­and­again­demanded­that­ they­too­be­allowed­to­ride­on­sedan­chairs­within­the­palace­walls.­Muddy­boots­ notwithstanding,­it­is­safe­to­say­that­Western­diplomats­were­obsessed­with­rituals­ and­symbols­of­equality­among­themselves­and­in­relation­to­China’s­power­over­ Korea.­One­of­the­first­Kabo­reforms­that­passed­was­legislation­that­allowed­Western­diplomats­to­ride­in­sedan­chairs­within­the­palace­walls,­while­discouraging­ all­Koreans­from­riding­in­sedan­chairs­at­all. ­ 86.­This­was­a­consistent­theme­in­Fukuzawa’s­Gakumon no Susume­(An­Encouragement­of­Learning),­published­in­seventeen­volumes­between­1872­and­1876.­ See­Yukichi­Fukuzawa,­An Encouragement of Learning,­trans.­David­A.­Dilworth­and­ Umeyo­Hirano­(Tokyo:­Sophia­University­Press,­1969). ­ 87.­According­to­Young­Ick­Lew,­Inoue­Kaoru­probably­gave­up­on­this­plan­to­ abolish­the­Korean­legation­in­the­United­States­out­of­fear­that­the­United­States­ would­see­this­step­as­a­conspiracy,­as­the­first­step­toward­transforming­Korea­into­ a­Japanese­protectorate.­See­Lew,­“Minister­Inoue­Kaoru­and­the­Japanese­Reform­ Attempts­in­Korea­During­the­Sino-­Japanese­War,”­165. ­ 88.­John­M.­B.­Sill,­U.S.­legation­in­Seoul,­letter­to­the­secretary­of­state,­Janu-

183

184

noTes To ChapTer one

ary­4,­1895,­in­Korean-American Relations: Documents Pertaining to the Far Eastern Diplomacy of the United States,­vol.­2,­ed.­Spencer­J.­Palmer­(Berkeley:­University­ of­California­Press,­1963),­259.­Maintaining­an­embassy­in­Washington,­D.C.,­and­ having­ Korean­ ambassadors­ received­ by­U.S.­ officials­ were­ more­ than­just­ hallmarks­ of­sovereign­ status.­ King­ Kojong­ (and­ Inoue­ Kaoru)­ knew­ very­ well­ that­ diplomatic­practices­peculiar­to­Western­diplomacy­(for­example,­ballroom­dancing)­themselves­produce­power­relations.­Like­Chosŏn­dynastic­rituals,­maintaining­an­embassy­in­Washington­and­having­Chosŏn­diplomats­recognized­as­such­ were­indispensable­to­constituting­King­Kojong­as­Korea’s­sovereign­in­the­nation-­ state­system.­On­the­topic­of­Western­diplomats’­fixation­on­rituals,­see­James­L.­ Hevia,­Cherishing Men from Afar: Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of 1793­ (Durham:­Duke­University­Press,­1995). ­ 89.­The­British­were,­at­this­time,­backers­of­the­Qing­government.­Because­they­ enjoyed­paramount­influence­over­the­Chinese­government,­it­was­logical­for­the­ British­to­support­Chinese­actions­in­Korea—and­this­they­did­until­the­outbreak­of­ the­Sino-­Japanese­War,­when­they­stood­by­watching­the­Chinese­Army­and­Navy­ get­decimated. ­ 90.­See­Deuchler,­Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys,­109–27. ­ 91.­ Commodore­ Shufeldt­ saw­ himself­ as­ replicating­ the­ feat­ of­ Commodore­ Perry,­who­“opened­up”­Japan­decades­earlier.­The­treaty­itself­was­signed­in­Korea­ at­Chemulp’o­(now­Inch’ŏn). ­ 92.­ Kwŏn­ Hyŏk-­su,­ 19-segi mal Han-Chung kwan’gyesa yŏn’gu­ (Seoul:­ Paeksan­ charyowŏn,­2000). ­ 93.­In­1887­King­Kojong­appointed­Pak­Chong-­yang­as­minister­plenipotentiary­ to­the­United­States,­even­in­the­face­of­Yuan­Shikai­and­Li­Hongzhang’s­censure.­ Pak­presented­his­credentials­to­President­Grover­Cleveland­on­January­17,­1888.­ King­ Kojong­ knew­ well­ that­ maintaining­ a­ diplomatic­ presence­ in­ Washington­ would­minimize­China’s­claim­of­suzerainty­over­Korea­and­bolster­“international”­ recognition­of­his­sovereign­status. ­ 94.­See­Deuchler,­Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys,­118–19.­The­Treaty­ of­Amity­and­Commerce­in­1882­granted­the­United­States­extraterritoriality,­low­ tariffs,­and­the­right­to­establish­a­legation­in­the­capital. ­ 95.­ In­ the­ Taft-­Katsura­ secret­ protocol,­ the­ United­ States­ recognized­ Japan’s­ paramount­political,­military,­and­economic­interests­in­Korea,­while­Japan­recognized­America’s­control­over­the­Philippines.­Although­the­American­legation­was­ recalled,­American­missionaries,­American­investment,­and­American­institu­tions­ (hospitals,­ schools)­ remained,­ and­ according­ to­ inclination­ and­ circumstance,­ Americans­offered­both­endorsement­and­censure­of­Japanese­colonial­policies. ­ 96.­It­is­relevant­to­recall­Harry­Harootunian’s­observation­about­Meiji­Japan,­ that­that­kind­of­expertise­and­competence­could­do­little­to­mediate­the­gap­between­imperial­authority­and­the­worlds­of­communal­life,­tutelary­deities,­and­ancestors.­See­Harry­Harootunian,­Things Seen and Unseen: Discourse and Ideology in Tokugawa Nativism­(Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­Press,­1988),­405–406.

noTes To ChapTer one

­ 97.­Mutsu,­Kenkenroku,­111. ­ 98.­Mutsu­wrote­Kenkenroku­in­the­months­immediately­following­the­conclusion­of­the­Sino-­Japanese­War­(1894–95),­when­the­government­came­under­ferocious­public­criticism­that­weak­diplomacy­had­lost­what­was­gained­on­the­battlefields­of­Chosŏn­Korea.­In­Kenkenroku,­Mutsu­defended­the­government’s­decision­ to­accept­the­“advice”­of­Russia,­Germany,­and­France­(the­Triple­Intervention)­to­ retrocede­the­Liatung­Peninsula. ­ 99.­Mutsu,­Kenkenroku,­111–12. ­ 100.­Among­other­restrictions,­King­Kojong­should­have­abstained­from­sex­for­ several­days.­In­that­sense,­the­sacrifice­to­ancestors­involves­“giving­up,”­in­the­ form­of­ritual­restrictions,­as­much­as­“giving­to.” ­ 101.­The­ghosts­of­dead­Chosŏn­dynasty­kings­and­queens­enter­the­chŏngjŏn­ through­the­southern­gate­(sinmun)­and­proceed­up­the­central­stone­pathway­or­ stairway.­The­two­stone­terraces­(woldae)­are­together­150­meters­long­and­100­ meters­wide.­The­two­orchestras­perform­separately.­Both­orchestras­have­a­set­ of­bells,­a­set­of­L-­shaped­stone­chimes,­a­set­of­metal­chimes,­a­bamboo­flute,­a­ tangp’iri­(similar­to­an­oboe),­a­changgu­(hourglass­drum),­a­chuk­(wooden­box­mortar),­and­a­pak­(wooden­clapper).­The­orchestra­on­the­upper­wŏldae­would­also­ have­the­ajaeng­(bowed­zither)­and­chŏlgo­(drum),­while­the­orchestra­on­the­lower­ wŏldae­would­have­the­t’aepyŏngso,­haegŭm­(two-string­instrument),­and­chingo­(a­ different­barrel­drum). ­ 102.­The­central­gate­in­the­south­wall­(sinmun)­is­only­for­the­dead.­Not­even­the­ king­can­pass­through­it. ­ 103.­The­classic­writings­of­anthropologists­like­Mary­Douglas,­Clifford­Geertz,­ and­Victor­Turner­agree­on­the­notion­that­rituals­are­communicative­and­expressive.­In­his­essay­on­the­Balinese­cockfight,­for­example,­Geertz­stressed­that­the­ cockfight­ is­ not­ a­ depiction­ of­ “how­ things­ literally­ are­ among­ men,­ but,­ what­ is­almost­worse,­of­how,­from­a­particular­angle,­they­imaginatively­are.”­Clifford­ Geertz,­“Notes­on­the­Balinese­Cockfight,”­The Interpretation of Cultures­(New­York:­ Basic­Books,­1973),­446. ­ 104.­It­should­be­noted­that­at­the­beginning­of­the­Chosŏn­period­there­was­ widespread­resistance­to­the­regulation­of­domestic­ritual­life.­As­part­of­a­concerted­attempt­to­rectify­ritual­practices­among­the­sadaebu,­scholar-­officials­were­ ordered­to­establish­ancestral­shrines­in­their­homes­and­to­eschew­Buddhist­or­ shamanistic­rituals.­See­Deuchler,­The Confucian Transformation of Korea,­182. ­ 105.­That­is­to­say,­the­king­and­the­sadaebu­sought­to­monopolize­the­production­ of­ideas,­values,­and­mores,­just­as­they­controlled­ritual­life­in­Chosŏn­Korea. ­ 106.­This­insight­concerning­the­ambiguity­of­authorship­in­ritual­action­comes­ from­ Caroline­ Humphrey­ and­ James­ Laidlaw,­ The Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of Worship­ (Oxford:­ Clarendon­ Press,­ 1994).­Building­on­Maurice­Merleau-­Ponty’s­argument­that­normal­human­action­ is­intrinsically­intentional­(every­movement­is,­indissolubly,­movement­and­consciousness­of­movement)­and­that­the­subject­is­apprehended­as­both­subject­and­

185

186

noTes To ChapTer Two

object­(one­“sees,”­“suffers,”­and­also­apprehends­oneself­as­seeing­and­suffering),­ Humphrey­and­Laidlaw­argue­that­actors­in­ritual­are,­and­are­not,­the­authors­of­ their­acts. ­ 107.­To­make­such­a­momentous­oath,­tradition­dictated­that­King­Kojong­visit­ the­dynastic­temple­on­the­Winter­Solstice,­the­twenty-­fifth­day­of­the­eleventh­ month­in­the­lunar­calendar,­or­December­22,­1894. ­ 108.­See­Kojong sillok,­32-­kwŏn,­31-­nyŏn­(1894),­11/26,­first­article. ­ 109.­This­short-­lived­empire­took­its­name,­Han,­from­the­three­Han­regions­ (Mahan,­ Chinhan,­ and­ Pyŏnhan)­ of­ the­ pre–Three­ Kingdoms­ period,­ an­ area­ roughly­coterminous­with­modern­South­Korea,­on­the­presumption­that­these­ancestors,­organized­in­small­polities­ruled­by­hereditary­chiefs,­had­maintained­their­ independence­during­the­period­when­Han­Chinese­commandaries­had­controlled­ much­of­Manchuria­and­the­northern­half­of­the­peninsula—Xuantu­(K:­Hyŏndo),­ Lelang­(K:­Nangnang),­Lintun­(K:­Imdun),­and­Chenfan­(K:­Chinbŏn). ­ 110.­Prasenjit­Duara­makes­a­similar­argument­in­Sovereignty and Authenticity: Manchukuo and the East Asian Modern­ (Lanham,­ Md.:­ Rowman­ and­ Littlefield,­ 2003).

2.­Imperialism­and­Nationalism ­ 1.­ The­ source­ of­ this­ chapter’s­ epigraph­ is­ The Chicago Record’s History of the World’s Fair­(Chicago:­Chicago­Daily­News­Co.,­1893),­224. ­ 2.­King­Kojong’s­queries­were­quite­interesting:­How­many­countries­participated?­How­large­was­the­Korean­pavilion­in­meters?­How­did­the­fairgoers­respond­to­the­Korean­goods­that­were­displayed,­and­what­was­their­value­in­U.S.­ dollars?­Unable­to­provide­the­measurements­in­the­metric­system,­Commissioner­ Chŏng­replied­that­the­Korean­pavilion­was­six­to­seven­kan­across­(that­is,­about­ twenty­meters­across).­See­Kojong sillok,­30-­kwŏn,­30-­nyŏn­(1893),­11/9,­first­article.­ The­U.S.­Treasury­Department­valued­the­Korean­products­at­$506.­See­Youngna­ Kim,­20th Century Korean Art­(London:­Laurence­King,­2005),­61n20. ­ 3.­Arriving­in­1884,­Horace­Newton­Allen­was­the­first­American­missionary­in­ Korea.­In­1887­he­accompanied­Korea’s­diplomatic­mission­to­Washington,­D.C.­For­ the­World’s­Fair­in­Chicago,­King­Kojong­asked­Allen­to­help­with­the­arrangements­ and­to­escort­the­Korean­Commission.­It­could­well­be­that­Allen­was­the­author­ (or­translator­or­editor)­of­the­sign­over­the­Korea­Exhibit. ­ 4.­Sarah­Whatmore­offers­a­succinct­account­of­how­the­autonomous­subject­ came­ to­be­privileged­ in­the­West:­ John­ Locke­ regarded­ the­individual­ good­ as­ the­result­of­voluntary­transactions­between­independent­agents;­after­Immanuel­ Kant,­the­figure­of­the­autonomous­subject­became­central­to­the­social­contract­ tradition­of­ethics.­In­this­tradition,­social­institutions­of­contract­(market)­and­ rights­(law)­formed­the­basis­for­establishing­universal­(impartial)­“laws­of­reason”­ as­the­precondition­for­ethical­agency.­As­Whatmore­points­out,­this­autonomous­ subject­constituted­as­a­rights-­bearing­citizen­possessing­ethical­agency­was­mas-

noTes To ChapTer Two

culine­in­conception.­Citing­Carole­Pateman,­Whatmore­writes,­“This­has­translated­ at­ different­ time-­places­ into­ the­ dispossession­ of­ women,­ poor,­ and­ black­ people­of­political­and­ethical­agency­in­their­own­right,­through­their­‘contractual’­ guises­as­wives,­servants,­and­slaves.”­Sarah­Whatmore,­“Dissecting­the­Autonomous­Self:­Hybrid­Cartographies­for­a­Relational­Ethics,”­Geographic Thought: A Praxis Perspective,­ed.­George­Henderson­and­Marvin­Waterstone­(New­York:­Routledge,­2008),­109–10.­As­Raymond­Williams­has­pointed­out,­“Individual­originally­ meant­indivisible.”­Raymond­Williams,­“Individual,”­Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society­(London:­Fontana,­1983).­Individual­posits­distinction­from­others,­ while­indivisibility­is­a­cornerstone­of­the­notion­of­sovereignty;­thus­the­relationship­between­individuality,­sovereignty,­and­ethical­agency. ­ 5.­See­Chong­Wha­Pyun­(Pyŏn­Chong-­hwa),­“The­Visit­of­the­Korean­Mission­ to­Boston­in­1883­and­the­Beginning­of­Scientific­and­Technological­Interactions­ between­Korea­and­the­United­States,”­Han’guk kwahak sahakhoeji­4,­no.­1­(1982).­ Frederick­F.­Low­served­as­the­American­advisor­to­this­goodwill­mission.­In­1871­ Low,­as­the­newly­appointed­U.S.­ambassador­to­China,­along­with­Rear­Admiral­ John­Rodgers,­led­five­heavily­armed­warships­carrying­1,230­marines­and­sailors­ in­what­came­to­be­called­“America’s­War­with­the­Hermits.”­Both­Low­and­Rodgers­ staunchly­supported­the­movement­to­restrict­Chinese­(Asian)­immigration­into­ the­United­States.­See­Gordon­H.­Chang,­“Whose­‘Barbarism’?­Whose­‘Treachery’?­ Race­and­Civilization­in­the­Unknown­United­States–Korea­War­of­1871,”­Journal of American History­89,­no.­4­(2003). ­ 6.­See­Kirk­W.­Larsen,­Tradition, Treaties, and Trade: Qing Imperialism and Chosŏn Korea, 1850–1910­(Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Asia­Center,­Harvard­University­ Press,­2008),­37,­176–89. ­ 7.­Benedict­Anderson,­Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism­(London:­Verso,­1983). ­ 8.­Lydia­Liu,­“The­Desire­for­the­Sovereign­and­the­Logic­of­Reciprocity­in­the­ Family­of­Nations,”­Diacritics­29,­no.­4­(1999). ­ 9.­Hardt­and­Negri­point­out­that­it­was­Hegel’s­conception­of­sovereignty­that­ brought­together­the­Hobbes-­Rousseau­theory­of­sovereignty­and­Adam­Smith’s­ theory­of­value.­With­that,­modern­European­sovereignty­became­capitalist­sovereignty,­“a­form­of­command­that­overdetermines­the­relationship­between­individuality­and­universality­as­a­function­of­the­development­of­capital.”­See­Michael­ Hardt­and­Antonio­Negri,­Empire­(Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Press,­2000),­ 83–87. ­ 10.­For­a­concise­overview­of­five­centuries­of­Euro-­American­colonialism,­see­ Jūrgen­Osterhammel,­Colonialism,­trans.­Shelley­Frisch­(Princeton:­Markus­Wiener,­ 2005).­See­also­Hardt­and­Negri,­Empire,­87;­David­B.­Abernethy,­The Dynamics of Global Dominance­(New­Haven:­Yale­University­Press,­2002),­12–15.­According­to­ Abernethy,­at­the­time­of­the­publication­of­his­book,­two-­thirds­of­United­Nations­ member­states­were­once­governed­by­Euro-­Americans,­and­if­China’s­treaty­ports­ are­included,­three-­fifths­of­the­world’s­population.

187

188

noTes To ChapTer Two

­ 11.­ Richard­ Hughes­ Seager,­ The World’s Parliament of Religions: The East/West Encounter, Chicago, 1983­ (Bloomington:­ Indiana­ University­ Press,­ 1995),­ 11.­ On­ December­2,­1893,­the­Philadelphia Inquirer­reported­that­Horace­Allen,­vice­consul­ general­of­the­United­States­in­Korea,­informed­the­U.S.­State­Department,­“The­ King­of­Korea­has­recently­purchased­in­America­an­incandescent­electric­light­ plant,­which­is­now­being­installed­and­will­be­used­for­lighting­the­King’s­palace­ and­surrounding­grounds.” ­ 12.­William­Cronon,­Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West­(New­York:­ W.­W.­Norton,­1992),­42. ­ 13.­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­seems­to­have­expected­the­Korean­Exhibit­to­be­dismal.­About­ a­month­before­arriving­in­Chicago­he­visited­the­Korean­Legation­in­Washington,­D.C.­There­he­saw­a­photo­of­the­Korean­Commission­at­the­World’s­Fair­in­ Chicago.­“On­one­of­the­parlor­walls­there­is­hung­a­group­picture­of­the­Corean­ Commission­ to­ the­ World’s­ Fair.­ I­ was­ shocked­ and­ disgusted­ with­ their­ looks­ of­supreme­stupidity­and­beastly­sensuality.­With­sad­heart­I­left­the­room.”­Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi­(Seoul:­Kuksa­py’ŏnchan­wiwŏnhoe,­1973–1989),­3:146–47,­August­14,­ 1893. ­ 14.­ To­ avoid­ antagonizing­ conservatives,­ the­ mission­ was­ organized­ and­ dispatched­in­secrecy.­Twelve­midlevel­officials­and­their­aides,­interpreters,­and­servants­traveled­separately­to­Pusan,­and­from­there­took­a­ship­to­Nagasaki.­Inoue­ Kaoru­arranged­their­itinerary,­which­included­Kobe,­Osaka,­Yokohama,­and­Tokyo.­ Organizing­ themselves­ into­ different­ teams,­ the­ officials­ spent­ seventy­ days­ in­ Japan,­met­high-­ranking­officials,­inspected­government­ministries,­shipyards,­arsenals,­schools,­industries,­hospitals,­mints,­prisons,­and­so­on,­and­submitted­extensive­and­detailed­reports­upon­their­return. ­ 15.­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­had­grown­up­in­relative­prosperity­but­with­somewhat­ambiguous­yangban­status.­His­father,­Yun­Ung-­ryŏl,­was­a­military­official­but­of­sŏŏl­status­ (that­is,­a­son­of­a­secondary­wife).­In­1880­Yun­Ung-­ryŏl­had­gone­to­Japan­with­ Kim­Hong-­jip­to­seek­advisors­to­train­an­elite­guard­(pyŏlgigun)­for­the­palace.­Yun­ Ch’i-­ho­seems­to­have­been­intellectually­precocious.­According­to­Lee­Kwang-­Rin,­ after­six­months­in­Japan­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­was­able­to­write­freely­in­Japanese.­While­ studying­Japanese­at­Dōjinsha,­he­also­helped­edit­Bungaku zasshi,­a­journal­that­ published­four­of­his­essays,­two­written­in­literary­Chinese­and­two­written­in­ Japanese.­See­Lee­Kwang-­Rin­(Yi­Kwang-­nin),­“Yun­Ch’i-­ho­ŭi­Ilbon­yuhak,”­Tongbang hakji­59­(1988).­Inoue­Kaoru,­the­Japanese­foreign­minister,­had­arranged­for­ Yun­Ch’i-­ho­to­study­at­Nakamura­Masanao’s­Dōjinsha. ­ 16.­In­an­essay­published­in­Tonga ilbo­on­January­11,­1930,­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­would­ write­that­it­was­Kim­Ok-­kyun­who­convinced­him­to­study­English­because­knowledge­of­English­would­enable­Koreans­to­“directly­import­Western­civilization.”­ Quoted­in­Lee­Kwang-­Rin.­“Yun­Ch’i-­ho­ŭi­Ilbon­yuhak.” ­ 17.­Minister­Foote’s­full­title­was­American­envoy­extraordinary­and­minister­ plenipotentiary. ­ 18.­In­hopes­of­instituting­drastic­reforms,­Kim­Ok-­kyun,­Pak­Yŏng-­hyo,­Hong­

noTes To ChapTer Two

Yŏng-­sik,­Sŏ­Kwang-­bŏm,­and­Sŏ­Chae-­pil­staged­a­coup­on­December­4,­1884,­ with­support­from­Japanese­troops­stationed­in­the­capital.­They­seized­the­palace,­ killed­ a­ number­ of­ ministers,­ formed­ a­ new­ government,­ and­ proclaimed­ a­ reform­platform­that­would­abolish­class­distinctions,­restructure­the­government­ on­the­model­of­Japan’s­Meiji­state,­and­establish­independence­for­Korea­by­ending­China’s­interference.­The­coup­ended­after­three­days,­when­Chinese­soldiers­ intervened.­The­coup­leaders­who­survived­fled­to­Japan.­Yun­Ch’i-­ho’s­father,­Yun­ Ung-­ryŏl,­was­banished­to­Nŭngju. ­ 19.­During­his­year­and­a­half­at­Vanderbilt,­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­read­Gibbon,­Macaulay,­ and­ Carlyle.­ In­ 1893­ he­ graduated­ with­ a­ master’s­ degree­ from­ Emory­ College.­ See­Vipan­Chandra,­Imperialism, Resistance, and Reform in Late Nineteenth-Century Korea­(Berkeley:­Institute­of­East­Asian­Studies,­University­of­California,­1988). ­ 20.­Tomoko­Masuzawa­points­out­that­the­emergence­of­the­concept­of­multiple­ world­religions­had­to­do­with­preserving­the­status­of­Christianity­as­unique­and­ superior.­The­idea­of­world­religions­and­the­logic­of­classification­it­promoted­had­ a­determining­effect­on­the­study­of­religion.­See­Tomoko­Masuzawa,­The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism­ (Chicago:­ University­ of­ Chicago­ Press,­ 2005).­ Though­ quite­ inclusive,­this­World­Parliament­of­Religions­did­not­extend­invitations­to­Sikhs,­Native­ American­religious­figures,­and­a­host­of­other­religionists. ­ 21.­See­Judith­Snodgrass,­Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West: Orientalism, Occidentalism, and the Columbian Exposition­(Chapel­Hill:­University­of­North­Carolina­Press,­2003). ­ 22.­Yun,­Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,­entry­for­September­26,­1893,­3:176. ­ 23.­John­P.­Burris,­Exhibiting Religion: Colonialism and Spectacle at International Expositions­(Charlottesville:­University­of­Virginia­Press,­2002),­155. ­ 24.­Yun,­Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,­entry­for­September­27,­1893,­3:177. ­ 25.­Burris,­Exhibiting Religion,­155. ­ 26.­Yun,­Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,­entry­for­September­27,­1893,­3:178.­Swami­Vivekananda­ introduced­Hinduism­to­the­World­Parliament­of­Religions­and­also­spoke­on­the­ theme­of­religious­tolerance:­“The­Christian­is­not­to­become­a­Hindu­or­a­Buddhist,­nor­a­Hindu­or­a­Buddhist­to­become­a­Christian.­.­.­.­If­anybody­dreams­of­ the­exclusive­survival­of­his­own­[religion]­and­the­destruction­of­others,­I­pity­him­ from­the­bottom­of­my­heart.”­Quoted­in­James­Edward­Ketelaar,­Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution­(Princeton:­Princeton­University­Press,­1990).­Ketelaar­cites­John­Henry­Barrows,­ed.­The World’s Parliament of Religions,­2­vols.­(Chicago:­The­Parliament­Publishing­Company,­1893),­1:170–71.­ Virachand­Raghav­Gandhi­(1864–1901)­won­the­Silver­Medal­at­the­World­Parliament­of­Religions.­He­was­a­contemporary­of­Swami­Vivekananda­and­also­a­friend­ of­Mahatma­Gandhi. ­ 27.­In­his­entry­of­September­24,­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­describes,­in­emotional­terms,­a­ joining­of­hands­between­John­Henry­Barrows,­chairman­of­the­World­Parliament­ of­Religions,­and­Bishop­Benjamin­W.­Arnett­of­the­African­Methodist­Episcopal­

189

190

noTes To ChapTer Two

Church.­“Dr.­Burrows­[sic].­When­I­saw­the­eminent­Catholic­divine­join­hands­with­ the­eloquent­Negro­Bishop,­I­could­not­help­saying­in­my­heart­‘What­God­hath­ joined,­let­no­man­part.’”­Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,­entry­for­September­24,­1893,­3:170–71. ­ 28.­ John­Henry­ Barrows­ (1847–1902)­ was­ also­ head­ of­ the­ First­ Presbyterian­ Church­of­Chicago­and­a­professor­of­religion­at­the­University­of­Chicago.­Accused­ of­“coquetting­with­false­religions,”­he­noted­that­the­Apostle­Paul­“was­careful­to­ find­common­ground­for­himself­and­his­Greek­auditors­in­Athens.­.­.­.­[And]­as­any­ wise­missionary­in­Bombay­or­Madras­would­be­glad­to­gather­beneath­the­shelter­of­his­roof­the­scholarly­and­sincere­representatives­of­the­Hindu­religions,­so­ Christian­America­invites­to­the­shelter­of­her­hospitable­rood,­at­her­grand­Festival­of­Peace,­the­spiritual­leaders­of­mankind”­Barrows,­ed.­The World’s Parliament of Religions,­1:3,­27–28.­See­also­Ketelaar,­Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan,­ 139–41. ­ 29.­Yun,­Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,­entry­for­October­14,­1893,­3:187–88. ­ 30.­My­argument­here­has­an­affinity­with­the­historical­trajectories­suggested­ by­Kim­Yong-­sŏp:­relatively­more­egalitarian­and­autonomous­routes­to­modernity­from­below,­with­peasant­rebellions­providing­the­main­impetus­for­progressive­change;­more­exploitative,­dependent­paths­to­modernity­from­above,­led­by­ elites­like­Yun­Ch’i-­ho,­who­would­ultimately­capitulate­to­imperialist­demands.­ Thus­Westernized­and­Westernizing­elites­in­late­nineteenth-­century­Korea­can­ be­located­on­a­historical­trajectory­that­begins­in­the­cultural­and­political­world­ of­the­landed­class­in­late­Chosŏn,­through­Westernizing­efforts­in­the­late­nineteenth­century­and­early­twentieth­that­lead­to­collaboration­and­support­for­the­ Japanese­empire,­and­then­from­1945­onward­partnership­with­the­American­empire.­In­other­words,­I­am­suggesting­a­genealogy­that­connects­(Christian)­liberal-­ bourgeois­ subjectivity­ in­ the­ late­ nineteenth­ century­ with­ the­ anticommunist,­ liberal-­bourgeois­ subjectivity­ that­ formed­ an­ important­ political,­ religious,­ and­ class­axis­around­which­the­South­Korean­state­was­established­in­U.S.-­occupied­ southern­Korea.­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­first­mentions­communists­in­September­1896,­while­ studying­French­in­Paris­(Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,­4:291).­On­Christians­and­the­Korean­Production­Movement­(mulsan changnyŏ undong),­see­Michael­E.­Robinson,­Cultural Nationalism in Colonial Korea, 1920–1925­(Seattle:­University­of­Washington­Press,­ 1988).­See­also­Pang­Kie-­chung­(Pang­Ki-­jung),­“1930-­nyŏndae­mulsan­changnyŏ­ undong­kwa­minjok­chabonjuŭi­kyŏngje­sasang,”­Tongbang hakji­115­(2002).­On­the­ Protestant­Church,­critique­of­both­Marx­and­the­landlord­system,­and­the­privileging­of­small­farms­(that­is,­self-­cultivating­households­and­capitalist­agriculture),­ see­Kie-­chung­Pang­(Pang­Ki-­jung),­“Yi­Hun-­gu’s­Agricultural­Reform­Theory­and­ Nationalist­Economic­Thought,”­Seoul Journal of Korean Studies­19,­no.­1­(2006).­On­ American­missionaries­and­the­Protestant­denominations’­support­for­the­establishment­of­a­separate­state­in­southern­Korea,­see­An­Chong-­ch’ŏl,­“Munmyŏng­ kaehwa­esŏ­pan’gong­ŭro:­Yi­Sŭng-­man­kwa­kaesinkyo­ŭi­kwankye­ŭi­pyŏnhwa,­ 1912–1950,”­ Tongbang hakji­ 145­ (2009).­ Regarding­ Christian­ anticommunist­ reaction­to­the­uprising­in­Taegu­in­October­1946,­see­Chŏng­T’ae-­sik­and­Yi­Ch’ŏl-­u,­

noTes To ChapTer Two

“Mi’gunchŏnggi­wa­Taegu­10-­wŏl­hangjaeng­esŏ­ŭi­kidokkyo­chonggyo­chidojadŭl­ ŭi­sahoe­chŏngch’ijŏk­hwaldong­kwa­yŏkhal­ŭi­taehan­ilkoch’al,”­Chiyŏk sahoe yŏn’gu­ 14,­no.­4­(2006). ­ 31.­Robert­Rydell,­All the World’s a Fair­(Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­Press,­ 1984),­49–50.­The­Chinese­village­was­built­by­a­private­company;­Mae­Ngai­suggests­it­may­have­served­as­an­early­prototype­for­Chinese­American­efforts­to­develop­urban­Chinatowns­as­tourist­destinations.­Ngai­points­out­that­the­“marketing­of­‘Chinese­culture’­was­one­of­a­few­spheres­of­commercial­activity­available­to­ Chinese­Americans­during­the­exclusion­era.”­Mae­M.­Ngai,­“Transnationalism­and­ the­Transformation­of­the­‘Other’:­Response­to­the­Presidential­Address,”­American Quarterly­57,­no.­1­(2005). ­ 32.­The­cultural­historian­Gail­Bederman­contrasts­the­spatial­configuration­of­ the­White­City­and­the­Midway­Plaisance:­“Where­the­White­City­spread­out­in­all­ directions­from­the­Court­of­Honor,­emphasizing­the­complexity­of­manly­civilization,­ the­ Midway’s­ attractions­ were­ organized­ linearly­ down­ a­ broad­ avenue,­ providing­a­lesson­in­racial­hierarchy.”­Gail­Bederman,­Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917­(Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­Press,­1984),­35. ­ 33.­Hubert­Howe­Bancroft,­quoted­in­Rydell,­All the World’s a Fair,­60. ­ 34.­Rydell,­All the World’s a Fair,­63,­67. ­ 35.­The­Meiji­government­spent­about­$650,000­to­build­an­exhibit­pavilion­on­ the­north­end­of­Wooded­Island.­It­seems­this­high-­profile­location­was­set­aside­ for­Japan­in­return­for­its­early­and­substantial­contribution­to­the­Chicago­organizers.­According­to­Trumbull­White,­the­Meiji­government­contributed­$630,000,­ more­than­any­other­country.­See­Trumbull­White,­The World’s Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893­(Philadelphia:­P.­W.­Ziegler,­1893),­542.­The­exhibit­pavilion­built­ on­Wooded­Island­was­an­imitation­of­the­Phoenix­Hall­in­the­Byōdō-­in­Temple,­ located­in­Uji,­near­Kyōto.­The­lumber­for­the­wooden­structure­was­prepared­in­ Japan­ and­ put­ together­ in­ Chicago.­ The­ Japanese­ pavilion­ was­ more­ than­ forty­ times­larger­than­the­Korean­Exhibit. ­ 36.­ Louis­ G.­ Perez,­ “Mutsu­ Munemitsu­ and­ the­ Revision­ of­ the­ ‘Unequal’­ Treaties,”­Ph.D.­dissertation,­University­of­Michigan,­1986,­cited­in­Snodgrass,­Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,­19. ­ 37.­See­Snodgrass,­Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,­19. ­ 38.­Snodgrass,­Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,­19,­179–80. ­ 39.­ Chicago’s­ population­ had­ changed­ dramatically.­ In­ 1890­ the­ number­ of­ foreign-­born­nearly­equaled­the­entire­city’s­population­of­a­decade­earlier.­In­the­ mid-­1890s­more­Poles,­Croatians,­Slovakians,­Lithuanians,­Greeks,­Swedes,­Norwegians,­ Dutch,­ and­ Danes­ immigrated­ to­ Chicago­ than­ to­ any­ other­ U.S.­ city.­ The­largest­percentage­of­foreign-­born­remained­Irish­and­German.­See­Reid­Badger,­The Great American Fair: The World’s Columbian Exposition and American Culture­ (Chicago:­N.­Hall,­1979),­34. ­ 40.­Badger,­The Great American Fair,­38.

191

192

noTes To ChapTer Two

­ 41.­ Ferdinand­ L.­ Barnett,­ The Reason Why the Colored American Is Not in the World’s Columbian Exposition,­edited­by­Robert­W.­Rydell­(1893;­Chicago:­University­of­Illinois­Press,­1999),­xlii.­Ida­B.­Wells,­the­main­force­behind­the­publication­ of­this­pamphlet,­was­also­the­leader­of­an­international­campaign­against­lynching.­Barnett­and­Wells­married­in­1895,­after­working­together­in­the­boycott­and­ protest­against­the­Columbian­Exposition. ­ 42.­See­Cronon,­Nature’s Metropolis,­42,­349.­See­also­Alan­Trachtenberg,­The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age­(New­York:­Hill­and­ Wang,­ 1982),­ 213.­ The­ Exposition­ directors­ took­ great­ care­ in­ public­ relations.­ Photographs­of­the­Exposition­do­not­show­farming­and­working-­class­families;­ the­crowd­is­decidedly­middle­class. ­ 43.­Yun,­Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,­entry­for­September­24–28,­1893,­3:168–80.­Writing­ about­international­expositions,­Robert­Rydell­and­others­have­pointed­out­that­ these­expositions­popularized­the­notion­of­progress,­conceived­as­“willed­national­ activity­to­a­determined,­utopian­goal”­(All the World’s a Fair,­2,­46). ­ 44.­ Euro-­American­ imperialism­ and­ the­ articulation­ of­ sovereignty­ created­ a­ complex­dynamic­within­East­Asia,­ranging­from­pronouncements­of­Pan-­Asian­ (racial)­solidarity­to­new­forms­of­racism.­After­witnessing­a­white­man­insulting­ a­Japanese­man,­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­observed,­“The­misery­is­that­Japanese­and­Chinese­ get­maltreated­by­Americans­and­Europeans­and­then­go­and­do­likewise­to­the­ wretched­and­slavish­Coreans”­(Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,­entry­for­October­29,­1893,­3:194). ­ 45.­After­finishing­his­studies,­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­gave­a­total­of­$230­to­Warren­Candler,­ president­of­Emory­College,­with­the­request­that­it­be­used­for­missionary­work­in­ Korea—the­$30­representing­one-­tenth­of­his­earnings­during­the­summer­of­1893. ­ 46.­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­fathered­twelve­children,­and­they,­along­with­his­many­nephews,­ nieces,­sons-­in-­law,­and­grandchildren,­were­extraordinarily­successful,­achieving­ high-­profile­ careers­ as­ politicians,­ academics,­ entrepreneurs,­ artists,­ and­ musicians­in­South­Korea­(and­to­some­extent­in­the­United­States).­In­Shanghai,­while­ teaching­English­at­the­Anglo-­Chinese­College,­Yun­married­Nora­Ma­(馬愛芳),­an­ assistant­music­teacher­at­the­McTyeire­Home­and­School­for­Girls.­With­Nora,­he­ had­four­children:­Laura­(Pong-­hŭi),­Allen­(Yŏng-­sŏn),­Candler­(Kwang-­sŏn),­and­ Helen­(Yong-­hŭi).­When­Nora­died­in­1905,­he­married­Paek­Mae-­ryŏ,­with­whom­ he­had­eight­more­children.­In­1950,­when­land­reform­was­to­get­under­way,­Allen­ Yŏng-­sŏn­Yun­was­South­Korea’s­minister­of­agriculture.­Yun­Po-­sŏn,­president­of­ South­Korea­from­August­1960­to­March­1962,­was­Yun­Ch’i-­ho’s­nephew. ­ 47.­On­March­28,­1894,­Kim­Ok-­kyun,­one­of­the­leaders­of­the­coup­attempt­in­ 1884,­was­assassinated­in­Shanghai.­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­had­met­him­the­day­before.­In­his­ diary­entry­for­March­28,­Yun­wrote,­“As­for­the­why­of­the­thing­[Kim­Ok-­kyun’s­ assassination]­it­is­needless­to­say­that­K.­O.­Q.­was­baited­over­here­to­be­gotten­ rid­of.”­A­week­later,­accompanied­by­Professor­W.­B.­Bonnell­of­the­Anglo-­Chinese­ College,­Yun­went­to­the­U.S.­Consulate­to­see­if­he­could­be­naturalized­as­a­U.S.­ citizen.­He­could­not.­See­Yun,­Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi,­3:302. ­ 48.­In­April­1896­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­was­appointed­privy­councilor­and­accompanied­

noTes To ChapTer Two

Min­Yŏng-­hwan­to­Moscow­for­the­coronation­of­Tsar­Nicholas­II.­He­stayed­in­ Paris­for­several­months­and­returned­to­Korea­in­January­1897. ­ 49.­The­Anglo-­Chinese­College­was­sponsored­by­the­American­Methodist­Episcopal­Church,­South.­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­converted­to­Christianity­in­March­1887. ­ 50.­In­Shanghai,­when­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­switched­from­literary­Chinese­to­Korean,­ he­still­dated­his­entries­according­to­the­lunar­calendar­with­the­Qing­dating­system­(use­of­the­Qing­emperor’s­reign­title)­and­then­an­alphabet­notation­for­the­ Roman­weekdays.­In­Nashville,­when­Yun­switched­to­English,­he­also­switched­ his­primary­dating­system­to­the­Gregorian­calendar­and­dropped­the­Qing­dating­ system.­He­continued­to­record­lunar­dates­and­notations­for­the­Roman­weekdays. ­ 51.­As­Sidonie­Smith­and­Julia­Watson­point­out,­this­notion­of­the­sovereign­ subject­emerged­from­a­number­of­social­and­philosophical­shifts­that­took­place­ in­ Europe­ after­ the­ eighteenth­ century,­ including­ the­ privileging­ of­ the­ liberal-­ humanist­ subject,­ revolutionary­ movements­ that­ pressed­ for­ democratization,­ radical­individualism­celebrated­by­Romantic­movements,­social­Darwinism­and­ its­emphasis­on­survival­of­the­fittest,­the­Industrial­Revolution­and­its­myth­of­the­ self-­made­man,­history­writing­centered­on­the­great­man,­analytical­methods­used­ in­psychoanalysis­to­organize­self-­reflection,­and­the­rise­of­literacy.­Sidonie­Smith­ and­Julia­Watson,­Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting Life Narratives,­2nd­ edition­(Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­2010),­194. ­ 52.­William­E.­Griffis,­A Modern Pioneer in Korea: The Life Story of Henry G. Appenzeller­(New­York:­Fleming­H.­Revell,­1912),­189. ­ 53.­In­1881­Yu­Kil-­jun­went­to­Japan,­met­Fukuzawa­Yukichi,­and­studied­for­a­ year­at­Keio­Gijuku.­While­in­Japan,­he­published­an­article­in­Fukuzawa’s­Jiji sinpo­ on­the­power­of­newspapers,­and­in­1883­he­helped­with­the­publication­of­Korea’s­ first­newspaper,­Hansŏng sinbo.­As­Ross­King­points­out,­Yu­is­credited­with­establishing­the­kukhanmun­style­of­writing­(mixed­Sino-­Korean­script),­drawing­on­the­ ŏnhae-bon­tradition­of­annotating­Confucian­and­Buddhist­texts.­Yu­also­wrote­the­ first­grammar­of­Korean,­a­work­he­began­in­1895.­See­Ross­King,­“Nationalism­ and­Language­Reform­in­Korea:­The­Questione della Lingua­in­Precolonial­Korea,”­ Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity,­ed.­Pai­Hyung-­Il­and­Timothy­R.­ Tangherlini­ (Berkeley:­ Institute­ of­ East­ Asian­ Studies,­ University­ of­ California,­ 1998).­Yu­was­also­the­first­Korean­to­study­in­the­United­States;­in­1884­he­studied­ at­the­Governor­Dummer­Academy­and­also­with­Edward­Sylvester­Morse,­who­ had­taught­at­Tokyo­Imperial­University­from­1887­to­1880. ­ 54.­The­English­name­of­the­newspaper­was­the­Independent. ­ 55.­Today­the­Korean­alphabet­is­referred­to­as­han’gŭl.­But­with­the­installation­ of­the­Kabo­reform­cabinet­in­1894,­the­Korean­alphabet­came­to­be­designated­as­ Korea’s­national­script:­kungmun.­After­1910,­when­Japan­annexed­Korea,­the­national­script­in­colonial­Korea­was­Japanese.­Thus­national script­(kokubun)­referred­ to­written­Japanese­during­the­colonial­period,­and­to­avoid­confusion­Korean­intellectuals­began­to­refer­to­the­Korean­alphabet­as­han’gŭl. ­ 56.­Sŏ­Chae-­pil­actually­established­Tongnip sinmun­first.­He­organized­the­Inde-

193

194

noTes To ChapTer Two

pendence­Club­in­July­1896.­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­was­at­first­skeptical­of­the­Independence­ Club,­calling­it­“a­farce.”­But­he­soon­became­an­enthusiastic­supporter­and­in­1898­ became­its­president.­That­same­year,­when­Sŏ­returned­to­the­United­States,­Yun­ took­over­management­of­Tongnip sinmun.­See­Kenneth­M.­Wells,­New God, New Nation: Protestants and Self-Reconstruction Nationalism in Korea, 1896–1937­(Honolulu:­University­of­Hawaii­Press,­1990),­57–58. ­ 57.­Sŏ­Chae-­pil­and­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­decided­to­publish­the­newspaper­three­times­a­ week­in­tabloid­form:­three­pages­in­Korean­and­one­in­English.­The­Korean­section­ was­named­Tongnip sinmun,­the­English­section­the­Independent.­Yun­left­for­Russia­on­April­1,­1896,­before­the­first­issue­was­published.­See­Chandra,­Imperialism, Resistance, and Reform in Late Nineteenth-Century Korea,­106. ­ 58.­ Sŏ­ Chae-­pil­ [Philip­ Jaisohn].­ “Nonsŏl,”­ Tongnip sinmun­ (April­ 7,­ 1896),­ in­ Tongnip sinmun nonsŏljip­(Seoul:­Songjae­munhwa­chaedan­ch’ulp’anbu,­1976),­1–2. ­ 59.­Sŏ­Chae-­pil­acquired­U.S.­citizenship­in­1888,­the­first­Korean­to­do­so.­Sŏ­ Kwang-­bŏm­was­the­second.­Like­Sŏ­Chae-­pil,­Sŏ­Kwang-­bŏm­sought­asylum­in­the­ United­States­after­the­failed­coup­attempt­in­1884.­In­1883­Sŏ­Kwang-­bŏm­had­accompanied­Min­Yŏng-­ik’s­diplomatic­mission­to­the­United­States.­He­was­the­first­ Korean­to­travel­around­the­world,­returning­to­Korea­in­1884­via­Europe­on­the­ U.S.­naval­ship­Trenton.­Sŏ­Kwang-­bŏm­eventually­found­employment­in­Washington,­D.C.,­as­a­translator­with­the­Bureau­of­Ethnology­in­the­Office­of­Education­ (today­the­U.S.­Department­of­Education).­Because­of­his­work­with­the­U.S.­government,­Sŏ­Kwang-­bŏm­was­able­to­obtain­U.S.­citizenship­in­1892. ­ 60.­I­am­drawing­on­Paul­Ricoeur’s­discussion­of­semantic­innovation,­but­not­at­ all­in­a­technical­or­precise­way.­I­consider­semantic­innovation­simply­as­a­work­of­ synthesis­that­redescribes­reality,­creating­a­new­“intelligibility.”­Productive­imagination­drives­the­work­of­synthesis­both­at­the­level­of­“semantic­pertinence”­and­ narrative,­but­it­does­not­do­so­willfully,­as­a­writer­(translator)­pleases.­See­Paul­ Ricoeur,­The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning of Language­(Toronto:­University­of­Toronto­Press,­1975). ­ 61.­I­do­not­think­it­is­necessary­to­list­here­all­the­points­of­difference­between­ my­ analysis­ of­ how­ capitalist­ sovereignty­ gets­ articulated­ in­ late­ nineteenth-­ century­Korea­and­Hardt­and­Negri’s­overall­argument­in­Empire; Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire­(New­York:­Penguin­Books,­2004);­and­Commonwealth­(Cambridge:­Belknap­Press­of­Harvard­University­Press,­2009).­Suffice­it­to­ say­that­when­I­refer­to­sovereignty­as­a­machine,­my­analytical­focus­is­on­imperialism,­the­form­of­rule­that­preceded­empire,­that­is,­capitalist­sovereignty­rather­ than­ imperial­ sovereignty­ that­ is­ postnational­ and­ nonlocalizable.­ I­ am­ sympathetic­to­Hardt­and­Negri’s­deep-­rooted­belief­in­the­political­potentialities­of­the­ multitude—thus­my­focus­on­“productive­imagination,”­historiography,­historical­ agency,­and­subject­formation—and,­I­might­add,­the­notion­that­laughter­and­happiness­in­the­face­of­history­are­appropriate­for­oppositional­politics.­The­quote­is­ from­Empire,­87. ­ 62.­See­note­60­regarding­Ricoeur’s­The Rule of Metaphor. ­ 63.­I­have­borrowed­this­phrase­from­Yeounsuk­Lee,­The Ideology of Kokugo: Na-

noTes To ChapTer Two

tionalizing Language in Modern Japan,­trans.­Maki­Hirano­Hubbard­(Honolulu:­University­of­Hawaii­Press,­2010),­2. ­ 64.­Ŏnmun­was­the­Chosŏn­literati’s­designation­for­vernacular­writing­using­the­ Korean­alphabet­created­in­1443.­They­denigrated­the­Korean­alphabet­as­ŏnmun­ (諺文)­because­it­was­used­to­record­what­they­considered­vulgar­speech.­Ŏnhanmun­refers­to­the­use­of­ŏnmun­and­hanmun­in­ŏnhae-bon­annotations­of­Confucian­ and­Buddhist­texts.­Idumun­refers­to­the­use­of­certain­Chinese­characters­and­their­ abbreviations­to­phonetically­render­Korean­words­or­particles­within­a­basically­ hanmun­text.­Hanmun­is­Classical­Chinese.­See­King,­“Nationalism­and­Language­ Reform­in­Korea,”­35–36. ­ 65.­Hyangga­were­written­down­in­the­Koryŏ­period­in­hyangch’al,­a­vernacular­ style­that­used­Chinese­characters­for­both­their­meaning­and­sound.­Hyangch’al­is­ considered­a­subset­of­idumun. ­ 66.­Yasuda­Hiroshi,­“Kindai­Nihon­ni­okeru­‘minzoku’­kannen­no­keisei,”­Shisō to gendai­ 31­ (September­ 1992),­ cited­ in­ Kevin­ Doak,­ “Ethnic­ Nationalism­ and­ Romanticism­ in­ Early­ Twentieth-­Century­ Japan,”­ Journal of Japanese Studies­ 22,­ no.­1­(1996).­In­this­article,­Doak­also­cites­Yun­Kŏn-­ch’a,­“Minzoku­gensō­no­satetsu:­‘Nihon­minzoku’­to­iu­jiko­teiji,”­Shisō,­no.­834­(December­1993).­Contrary­to­ Yasuda,­Yun­argues­that­ethnic­consciousness­(minzoku ishiki)­was­not­fully­established­in­Japan­until­the­turn­of­the­twentieth­century.­For­further­discussion­on­national­narratives­and­the­ethnic­imagination­in­twentieth-­century­Japan,­see­Kevin­ Doak,­“What­Is­a­Nation­and­Who­Belongs?,”­American Historical Review­102,­no.­2­ (1997). ­ 67.­Sin­Il-­ch’ŏl­makes­this­point:­“It­must­be­kept­in­mind­that­[the­word]­‘minjok,’­as­it­is­commonly­used­in­our­country,­is­not­congruent­to­either­‘nation’­or­ ‘race’­in­English.­Rather,­it­is­analogous­to­‘Volk’­or­‘Volkschaft’­in­German.”­Having­ attained­ethnic­homogeneity­quite­early­in­its­history,­Sin­argues,­the­Korean­minjok­or­kyŏre­in­premodern­times­constituted­a­chunminjokjŏk kongdongch’e­(a­proto-­ national­community)­comparable­to­the­Volkschaft,­or­to­the­narodnosti­as­conceptualized­in­Stalin’s­later­writings­on­the­national­question.­In­an­interesting­twist,­ Sin­argues­that­the­emergence­of­modern­nationalism­(Gesellschaft)­in­Korea­was­ made­difficult­precisely­because­traditional­society­in­Korea­had­such­a­strong­community­(Gemeinschaft)­consciousness.­Sin­Il-­ch’ŏl,­“Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­ŭi­kŭndae­kukkakwan,”­Sin Ch’ae-ho,­ed.­Kang­Man-­gil­(Seoul:­Koryŏ­taehakkyo­ch’ulp’anbu,­1990),­ 1–3.­See­also­Joseph­Stalin,­Marxism and Linguistics­(New­York:­International­Publishers,­1951). ­ 68.­With­a­similar­meaning,­kyŏngje­was­also­a­contraction­of­kyŏngguk chese­ (經國濟世,­manage­the­state­and­save­mankind).­A­scholar-­official­might­receive­ praise­for­being­competent­at­kyŏngje,­or­statecraft.­See,­for­example,­the­eulogy­ for­Pak­Ŭn­in­Sejong sillok,­18-­kwŏn,­4-­nyŏn­(1422),­10/12,­second­article.­In­other­ words,­there­was­“public”­recognition­of­the­fact­that­the­state­and­its­officials­were­ directly­involved­in­the­process­of­surplus­extraction—in­the­form­of­taxes,­tribute­ in­kind,­and­mobilization­of­corvée­labor—and­in­rescuing­the­people. ­ 69.­See­Wolfgang­Lippert,­“The­Formation­and­Development­of­the­Term­‘Politi-

195

196

noTes To ChapTer Two

cal­Economy’­in­Japanese­and­Chinese,”­Mapping Meanings: The Field of New Learning in Late Qing China,­ed.­Michael­Lackner­and­Natascha­Vittinghoff­(Boston:­Brill­ Academic­Publishers,­2004). ­ 70.­Justin­Rosenberg­points­out­that­Adam­Smith’s­teacher,­Francis­Hutcheson,­ included­marital,­parental,­and­master-­servant­relations­under­the­heading­“Principles­ of­ Economics.”­ In­ that­ sense,­ Rosenberg­ argues,­ “there­ is­ nothing­ in­ the­ earlier­use­of­the­word­(unless­it­be­the­hint­of­a­private­sphere)­which­accounts­ for­why­it­should­have­come­to­refer­exclusively­to­market­relations.­And­nothing­ is­explained­therefore­by­using­the­term­‘economic’­in­its­modern­sense­unless­one­ already­assumes­(consciously­or­otherwise)­the­capitalist­relations­of­production­ which­create­its­object.”­Justin­Rosenberg,­The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations­ (London:­Verso,­1994),­84,­124–26.­I­ thank­Monica­Kim­for­referring­me­to­this­book. ­ 71.­ In­ their­ memorial­ to­ King­ Sejong,­ the­ first­ objection­ to­ ŏnmun­ raised­ by­ Chiphyŏnjŏn­(Hall­of­Worthies)­scholars­had­to­do­with­anxiety­about­how­Chosŏn­ would­be­perceived­in­China­once­it­became­known­that­they­had­begun­using­ ŏnmun.­See­Sejong sillok,­103-­kwŏn,­26-­nyŏn­(1444),­2/20,­first­article. ­ 72.­The­term­national language­(C:­guoyu,­K:­kuk’ŏ)­presents­a­different­case.­In­ King­Sejong’s­Hunmin chŏngŭm,­language­spoken­in­Chosŏn­Korea­is­referred­to­as­ kukji ŏŭm­(國之語音),­the­country’s­speech-­sound.­Sejong sillok,­113-­kwŏn,­28-­nyŏn­ (1446),­9/29,­fourth­article.­According­to­Jerry­Norman,­during­much­of­the­Qing­ dynasty­the­term­national language­referred­to­Manchu­and­not­the­Beijing-­based­ guanhua­ (officials’­ language­ or­ Mandarin,­ 官話):­ “Historically,­ the­ term­ guoyu­ seems­mainly­to­have­been­employed­by­dynasties­whose­rulers­were­not­Chinese,­ but­some­northern­group­like­the­Tabgach,­the­Jurchens,­or­the­Mongols.”­In­1909­ China’s­Ministry­of­Education­began­to­promote­the­teaching­and­study­of­guanhua,­ and­in­1910­guanhua­was­designated­as­guoyu:­that­is,­Mandarin­as­the­national­language,­rendering­all­other­languages­nonnational,­and­eventually­“non-­Chinese.”­ But­in­this­period,­as­Norman­points­out,­guoyu­was­seen­as­a­language­of­school­ and­administration­but­not­of­literature.­Jerry­Norman,­Chinese­(Cambridge:­Cambridge­University­Press,­1988),­133–34. ­ 73.­But­we­should­not­infer­from­this­that­the­Korean­literati­accepted­without­ question­the­Sinocentric­worldview,­the­world­conceptualized­as­T’ien-­hsia,­all-­ under-­Heaven,­ presided­ over­ by­ the­ emperor­ of­ China,­ the­ Son­ of­ Heaven.­ The­ Korean­literati­de-­centered­China­in­many­ways,­especially­when­China­came­to­ be­ruled­by­“barbarians.”­When­the­Ming­dynasty­was­conquered­by­the­Manchus­ (Ch’ing­dynasty)­in­1662,­the­Korean­literati­imagined­Korea­to­be­the­last­bastion­of­ civilization,­and­such­self-­identification­continued­into­the­late­eighteenth­­century. ­ 74.­Seeking­a­tributary­relationship­and­investiture­from­the­Ming,­Yi­Sŏng-­g ye,­ the­founder­of­the­Chosŏn­dynasty,­had­requested­the­Ming­emperor­to­choose­ between­ Hwaryŏng­ (和寧)­and­ Chosŏn­ for­ the­ name­of­ the­ new­dynastic­ state.­ The­Hongwu­emperor­chose­the­name­Chosŏn­for­its­historical­association­with­ China—that­is,­Chi­Tzu­(K:­Kija)­Chosŏn­(箕子朝鮮).­Chosŏn,­of­course,­also­re-

noTes To ChapTer Two

ferred­to­the­“first­Korean­state”­in­the­Tan’gun­narrative.­Hwaryŏng­was­Yi­Sŏng-­ gye’s­birthplace,­but­it­also­evoked­Karakorum­(喀喇和林),­the­capital­of­northern­ Yuan,­its­shortened­name­being­和林­or­和寧.­Hwaryŏng­suggested­that­Yi­Sŏng-­g ye­ could­ally­with­the­Mongols­if­Ming­did­not­support­him.­In­internal­documents,­ Chosŏn­officials­referred­to­their­country­as­Tae-­Chosŏn’guk,­or­Great­Chosŏn. ­ 75.­See­Andre­Schmid,­Korea between Empires, 1895–1919­(New­York:­Columbia­ University­Press,­2002).­See­also­Kai-­wing­Chow,­“Narrating­Nation,­Race,­and­ National­Culture:­Imagining­the­Hanzu­Identity­in­Modern­China,”­Constructing Nationhood in Modern East Asia,­ed.­Kai-­wing­Chow,­Kevin­M.­Doak,­and­Poshek­Fu­ (Ann­Arbor:­University­of­Michigan­Press,­2001).­By­calling­Korea­semicolonial,­I­ am­referring­to­competing­colonialisms­in­Korea,­not­just­Japanese. ­ 76.­ Between­ 1895­ and­ 1936­ the­ British­ Bible­ Society­ distributed­ 18,079,466­ Bibles­published­in­Korean.­Between­1910­(when­translation­of­the­entire­Bible­was­ completed)­and­1960,­some­30­million­Bibles­were­distributed­in­Korea,­amounting­to­one­Bible­per­person.­See­Kim­Yun-­g yŏng,­Han’guk muncha kŭp ŏhaksa­(1934;­ Seoul:­ Kyŏngin­ munhwasa,­ 1987)­ and­ Ch’oe­ Hyŏn-­bae,­ “Kidokkyo­ wa­ Han’gŭl,”­ Sinhak nondan,­7­(1962).­Both­are­cited­in­Ross­King,­“Western­Protestant­Missionaries­and­the­Origins­of­Korean­Language­Modernization,”­Journal of International and Area Studies­11,­no.­3­(2004).­Standardizing­the­writing­system­to­produce­what­ is­today­called­han’gŭl­(in­South­Korea)­is­still­ongoing,­and­as­King­points­out,­until­ 1910­the­role­and­contributions­of­Western­missionaries­in­Korea­(especially­Anglophone­Protestant­missionaries­from­Britain,­Canada,­and­the­United­States)­cannot­ be­dismissed. ­ 77.­Rey­Chow,­Women and Modernity: The Politics of Reading between East and West­ (Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­1991),­xv. ­ 78.­This­is­drawn­from­Naoki­Sakai’s­critique­of­such­presumed­unity:­“As­long­ as­we­consider­‘Japanese­people,’­‘Japanese­language,’­and­‘Japanese­culture’­as­the­ three­inherent­attributes­of­a­unity,­we­are­not­able­to­imagine­any­different­way­a­ society­can­exist.”­Sakai­Naoki­(1996),­cited­in­Lee,­The Ideology of Kokugo,­xvi. ­ 79.­Initially­only­three­hundred­copies­of­Tongnip sinmun­were­printed.­By­1898­ circulation­had­increased­to­three­thousand­copies,­published­six­days­per­week­ rather­than­three.­See­Wells,­New God, New Nation,­57–58.­Aside­from­“print­capitalism,”­the­clock,­telegraph,­electric­street­lights,­the­Gregorian­calendar,­the­creation­of­new­public­spaces—all­these­have­to­be­considered.­See­Min­Suh­Son,­ “Enlightenment­and­Electrification:­The­Introduction­of­Electric­Light,­Telegraph­ and­Streetcars­in­Late­Nineteenth­Century­Korea,”­Reform and Modernity in the Taehan Empire,­ed.­Kim­Dong-­no,­John­B.­Duncan,­and­Kim­Do-­hyung­(Seoul:­Jimoondang,­2006).­For­comparison,­see­also­Stefan­Tanaka,­New Times in Modern Japan­ (Princeton:­Princeton­University­Press,­2006). ­ 80.­ Rebecca­ Karl­ makes­ the­ important­ point­ that­ nationalism­ in­ places­ like­ China­at­the­turn­of­the­twentieth­century­“must­be­seen­as­part­of­the­general­ global­problematic­in­which­it­was­embedded,­lest­the­inquiry­become­.­.­.­merely­ a­catalog­of­the­reactive­replication­in­China­of­globally­existing­institutional­forms­

197

198

noTes To ChapTer Two

and­ideologies.”­While­I­mostly­agree­with­this­point,­it­seems­to­me­that­the­phrase­ “the­general­global­problematic”­is­not­too­different­from­how­I­see­sovereignty­ functioning­globally­as­both­political­power­and­police­power.­At­this­historical­ juncture,­what­Tongnip sinmun­helped­establish­is­a­logic­of­equivalence­based­on­ a­racial­geography­of­the­world.­While­this­logic­would­later­enable­articulation­of­ political­solidarity­with­other­colonized­peoples,­I­do­not­think­it­is­useful­to­refer­ to­“a­non-­Euro-­American­consciousness­of­globality.”­See­Rebecca­Karl,­Staging the World: Chinese Nationalism at the Turn of the Twentieth Century­(Durham:­Duke­University­Press,­2002),­5–7. ­ 81.­Philip­Jaisohn’s­later­editorials­deriding­the­barbarism­of­the­Chinese,­including­Chinese­in­America,­illustrate­another­of­the­ways­he­articulated­this­civilizational­and­racial­hierarchy.­See­Schmid’s­chapter­“Decentering­the­Middle­Kingdom”­in­Korea between Empires.­A­decade­later,­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­explained­the­“sudden­ respect”­given­to­kungmun­quite­simply:­literary­Chinese­(hanmun)­had­perpetrated­ a­great­deal­of­harm;­kungmun­had­not.­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­“Kukhanmun­ŭi­kyŏngjung,”­ reprinted­in­Sin Ch’ae-ho yŏksa nonsŏljip,­translated­into­contemporary­Korean­by­ Chŏng­Hae-­yŏm­(Seoul:­Hyŏndae­silhaksa,­1995),­278. ­ 82.­In­terms­of­law,­formal­political­inequality­was­significantly­reduced­by­the­ reform­legislation­of­1894.­The­Kabo­reforms­of­1894­abolished­slavery­and­the­ social­status­system.­In­the­recruitment­of­officials­(men),­the­distinction­between­ yangban­and­commoner­was­dropped­and­the­civil­examination­system­abolished.­ Widows­were­allowed­to­remarry;­Buddhist­monks­were­allowed­to­enter­the­capital.­In­the­economic­realm,­the­Independence­Club­and­Tongnip sinmun­supported­ free­trade;­that­is,­they­opposed­higher­tariffs­that­would­have­protected­native­producers­and­industries.­They­also­sought­to­maintain­Korea’s­sovereignty­through­ the­granting­of­concessions­to­different­imperial­powers,­hoping­that­balancing­ competing­interests­among­the­imperial­powers­would­allow­for­Korean­neutrality­ and­protection­from­becoming­colonized­by­one­of­the­imperial­powers.­They­also­ did­not­call­for­renegotiation­of­unequal­treaties­or­an­end­to­extraterritoriality,­ judging­such­demands­to­be­premature. ­ 83.­Rhee­Syngman,­Tongnip chŏngsin,­in­Ihwajang sojang Unam Yi Sŭngman munsŏ­ (Seoul:­Kukhak­charyowŏn,­1998),­1:7–8.­I­have­referred­to­the­English­translation­ in­The Spirit of Independence: A Primer of Korean Modernization and Reform,­translated,­annotated,­and­with­an­introduction­by­Han-­kyo­Kim­(Honolulu:­University­ of­Hawaii­Press,­2001).­But­the­translation­here­is­my­own,­based­on­the­version­ of­Tongnip chŏngsin­published­in­Unam Yi Sŭngman munsŏ.­According­to­Robert­T.­ Oliver,­the­first­thirty-­four­“chapters”­were­written­while­Rhee­was­in­prison,­and­ the­last­eighteen­chapters­were­written­later.­Tongnip chŏngsin­was­published­in­Los­ Angeles­in­1910.­See­The Spirit of Independence,­n1;­Robert­T.­Oliver,­Syngman Rhee: The Man behind the Myth­(New­York:­Dodd,­Mead,­1954),­56,­339.­The­meaning­of­ chŏngsin­in­Tongnip chŏngsin­(獨立精神),­translated­as­spirit,­is­closer­to­the­meaning­of­the­German­word­Geist. ­ 84.­Rhee­Syngman,­立國以敎化爲本,­Okjung chapki,­cited­in­Yi Sŭng-man yŏn’gu,­ ed.­Lew­Young-­Ick­(Yu­Yŏng-­ik)­(Seoul:­Yonsei­University­Press,­2000),­37.

noTes To ChapTer Two

­ 85.­Rhee­argues­against­the­notion­that­political­dissent­weakens­the­state. ­ 86.­Tongnip sinmun,­editorial,­March­9,­1897,­in­Tongnip sinmun nonsŏljip, 1896.4– 1899.12­(Seoul:­Songjae­munhwa­chaedan,­1976),­184. ­ 87.­Rhee,­Tongnip chŏngsin,­1:8. ­ 88.­Rhee,­Tongnip chŏngsin,­1:45. ­ 89.­The­first­assembly­on­March­10,­on­Chongno,­a­main­thoroughfare,­drew­a­ crowd­of­about­eight­thousand­people.­A­speech­by­Rhee­Syngman­was­impressive­and­well­received.­See­Chandra,­Imperialism, Resistance, and Reform in Late Nineteenth-Century Korea,­167.­The­topic­set­for­discussion­in­the­assembly­in­April­ 1898­was­whether­a­parliament­(ŭihoewŏn)­should­be­established.­When­Philip­Jaisohn­was­pressured­to­return­to­the­United­States­in­May,­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­became­ president­of­the­Independence­Club.­As­these­assemblies­drew­thousands­of­people­ from­all­the­social­classes,­Yun­became­wary.­One­of­the­ways­he­tried­to­maintain­control­over­the­proceedings­was­by­translating­and­disseminating­Henry­M.­ Robert’s­ Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies,­published­ in­ 1894.­See­Yi­Hwang-­jik,­“Kŭndae­Han’guk­ŭi­ch’ogi­kongnonjang­hyŏngsŏng­mit­ pyŏnhwa­e­kwanhan­yŏn’gu,”­Sahoe iron­32­(2007). ­ 90.­The­October­assembly­was­a­two-­day­meeting.­Cosponsorship­and­participation­by­reformist­officials­in­the­Manmin­kongdonghoe­was­led­by­Pak­Chŏng-­yang.­ The­first­speaker­to­address­the­assembly­was­Pak­Sŏng-­ch’un,­a­person­of­paekjŏng­ (白丁)­status,­the­lowest­status­group. ­ 91.­As­Kenneth­Wells­points­out,­Yun­Ch’i-­ho­“opposed­the­demands­of­the­‘radicals’­like­Syngman­Rhee­for­direct­political­confrontation.”­Both­Philip­Jaisohn­and­ Yun­were­unwilling­to­foment­a­coup­against­the­monarchy.­Wells,­New God, New Nation,­60. ­ 92.­In­October­1897,­to­claim­equivalence­with­the­imperial­powers,­including­ China­and­Japan,­King­Kojong­proclaimed­Korea­to­be­an­empire,­and­himself­an­ emperor.­Pak­Yŏng-­hyo­had­been­involved­in­the­coup­attempt­in­1884,­and­in­1894­ he­had­been­the­home­minister­until­he­was­forced­into­exile­for­plotting­against­ Queen­Min. ­ 93.­While­in­prison­from­1899­until­1904,­Rhee­was­able­to­convince­the­director­of­the­prison­to­establish­a­small­library­there,­and­he­began­a­school­for­the­ inmates.­Rhee­also­translated­a­number­of­texts,­including­books­and­essays­on­the­ history­of­the­Sino-­Japanese­War,­world­history,­Methodism,­and­English­grammar.­He­translated­the­Waeber-­Komura­memorandum­signed­in­1896,­the­Lobanov-­ Yamagata­protocol­in­the­same­year,­and­the­Treaty­of­Alliance­between­Britain­and­ Japan­signed­in­London­in­1902.­Rhee­also­began­working­on­an­English-­Korean­ dictionary­but­stopped­after­completing­one-­third­of­the­project­to­write­Tongnip chŏngsin.­While­a­student­at­Paejae­Boys’­High­School,­he­had­come­under­the­influence­of­Sŏ­Chae-­pil­(Philip­Jaisohn).­It­has­been­suggested­that­many­of­the­topics­ taken­up­in­Tongnip chŏngsin­Rhee­first­learned­from­Sŏ’s­lectures­on­history­and­ geography. ­ 94.­President­Theodore­Roosevelt­was­awarded­the­Nobel­Peace­Prize­in­1906­ for­his­role­in­negotiations­that­led­to­the­Treaty­of­Portsmouth.

199

200

noTes To ChapTer Two

­ 95.­ For­ Rhee­ Syngman’s­ political­ activism­ in­ relation­ to­ other­ independence­ activists­in­the­United­States,­see­Bong-­Youn­Choy,­Koreans in America­(Chicago:­ Nelson-­Hall,­1979).­See­also­Richard­Kim,­The Quest for Statehood: Korean Immigrant Nationalism and U.S. Sovereignty, 1905–1945­ (New­ York:­ Oxford­ University­ Press,­2011). ­ 96.­Rhee,­Tongnip chŏngsin,­1:73–74. ­ 97.­See­Uday­Mehta’s­discussion­of­John­Locke’s­Thoughts Concerning Education­ and­Second Treatise.­Uday­Mehta,­Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth Century British Liberal Thought­(Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­Press,­1999),­46–76.­ See­also­Locke,­Some Thoughts Concerning Education,­ed.­John­W.­and­Jean­S.­Yolton­ (New­York:­Oxford­University­Press,­1989);­and­Second Treatise of Government,­ed.­ C.­B.­Macpherson­(Indianapolis,­Ind.:­Hackett­Pub.­Co.,­1980). ­ 98.­As­Prasenjit­Duara­points­out,­understanding­the­process­by­which­narratives­get­transmitted­over­time­requires­that­we­understand­how­narratives­break­ down­over­time:­“Transmission­of­a­trace­or­a­narrative­is­premised­upon­repression,­contestation,­and­negotiation­of­other,­dispersed­traces­and­narratives.­For­ the­historian,­it­is­methodologically­necessary­to­grasp­this­bifurcation­of­history­ as­linear­transmission­and­dispersion;­only­then­can­we­keep­in­view­the­heterogeneity­of­the­past­upon­which­both­our­historical­narratives­and­the­representations­ from­the­past—the­traces,­our­sources—have­been­constructed.”­Prasenjit­Duara,­ “Bifurcating­Linear­History:­Nation­and­Histories­in­China­and­India,”­positions­1,­ no.­3­(1993).­In­other­words,­it­is­only­through­the­violence­of­historiography­(both­ premodern­and­modern)­that­“Korean­history”­(or­any­other­national­history)­can­ be­understood­as­a­single­coherent­narrative. ­ 99.­Depending­on­the­context,­I­will­translate­minjok­as­people,­as­Koreans,­or­as­ an­ethnically­defined­nation.­In­those­cases­in­which­I­employ­the­word­nation­for­ minjok,­I­do­mean­to­convey­the­idea­of­common­blood­ties­as­suggested­in­the­Latin­ noun­natio­(from­which­the­word­nation­is­derived).­On­the­etymology­of­words­like­ nation­and­ethnicity,­and­the­conflation­of­the­words­state­and­nation,­see­Walker­ Conner,­“A­Nation­Is­a­Nation,­Is­a­State,­Is­an­Ethnic­Group,­Is­a.­.­.­.­,”­Ethnic and Racial Studies­1,­no.­4­(1978),­379–88. ­ 100.­Andre­Schmid,­“Rediscovering­Manchuria:­Sin­Ch’aeho­and­the­Politics­of­ Territorial­History­in­Korea,”­Journal of Asian Studies­56,­no.­1­(1997).­Schmid­cites­ two­ sources­ on­ how­ the­ term­ minzoku­ was­ appropriated­ by­ Chinese­ intellectuals­in­the­early­years­of­the­twentieth­century:­Han­Jinchun­and­Li­Yinfun,­“Hanwen­‘minzu’­yici­chuxian­ji­qi­chuji­shiyong­qingkuang,”­Minzu yanjiu,­no.­2­(1984),­ 36–43;­and­Peng­Yingming,­“Guanyu­woguo­minzu­gainian­lishi­de­chubu­kaocha,”­ Minzu Yanjiu,­no.­2­(1985),­5–11. ­ 101.­Such­a­model—which­implies­that­“a­word­in­language­A­must­equal­a­word­ or­a­phrase­in­language­B;­otherwise­one­of­the­languages­is­lacking”—will­lead­ the­observer­to­form­mistaken­opinions­about­other­peoples­and,­conversely,­about­ the­observer’s­own­totalized­identity.­See­Lydia­H.­Liu,­Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity, China, 1900–1937­(Stanford:­Stanford­University­Press,­1995),­4.

noTes To ChapTer Two

­ 102.­ Son­ Chin-­t’ae,­ Chosŏn minjoksa kaeron­ (Seoul:­ Ŭryu­ munhwasa,­ 1948).­ The­quotation­is­from­his­introduction­and­can­be­found­in­Yŏkdae Han’guksa nonsŏn,­compiled­by­Yi­Ki-­baek­(Seoul:­Saemunsa,­1993),­241.­Son’s­introduction­to­ Chosŏn minjoksa kaeron­(Outline­of­Korean­National­History)­was­written­in­the­ post­liberation­context­of­divided­occupation­(Soviet­forces­north­of­the­38th­parallel,­U.S.­forces­to­the­south)­and­the­violent­struggle­between­the­Left­and­the­ Right­that­led­to­the­establishment­of­separate­states­(DPRK­and­ROK)­in­1948.­ As­an­anticommunist,­Son­nonetheless­extended­high­praise­to­the­Marxist­historiography­of­Paek­Nam-­un,­but­then­criticized­him­for­discovering­only­a­part­of­ “ourselves”­(uri chasin).­Son’s­privileging­of­the­minjok­as­the­totality­of­“ourselves”­ that­transcends­class­divisions­attests­to­how­the­category­of­minjok­was­implicated­ in­ideological­struggles­during­and­after­the­colonial­period.­Son­became­South­ Korea’s­ vice­ minister­ of­ education­ in­ 1950,­ and­ he­ was­ forcibly­ taken­ to­ North­ Korea­during­the­Korean­War. ­ 103.­Cho­Tong-­gŏl,­“Kŭndae­ch’ogi­ŭi­yŏksa­insik,”­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksa insik,­ed.­Cho­Tong-­gŏl,­Han­Yŏng-­u,­and­Pak­Ch’an-­sŭng­(Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­ pip’yŏngsa,­1994),­2,­19. ­ 104.­Eugen­Weber,­Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914­(Stanford:­Stanford­University­Press,­1976).­Ernest­Gellner­makes­a­similar­argument:­“[Nationalism]­claims­to­defend­folk­culture­while­in­fact­it­is­forging­ a­high­[i.e.,­yangban]­culture;­it­claims­to­protect­an­old­folk­society­while­in­fact­ helping­to­build­up­an­anonymous­mass­society;­.­.­.­it­preaches­and­defends­continuity,­but­owes­everything­to­a­decisive­and­unutterably­profound­break­in­human­ history­[the­development­of­industrial­society].”­Ernest­Gellner,­Nations and Nationalism­(Ithaca:­Cornell­University­Press,­1983),­124–25. ­ 105.­As­Fujiya­Kawashima­has­shown,­by­the­eighteenth­century­the­yangban­ elite­in­the­countryside­had­succeeded­in­constructing­diverse­local­cultures­based­ on­Confucian­ethics,­a­culture­that­structured­the­daily­lives­of­not­just­yangban­but­ also­chungin,­commoners,­and­slaves.­This­“cultural­localism”­was­upheld­as­being­ universal­in­that­Confucian­ethics­and­morality­were­applicable­to­everyone­everywhere,­even­as­it­accentuated­a­shared­sense­of­self-­discipline,­self-­rule,­and­self-­ sufficiency.­But­this­shared­local­culture­did­not­transgress­status­distinctions.­This­ culture­assumed­that­the­social­hierarchy­separating­the­different­status­groups­ (myŏngbun)­was­natural­and­commonsensical.­Fujiya­Kawashima,­“Cultural­Localism­in­the­Late­Chosŏn­Dynasty­and­Its­Significance­in­Modern­Korea,”­Bulletin of Hiroshima Jogakuin University,­no.­45­(December­1995). ­ 106.­Carter­Eckert,­Offspring of Empire: The Koch’ang Kims and the Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism, 1876–1945­(Seattle:­University­of­Washington­Press,­1991),­ 226–27. ­ 107.­Although­Chinese­dynasties­viewed­their­interaction­with­peoples­and­kingdoms­beyond­their­borders­in­terms­of­the­“tribute­system,”­Peter­Yun­points­out­ that­this­system­encompassed­a­wide­range­of­political­relationships,­from­total­ subjugation­to­virtual­equality.­Yun­argues­that­from­the­fourth­century­until­the­ Mongol­conquest­of­the­whole­region­in­the­thirteenth­century,­a­triangular­bal-

201

202

noTes To ChapTer Two

ance­of­power­among­China,­Manchuria,­and­Korea­prevailed­in­Northeast­Asia.­By­ destroying­this­triangular­balance­of­power,­the­Mongols­for­the­first­time­forced­ Korea­(Koryŏ)­to­perform­all­the­duties­of­a­“model­tributary.”­It­was­not­until­the­ sixteenth­century,­however,­that­Korean­Confucian­elites­developed­a­strong­ideological­commitment­to­the­moral­correctness­of­the­tribute­system.­See­Peter­Yun,­ “Rethinking­the­Tribute­System:­Northeast­Asian­Interstate­Relations,­600–1600.”­ Ph.D.­dissertation,­uclA,­1998. ­ 108.­There­are,­of­course,­other­factors­behind­Chosŏn’s­remarkable­longevity.­ See,­ for­ example,­ James­ Palais,­ “Stability­ in­ Chosŏn­ Dynasty­ Korea,”­ Occasional Papers on Korea­3­(June­1975),­1–18. ­ 109.­Anderson,­Imagined Communities,­1–18. ­ 110.­As­commonly­defined­in­present-­day­South­Korea,­the­categories­of­“nationalist­historians”­and­“nationalist­historiography”­for­the­colonial­period­encompass­ a­wide­range­of­historical­writing­by­writers­who­embraced­quite­different,­sometimes­opposing­philosophical,­political,­and­methodological­positions.­By­nationalist­historiography,­I­mean­histories­written­as­a­narrative­of­resistance­to­colonial­ rule,­devoted­to­countering­the­pernicious­effects­of­colonialist­historiography­and­ to­empowering­Koreans­to­join­the­struggle­for­Korea’s­independence,­by­historians­ such­as­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­Pak­Ŭn-­sik,­An­Chae-­hong,­Mun­Il-­p’yŏng,­and­Chŏng­In-­bo.­ We­should­be­careful­to­distinguish­between­national­historiography­(minjok sahak)­ and­nationalist­historiography­(minjokjuŭi yŏksahak).­Almost­all­histories­written­ today­are­national­histories­(for­example,­histories­of­Korean­women,­religion,­literature,­music,­art—not­to­mention­politics),­but­not­all­histories­are­nationalist­ histories. ­ 111.­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­was­born­in­1880­in­South­Ch’ungch’ŏng­Province.­He­received­ a­classical­education­from­his­grandfather­and­at­the­age­of­eighteen­entered­the­ Sŏnggyun’gwan,­ the­ government-­run­ Confucian­ academy.­ In­ 1905­ Sin­ received­ his­paksa­degree­and­at­the­invitation­of­Chang­Chi-­yŏn­joined­the­editorial­staff­of­ the­Hwangsŏng sinmun­(Capital­Gazette).­When­the­Japanese­authorities­forced­the­ Hwangsŏng sinmun­to­close,­he­moved­to­the­Taehan maeil sinbo­(Korea­Daily­News)­ and­ became­ its­ editor­ in­ chief.­ In­ 1907,­ with­ the­ intention­ of­ inspiring­ Korean­ youth­ to­ become­ heroes­ themselves,­ Sin­ translated­ Liang­ Qichao’s­ (Liang­ Ch’i-­ ch’ao)­biographical­sketches­of­Mazzini,­Garibaldi,­and­Cavour­(Itali kŏn’guk samgŏljŏn)­and­in­the­following­year­wrote­biographic­sketches­of­the­Koguryŏ­general­ Ŭlchi­Mundŏk­and­Chosŏn­admiral­Yi­Sun-­sin.­In­1907­he­also­helped­organize­the­ Sinminhoe­(New­People’s­Association,­a­clandestine­nationalist­organization),­and­ in­his­editorials­publicized­Sinminhoe­views.­Until­annexation­in­1910,­Sin­published­Kajŏng chapchi­(Family­Magazine),­a­magazine­for­women,­and­wrote­essays­ on­nationalism,­Korean­linguistics,­Korean­history,­and­poetry.­He­left­Korea­just­ before­annexation­to­continue­his­nationalist­activities­abroad,­and­with­the­exception­of­a­brief­trip­home­in­1916,­he­never­set­foot­in­Korea­again.­In­1919,­when­the­ March­First­Movement­erupted­in­Korea,­Sin­took­part­in­organizing­the­Korean­ provisional­government­(kPg)­in­Shanghai.­By­1920,­however,­he­was­so­disgusted­

noTes To ChapTer Two

with­the­diplomatic­and­gradualist­strategies­advocated­by­Rhee­Syngman­and­An­ Ch’ang-­ho­that­he­turned­his­back­on­the­kPg.­Although­active­in­revolutionary­ nationalist­politics,­Sin­also­immersed­himself­in­historical­study.­His­writings­in­ the­early­twentieth­century­were­influenced­by­Liang­Qichao’s­historical­methodology­ and­ by­ Chinese­ anarchist­ intellectuals.­ In­ 1923­ he­ wrote­ “Declaration­ of­ Korean­Revolution”­for­the­Korean­revolutionary­organization­Ŭiyŏldan.­By­1925­ he­had­become­an­anarchist.­In­1927­he­joined­the­Eastern­Anarchist­Association,­ and­in­the­following­year­he­was­arrested­by­the­Japanese­military­in­connection­ with­a­forgery­scheme­to­raise­funds­for­anarchist­activities.­In­1936­he­died­in­a­ Japanese­prison­in­Port­Arthur. ­ 112.­The­Tan’gun­legend­is­a­prototypical­foundation­myth­which­explains­the­ creation­of­the­people,­the­state,­and­the­culture­of­ancient­Chosŏn.­As­narrated­ by­ Iryŏn­ in­ the­ Samguk yusa,­ Hwanin,­ the­ Supreme­ Spirit,­ sent­ down­ his­ son,­ Hwanung,­ to­ the­ peak­ of­ T’aebaeksan.­ A­ bear­ and­ a­ tiger,­ which­ lived­ together­ in­a­cave,­prayed­to­Hwanung­to­be­transformed­into­human­form.­Hwanin­then­ gave­them­mugwort­and­garlic­to­eat­and­told­them­not­to­see­light­for­one­hundred­days.­The­tiger­could­not­endure­the­ordeal;­the­bear­persevered­and­became­ a­woman.­Hwanung­married­her,­and­she­bore­a­son­who­was­called­Tan’gun­wanggŏm.­ Iryŏn­ goes­ on­ to­ say­ that­ in­ the­ fiftieth­ year­ of­ the­ Emperor­ Yao,­ Tan’gun­ established­a­city­at­Pyongyang­and­called­his­country­Chosŏn.­This­would­date­ the­establishment­of­Ancient­Chosŏn­to­2306­bcE,­but­the­Tan’gun­calendar­traditionally­begins­with­Tan’gun’s­birth,­which­is­said­to­have­occurred­in­2333­bcE.­ See­Samguk yusa,­trans.­Tae-­Hung­Ha­and­Grafton­K.­Mintz­(1972;­Seoul:­Yonsei­ University­Press,­2004). ­ 113.­Homer­B.­Hulbert,­“Introductory­Note,”­Korea Review­(1901). ­ 114.­Starting­in­the­1920s,­with­more­sophisticated­approaches­to­the­study­of­ religion­and­ways­of­reading­myth,­new­semantic­value­was­given­to­the­term­myth,­ as­fable­but­also­as­sacred­tradition­and­revelation­of­beginnings.­In­Korea­today­ the­Tan’gun­myth­holds­both­of­these­aspects:­as­fiction­that­nevertheless­narrates­ Korea’s­origin­in­the­time­of­beginnings. ­ 115.­ Although­ no­ longer­ extant,­ state­ histories­ were­ compiled­ by­ each­ of­ the­ Three­Kingdoms:­Yi­Mun-­jin­for­Koguryŏ­(600);­Kohŭng­for­Paekche­(375;­and­ as­noted­by­Peter­Lee,­judging­from­quotations­in­the­Nihon shoki,­other­Paekche­ histories­must­have­existed);­and­Kŏch’ilbu­(fl.­545–76)­for­Silla.­Peter­Lee­et­al.,­ eds.,­Sourcebook of Korean Civilization:­vol.­1,­From Early Times to the Sixteenth Century­(New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­1993),­119.­It­is­thought­that­Samguksa­ (History­of­the­Three­Kingdoms),­written­at­the­beginning­of­the­Koryŏ­period­but­ no­longer­extant,­did­mention­the­Tan’gun­legend.­But­according­to­Han­Yŏng-­u,­ the­Samguksa­probably­was­not­a­sophisticated­Confucian­history­and­was­probably­not­written­in­the­annal­biography­(kijŏnch’e)­style.­See­Han­Young-­Woo­(Han­ Yŏng-­u),­“Uri­nara­yŏksahak­ŭi­hŭrŭm,”­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,­ed.­Cho­ Tong-­gŏl­et­al.­(Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994),­1:15. ­ 116.­A­Buddhist­monk­versed­in­geomancy,­Myoch’ŏng­(?–1135)­contended­that­

203

204

noTes To ChapTer Two

the­topographical­vigor­of­Kaegyŏng­(Kaesŏng,­the­capital­of­Koryŏ)­was­depleted.­ Myoch’ŏng’s­ proposal­ to­ move­ the­ capital­ to­ Sŏgyŏng­ (Pyongyang)­ would­ have­ weakened­the­power­of­aristocratic­families­entrenched­in­Kaegyŏng­and­would­ have­instated­a­more­aggressive­policy­toward­the­Jurchen­Jin­in­the­north.­Conservatives­like­Kim­Pu-­sik­opposed­Myoch’ŏng’s­plan­because­moving­the­capital­ to­a­more­“propitious”­area­would­have­also­sanctioned­an­extensive­(and­expansive)­program­of­reconstructing­the­physical­and­social­order.­In­1135,­after­years­ of­fruitless­polemic,­Myoch’ŏng­raised­an­army­in­revolt,­which­ended­in­defeat­to­ forces­led­by­Kim­Pu-­sik.­According­to­Song­Ki-­ho,­the­core­of­Parhae’s­ruling­class­ was­made­up­of­Koguryŏ­émigrés­and­the­subject­population­was­mostly­Malgal­ people.­“Unified”­Silla­regarded­Parhae­as­a­state­founded­by­the­descendents­of­ Koguryŏ,­and,­in­its­dealings­with­“Japan,”­Parhae­referred­to­itself­as­Koryŏ­(that­ is,­Koguryŏ).­There­are­passages­in­the­Samguk sagi­and­in­Ch’oe­Ch’i-­wŏn’s­writings­(857–?;­a­scholar-­official­of­late­Silla)­which­refer­to­Parhae­as­“the­Northern­State”­(pukguk),­and­Song­infers­that­Parhae­might­have­regarded­Silla­as­“the­ Southern­State”­(namguk).­Song­then­reasons­that­Parhae­and­Silla­saw­themselves­ as­forming­a­single­ethnic­group.­See­Song­Ki-­ho,­“Silla­chungdae­sahoe­wa­Parhae,”­Han’guksa t’ŭkgang,­ed.­Han’guksa­t’ŭkgang­p’yŏnchan­wiwŏnhoe­(Seoul:­Sŏul­ taehakkyo­ch’ulp’anbu,­1990),­67–81.­I­think­it­is­entirely­possible­that,­when­convenient,­that­is,­for­political­reasons­(to­seek­asylum,­or­as­justification­for­territorial­ambitions),­the­ruling­classes­of­Parhae­and­Silla­might­have­articulated­their­ relationship­to­one­another­in­terms­of­clientship­and­kinship­ties.­But­I­think­it­is­ doubtful­that­they­even­thought­about­their­own­subjects­(people­from­whom­they­ extracted­tribute­and­labor)­in­terms­of­a­deep,­horizontal­comradeship­that­is­the­ hallmark­of­the­ethnic­nation. ­ 117.­Traditional­dates:­Koguryŏ,­37­bcE–668­cE;­Paekche,­18­bcE–660­cE;­and­ Silla,­57­bcE–935­cE.­“Unified”­Silla­is­668–935. ­ 118.­Han,­“Uri­nara­yŏksahak­ŭi­hŭrŭm,”­14–17. ­ 119.­The­Tan’gun­legend­in­Samguk yusa­might­have­been­based­on­much­earlier­ sources,­such­as­the­Wei shu­and­Tan’gun kogi.­The­Tan’gun­legend­also­appears­in­ later­(Chosŏn)­court-­sponsored­works­like­the­Ŭngjesi chu­(Commentary­on­Poems­ Written­at­Royal­Command)­by­Kwŏn­Nam­(1416–65),­the­monograph­on­geography­in­the­Sejong sillok,­and­the­Tongguk yŏji sŭngnam­(1481). ­ 120.­Ki-­baik­Lee­(Yi­Ki-­baek),­A New History of Korea,­trans.­Edward­W.­Wagner­ (Cambridge:­Harvard-­Yenching­Institute,­1984),­167. ­ 121.­As­Peter­Yun­(“Rethinking­the­Tribute­System”)­points­out,­successive­Koryŏ­ kings­had­princesses­of­the­Yüan­imperial­house­as­their­primary­consorts,­and­the­ throne­was­reserved­for­the­princes­born­to­Mongol­queens. ­ 122.­Iryŏn­writes,­“It­is­written­in­an­old­book,­‘In­ancient­times,­Hwanung,­the­ son­of­Hwanin­(this­means­Chesŏk),­desired­to­descend­from­Heaven­and­to­live­ amongst­men.­.­.­.­Together­with­his­ministers­of­wind,­rain,­and­cloud,­Hwanung­ instructed­mankind­about­agriculture,­the­preservation­of­life,­the­curing­of­disease,­punishments,­the­difference­between­right­and­wrong.’”­This­translation­by­

noTes To ChapTer Two

James­H.­Grayson­can­be­found­in­Korea: A Religious History­(New­York:­Oxford­ University­Press,­1989),­282.­See­also­Peter­Lee’s­translation­in­Sourcebook of Korean Civilization,­1:4–7.­For­Iryŏn,­Koryŏ­was­the­land­wherein­the­Buddha­dwells­(thus­ culturally­superior­to­the­Mongols),­and­it­was­Buddhism­that­could­safeguard­the­ land­and­the­people.­This­was­why­he­equated­Hwanin,­the­Ruler­of­Heaven,­with­ Chesŏk,­a­rendering­of­Indra,­one­of­the­three­great­deities­of­Vedic­Hinduism. ­ 123.­There­were­histories­written­in­the­epic­style,­most­notably­the­vernacular­ translation­of­the­Sanguozhi tongsu yanyi­(Romance­of­the­Three­Kingdoms;­K:­Samgukji t’ongsok yŏnŭi).­Confucian­historians­considered­such­popular­histories­fiction­ rather­than­history­proper.­But­much­to­their­dismay,­Samgukji t’ongsok yŏnŭi­was­ widely­read­in­late­Chosŏn.­As­Emanuel­Pastreich­points­out,­Yi­Ik­(1681–1763),­for­ example,­lamented­the­fact­that­the­Samgukji t’ongsok yŏnŭi­was­being­read­aloud­ in­every­home­and­even­quoted­in­the­civil­service­examination­questions.­The­ earliest­complaint­on­record­seems­to­be­a­memorial­written­by­the­scholar­Ki­Tae-­ sŭng­to­King­Sŏnjo­in­1569­in­which­he­rebukes­the­king­for­drawing­a­reference­ from­Samgukji t’ongsok yŏnŭi.­Without­having­to­read­it,­Ki­was­able­to­compare­ its­extreme­ludicrousness­to­books­on­astrology.­Pastreich­argues­that­the­literary­ style­of­Samgukji t’ongsok yŏnŭi­set­some­of­the­basic­conventions­for­the­vernacular­ novel­in­late­Chosŏn.­See­Emanuel­Pastreich,­“The­Reception­of­Chinese­Vernacular­ Narrative­ in­ Korea­ and­ Japan,”­ Ph.D.­ dissertation,­ Harvard­ University,­ 1997,­ 49–52.­But­it­is­not­clear­what­influence,­if­any,­literary­conventions­in­late­Chosŏn­ vernacular­literature­had­on­history­writing­in­the­modern­period.­In­the­case­of­ Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­Thomas­Carlyle’s­On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History­ and­Liang­Qichao’s­biographical­sketches­of­Mazzini,­Garibaldi,­and­Cavour­(which­ Sin­translated­in­1907­as­Itali kŏn’guk samgŏljŏn)­stimulated­him­to­write­biographic­ sketches­of­the­Koguryŏ­general­Ŭlchi­Mundŏk­(mid-sixth­century­to­early­seventh­ century)­and­Yi­Sun-­sin­(1545–98).­(Ŭlchi Mundŏk­was­published­as­a­booklet­in­ 1908­and­Yi Sunsin-jŏn­was­serialized­in­the­Taehan maeil sinbo­in­the­same­year.)­ As­Michael­Robinson­points­out,­Sin’s­motives­for­writing­these­biographies­was­to­ exhort­Korean­youth­to­emulate­the­purity­of­spirit­and­patriotic­example­of­these­ military­heroes­in­Korean­history.­Michael­Robinson,­“National­Identity­and­the­ Thought­of­Sin­Ch’aeho,”­Journal of Korean Studies­5­(1984),­134. ­ 124.­Private­histories­were­sometimes­free­of­some­of­the­restraints­that­inhibited­official­historiography.­However,­because­the­authors­were­either­potential­or­ actual­officeholders,­there­was­a­strong­similarity­in­outlook­between­private­historiography­and­official­historiography. ­ 125.­In­an­interview­in­1984,­Yi­Pyŏng-­do­(1896–1989)­recalled­how­he­saw­the­ Chosŏn wangjo sillok­for­the­first­time­in­the­home­of­Ikeuchi­Hiroshi,­a­professor­ of­Korean­history­at­Tokyo­Imperial­University.­This­was­during­his­student­days­at­ Waseda­University­(1916–19).­During­the­Chosŏn­period,­copies­of­the­Sillok­were­ kept­at­four­separate­archives­in­remote­mountainous­areas­in­addition­to­the­central­archive­in­Seoul.­The­Sillok­kept­by­Ikeuchi­was­destroyed­during­the­Tokyo­ earthquake­of­1923.­During­the­colonial­period,­Yi­Pyŏng-­do­worked­on­and­off­for­

205

206

noTes To ChapTer Three

the­Chōsenshi­henshūkai­(Society­for­the­Compilation­of­Korean­History),­and­ after­liberation­he­taught­in­the­History­Department­at­Seoul­National­University.­ Among­Korean­historians,­Yi­was­the­most­influential­in­the­positivist­school­(silchŭng sahak).­The­interview,­conducted­by­Chŏng­Hong-­jun,­appears­in­Chindan­ hakhoe,­ed.,­Yŏksaga ŭi yuhyang­(Seoul:­Ilchogak,­1991),­264–76. ­ 126.­Sinminhoe­was­a­secret­society­organized­in­1907­by­An­Ch’ang-­ho,­with­Yi­ Tong-­hwi,­Yang­Ki-­t’ak,­Yi­Kap,­Yi­Sung-­hun,­Chŏn­Tŏk-­ki,­An­T’ae-­guk,­Yi­Tong-­ nyŏng,­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­and­others­(Sin­Ch’ae­wrote­its­prospectus,­“Chwijimun”).­It­ consisted­of­patriots,­each­of­whom­committed­his­life­and­property­to­the­organization­in­the­cause­of­promoting­nationalist­consciousness,­Korean­independence,­ and­popular­sovereignty.­At­one­point­the­membership­grew­to­about­eight­hundred­men,­many­of­whom­were­journalists,­religious­leaders,­military­men,­and­ businessmen.­To­promote­education,­the­Sinminhoe­founded­schools­in­Pyongyang­ and­ Chŏngju;­ to­promote­ modern­ industry,­ it­established­ a­ ceramics­ factory­ in­ Pyongyang;­and­to­promote­nationalist­politics­in­the­public­sphere,­it­established­ the­bilingual­newspaper­Taehan maeil sinbo­(Korea­Daily­News). ­ 127.­This­parallels­historical­trends­among­Western­imperial­powers,­where­the­ maintenance­and­expansion­of­imperial­structures­required,­among­and­for­its­own­ citizens,­ greater­ participatory­ democracy,­ higher­ levels­ of­ education,­ and­ more­ attention­paid­to­health­and­welfare. ­ 128.­Han­Young-­Woo­identifies­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­as­the­initiator­(sŏnch’angja)­of­modern­nationalist­historiography­in­Korea.­According­to­Han,­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­“Toksa­ sillon,”­written­in­1908,­was­a­pioneering­work­in­modern­nationalist­historiography­ because­ its­ epistemology­ was­ informed­ by­ three­ tenets:­ nation­ (minjok),­ democracy­(minju),­and­science­(kwahak).­Han­Young-­Woo­(Han­Yŏng-­u),­Han’guk minjokjuŭi yŏksahak­(Seoul:­Ilchogak,­1994),­4,­6. ­ 129.­ Sin­ Ch’ae-­ho,­ “Chosŏn­ yŏksasang­ ilch’ŏnnyŏnlae­ cheil­ taesakkŏn”­ (The­ Most­Disastrous­Event­in­the­Past­One­Thousand­Years­of­Korean­History),­Tonga Ilbo­(October­1924­through­March­1925).­The­historical­context­for­this­polemic­ had­to­do­with­Sin’s­denunciation­of­those­Koreans­who­were­lobbying­for­an­“independent­domestic­administration”­(naejŏng tongnip),­“participatory­government”­ (ch’am chŏngkwŏn),­or­“self-­rule”­(chach’i)­within­colonial­Korea.­Sin­understood­ these­moves­as­capitulation­to­Japan’s­claim­over­Korea,­a­capitulation­that­emanated­from­the­mentality­of­subservience­begun­by­Kim­Pu-­sik. ­ 130.­I­thank­Christine­Hong­for­this­formulation­and­her­reading­of­Yun­Ch’i-­ ho’s­narrative­about­his­experiences­in­the­United­States­as­a­narrative­of­disavowal­ through­a­temporal­displacement.

3.­Nationalizing­Korea’s­Past ­ 1.­ Sin­ Ch’ae-­ho,­ “Toksa­ sillon,”­ Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip­ (Seoul:­ Tanjae­ Sin­ Ch’ae-­ho­sŏnsaeng­kinyŏm­saŏphoe,­1987),­1:471–72. ­ 2.­Yanagi­Sōetsu’s­first­long­essay­on­an­Asian­artwork­was­about­the­Sŏkkuram­

noTes To ChapTer Three

Grotto,­published­in­1919­just­after­the­March­First­Uprising.­For­Yanagi,­the­glory­ of­the­Silla­capital­of­Kyŏngju­was­comparable­to­the­golden­age­of­Tang­China­and­ Tenpyō­Japan.­See­Janet­Poole,­chapter­3­of­“Colonial­Interiors:­Modernist­Fiction­ of­Korea,”­Ph.D.­dissertation,­Columbia­University,­2004. ­ 3.­Kim­Tae-­sik,­“Ilje­kangjŏmgi­Kyŏngju­chiŏk­munhwaje­ŭi­suri­pokwŏn­sare,”­ Kyŏngju Silla yujŏk ŭi ŏje wa onŭl: Sŏkkuram, Pulguksa, Namsan­(Seoul:­Sungkyunkwan­taehakkyo­pangmulkwan­kihoeg­chŏnsisil,­2007).­Sekino­Tadashi’s­field­of­ expertise­was­Buddhist­architecture,­and­in­1902­he­had­already­conducted­a­study­ of­Pulguksa. ­ 4.­The­photos­were­taken­by­Tokio­Shunzo,­probably­in­the­fall­of­1909­when­ Resident­General­Sone­went­to­view­Sŏkkuram.­There­were­two­photos­of­Sŏkkuram,­and­these­were­published­in­a­book­on­Korean­art­titled­Chōsen bijutsu taikan­(Keijō­[Seoul]:­Chōsen­kosho­kankōkai,­1910).­Under­the­direction­of­Sekino­ Tadashi,­the­Office­of­the­Governor­General­of­Chōsen­(Chōsen­Sotokufu)­began­ in­1915­to­publish­the­results­of­excavating,­identifying,­photographing,­and­classifying­significant­sites­and­artifacts­throughout­Korea.­See­Chōsen koseki zufu­(Archaeological­Survey­of­Korea),­15­vols.­(Seoul:­Chōsen­Sotokufu,­1915–35). ­ 5.­Su-­young­Hwang,­“Sŏkkuram­Grotto­Shrine,”­Koreana­6,­no.­4­(1992). ­ 6.­There­may­have­been­ten­“windows,”­invisible­from­within,­that­allowed­air­ and­indirect­light­into­the­rotunda.­See­Chun-­woo­Nahm,­“Discoveries­of­Hitherto­ Forgotten­Sciences­in­Sŏkkuram­Temple,”­Chindan hakbo­32­(1969). ­ 7.­Several­efforts­were­made­to­fix­the­problem,­but­without­success. ­ 8.­Mail sinbo,­September­12,­1913. ­ 9.­In­Meiji­Japan,­along­with­preservation­guidelines,­the­Ministry­of­Interior­ also­regulated­the­appointment­of­chief­abbots­and­required­the­reporting­of­all­ temple­affairs,­including­the­issuance­of­permits­to­hold­public­religious­events.­ See­Hyung­Il­Pai,­“The­Creation­of­National­Treasures­and­Monuments:­The­1916­ Japanese­Laws­on­the­Preservation­of­Korean­Remains­and­Relics­and­Their­Colonial­Legacies,”­Korean Studies­25,­no.­1­(2001),­79. ­ 10.­See­Stefan­Tanaka,­“Imaging­History:­Inscribing­Belief­in­the­Nation,”­Journal of Asian Studies­53,­no.­1­(1994). ­ 11.­Ernest­Fenollosa­began­teaching­at­Tokyo­Imperial­University­in­1878.­He­ was­hired­to­teach­philosophy,­but­he­soon­developed­a­passion­for­Japanese­art,­ and­in­1887­he­was­appointed­professor­of­esthetics­and­art­history.­The­following­ year,­both­Fenollosa­and­Okakura­were­appointed­to­the­Tokyo­Imperial­Museum,­ Fenollosa­serving­on­the­administrative­board­and­Okakura­as­head­of­the­art­section.­See­F.­G.­Notehelfer,­“On­Idealism­and­Realism­in­the­Thought­of­Okakura­ Tenshin,”­Journal of Japanese Studies 16,­no.­2­(1990),­320,­326.­In­1890­Fenollosa­ became­the­curator­of­the­Department­of­Oriental­Art­of­the­Boston­Museum­of­ Fine­Arts.­He­helped­select­art­pieces­for­the­Japanese­Exhibit­at­the­Columbian­ Exposition­in­Chicago­in­1893. ­ 12.­This­hall­came­to­be­referred­to­as­Yumedono­(Hall­of­Dreams)­starting­in­ the­Heian­period,­with­the­veneration­of­Prince­Shōtoku,­based­on­the­claim­that­

207

208

noTes To ChapTer Three

Nichira,­ a­ nobleman­ from­ Paekche,­ had­ worshipped­ the­ prince­ as­ early­ as­ 583.­ According­ to­ the­ Kamakura-­period­ text­ Shōtoku taishi den shiki­ (1238),­ Shōtoku­ studied­Buddhist­scripture­with­the­Korean­monk­Hyeja.­See­Lucie­R.­Weinstein,­ “The­ Yumedono­ Kannon:­ Problems­ in­ Seventh-­Century­ Sculpture,”­ Archives of Asian Art­42­(1989). ­ 13.­Suiko­refers­to­Empress­Suiko­(554–628).­The­Guze­Kannon­is­said­to­be­a­ representation­of­Prince­Shōtoku.­Ernest­F.­Fenollosa,­Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art: An Outline History of East Asiatic Design­(New­York:­Frederick­A.­Stokes,­ 1911),­501–51.­The­bulk­of­the­text­quoted­here­is­also­quoted­in­Tanaka,­“Imaging­ History.” ­ 14.­The­Kannon­sees­and­hears­the­suffering­of­the­world,­thus­the­compassionate­Bodhisattva.­The­Guze­Kannon­was­locked­away­within­the­octagonal­hall­as­a­ hibutsu,­an­image­too­sacred­to­view.­According­to­Lucie­Weinstein,­from­the­thirteenth­century­until­1884­there­is­little­indication­that­the­Kannon­was­ever­on­ view­(“The­Yumedono­Kannon,”­29). ­ 15.­Okakura­graduated­from­Tokyo­Imperial­University­in­1880.­Starting­in­the­ fall­of­1881,­he­worked­in­the­art­section­of­the­Ministry­of­Education.­The­first­ tour­of­imperial­art­commissioners­occurred­in­1882,­when­Okakura­and­Fenollosa­joined­Kuki­Ryūichi­on­a­trip­to­the­Kyoto-­Nara­area.­Thereafter­Okakura­and­ Fenollosa­went­on­a­series­of­trips­to­search­out­and­identify­Japan’s­national­treasures.­See­Notehelfer,­“On­Idealism­and­Realism­in­the­Thought­of­Okakura­Tenshin,”­324. ­ 16.­Kakuzō­Okakura,­The Awakening of the East­(1938;­Tokyo:­Seibun-­kaku,­1940),­ 54–55.­According­to­F.­G.­Notehelfer,­Okakura­wrote­The Awakening of the East­during­his­stay­in­India­from­November­1901­to­October­1902.­In­1906­he­became­curator­of­the­Chinese­and­Japanese­Department­of­the­Boston­Museum,­and­until­his­ death­in­1913­he­spent­half­the­year­in­the­United­States­and­half­the­year­in­Japan.­ Notehelfer­comments­that­Okakura­“never­wrote­as­powerfully­or­as­beautifully­in­ Japanese­as­he­wrote­in­English.­No­doubt­this­was­the­reason­why­all­of­his­important­books­were­written­in­English”­(“On­Idealism­and­Realism­in­the­Thought­of­ Okakura­Tenshin,”­317,­330,­347). ­ 17.­During­his­stay­in­India­from­1901­to­1902,­Okakura­formed­a­deep­friendship­with­Rabindranath­Tagore.­On­their­friendship,­see­Rustom­Bharucha,­ Another Asia: Rabindranath Tagore and Okakura Tenshin­(New­Delhi:­Oxford­University­Press,­2009).­Bharucha­sums­up­the­difference­between­Okakura­and­Tagore­ this­way:­while­both­were­cosmopolitan,­Okakura­lived­halfway­between­East­and­ West;­Tagore,­on­the­other­hand,­thought­of­Bengal­as­his­home,­the­place­“where­ the­world­finds­its­home­in­one­nest”­(126). ­ 18.­Kakuzō­Okakura,­Ideals of the East with Special Reference to the Art of Japan­ (London:­John­Murray,­1903),­5,­7. ­ 19.­Okakura,­Ideals of the East,­235. ­ 20.­Okakura,­Ideals of the East,­7–8,­207. ­ 21.­Sekino­Tadashi.­Chōsen bijutsushi­(Keijō:­Chōsen­shigakkai,­1932).

noTes To ChapTer Three

­ 22.­Song­Ch’an-­sŏp,­“Ilje­ŭi­singmin­sahak,”­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,­2,­ ed.­Cho­Tong-­gŏl­et­al.­(Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994). ­ 23.­Shigeno­Yasutsugu,­Kume­Kunitake,­and­Hoshino­Hisashi­were­all­on­the­faculty­of­Tokyo­Imperial­University.­Numata­Jirō,­“Shigeno­Yasutsugu­and­the­Modern­Tokyo­Tradition­of­Historical­Writing,”­Historians of Japan and China,­ed.­W.­G.­ Beasley­and­E.­G.­Pulleyblank­(London:­Oxford­University­Press,­1961),­281.­It­can­ be­argued­that­this­“tradition”­was­reproduced­in­colonial­Korea­by­historians­like­ Yi­Pyŏng-­do­and­the­positivist­school­(silchŭng sahak). ­ 24.­Hatada­Takashi,­Nihonjin no chōsenkan­(Tokyo:­Chikuma­Shobō,­1969). ­ 25.­Archaeological­evidence­suggests­a­complex­dynamic­between­“Japan”­and­ “Korea”­during­the­Three­Kingdoms­period.­Émigrés­from­Koguryŏ,­Paekche,­and­ Silla­played­decisive­roles­(cultural­and­political)­in­the­formative­period­of­“Japanese”­history;­for­example,­one­of­the­early­emperors,­Ōjin,­was­probably­a­member­ of­the­Puyŏ­ruling­house­of­Paekche. ­ 26.­As­Andre­Schmid­has­pointed­out,­Hyŏn­Ch’ae’s­“translation”­never­raised­ the­issue­of­whether­Japanese­garrisons­were­established­on­the­Korean­peninsula,­ or­whether­Korean­kingdoms­sent­tribute­to­Japan.­Andre­Schmid,­Korea between Empires, 1895–1919­(New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­2002),­154. ­ 27.­Besides­Hyŏn­Ch’ae,­Kim­T’ae-­yŏng’s­Tongsa chipnyak­(1902)­and­even­Chang­ Chi-­yŏn­in­his­Taehan kangyŏk-ko­repeated­the­colonialist­claims­about­Mimana­ (Kaya).­ In­ 1901­ Hayashi­ published­ the­ sequel­ Chōsen kinseishi,­ which­ covered­ Korean­history­up­to­1895.­This­work­more­explicitly­advocated­Japan’s­control­of­ Korea. ­ 28.­When­Paek­Nam-­un­wrote­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­(The­Social­Economic­History­of­Korea,­1933),­his­polemical­target­was­Fukuda­Tokuzō­and­the­“stagnation­ theory”­then­prevalent­in­Japanese­historiography­on­Korea.­Paek­studied­at­the­ Tokyo­College­of­Commerce­(today­Hitotsubashi­University)­from­1919­to­1924,­ where­Fukuda­had­previously­taught­economics. ­ 29.­Stefan­Tanaka,­Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pasts into History­(Berkeley:­University­of­California­Press,­1993),­4. ­ 30.­Shiratori­Kurakichi­was­a­professor­at­Tokyo­Imperial­University­from­1904­ to­1925­and­the­scholar­primarily­responsible­for­the­formation­and­formulation­of­ tōyōshi­as­an­academic­field­of­study.­See­Tanaka,­Japan’s Orient,­4. ­ 31.­Cited­in­Andre­Schmid,­Korea between Empires,­57. ­ 32.­One­could­perhaps­locate­the­emergence­of­Japan’s­Orientalism­in­the­early­ years­of­the­Meiji­period,­when­Fukuzawa­Yukichi­argued­that­Japan­must­“leave­ Asia”­ (Datsu-A).­ But­ this­ ideological­ system­ really­ established­ itself­ in­ Japanese­ popular­discourse­around­the­turn­of­the­century—especially­after­Japan’s­victory­ over­Russia—when­an­army­of­cartoonists,­novelists,­and­pundits­conceptualized­ East­Asia­as­Tōyō,­and­China­not­as­Chūgoku­but­as­Shina,­a­name­now­connoting­ backwardness­and­corruption. ­ 33.­Tanaka,­Japan’s Orient,­47. ­ 34.­Tanaka,­Japan’s Orient,­17.

209

210

noTes To ChapTer Three

­ 35.­For­the­list­of­history­textbooks­used­in­this­period,­see­Han­Young-­Woo­(Han­ Yŏng-­u),­Han’guk minjokjuŭi yŏksahak­(Seoul:­Ilchogak,­1994),­43.­It­is­not­clear­to­ what­extent­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­had­direct­access­to­Japanese­writings­on­Korea.­But­in­ other­essays,­he­does­cite­a­number­of­Japanese­texts,­for­example,­Chōsen no ichi­ (Korea’s­Position).­See­“Tongyang­itaeli­(The­Italy­of­the­Orient),”­Tanjae Sin Ch’aeho chŏnjip,­4:184. ­ 36.­Kim­Han-­kyo’s­translation­of­this­sentence­reads,­“If­this­were­true,­our­relatively­small­land­would­be­a­pandemonium­with­barbarians­from­north­and­south­ milling­around,­and­the­accomplishments­of­four­thousand­years­would­be­what­ various­foreign­nations­had­offered­at­auction.”­But­according­to­the­Kug-­hanmun­ text­in­Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,­vol.­1,­the­geographic­size­of­Korea­is­depicted­as­ “our­land­which­encompasses­several­tens­of­thousands­of­li”­(that­is,­not­just­the­ Korean­peninsula)­and­should­not­be­translated­as­“our­relatively­small­land.”­See­ the­English­translation­in­Lee­et­al.,­Sourcebook of Korean Civilization,­2:424.­Several­ tens­of­thousands­of­li­would­encompass­not­just­the­Korean­peninsula,­but­much­ of­Manchuria—which­is­exactly­what­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­is­arguing­for­in­“Toksa­sillon.”­ Liang­and­Ch’u­were­“Chinese”­states­in­the­Warring­States­period. ­ 37.­Sin,­“Toksa­sillon,”­Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,­1:482. ­ 38.­Vipan­Chandra­contrasts­this­with­the­situation­in­China­and­Japan:­“Unlike­ China,­where­revolutionists­could­draw­on­‘Han­nationalism’­against­‘alien’­Manchu­rule,­or­Japan,­where­the­Meiji­Restorationists­.­.­.­could­paint­the­shogunate­as­ a­usurper­of­imperial­sovereignty,­Korea­offered­no­such­rationale­for­radical­activists.”­Vipan­Chandra,­Imperialism, Resistance, and Reform in Late Nineteenth-Century Korea: Enlightenment and the Independence Club­(Berkeley:­Institute­of­East­Asian­ Studies,­1988),­215. ­ 39.­See­the­preface­in­Kang­Man-­gil,­“Ilje­sidae­ŭi­pan-­sigmin­sahaknon,”­Han’guk sahaksa ŭi yŏn’gu,­ed.­Han’guksa­yŏn’guhoe­(Seoul:­Ŭlyu­munhwasa,­1985),­231–32. ­ 40.­ But­ as­ noted­ in­ chapter­ 1,­ Yu­ Tŭk-­kong­ wrote­ Palhaego­ to­ reinforce­ the­ notion­of­Chosŏn­as­the­last­bastion­of­civilization,­that­is,­for­cultural­and­political­ aims­quite­different­from­that­of­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­in­the­early­twentieth­century.­See­ Tae-­yong­Huh,­“A­Critical­Review­on­the­Issue­of­Proto-­Nationalism­during­Late­ Chosŏn,”­International Journal of Korean History­12­(August­2008). ­ 41.­In­South­Korea,­Yi­U-­sŏng­has­been­the­strongest­promoter­of­this­term.­For­ an­overview­of­historiographical­issues­surrounding­Parhae,­see­Song­Ki-­ho,­“Silla­ chungdae­sahoe­wa­Parhae,”­Han’guksa t’ŭkgang,­ed.­Cho­Tong-­gŏl­et­al.­(Seoul:­ Sŏul­taehakkyo­ch’ulp’anbu,­1990),­67–81;­and­his­essay­on­Yu­Tŭk-­kong­in­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,­ed.­Cho­Tong-­gŏl­et­al.­(Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­ 1994),­2:296–309. ­ 42.­See­Andre­Schmid,­“Rediscovering­Manchuria:­Sin­Ch’aeho­and­the­Politics­ of­Territorial­History­in­Korea,”­Journal of Asian Studies­56,­no.­1­(1997),­27. ­ 43.­The­reference­is­to­Kume­Kunitake,­“Nihon­fukuin­no­enkaku,”­Shigakkai zasshi­1­(December­1889–February­1890).­According­to­Stefan­Tanaka,­in­making­ the­argument­that­Japan­before­Jinmu­(the­mythical­first­emperor)­was­a­sort­of­

noTes To ChapTer Three

thalassocracy­encompassing­Kyūshū,­Korea,­and­southeastern­China,­Kume­used­ passages­from­the­Nihon shoki­and­Kojiki­not­as­actual­facts­but­as­allegorical­data­ that­describe­historical­events.­See­Tanaka,­Japan’s Orient,­71–75. ­ 44.­That­is,­two­years­after­his­“Nihon­fukuin­no­enkaku”­essay.­See­Numata,­ “Shigeno­Yasutsugu­and­the­Modern­Tokyo­Tradition­of­Historical­Writing,”­272. ­ 45.­As­Schmid­points­out,­the­depiction­of­Korea­as­encompassing­nearly­all­ of­Manchuria­reveals­an­irredentism­in­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­thought­that­has­not­been­ adequately­addressed—especially­since­irredentism­looms­large­in­present-­day­ imaginations­of­right-­wing­nationalists­in­South­Korea­who­dream­about­reclaiming­ Korea’s­ “ancestral­ lands”­ (kut’o hoebok).­ See­ Schmid,­ “Rediscovering­ Manchuria.” ­ 46.­Partha­Chatterjee,­Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse­(Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­1986). ­ 47.­I­thank­Suzy­Kim­for­this­insight. ­ 48.­Elie­Kedourie,­Nationalism­(London:­Hutchinson,­1960),­71–81. ­ 49.­Prasenjit­Duara,­Rescuing History from the Nation­(Chicago:­University­of­Chicago,­1995),­4. ­ 50.­By­the­mid-­Koryŏ­period,­however,­Duncan­argues­that­the­formation­of­a­ homogeneous,­kingdomwide­elite­class­was­well­under­way.­Moreover­he­argues­ that­we­should­not­rule­out­the­possibility­that­state-­organized­corvée­and­military­ service­could­have­created­a­wider­sense­of­identification­with­the­state,­“however­ negative­that­may­have­been­at­times,”­and­a­certain­homogenizing­of­the­populace.­ John­B.­Duncan,­“Hyanghwain:­Migration­and­Assimilation­in­Chosŏn­Korea,”­Acta Koreana­3­(July­2000). ­ 51.­See­Etienne­Balibar,­“The­Nation­Form:­History­and­Ideology,”­Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities,­ed.­Etienne­Balibar­and­Immanuel­Wallerstein­(New­ York:­Verso,­1991),­86. ­ 52.­The­reason­for­the­discrepancy­ is­quite­simple:­the­kingdom­of­Koguryŏ,­ and­subsequently­Parhae,­encompassed­northern­Korea­and­southern­Manchuria,­ whereas­ “Unified”­ Silla­ (after­ causing­ Koguryŏ’s­ collapse­ with­ the­ aid­ of­ Tang­ China)­encompassed­the­southern­two-­thirds­of­the­Korean­peninsula.­“Unified”­ Silla’s­northern­boundary­with­Parhae­ran­east­along­the­Taedong­River­to­the­Bay­ of­Wŏnsan. ­ 53.­See­Balibar,­“The­Nation­Form,”­88. ­ 54.­In­Han’guk kodaesa sanch’aek,­the­authors­begin­their­narrative­with­an­admission­of­uncertainty:­“When­did­people­begin­to­live­in­the­Korean­peninsula?­ And­who­are­our­ancestors?­These­questions­engross­many­people,­but­the­reader­ cannot­expect­clear-­cut­answers.­And­this­situation­will­remain­the­same.­Clear-­ cut­answers­will­not­be­forthcoming­because­it­was­so­long­ago,­and­because­there­ is­such­a­dearth­of­historical­evidence.­.­.­.­Habitually­calling­ourselves­a­homogeneous­nation­[tanil minjok],­there­is­a­tendency­to­stress­the­purity­of­our­bloodline.­But­the­bloodline­of­contemporary­Koreans­was­not­homogeneous­nor­constant­from­the­beginning.”­See­Han’guk­Yŏksa­Yŏn’guhoe­Kodaesa­Punkwa,­Mundap

211

212

noTes To ChapTer Three

ŭro yŏkkŭn Han’guk kodaesa sanch’aek­(Seoul:­Yŏksa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994),­11,­15.­As­ this­book­suggests,­the­essentialist,­totalizing­strategy­does­get­problematized­by­ Korean­historians.­But­it­seems­to­me­that­this­undertaking­needs­to­be­theorized­ in­a­more­rigorous­way. ­ 55.­ See­ Prasenjit­ Duara,­ “Rescuing­ History­ from­ the­ Nation-­State,”­ Working Papers and Proceedings of the Center for Psychosocial Studies­ (Chicago:­Center­for­ Psychosocial­Studies,­1991),­7. ­ 56.­Kuksa­kyojae­p’yŏnch’an­wiwŏnhoe,­Han’guksa kaesŏl­(Seoul:­T’amgudang,­ 1983),­15. ­ 57.­ See­ Son­ Yŏng-­jong­ et­ al.,­ Chosŏn t’ongsa­ (Pyongyang:­ Sahoe­ kwahak­ ch’ulp’ansa,­1991),­1:2. ­ 58.­I­am­indebted­to­Theodore­Hughes­for­his­discussion­of­Naisen­Ittai.­Hughes­ writes,­“Japan­as­‘inside’­(nae­[J:­nai])­reveals­its­ambivalent­position­as­subject­in­ relation­to­a­colonial­other­(sŏn­[J:­sen]).­Sŏn­becomes­a­particularized,­geographically­marked­supplement­that­enables­a­universalist­inside­(nae­[J:­nai])­even­as­the­ phrase­equates­nae­and­sŏn­(as­one­body).”­See­Theodore­Hughes,­Literature and Film in Cold War South Korea: Freedom’s Frontier­(New­York:­Columbia­University­ Press,­2012),­51.­For­a­discussion­of­racism­not­as­an­“expression”­of­nationalism­ but­as­its­“supplement,”­see­Etienne­Balibar,­“Racism­and­Nationalism,”­in­Balibar­ and­Wallerstein,­Race, Nation, Class. ­ 59.­ Contemporary­ South­ Korean­ historians­ usually­ divide­ historiography­ in­ the­colonial­period­into­four­different­categories.­(1)­The­ultimate­political­aim­of­ colonialist­historiography­was­to­justify­Japan’s­annexation­of­Korea;­it­portrayed­ Korean­history­as­being­stagnant­and­determined­by­external­forces.­(2)­Nationalist­historiography­was­a­narrative­of­resistance,­devoted­to­countering­the­pernicious­effects­of­colonialist­historiography­and­to­empowering­Koreans­to­join­the­ struggle­for­Korea’s­independence;­representative­historians­are­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­Pak­ Ŭn-­sik,­An­Chae-­hong,­Mun­Il-­p’yŏng,­and­Chŏng­In-­bo.­(3)­Empiricist­historiography­claimed­to­take­an­objective,­positivist­approach­to­historiography,­but­its­ chief­practitioners­were­usually­employed­by­the­colonial­state—Yi­Pyŏng-­do,­for­ example.­(4)­Marxist­historiography­sought­to­narrate­Korean­history­as­part­of­ world­history,­unfolding­in­accordance­with­historical­laws­and­by­way­of­universal­ stages­of­development;­representative­historians­are­Paek­Nam-­un­and­Yi­Ch’ŏng-­ wŏn.­There­are­problems­with­creating­a­typology­such­as­this,­a­basic­shortcoming­ being­that­a­number­of­historians­and­their­work­do­not­fit­into­any­of­these­categories,­for­example,­Hae­Wŏn,­Hwang­Ŭi-­don,­Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn,­An­Hwak,­Kwŏn­ Tŏk-­kyu,­and­Chang­To-­bin. ­ 60.­By­this­I­mean­starvation­alongside­plenty,­brutal­oppression­alongside­new­ forms­of­pleasure­and­new­objects­of­desire­(made­possible­by­a­new­popular­and­ consumer­culture).­These­contradictions,­experienced­in­radically­different­ways­ by­Koreans­and­Japanese­residents­of­Korea,­endlessly­reproduced­the­politics­of­ identity­and­difference. ­ 61.­ Military­ advantage,­ conventionally­ thought­ to­ be­ crucial­ to­ hegemony,­

noTes To ChapTer Three

merely­locks­in­hegemony­for­a­limited­period.­Rather­than­military­advantage,­ the­critical­element­in­maintaining­hegemony­is­productive­advantage,­which­conditions­the­other­two­elements—commerce­and­finance.­But­productive­advantage­ is­ephemeral—thus­the­rise­and­fall­of­the­British­(and­American)­Empire.­See­ Terence­K.­Hopkins­and­Immanuel­Wallerstein,­“Patterns­of­Development­of­the­ Modern­World-­System,”­Review­1,­no.­2­(1977),­120–21,­cited­in­Bruce­Cumings,­ “Archaeology,­Descent,­Emergence:­Japan­in­British/American­Hegemony,­1900– 1950,”­Japan in the World,­ed.­Masao­Miyoshi­and­H.­D.­Harootunian­(Durham:­ Duke­University­Press,­1993),­102. ­ 62.­See­his­essay­“The­Construction­of­Peoplehood,”­in­Balibar­and­Wallerstein,­ Race, Nation, Class. ­ 63.­Cumings,­Japan in the World,­87. ­ 64.­Cumings,­Japan in the World,­86. ­ 65.­Balibar­and­Wallerstein,­Race, Nation, Class,­89. ­ 66.­Balibar­and­Wallerstein,­Race, Nation, Class,­90. ­ 67.­Balibar­and­Wallerstein,­Race, Nation, Class,­84. ­ 68.­Robert­Young­suggests­that­if­poststructuralism­was­the­product­of­a­single­ historical­moment,­then­that­moment­was­probably­not­May­1968­but­rather­the­ Algerian­War­of­Independence.­That­is­to­say,­there­is­a­link­between­subversive­ tendencies­ in­ poststructuralism­ and­ resistance­ to­ colonialism­ in­ the­ periphery­ (Algeria).­Young­notes­that­Sartre,­Althusser,­Derrida,­and­Lyotard,­among­others,­ were­all­either­born­in­Algeria­or­personally­involved­with­the­events­of­the­war.­ See­Robert­Young,­White Mythologies: Writing History and the West­(New­York:­Routledge,­1990),­1. ­ 69.­Chōsenshi­henshūkai­began­as­Chōsenshi­hensan­iinkai­and­was­renamed­in­ 1925.­See­Yi­Man-­yŏl’s­chapter­on­“colonialist­historiography”­in­his­Han’guk kŭndae yŏksahak ŭi ihae­(Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1981). ­ 70.­The­series­began­in­June­1931­and­ended­in­October­of­the­same­year.­Sin­ Ch’ae-­ho­ probably­ wrote­ the­ introduction­ to­ Chosŏn sanggosa­ in­ Beijing­ around­ 1924.­When­Chosŏn sanggosa­was­published­in­the­Chosŏn ilbo,­it­was­entitled­“Chosŏnsa.”­After­Liberation,­it­was­republished­as­a­monograph­(in­1948). ­ 71.­Before­graduating­from­Waseda­University­in­1914,­An­Chae-­hong­traveled­ to­China­and­met­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­in­Shanghai.­The­powerlessness­of­the­Korean­independence­movement­in­China­(especially­its­weak­financial­base)­in­the­early­ twentieth­century­seems­to­have­persuaded­him­not­to­go­into­exile.­After­returning­to­Korea,­An­served­as­the­vice­principal­of­Chungang­Middle­School­and­organized­the­Taehan­ch’ŏngnyŏn­oegyodan­(Korean­Youth­Diplomatic­Corps),­for­ which­he­spent­three­years­in­jail.­In­1924­he­became­the­chief­editor­of­Chosŏn ilbo.­ When­the­Sin’ganhoe­was­organized­in­1927,­he­became­its­secretary­and­was­jailed­ for­eight­months.­In­1931­he­opposed­the­socialists’­call­for­the­dissolution­of­the­ Sin’ganhoe,­and­after­its­breakup­he­aligned­himself­with­moderate­and­conservative­nationalists.­After­liberation,­An­tried­to­create­a­left-­right­coalition,­but­when­ this­effort­failed,­he­accepted­the­position­of­chief­civil­administrator­in­the­U.S.­

213

214

noTes To ChapTer Three

Army­Military­Government­in­Korea.­Thereafter­he­allied­himself­with­anticommunist­forces­who­argued­for­the­creation­of­a­separate­state­in­southern­Korea.­ During­the­Korean­War,­An­was­taken­to­North­Korea,­and­he­died­in­Pyongyang­ in­1965. ­ 72.­In­translating­these­paragraphs,­I­have­consulted­J.­Michael­Allen’s­translation­in­“In­the­Beginning:­National­Origins­and­National­Identity­in­Korea,”­a­paper­ he­presented­at­the­conference­Korea’s­Minjung­Movement­in­Bloomington,­Indiana­(November­1989).­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­Chosŏn sanggosa,­Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,­ 1:31–32. ­ 73.­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­writes,­“Neither­individuals­nor­societies­possess­an­intrinsic­ self-­identity­[chasŏng:­inner­essence,­true­nature].­.­.­.­Self-­identity­comes­to­be­ constituted­by­way­of­the­environment­[hwankyŏng]­and­the­epoch­[sidae].”­Introduction­to­Chosŏn sanggosa,­Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,­1:70. ­ 74.­Young,­White Mythologies,­3. ­ 75.­ According­ to­ Shin­ Yong-­ha,­ Yu­ Cha-­myŏng’s­ anarchist­ ideas­ were­ influenced­by­Li­Shizeng­and­Wu­Zhihui.­See­Shin­Yong-­ha,­“Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­ŭi­mujŏngbujuŭi­tongnip­sasang,”­Sin Ch’ae-ho,­ed.­Kang­Man-­gil­(Seoul:­Koryŏ­taehakkyo­ ch’ulp’anbu,­1990),­106.­Li­Shizeng­and­Wu­Zhihui­were­among­the­doyens­of­Chinese­anarchism.­They­were­important­members­of­the­Guomindang,­and­according­to­Arif­Dirlik,­both­played­important­roles­in­anarchist­anticommunism­in­the­ early­1920s.­Arif­Dirlik,­Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution­(Berkeley:­University­of­ California­Press,­1991),­12–14.­Although­I­don’t­know­of­any­evidence­of­a­direct­relationship­between­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­and­the­Chinese­anarchist­thinkers­Li­Shizeng­and­ Wu­Zhihui,­it­is­clear­that­anarchist­ideals­were­broadly­diffused­in­radical­circles­in­ Beijing­and­Shanghai­in­the­early­1920s.­One­very­apparent­commonality­between­ Li,­Wu,­and­Sin­was­their­admiration­of­Pyotr­Kropotkin.­In­his­essay­“Nanggaek­ ŭi­sinnyŏn­manp’il”­(1925),­Sin­called­on­Korean­youth­to­“become­baptized”­with­ Kropotkin’s­essay­“An­Appeal­to­the­Young.”­See­Sin Ch’ae-ho yŏksa nonsŏljip­(Seoul:­ Hyŏndae­silhaksa,­1995),­350. ­ 76.­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­Introduction­to­Chosŏn sanggosa,­Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,­ 1:31–32. ­ 77.­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­“Chosŏn­hyŏngmyŏng­sŏnŏn,”­Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,­3:35– 46.­See­also­the­han’gŭl­text­in­Sin Ch’ae-ho yŏksa nonsŏljip,­329–39. ­ 78.­Unlike­other­conservative­nationalist­intellectuals,­Shin­Yong-­ha­acknowledges­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­turn­toward­anarchism.­According­to­Shin­Yong-­ha­[Sin­Yong-­ ha],­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­turned­to­anarchism­because­of­his­estrangement­from­the­nationalists­in­the­Korean­Provisional­Government­and­because­he­was­persuaded­ by­Kropotkin’s­critique­of­social­Darwinism.­For­Kropotkin,­mutual­aid­(that­is,­ cooperation)­was­as­central­to­animal­and­human­evolution­as­the­struggle­of­the­ fittest.­In­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­earlier­nationalist­writings,­there­was­a­tension­between­ his­program­of­strengthening­national­power­and­his­critique­of­Japanese­imperialism.­That­is,­if­survival­depended­on­national­power,­what­could­be­the­ethical­basis­ for­criticizing­imperialism?­As­Shin­Yong-­ha­notes,­this­tension­emanated­from­

noTes To ChapTer Four

social­Darwinist­assumptions­that­emphasized­competition­but­not­mutual­aid.­ In­Kropotkin,­then,­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­found­a­more­ethical­way­to­understand­human­ evolution.­Repelled­by­the­antics­of­nationalist­politicians,­he­turned­to­anarchism,­ which­placed­so­much­faith­on­the­cooperative­spirit­of­the­minjung­while­at­the­ same­time­taking­direct­action­against­imperialism.­Shin­Yong-­ha,­“Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­ŭi­ mujŏngbujuŭi­tongnip­sasang,”­78–147. ­ 79.­In­a­later­declaration­(“Sŏnŏnmun,”­Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,­3:47–50),­ Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­uses­“propertyless­masses”­(musan taejung),­“propertyless­minjung”­ (musan minjung),­and­minjung­interchangeably. ­ 80.­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­“Chosŏn­hyŏngmyŏng­sŏnŏn,”­3:44. ­ 81.­Sin­Il-­chŏl­suggests­that­anarchism­was­a­mere­tool­for­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­nationalist­goals;­see­his­Sin Ch’ae-ho ŭi sahoe sasang yŏn’gu­(Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1984),­328.­ The­dismissal­of­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­anarchism­is­difficult­to­fathom­in­light­of­the­textual­evidence.­Shin­Yong-­ha,­who­acknowledges­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­turn­to­anarchism­in­ the­mid-­1920s,­argues­that­Sin­would­have­abandoned­his­anarchism­after­Korea’s­ liberation­from­Japanese­colonial­rule.­But­this­is­just­another­way­of­erasing­the­ tension­between­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­earlier­writings­on­minjok­and­his­later­emphasis­on­ minjung.­By­erasing­this­tension,­what­is­being­repressed­is­the­radically­egalitarian,­ anti-­authoritarian,­and­open-­ended­character­of­his­later­writings. ­ 82.­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho,­“Chosŏn­hyŏngmyŏng­sŏnŏn,”­3:43–44.

4.­Universalizing­Korea’s­Past ­ 1.­Paek­Nam-­un,­“Chosŏn sahoe kyŏngjesa­ch’ulp’an­e­taehan­sogam,”­Chungang­ (November­1933),­Paek Nam-un chŏnjip,­trans.­Ha­Il-­sik­(Seoul:­Iron­kwa­silch’ŏn,­ 1994),­ 4:87.­ See­ also­ Pang­ Kie-­chung,­ Han’guk hyŏndae sasangsa yŏn’gu­ (Seoul:­ Yŏksa­pip’yŏngsa,­1992). ­ 2.­Vigilantes­looked­for­certain­physical­features­that­Japanese­associated­with­ Korean­physiognomy—for­example,­a­flat­back­of­the­head.­Those­suspected­of­ being­Korean­were­made­to­say­Japanese­words­that­many­Koreans­had­difficulty­ pronouncing.­Some­Japanese­students­from­Kyūshū­had­difficulty­convincing­the­ vigilantes­ that­ they­ were­ Japanese,­ and­ were­ also­ killed.­ See­ Jinhee­ Lee,­ “The­ Enemy­Within:­Earthquake,­Rumours­and­Massacre­in­the­Japanese­Empire,”­Violence: “Mercurial Gestalt,”­ed.­Tobe­Levin­(New­York:­Rodopi,­2008).­See­also­Lee­ Jinhee,­ “Kwandong­ taejijin­ ŭl­ ch’udoham:­ Ilbon­ cheguk­ ŭi­ ‘pulyŏng­ sŏnin’­ kwa­ ch’udo­ŭi­chŏngch’ihak,”­Asea yŏn’gu­51,­no.­1­(2008). ­ 3.­See­Robert­A.­Scalapino­and­Chong-­sik­Lee,­Communism in Korea:­vol.­1,­The Movement­(Berkeley:­University­of­California­Press,­1972),­51–93. ­ 4.­Regarding­the­role­of­the­police­in­colonial­Korea,­see­Chulwoo­Lee,­“Modernity,­ Legality,­ and­ Power­ in­ Korea­ under­ Japanese­ Rule,”­ Colonial Modernity in Korea,­ed.­Gi-­Wook­Shin­and­Michael­Robinson­(Cambridge:­Harvard­University­ Asia­Center,­1999),­34–35. ­ 5.­See­Micah­Auerback,­“‘Ch’in-­Il­pulgyo’­yŏksahak­ŭi­chaego:­Chosŏn­Pulgyo-

215

216

noTes To ChapTer Four

dan­kwa­1920-­nyŏndae­Chosŏn­esŏ­ŭi­sŭngnyŏ­kyŏlhon­e­taehan­nonjaeng,”­Asea yŏn’gu­51,­no.­3­(2008). ­ 6.­According­to­Chulwoo­Lee,­during­the­first­decade­after­annexation­in­1910,­ the­colonial­effort­to­discipline­and­transform­Koreans­into­“docile­bodies”­focused­ on­coercive­measures­ranging­from­flogging­to­military­action.­The­flogging­took­ place­in­a­closed­cell,­ostensibly­in­the­presence­of­a­physician­and­a­number­of­ officials.­The­colonial­government­justified­this­“rationalized”­form­of­flogging­on­ the­grounds­that­many­Koreans­lacked­the­capacity­to­reason,­and­anyway­destitute­Koreans­would­not­feel­any­pain­from­imprisonment.­A­year­after­the­March­ First­demonstrations­of­1919,­flogging­was­abolished.­Lee,­“Modernity,­Legality,­ and­Power­in­Korea­under­Japanese­Rule.”­On­the­reasons­for­abolishing­the­Corporation­Law­and­the­political­calculus­behind­that­decision,­see­Carter­Eckert,­ Offspring of Empire: The Koch’ang Kims and the Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism, 1876–1945­(Seattle:­University­of­Washington­Press,­1991). ­ 7.­ Sinsaenghwal­ and­ Shinch’ŏnji­ were­ shut­ down­ in­ November­ 1922;­ Kaebyŏk,­ the­leading­intellectual­magazine­of­the­day,­was­shut­down­in­July­1926.­Korean­ materials­that­were­confiscated­became­the­property­of­the­colonial­state,­while­ Japanese­materials­were­returned­to­the­publisher.­Japanese­publishers­could­sell­ magazines­on­a­subscription­basis,­but­Korean­publishers­could­not.­See­Michael­ Robinson,­ “Colonial­ Publication­ Policy­ and­ the­ Korean­ Nationalist­ Movement,”­ The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945,­ed.­Ramon­H.­Myers­and­Mark­R.­Peattie­ (Princeton:­Princeton­University­Press,­1984). ­ 8.­It­has­to­be­said­that­between­1924­and­1931,­Tonga ilbo,­and­especially­Chosŏn ilbo,­ devoted­ significant­ space­ to­ socialist­ and­ communist­ ideas.­ See­ Robinson,­ “Colonial­Publication­Policy­and­the­Korean­Nationalist­Movement.” ­ 9.­Born­in­1891,­Kim­Sŏng-­su­graduated­from­Waseda­University­in­1914.­In­1919­ he­founded­the­Kyŏngsŏng­Spinning­and­Weaving­Company,­and­in­1920­the­Tonga ilbo,­with­Song­Chin-­u­as­its­president.­In­many­ways,­Kim­was­the­power­behind­ Song.­Two­years­older,­Song­also­studied­in­Japan­(at­Waseda­and­Meiji).­In­1919­ Song­was­imprisoned­for­a­year­in­connection­with­the­March­First­Movement­and­ upon­his­release­became­the­president­of­Tonga ilbo,­a­post­he­kept­until­the­Japanese­closed­the­newspaper­in­1940.­After­liberation,­Song­opposed­Yŏ­Un-­hyŏng­ and­rallied­the­conservative­forces­in­southern­Korea,­but­he­was­assassinated­by­ Kim­Ku’s­men­for­supporting­American­plans­for­placing­Korea­under­a­trusteeship.­ On­Kim­Sŏng-­su,­see­Eckert,­Offspring of Empire. ­ 10.­For­a­concise­overview­of­how­a­nascent­home­rule­movement­prompted­ the­formation­of­the­Sin’ganhoe,­see­Park­Chan-­seung­(Pak­Ch’an-­sŭng),­Han’guk chŏngch’i sasangsa yŏn’gu­(Seoul:­Yŏksa­pip’yŏngsa,­1992),­330–55. ­ 11.­ An­ Chae-­hong­ studied­ at­ Waseda,­ graduating­ in­ 1914­ from­ the­ College­ of­ Political­Science­and­Economy.­In­1913­he­went­to­Shanghai­and­met­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho.­ Disheartened­by­the­weakness­of­the­Korean­independence­movement­in­China­ at­the­time,­especially­its­weak­financial­base,­An­chose­not­to­join­the­independence­struggle­in­exile­and­returned­to­Korea­after­finishing­his­studies.­Beginning­

noTes To ChapTer Four

in­1919,­when­he­was­first­imprisoned­for­underground­activities­in­support­of­the­ Korean­provisional­government­in­Shanghai,­An­was­imprisoned­nine­times­over­ the­course­of­the­colonial­period­for­a­total­of­seven­years­and­three­months. ­ 12.­ As­ Scalapino­ and­ Lee­ succinctly­ put­ it,­ in­ practice­ the­ “correct­ position”­ could­be­defined­only­after­the­event:­to­steer­between­the­Scylla­of­right-­wing­ opportunism­and­the­Charybdis­of­left-­wing­extremism­was­tremendously­difficult­ (Communism in Korea,­1:62). ­ 13.­See­the­chapter­“The­Canton­Commune,”­in­Nym­Wales­and­Kim­San,­Song of Ariran: A Korean Communist in the Chinese Revolution­(1941;­San­Francisco:­Ramparts­Press,­1972). ­ 14.­See­Park,­Han’guk kŭndae chŏngch’i sasangsa yŏn’gu,­305–65. ­ 15.­From­1919­to­1924­Paek­Nam-­un­studied­in­Japan­at­Tōkyō­Kōshō­(today,­Hitotsubashi­University)­and­returned­to­Korea­to­teach­at­Yŏnhŭi­chŏnmun­(today,­ Yonsei­University).­He­wrote­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­(1933)­and­Chōsen hōken shakai keizaishi­(1937)­in­Japanese­and­had­them­published­in­Japan­to­avoid­the­more­ stringent­censorship­laws­in­colonial­Korea. ­ 16.­From­1898­to­1901­Fukuda­Tokuzō­studied­under­K.­Bücher­in­Leipzig­and­ L.­Brentano­in­Munich.­Fukuda­Tokuzō,­“Kankoku­no­keizai­soshiki­to­keizai­tani,”­ Keizaigaku kenkyū­(Tokyo:­Dōbunkan,­1904). ­ 17.­Paek­Nam-­un­took­some­liberties­in­this­polemic.­By­the­mid-­1920s­Sin­Ch’ae-­ ho­had­become­an­anarchist,­and­while­he­may­have­referred­to­Ancient­Chosŏn­as­ if­it­formed­a­unique­“mikrokosmus,”­he­no­longer­wrote­about­the­ethnic­nation­ (minjok)­as­an­undifferentiated­transhistorical­subject.­Instead­his­focus­had­turned­ to­the­exploited­masses­(minjung).­As­for­Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn,­he­had­joined­the­colonial­ government­organ­Chōsenshi­henshūkai­(Society­for­the­Compilation­of­Korean­ History)­in­1928,­and­he­often­did­treat­what­he­called­the­Korea-­centered­Purham­ cultural­sphere­as­if­it­formed­a­unique­“mikrokosmus.”­But­Ch’oe­also­made­a­distinction­between­culture­which­was­“global”­from­the­start­(but­actually­regional,­ as­in­cultural­spheres),­and­ethnic-­national­origins­which­are­particular.­Thus,­for­ Ch’oe,­Korea­and­Japan­could­share­a­common­(shamanistic)­culture,­and­yet­have­ distinct­ethnic-­national­origins.­See­Ryu­Si-­hyun,­Ch’oe Nam-sŏn yŏn’gu: cheguk ŭi kŭndae wa singminji ŭi munhwa­(Seoul:­Yŏksa­pip’yŏngsa,­2009),­221–23. ­ 18.­Cited­in­Cho­Hyŏn-­sŏl,­“Kŭndae­kyemonggi­Tan’gun­sinhwa­ŭi­tal-­sinhwa­wa­ chaeinhwahwa,”­Minjok munhaksa yŏn’gu­32­(2006). ­ 19.­Roger­L.­Janelli,­“The­Origins­of­Korean­Folklore­Scholarship,”­The Journal of American Folklore­99,­no.­391­(1986). ­ 20.­See­Chizuko­T.­Allen,­“Northeast­Asia­Centered­around­Korea:­Ch’oe­Namsŏn’s­View­of­History,”­Journal of Asian Studies­49,­no.­4­(1990);­“Ch’oe­Namsŏn­ at­the­Height­of­Japanese­Imperialism,”­Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies­5,­ no.­ 1­ (2005);­ and­ “Early­ Migrations,­ Conquests,­ and­ Common­ Ancestry:­ Theorizing­ Japanese­ Origins­ in­ Relation­ with­ Korea,”­ Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies­8,­no.­1­(2008).­For­Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn,­the­study­of­Tan’gun­was­the­central,­ most­important­topic­of­research.­Throughout­the­1920s­and­up­until­the­Korean­

217

218

noTes To ChapTer Four

War,­he­continued­to­research­and­write­about­Tan’gun.­See­Yi­P’il-­yŏng.­“Tan’gun­ yŏn’gusa,”­Tan’gun,­ed.­Yun­I-­hum­et­al.­(Seoul:­Seoul­taehakkyo­ch’ulp’anbu,­1994).­ For­a­full-­length­study­of­Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn’s­life­and­work­see­Ryu­Si-­hyun,­Ch’oe Nam-sŏn yŏn’gu. ­ 21.­Paek,­Chōsen shakai keizaishi,­1:33.­Paek­Nam-­un­might­also­have­been­thinking­about­Taejonggyo­(Religion­of­the­Great­Progenitor),­a­new­religion­organized­ in­1909­as­a­revival­of­a­religious­practice­that­Taejonggyo­adherents­traced­back­ to­the­time­of­Tan’gun.­In­1915­the­Japanese­colonial­government­forced­Taejonggyo­to­disband,­charging­it­as­an­anti-­Japanese­organization­operating­under­the­ guise­of­a­religion.­For­Taejonggyo­adherents­the­story­of­Tan’gun­was­not­a­myth.­ As­a­nationalist­church,­Taejonggyo­professed­Hanin­(Hwanin,­God­as­creator),­ Hanung­(Hwanung,­God­as­educator),­and­Han’gŏm­(Tan’gun,­God­as­ruler)­as­a­ Trinity. ­ 22.­ For­ a­ refutation­ of­ Morgan’s­ claims­ about­ the­ consanguineous­ collective,­ communal­family­sex­relations­in­Polynesia,­see­E.­S.­Craighill­Handy­and­Mary­Kawena­Pukui,­The Polynesian Family System in Ka-u, Hawai’i­(Rutland,­Vt.:­Charles­E.­ Tuttle,­1972).­See­also­Thomas­Trautmann,­Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship­(Berkeley:­University­of­California­Press,­1987);­Paul­Van­der­Grijp,­“Pioneer­of­Untaught­Anthropology:­Recontextualizing­Lewis­H.­Morgan­and­His­Kinship­Perspective,”­Dialectical Anthropology­22­(1997),­103–36. ­ 23.­Paek,­Chōsen shakai keizaishi,­1:56,­67. ­ 24.­Lewis­Henry­Morgan,­Ancient Society­(New­York:­Henry­Holt,­1878),­7–8,­3. ­ 25.­Frederick­Engels,­The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State:­In the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan­(1884;­New­York:­International­Publishers,­1942). ­ 26.­There­were­Marxist­critics­too.­Yi­Ch’ŏng-­wŏn,­for­example,­attacked­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­as­a­mechanical­application­of­Japanese­Marxist­(Kōza-ha)­historiography­to­Korean­history. ­ 27.­Paek­Nam-­un,­“Chosŏn­t’ŭkyu­ŭi­sahoe­chedo”­(1934),­Paek Nam-un chŏnjip,­ 4:98. ­ 28.­A­campaign­led­by­the­Tonga ilbo­successfully­prevented­a­bank­auction­of­ Yi­Sun-­sin’s­gravesite.­See­Yi­Chi-­wŏn,­“1930-­nyŏndae­minjokjuŭi­kyeyŏl­ŭi­kojŏk­ pojŏn­undong,”­Tongbang hakchi,­June­1993. ­ 29.­Yi­Kwang-­su,­Tonga Ilbo. ­ 30.­Yi­Kwang-­su,­Tonga Ilbo. ­ 31.­Paek,­Chōsen shakai keizaishi,­1:20–21. ­ 32.­See­Serk-­Bae­Suh,­“The­Wanpaoshan­Incident­and­the­Anti-­Chinese­Riots­in­ Colonial­Korea,”­unpublished­paper,­7,­10. ­ 33.­Until­the­establishment­of­Manchukuo­in­1932,­the­question­of­citizenship­ for­Koreans­(that­is,­jurisdiction­over­Koreans)­in­Manchuria­remained­an­important­issue­in­Sino-­Japanese­rivalry. ­ 34.­Anti-­Chinese­feelings­can­be­traced­to­a­number­of­sources:­the­success­of­ Chinese­merchants­in­colonial­Korea,­competition­between­unskilled­Korean­and­

noTes To ChapTer Four

Chinese­workers,­and­the­operation­of­racial­and­ethnic­hierarchies­in­colonial­and­ imperial­cultures.­After­the­riots,­Chosŏn ilbo­published­editorials­urging­Koreans­ not­to­resort­ to­violence­ to­protest­the­Chinese­oppression­ of­Koreans­ in­Manchuria. ­ 35.­An­Chae-­hong­was­jailed­on­charges­of­diverting­public­funds­and­could­not­ return­to­his­position­at­Chosŏn ilbo. ­ 36.­T’aejo sillok,­in­the­founding­year­of­the­Chosŏn­dynasty,­records­a­memorial­ submitted­by­Cho­Pak­of­the­Board­of­Rites­defining­the­distinctive­status­to­be­accorded­to­Tan’gun­and­Kija­in­state­rituals.­Because­Tan’gun­was­the­first­ruler­to­ receive­the­Mandate­of­Heaven­in­Korea­(tongbang)­and­Kija­was­the­first­ruler­to­ bring­civilization­to­fruition­in­Korea,­the­magistrate­in­Pyongyang­was­instructed­ to­ conduct­ sacrifices­ to­ them­ at­ appropriate­ times.­ T’aejo sillok,­ 1-­kwŏn,­ 1-­nyŏn­ (1392),­8/11,­second­article. ­ 37.­Shim­Jae-­hoon­has­argued­that­Kija­should­not­be­associated­with­Chosŏn­at­ all.­According­to­Shim,­Kija­does­seem­to­be­a­nobleman­of­Shang­and­did­go­east.­ But­a­political­entity­called­Chosŏn­should­be­dated­much­later:­it­was­not­until­the­ Han­dynasty­that­sources­clearly­associated­Kija­with­Chosŏn.­Shim­Jae-­Hoon,­“A­ New­Understanding­of­Kija­Chosŏn­as­a­Historical­Anachronism,”­Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies­62,­no.­2­(2002). ­ 38.­Korean­historians­critical­of­positivist­and­critical-­textual­historiography­in­ twentieth-­century­Korea­posit­a­break­between­the­munhŏn kojŭng sahak­(文獻考 證史學)­of­the­Chosŏn­period­and­the­practice­of­critical-­textual­historiography­in­ the­colonial­period.­These­historians,­for­reasons­that­are­at­least­partially­political,­readily­concur­with­Japanese­historians’­claim­that­critical-­textual­historiography­in­twentieth-­century­Japan­developed­out­of­the­kōshōgaku­tradition­of­the­ Tokugawa­period,­transitioning­to­“modern”­historiography­through­the­influence­ of­Rankean­historiography.­Such­a­genealogy­highlights­critical-­textual­historiography’s­intellectual­and­institutional­origins­to­Japanese­imperialist­politics­and­ colonial­institutions. ­ 39.­ There­ were­ other,­ smaller­ academic­ associations­ organized­ around­ disciplines:­the­Society­of­Korean­Language­Research­(Chosŏnŏ­hakhoe,­established­ in­1931),­the­Korean­Language­and­Literature­Society­(Chosŏnŏ­munhakhoe,­organized­in­1931­by­Cho­Yun-­jae­and­other­graduates­of­the­Department­of­Korean­ Language­and­Literature,­Keijō­Imperial­University),­the­Korean­Folklore­Society­ (Chosŏn­minsok­hakhoe,­established­formally­in­1933­by­Son­Chin-­tae),­and­the­ Society­for­Korean­Economic­History­Research­(Chosŏn­kyŏngje­hakhoe,­established­in­1933).­Membership­in­Chosŏn­minsok­hakhoe­included­such­prominent­ Japanese­scholars­as­Akiba­Takashi,­a­member­of­the­faculty­at­Keijō­Imperial­University­whose­studies­on­Korean­shamanism­were­enormously­influential. ­ 40.­The­Chindan­Society­published­the­first­issue­of­its­journal,­Chindan hakbo,­ in­November­1934.­Until­pressured­to­stop­publication­in­1943,­the­Chindan­Society­published­fourteen­issues­of­Chindan hakbo­during­the­colonial­period.­From­ October­1942­to­March­1943,­as­the­momentum­of­the­war­in­the­Pacific­swung­

219

220

noTes To ChapTer Four

toward­the­United­States,­dozens­of­people­were­arrested­and­tortured­in­connection­with­the­Korean­Linguists­Association­incident,­including­several­Chindan­ hakhoe­members.­Until­1943­Yi­Pyŏng-­do­had­contributed­an­article­for­every­issue­ of­Chindan hakbo,­including­essays­on­Samhan­in­the­pre–Three­Kingdoms­period,­ geomantic­ thought­ during­ the­ Koryŏ­ period,­ and­ Confucianism­ in­ the­ Chosŏn­ period. ­ 41.­Remco­E.­Breuker,­“Contested­Objectivities:­Ikeuchi­Hiroshi,­Kim­Sanggi­ and­the­Tradition­of­Oriental­History­(Tōyōshigaku)­in­Japan­and­Korea,”­East Asian History­29­(2005). ­ 42.­Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn­was­the­first­to­study­history­in­Japan,­but­the­time­he­spent­ at­ Waseda­ was­ relatively­ short.­ Yi­ Pyŏng-­do­ is­ thus­ considered­ the­ first­ Korean­ historian­to­be­trained­in­historiography­at­a­Japanese­university.­In­1932,­after­ ten­years­of­work,­Chōsenshi­henshūkai­published­the­first­five­volumes­of­what­ became­the­thirty-­eight-­volume­Chōsenshi­(Korean­History),­along­with­the­three-­ volume­Chōsen shiryō shushin­(Collection­of­Korean­Documents)­and­the­twenty-­ one-­volume­Chōsen shiryō sōkan­(Archive­of­Korean­Documents). ­ 43.­See­Stefan­Tanaka,­Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pasts into History­(Berkeley:­University­of­California­Press,­1993). ­ 44.­See­Han­Young-­Woo­(Han­Yŏng-­u),­“Yi­Pyŏng-­do,”­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,­ed.­Cho­Tong-­gŏl­et­al.­(Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994),­2:255. ­ 45.­See­Cho­Tong-­gŏl,­Hyŏndae Han’guk sahaksa­(Seoul:­Nanam­ch’ulpan,­1998),­ 219. ­ 46.­Kim­T’ae-­jun­was­a­member­of­the­Central­Committee­of­the­South­Korean­ Workers’­Party. ­ 47.­An­Chae-­hong­and­others­would­have­preferred­kukhak­(national­studies)­ over­Chosŏnhak­(Korean­studies),­but­kukhak­(J:­kokugaku)­would­have­been­confused­with­“Japanese­studies.” ­ 48.­Paek­Nam-­un,­“Chŏng­Tasan­ŭi­sasang,”­Paek Nam-un chŏnjip,­4:113–21. ­ 49.­Paek,­Chōsen shakai keizaishi,­1:22. ­ 50.­In­China­too­Marxist­intellectuals­were­hostile­to­the­concept­of­an­Asiatic­ mode­of­production­and­attracted­to­the­idea­that­all­societies­travel­the­same­road. ­ 51.­The­most­well-­known­cases­are­Yi­Kwang-­su­and­Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn.­It­should­ be­noted,­however,­that­An­Chae-­hong­and­Chŏng­In-­bo­did­not­compromise­their­ nationalist­stance.­The­same­cannot­be­said­of­Kim­Sŏng-­su.­See­Carter­Eckert,­Offspring of Empire. ­ 52.­The­influence­of­Kōza-­ha­theory­is­clearly­evident­in­Paek’s­economic­historiography.­ According­ to­ Pang­ Ki-­jung,­ Paek­ also­ benefited­ from­ reading­ Guo­ Moruo’s­Zhongguo guudai shehui yaniu­(Research­on­Ancient­Chinese­Society);­the­ first­edition­was­published­in­1929.­Pang­Kie-­chung­(Pang­Ki-­jung),­“Paek­Nam-­un­ yŏn’gu­I,”­Yŏksa pip’yŏng­7­(Summer­1989),­198. ­ 53.­Yi­Ch’ŏng-­wŏn,­Chosŏn sahoesa tokbon­(Tokyo:­Paekyangsa,­1936),­1–2. ­ 54.­In­the­preface­to­Chōsen shakai keizaishi­Paek­expressed­warm­gratitude­to­ Chŏng­ In-­bo.­ After­ liberation­ and­ the­ establishment­ of­ North­ and­ South­ Korea­

noTes To ChapTer Five

in­1948,­Chŏng­became­South­Korea’s­first­inspector­general,­while­Paek­went­to­ North­Korea. ­ 55.­Paek,­“Chosŏn­t’ŭkyu­ŭi­sahoe­chedo,”­4:95. ­ 56.­Paek,­“Chōsen shakai keizaishi­ch’ulp’an­e­taehan­sogam,”­4:87. ­ 57.­Paek,­Chōsen shakai keizaishi,­1:373.

5.­Divided­Sovereignty ­ 1.­The­writers­met­at­Ponghwanggak­in­Ui-­dong,­built­by­Son­Pyŏng-­hŭi­in­1912­ as­ a­ training­ center­ for­ Ch’ŏndogyo­ (and­ independence)­ activists.­ As­ the­ third­ leader­of­the­Tonghak­faith,­Son­had­changed­the­name­of­the­religion­to­Ch’ŏndogyo­(Religion­of­the­Heavenly­Way).­Son­was­one­of­the­thirty-­three­signers­of­ the­declaration­of­independence­in­1919,­and­thus­Ponghwanggak­had­some­association­with­the­independence­movement.­The­source­for­this­chapter’s­epigraph­is­ Inmin yesul­2­(October­1946),­reprinted­in­Haebang 3-nyŏn ŭi pip’yŏng munhak,­ed.­ Sin­Hyŏng-­gi­(Seoul:­Segye,­1988),­79–85. ­ 2.­In­what­came­to­be­known­as­the­August­Thesis,­which­became­the­platform­ of­the­Korean­Communist­Party­when­it­was­reconstituted­soon­after­liberation,­ Pak­Hŏn-­yŏng­also­referred­to­Koreans­as­“having­arrived­at­the­moment­when­they­ have­to­engage­in­self-­criticism.”­Park­Tae­Gyun­(Pak­T’ae-­g yun),­“Haebang­chŏnggaek­Pak­Hŏn-­yŏng­kwa­8-­wŏl­t’eje,”­Obsŏbŏ­8­(2002). ­ 3.­Kim­Yun-­sik,­“Haebang­gonggan­ŭi­munhak,”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­ed.­ Kang­Man-­gil­et­al.­(Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1985),­2:449. ­ 4.­The­Korean­Communist­Party­was­reconstituted­in­Seoul­in­September­1945­ under­the­leadership­of­Pak­Hŏn-­yŏng.­In­Seoul­in­December­1946,­the­kcP­in­the­ South­merged­with­the­South­Korean­New­Democracy­Party­(Nam-­Chosŏn­sinmindang),­which­included­Paek­Nam-­un­in­its­leadership,­and­the­Korean­People’s­ Party­(Chosŏn­inmindang),­led­by­Yŏ­Un-­hyŏng,­to­form­the­South­Korean­Workers’­ Party­(Nam-­Chosŏn­nodongdang).­In­September­1945­Kim­Nam-­ch’ŏn­and­Im­Hwa­ organized­the­Chosŏn­munhak­kŏnsŏl­ponbu­(Headquarters­for­Construction­of­ Korean­Literature),­and­Han­Sŏl-­ya­and­Yi­Ki-­yŏng­organized­the­Chosŏn­p’ŭlollaetaeria­munhak­tongmaeng­(Korean­Federation­for­Proletarian­Literature),­explicitly­committed­to,­as­suggested­by­the­organization’s­name,­proletarian­literature.­ Hong­Hyo-­min­traces­the­reason­for­the­formation­of­two­separate­groups­immediately­after­liberation­to­political­differences­that­go­back­to­the­colonial­period­and­ the­Korea­Artista­Proleta­Federatio­(1925–1935).­Hong­Hyo-­min,­“Yesul­yŏn’gam,”­ 1947,­cited­in­Pak­Ch’an-­mo,­“Haebang­chikhu­ŭi­Han­Hyo­ŭi­munhak­pip’yŏng­ koch’al,”­Hyŏndae munhak iron yŏn’gu­27­(2006).­According­to­Pak,­one­explanation­ for­why­Han­Sŏl-­ya­and­Yi­Ki-­yŏng­went­north­had­to­do­with­this­merger,­as­the­ Chosŏn­munhakga­tongmaeng­adopted­the­platform­of­Munhak­kŏnsŏl­ponbu­and,­ more­broadly,­that­of­Pak­Hŏn-­yŏng’s­(Korean­Communist­Party)­bourgeois­democratic­revolution. ­ 5.­Lawyers­for­the­usAMgik­put­it­this­way:­the­usAMgik­did­not­claim­sover-

221

222

noTes To ChapTer Five

eignty­over­(southern)­Korea­but­did­take­unto­itself­all­sovereign­powers­formerly­ held­by­the­Japanese­colonial­government,­until­sovereignty­could­be­assumed­by­ a­legally­constituted­Korean­government.­See­United­States,­Office­of­the­Provost­ Marshal­General,­“Introduction­and­Orientation,”­History of Military Government Training,­vol.­1,­1945­(microfilm).­The­establishment­of­a­military­government­is­ predicated­on­a­state­of­exception,­to­restore­order­over­a­hostile­population­to­ secure­areas­behind­(an­advancing)­front­line.­The­U.S.­Army­Military­Government­ would­decide­when­and­how­a­“legally­constituted­government”­took­its­place. ­ 6.­Kim­Sa-­ryang­entered­the­Department­of­German­Literature­ at­Tokyo­Imperial­University­in­1936­and­finished­“Hikari­no­naka­ni”­soon­after­graduating­in­ 1939.­“Hikari­no­naka­ni”­was­published­in­Bungei shuto­in­1939.­In­addition­to­the­ reprint­published­by­Kodansha­in­1999,­I­also­consulted­the­Korean­translation­Kim Saryang chakp’umjip,­ed.­Im­Hŏn-­yŏng­(Seoul:­Chisik­ŭl­mandŭnŭn­chisik,­2008). ­ 7.­Kim­Sa-­ryang’s­name­was­pronounced­Kin­Shiryō. ­ 8.­This­forum­and­an­earlier­one­on­December­12­served,­in­part,­as­preparation­ and­consolidation­work,­including­qualification­for­membership,­for­the­merger­ that­ formally­ took­ place­on­ December­ 13,­ 1945,­ to­ form­ the­ Chosŏn­ munhakga­ tongmaeng­(Federation­of­Korean­Writers).­Kim­Nam-­ch’ŏn,­who­also­headed­the­ Communist­Youth­League,­played­a­central­role­in­the­merger. ­ 9.­See­“Munhakja­ŭi­chaki­pip’an,”­Inmin yesul,­October­1946,­reprinted­in­Sin,­ Haebang 3-nyŏn ŭi pip’yŏng munhak,­79–85. ­ 10.­Among­positivist­historians­Yi­Sang-­baek­perhaps­took­the­most­interest­in­ theoretical­questions.­Embracing­the­idealist­underpinnings­of­Ranke’s­positivist­ historiography,­ Yi­ understood­ historiography’s­ aim­ to­ be­ comprehension­ of­ the­ universal­meaning­immanent­in­particular­historical­facts.­See­Kim­P’il-­dong,­“Yi­ Sang-­baek,”­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,­vol.­2,­ed.­Cho­Tong-­gŏl­et­al.­(Seoul:­ Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994). ­ 11.­A­representative­historian­would­be­Yi­Sŏn-­gŭn,­a­virulent­anticommunist­ who­ taught­ Korean­ history­ to­ President­ Park­ Chung­ Hee­ and­ became­ the­ first­ president­of­Chŏngsin­munhwa­yŏn’guwŏn,­today­the­Academy­of­Korean­Studies. ­ 12.­There­was­some­precedent­for­this.­Aside­from­Paek­Nam-­un’s­stature­as­a­ historian­and­intellectual,­he­had­attempted­something­of­this­kind­in­1936,­when­ he­set­out­to­organize­a­chungang akademi­(central­academy).­The­Chosŏn­haksulwŏn­Paek­established­in­1945­was­heavily­tilted­toward­scholars­in­the­social­sciences­and­the­natural­sciences.­See­Cho­Tong-­gŏl,­Hyŏndae Han’guk sahaksa­(Seoul:­ Nanam­ch’ulp’an,­1998),­323. ­ 13.­ See­ Pang­ Kie-­chung­ (Pang­ Ki-­jung),­ “Haebanghu­ kukka­ kŏnsŏl­ munje­ wa­ yŏksahak,”­Han’guksa insik kwa yŏksa iron­(Seoul:­Chisik­sanŏpsa,­1997),­84. ­ 14.­Chindan­hakhoe­was­formally­reconstituted­on­August­31,­1945. ­ 15.­Organized­on­Christmas­Day­1945,­the­Korean­Historical­Association­(Yŏksa­ hakhoe)­included­historians­across­the­political­spectrum,­in­the­fields­of­art­history­ as­ well­ as­ European,­ Asian,­ and­ Korean­ history.­ It­ was­ organized­ with­ the­ specific­intent­of­bridging­the­Left-­Right­divide.­During­the­Korean­War­another­

noTes To ChapTer Five

organization­with­the­same­name­was­established,­but­the­association­established­ in­1952­did­not­claim­any­link­to­the­earlier­association,­perhaps­because­the­earlier­ one­had­included­many­leftist­scholars.­ In­1946­a­student­group­with­the­same­ name­was­formed­under­the­sponsorship­of­Yi­In-­yŏng,­then­a­faculty­member­of­ the­Department­of­History­at­Kyŏngsŏng­University­(Seoul­National­University).­ See­Cho,­Hyŏndae Han’guk sahaksa,­328–29. ­ 16.­ Hannah­ Arendt,­ The Origins of Totalitarianism­ (1968;­ Oxford:­ Benediction­ Classics,­2009),­4–5.­See­also­Alexis­de­Tocqueville,­The Old Regime and the French Revolution,­trans.­John­Bonner­(New­York:­Harper­and­Brothers,­1856),­39–49. ­ 17.­According­to­Pang­Kie-­chung,­it­was­probably­Yi­Sang-­baek­who­led­the­initiative­to­join­the­Committee­on­Science­(chŏnmun­wiwŏnhoe)­within­the­Democratic­National­Front.­Pang,­“Haebanghu­kukka­kŏnsŏl­munje­wa­yŏksahak,”­87. ­ 18.­ Pang­ Kie-­chung­ suggests­ that,­ immediately­ after­ liberation­ and­ until­ just­ prior­to­the­second­U.S.-­Soviet­Joint­Commission­talks­in­1947,­there­was­close­coordination­between­Son­Chin-­t’ae,­Cho­Yun-­jae,­and­others­with­An­Chae-­hong.­ Pang,­ “Haebanghu­ kukka­ kŏnsŏl­ munje­ wa­ yŏksahak.”­ See­ note­ 57­ below,­ and­ works­cited­in­note­2. ­ 19.­Yi­Pyŏng-­do’s­work­on­Chōsenshi­had­to­do­with­the­compilation­of­volumes­ that­dealt­with­“Unified”­Silla­and­Koryŏ­periods. ­ 20.­Yi­Pyŏng-­do’s­self-­defense­did­not­nearly­match­the­intricacy­and­ambivalence­of­Yi­Kwang-­su’s­self-­defense­and­self-­critique:­Yi­Kwang-­su­did­not­think­ Japan­would­lose,­and­what­he­did­he­did­for­the­welfare­of­the­Korean­people. ­ 21.­See­Shin­Ju­Baek­(Sin­Chu-­baek),­“Perception­of­August­15­Remembered­in­ and­Forgotten­from­Korean­Textbooks,”­Review of Korean Studies­8,­no.­1­(2005),­ 51–84. ­ 22.­This­level­of­university­autonomy­came­on­the­heels­of­a­case­in­1914,­when­ the­faculty­of­the­School­of­Law­at­Kyoto­Imperial­University­successfully­resisted­ the­attempt­by­the­university­president,­at­that­time­appointed­by­the­Ministry­of­ Education,­to­fire­seven­faculty­members.­It­should­be­said,­of­course,­that­institutionalization­of­academic­self-­governance­in­the­1920s­did­not­ensure­academic­ freedom,­especially­in­the­1930s.­Byron­K.­Marshall,­“The­Tradition­of­Conflict­in­ the­Governance­of­Japanese­Imperial­Universities,”­History of Education Quarterly­ 17,­no.­4­(1977). ­ 23.­These­included­Kim­Sang-­gi,­Yi­Sang-­baek,­Son­Chin-­t’ae,­Yi­In-­yŏng,­and­Yu­ Hong-­ryŏl.­Following­liberation­there­were­calls­within­Chindan­hakhoe­to­expel­ “pro-­Japanese”­scholars.­It­was­not­until­1954,­when­extreme­anticommunism­suppressed­all­talk­of­collaboration­during­the­colonial­period,­that­Yi­Pyŏng-­do­again­ took­over­leadership­of­Chindan­hakhoe. ­ 24.­It­is­likely­that­An­Chae-­hong’s­withdrawal­of­support­for­the­kPR­was­also­ influenced­by­the­usAMgik’s­refusal­to­recognize­the­kPR­as­a­government. ­ 25.­During­the­Korean­War,­nationalist­historians­like­An­Chae-­hong,­Son­Chin-­ t’ae,­and­Yi­In-­yŏng­were­taken­to­the­North.­See­Cho,­Hyŏndae Han’guk sahaksa. ­ 26.­See­Kim­Dong-­Choon,­chapter­on­massacres,­Chŏnjaeng kwa sahoe: uri ege

223

224

noTes To ChapTer Five

Han’guk chŏnjaeng ŭn muŏt iŏnna­(Seoul:­Tolbaegae,­2000),­or­the­English-­language­ publication­The Unending Korean War: A Social History­(Larkspur,­Calif:­Tamal­Vista­ Publications,­2009).­See­also­Hee-­Kyung­Suh,­“Atrocities­Before­and­During­the­ Korean­War,”­Critical Asian Studies­42,­no.­4­(2010). ­ 27.­Born­in­1924,­Yi­Ki-­baek­graduated­from­Osan­Middle­School,­where­he­read­ Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­Chosŏnsa yŏn’gu ch’o.­In­early­1945­Yi­was­a­student­in­the­History­ Department­at­Waseda­when­he­was­drafted­into­the­Kwantung­Army.­He­was­captured­by­the­Soviet­Red­Army­and­held­as­a­prisoner­for­a­short­time.­He­entered­ Seoul­National­University’s­(previously­Keijō­Imperial­University)­Department­of­ History­in­1946­and­graduated­in­one­year.­At­snu,­he­studied­under­Yi­Pyŏng-­do. ­ 28.­Yi­Ki-­baek­attributed­historical­transformation­and­dynastic­change­to­the­ emergence­of­a­new­(ruling)­class­or­group.­Narrating­historical­progress­in­terms­ of­newly­emerging­forces,­he­argued­that,­over­time,­the­aristocratic­class­in­Korea­ transformed­itself­from­a­small­elite­minority­to­a­ubiquitous­force­in­society. ­ 29.­Yi­Ki-­baek,­“Sahoe­kyŏngje­sahak­kwa­silchŭng­sahak­ŭi­munje,”­1971,­Yŏksa wa minjok­(Seoul:­Ilchogak,­1997),­34. ­ 30.­Kim­Yong-­sŏp’s­thesis­regarding­two­paths­to­modernity­rested­on­a­more­ general­argument­about­the­breakdown­of­feudal­structures­in­late­Chosŏn.­He­ drew­attention­to­the­emergence­of­what­he­called­wealthy­managerial­farmers­ (kyŏngyŏnghyŏng pu’nong),­eighteenth-­and­nineteenth-­century­Chosŏn’s­equivalent­of­the­English­yeoman­farmer,­who­leased­a­substantial­amount­of­land,­employed­wage­laborers,­engaged­in­commodity­trade,­accumulated­surpluses,­and­ established­a­capitalist­way­of­farming.­According­to­Kim,­this­kind­of­large-­scale­ commercial­farming­and­differentiation­of­the­peasant­class­gave­evidence­of­feudal­structures­breaking­down­in­late­Chosŏn. ­ 31.­The­first­volume­of­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­was­published­in­1979,­the­sixth­ volume­in­1989.­Each­volume­was­organized­around­one­or­more­themes,­with­the­ author­of­the­lead­essay­making­the­central­historiographic­arguments­which­gave­ each­volume­its­distinctiveness. ­ 32.­As­Song­Kŏn-­ho­points­out,­enormous­consequences­resulted­from­Japan’s­ surrendering­only­to­the­United­States.­Because­it­was­not­Koreans­who­had­defeated­ the­ Japanese­ but­ American­ blood,­ treasure,­ and­ technology,­ the­ United­ States­could­divide­Korea­into­two,­with­Soviet­agreement,­and­refuse­to­recognize­ either­the­Korean­Provisional­Government­based­in­China­or­the­Korean­People’s­ Republic­(Chosŏn­Inmin­Konghwaguk)­that­had­formed­just­before­the­arrival­of­ U.S.­troops­in­1945.­Song­Kŏn-­ho,­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­vol.­1,­revised­edition­ (Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1989). ­ 33.­In­collaboration­and­South­Korean­historiography,­see­Koen­de­Ceuster,­“The­ Nation­Exorcised,”­Korean Studies­25,­no.­2­(2001). ­ 34.­For­a­history­of­the­democracy­movement,­see­Namhee­Lee,­The Making of Minjung: Democracy and the Politics of Representation in South Korea­(Ithaca:­Cornell­ University­Press,­2007). ­ 35.­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­along­with­dozens­of­other­books,­was­banned­dur-

noTes To ChapTer Five

ing­the­martial­law­period­following­the­assassination­of­Park­Chung­Hee­in­1979­ by­the­director­of­the­Korean­Central­Intelligence­Agency.­When­the­ban­was­lifted­ in­the­early­1980s,­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­became­the­preeminent­best-­seller­ among­social­science­books. ­ 36.­On­May­17,­the­martial­law­command­led­by­Chun­Doo-­hwan­induced­President­Choi­Kyu-­hwa­to­extend­martial­law­throughout­South­Korea.­All­political­activities­and­strikes­were­to­cease,­all­news­organizations­were­to­be­censored,­and­ universities­were­to­go­into­recess.­When­the­students­in­Kwangju­continued­their­ protest­against­martial­law,­paratroopers­were­sent­in­to­put­a­stop­to­the­demonstrations.­The­brutality­of­the­paratroopers­enraged­the­entire­city,­and­on­May­20­ bus­and­taxi­drivers­blocked­the­main­thoroughfares,­the­city­hall­was­taken­over,­ and­a­citizen’s­army­organized.­On­May­27­ROK­government­troops,­released­by­ General­John­Wickham­from­the­Joint­Command­structure,­retook­the­city.­The­ exact­number­of­people­killed­by­the­military­has­yet­to­be­established;­estimates­ range­from­several­hundred­to­nearly­a­thousand. ­ 37.­After­the­bloody­experience­of­Kwangju­there­was­a­decisive­shift­toward­reconstituting­the­movement­as­a­revolutionary­movement­on­the­basis­of­Marxism­ as­a­science.­In­one­wing­of­the­student­movement­familiarity­with­DPRK’s­Chuch’e­ Thought­became­de­rigueur,­while­dozens­of­master’s­theses­were­being­written­on­ the­revolutionary­nationalist­(communist)­movement­before­and­during­the­liberation­period,­theses­which­were­almost­unanimously­critical­of­the­American­role­in­ the­liberation­period. ­ 38.­ It­ took­ courage­ to­ write­ critically­ about­ history­ after­ 1945.­ In­ 1980­ Kang­ Man-­gil­was­forced­to­resign­from­the­faculty­at­Korea­University.­(He­was­able­ to­return­to­his­position­the­following­year.)­When­Choi­Sang-­ryong­(Ch’oe­Sang-­ yŏng),­Kang’s­colleague­in­the­Political­Science­Department,­returned­to­Korea­in­ the­early­1970s,­the­Korean­ciA­read­out­loud­passages­from­his­Tokyo­University­ Ph.D.­dissertation­while­torturing­him.­See­Bruce­Cumings,­“The­Korea­War:­What­ Is­It­That­We­Are­Remembering­to­Forget?,”­Ruptured Histories: War, Memory, and the Post-Cold War in Asia,­ed.­Sheila­Miyoshi­Jager­and­Rana­Mitter­(Cambridge:­ Harvard­University­Press,­2007). ­ 39.­Choi­Jang-­jip­and­Chŏng­Hae-­gu,­“Haebang­8-­nyŏnsa­ŭi­ch’ongch’ejŏk­insik,”­ Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­ vol.­ 4,­ ed.­ Choi­ Jang-­jip­ and­ Chŏng­ Hae-­gu­ (Seoul:­ Han’gilsa,­1989). ­ 40.­According­to­a­public­opinion­poll­of­eight­thousand­people­taken­in­1946­by­ the­usAMgik,­in­southern­Korea­70­percent­supported­socialism,­10­percent­communism,­and­13­percent­capitalism.­See­Tae-­Gyun­Park,­“Different­Roads,­Common­Destination:­Economic­Discourses­in­South­Korea­During­the­1950s,”­Modern Asian Studies­39,­no.­3­(2005),­661–82. ­ 41.­Bruce­Cumings’s­Origins of the Korean War,­vol.­1,­first­made­an­impact­after­ underground­translations­circulated­in­the­mid-­1980s.­According­to­Pak­Myŏng-­ lim,­“In­the­1980s,­Professor­Cumings­was­for­young­intellectuals­in­South­Korea­ both­ intellectual­ guide­ and­ inspiration­ for­ committed­ scholarship;­ at­ the­ same­

225

226

noTes To ChapTer Five

time,­his­work­was­an­intellectual­hurdle­to­be­overcome­by­scholars­trained­in­ Korea.”­Pak­Myŏng-­lim,­“Bruce­Cumings­ŭi­Han’guk chŏnjaeng ŭi kiwŏn­e­taehan­ hana­ŭi­nonp’yŏng,”­unpublished­paper,­1992.­See­Bruce­Cumings,­The Origins of the Korean War:­vol.­1,­Liberation and the Emergence of Separate Regimes, 1945–1947­ (Princeton:­Princeton­University­Press,­1981). ­ 42.­Chong-­Sik­Lee­(Yi­Chŏng-­sik)­made­a­similar­argument­in­Korean Workers’ Party: A Short History­(Stanford:­Hoover­Institution­Press,­1978),­73–75. ­ 43.­On­January­12,­1950,­in­a­speech­at­the­National­Press­Club,­Secretary­of­ State­Dean­Acheson­included­Japan­in­the­U.S.­defense­perimeter­but­left­South­ Korea­and­Taiwan­outside­of­that­perimeter.­Referring­obliquely­to­South­Korea,­ Acheson­added,­“the­initial­reliance­must­be­on­the­people­attacked­to­resist­it­and­ then­upon­the­commitments­of­the­entire­civilized­world­under­the­Charter­of­the­ United­Nations­which­so­far­has­not­proved­a­weak­reed.”­Dean­Acheson,­Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department­(New­York:­Norton,­1969),­354–58.­ Acheson­had­not­said­that­the­United­States­would­not­come­to­South­Korea’s­defense.­Nevertheless,­with­South­Korea­placed­outside­of­the­American­line­of­defense,­the­entrapment­thesis­argues­that­North­Korea­invaded­South­Korea,­gambling­that­the­United­States­would­not­intervene.­Acheson’s­strategic­thinking­was­ not­ fixated­ on­ Korea;­ Europe­ was­ his­ primary­ concern.­ But­ when­ North­ Korea­ launched­ a­ general­ military­ offensive­ across­ the­ 38th­ parallel,­ Acheson­ did­ not­ hesitate­in­committing­U.S.­forces.­nsc­68,­completed­on­April­14,­1950,­was­a­ comprehensive­statement­of­what­United­States­national­security­policy­should­ be.­Until­the­outbreak­of­the­Korean­War­on­June­25,­top­officials­in­Washington­ debated­nsc­68’s­call­for­more­than­a­three-­fold­increase­in­the­U.S.­military­budget.­In­his­1948­Presidential­campaign,­President­Truman­had­stated­categorically­ that­the­U.S.­economy­could­not­afford­military­spending­in­excess­of­$15­billion­a­ year.­See­Samuel­F.­Wells,­Jr.,­“Sounding­the­Tocsin:­nsc­68­and­the­Soviet­Threat,”­ International Security­4,­no.­2­(1979),­123.­The­military­appropriation­for­1950­had­ been­$13­billion,­and­supporters­of­nsc­68­thought­they­could­realistically­expect­ an­additional­$3­billion.­After­the­outbreak­of­the­Korean­War,­however,­President­ Truman­approved­nsc­68­and­by­May­1951­the­U.S.­military­budget­swelled­to­$48­ billion.­See­David­T.­Fautua,­“The­‘Long­Pull’­Army:­nsc­68,­the­Korean­War,­and­ the­Creation­of­the­Cold­War­U.S.­Army,”­The Journal of Military History­61,­no.­1­ (1997).­There­can­be­no­disagreement­that­the­Korean­War­convinced­President­ Truman­to­sign­nsc­68­(on­September­30,­1950)­and­Congress­to­approve­the­massive­increase­in­the­military­budget.­As­nsc­68­pointed­out,­“It­goes­without­saying­ that­the­idea­of­‘preventive’­war—in­the­sense­of­a­military­attack­not­provoked­by­ a­military­attack­upon­us­or­our­allies—is­generally­unacceptable­to­Americans.”­ United­States­Department­of­State,­Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950,­vol.­1,­ p.­281.­According­to­the­entrapment­thesis,­North­Korea­walked­into­a­trap­in­the­ sense­that­its­attack­across­the­38th­parallel­provided­the­occasion­for­rallying­the­ American­people,­and­for­nsc­68­to­become­the­foundation­for­U.S.­national­security­policy.

noTes To ChapTer Five

­ 44.­For­a­more­comprehensive­discussion­of­the­multivolume­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­see­ Henry­ Em,­ “‘Overcoming’­ Korea’s­ Division:­ Narrative­ Strategies­ in­ Recent­South­Korean­Historiography,”­positions: east asia cultures critique­1,­no.­2­ (1993). ­ 45.­Writing­in­2000,­Kang­Man-­gil­wryly­notes­that,­from­1960­through­the­end­ of­the­1980s,­people­referred­to­as­“conservatives”­in­the­1990s­used­to­be­called­ antidemocrats­(pan-minju insa).­“Posup’a­chach’ŏ­hannŭn­Kim­sŏnsaeng­kke,”­Hankyŏre sinmun,­January­23,­2000,­8. ­ 46.­Pak­Chi-­hyang­et­al.,­eds.,­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik­(Reconsideration­of­ Liberation­History),­vols.­1­and­2­(Seoul:­Chaek­sesang,­2006).­Roh­Moo-­hyun­(No­ Mu-­hyŏn)­became­president­in­February­2003;­his­term­ended­in­February­2008.­ During­his­inaugural­speech,­President­Roh­referred­to­justice­being­defeated­and­ opportunism­having­prevailed­in­modern­Korean­history.­The­editors­of­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik­interpreted­this­as­Roh’s­disavowing­the­very­legitimacy­of­ South­Korea.­Yi­Yŏng-­hun­notes­that­the­generation­that­studied­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­now­form­Roh’s­core­advisors.­See­the­lead­article­by­Yi­Yŏng-­hun,­“Wae­tasi­ haebang­chŏnhusa­in’ga,”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­vol.­1. ­ 47.­See­Cumings,­“The­Korea­War:­What­Is­It­That­We­Are­Remembering­to­Forget?,”­283–84. ­ 48.­A­number­of­contributors­to­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik­were­taken­aback­ by­how­their­work­was­framed­in­the­introduction­and­distanced­themselves­from­ the­editors’­polemical­stance. ­ 49.­Yu­In-­ho’s­essay­in­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­was­critical­of­the­impact­of­ land­reform­that­finally­got­under­way­in­1950.­Of­the­1.4­million­hectares­in­wet­ paddies­and­dry­fields,­up­to­874,000­hectares­(61­percent)­of­land­that­should­ have­been­targeted­for­land­reform­was­sold­to­tenant­farmers,­its­ownership­was­ transferred­to­family­members,­or­it­was­flooded­(to­evade­compliance)­prior­to­implementation­of­land­reform.­Yu­In-­ho,­“Haebang-­hu­nongji­kaehyŏk­ŭi­chŏn’gaekwajŏng­kwa­sŏnggyŏk,”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­vol.­1.­Chang­Si-­wŏn’s­essay­in­ Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­originally­published­in­1995,­argues­that­the­average­ sale­price­of­those­lands­sold­to­tenant­farmers­before­1950­was­roughly­equivalent­ to­prices­mandated­by­the­land­reform­law.­Landlords,­anticipating­the­passage­of­ the­land­reform­bill,­sold­their­land­to­tenant­farmers­at­prices­the­tenant­farmers­ would­have­had­to­pay­anyway.­See­Chang­Si-­wŏn,­“Nongji­kaehyŏk:­chijuje­haech’e­ wa­chagaknongcheje­ŭi­sŏngnip,”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­vol.­2. ­ 50.­Lee­Chong-­Sik­(Yi­Chŏng-­sik),­“Naengjŏn­ŭi­chŏn’gae­kwajŏng­kwa­Hanbando­pundan­ŭi­koch’akhwa,”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­vol.­2. ­ 51.­Pak­Chi-­hyang,­Kim­Chŏl,­Kim­Il-­yŏng,­and­Yi­Yŏng-­hun,­“Taedam,”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­vol.­2. ­ 52.­On­August­15,­2004,­a­year­before­the­fiftieth­year­marking­Korea’s­liberation­ from­Japanese­colonial­rule,­President­Roh­Moo-­hyun­had­spoken­of­the­necessity­ for­a­comprehensive­settlement­of­past­wrongs.­In­2005­the­South­Korean­National­ Assembly­passed­the­Framework­Act­that­established­the­Truth­and­Reconcilia-

227

228

noTes To ChapTer Five

tion­Commission,­Republic­of­Korea­(tRck).­tRck’s­mandate­was­broad­enough­ to­encompass­most­wrongdoings­committed­by­the­South­Korean­state­prior­to­ 1992.­But­it­did­not­have­prosecutorial­authority:­it­could­not­punish­perpetrators­ even­when­they­were­identified.­The­tRck’s­investigative­authority­was­also­curtailed­in­that­state­institutions­like­the­Bureau­of­Police,­the­Ministry­of­Defense,­ and­the­National­Intelligence­Service­(formerly­the­kciA)­could­refuse­tRck’s­demands­for­documents­if­they­deemed­those­documents­to­be­potentially­damaging­ to­national­security.­The­tRck­was­established­with­such­limitations­because­the­ stated­goal­of­reconciliation­made­it­necessary­for­the­Framework­Act­of­2005­to­ be­passed­by­the­National­Assembly­with­support­from­both­the­liberal­and­conservative­parties.­In­spite­of­such­limitations,­during­the­two­years­that­the­tRck­ pursued­its­investigations­under­the­Roh­Moo-­hyun­administration,­the­tRck­presented­an­impressive­range­of­findings­and­recommendations­that­threatened­conservatives.­For­example,­tRck­findings­included­facts­about­massacres­of­civilians,­ in­South­Korea,­committed­by­United­States­and­South­Korean­forces­during­the­ Korean­War,­and­findings­that­controverted­judicial­rulings­involving­momentous­ national­ security­cases.­ For­example,­ tRck­ recommended­ that­ the­ government­ issue­an­official­apology­in­the­case­of­Cho­Pong-­am.­See­Dong-­Choon­Kim­[Kim­ Tong-­ch’un],­“The­Long­Road­Toward­Truth­and­Reconciliation:­Unwavering­Attempts­to­Achieve­Justice­in­South­Korea,”­Critical Asian Studies­42,­no.­4­(2010).­ In­the­same­volume,­see­also­Jae-­Jung­ Suh,­“Truth­and­Reconciliation­ in­South­ Korea.”­In­1956,­Cho­Pong-­am­had­organized­the­Progressive­Party­(Chinbodang)­ and­ran­as­a­Presidential­candidate­on­a­platform­that­called­for­responsible­reform,­ a­non-­exploitative­planned­economy,­and­democratic­peaceful­reunification­with­ North­Korea.­He­received­30­percent­of­the­vote­in­that­election.­In­January­1958,­ a­few­months­before­the­National­Assembly­elections,­Cho­Pong-­am­was­arrested­ on­charges­of­spying­for­North­Korea,­receiving­funds­from­North­Korea­during­the­ 1956­Presidential­election,­and­fomenting­subversion.­He­was­executed­on­July­31,­ 1959.­On­January­20,­2011,­the­South­Korean­Supreme­Court­found­Cho­Pong-­am­ innocent­of­the­charges. ­ 53.­See­Yi­Yŏng-­hun,­Taehan Min’guk iyagi­(Seoul:­Kip’arang,­2007). ­ 54.­According­to­Kang­Man-­gil­in­a­seminar­at­Korea­University­in­1998,­historians­should­look­forward­to­the­day­when­nationalism­can­be­dispensed­with.­But­ so­long­as­Korea­remains­divided,­nationalist­historiography­is­necessary. ­ 55.­In­this­question,­see­the­two-­volume­anthology­Kŭndae rŭl tasi ignŭnda,­ed.­ Yun­ Hae-­dong­ et­ al.­ (Seoul:­ Yŏksa­ pip’yŏngsa,­ 2006).­ See­ also­ essays­ in­ Kuksa ŭi sinhwa rŭl nŏmŏsŏ,­ed.­Lim­Jie-­Hyun­(Im­Chi-­hyŏn)­et­al.­(Seoul:­Humŏnistŭ,­ 2004). ­ 56.­See­Alain­Badiou,­Ethics: an Essay on the Understanding of Evil,­translated­by­ Peter­Hallward­(New­York:­Verso,­2001). ­ 57.­See­Lauren­Berlant’s­Introduction,­in­Cruel Optimism­(Durham:­Duke­University­Press,­2011).

BiBLioGraphy

Sources­in­Japanese­and­Korean An­Chae-­hong.­Minse An Chae-hong sŏnjip.­8­vols.­Seoul:­Chisik­sanŏpsa,­1981– 2004. An­Chong-­ch’ŏl.­“Munmyŏng­kaehwa­esŏ­pan’gong­ŭro:­Yi­Sŭng-­man­kwa­kaesinkyo­ŭi­kwankye­ŭi­pyŏnhwa,­1912–1950.”­Tongbang hakji­145­(2009). Auerback,­Micah.­“‘Ch’in-­Il­Pulgyo’­yŏksahak­ŭi­chae’go:­Chosŏn­Pulgyodan­kwa­ 1920-­nyŏndae­Chosŏn­esŏ­ŭi­sŭngryŏ­kyŏlhon­e­taehan­nonjaeng.”­Asea yŏn’gu­ 51,­no.­3­(2008). Chang­Si-­wŏn.­“Nongji­kaehyŏk:­Chijuje­haech’e­wa­chagaknongcheje­ŭi­sŏngnip.”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­vol.­2.­Seoul:­Chaek­sesang,­2006. Chindan­hakhoe,­ed.­Yŏksaga ŭi yuhyang.­Seoul:­Ilchogak,­1991. Cho­Chun-­ha.­“Uam­Song­Si-­yŏl­ŭi­chuch’e­ŭisik.”­Han’guk sasang kwa munhwa­42­ (2008). ———.­“Uri­nara­ŭi­chesa­munhwa­wa­chongmyo­taeje.”­Han’guk sasang kwa munhwa­12­(2001). Cho­Hyŏn-­sŏl.­“Kŭndae­kyemonggi­Tan’gun­sinhwa­ŭi­t’al-­sinhwa­wa­chae-­ sinhwahwa.”­Minjok munhaksa yŏn’gu­32­(2006). Cho­Tong-­gŏl.­Hyŏndae Han’guk sahaksa.­Seoul:­Nanam­ch’ulpan,­1998. ———.­“Kŭndae­ch’ogi­ŭi­yŏksa­insik.”­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksa insik,­vol.­2,­ ed.­Cho­Tong-­gŏl­et­al.­Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994. Cho­Tong-­gŏl­et­al.­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,­vols.­1­(sang)­and­2­(ha).­ Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994. Ch’oe­Hyŏn-­bae,­“Kidokkyo­wa­Han’gŭl,”­Sinhak nondan,­7­(1962). Ch’oe­Nam-­sŏn.­Yuktang Ch’oe Nam-sŏn chŏnjip.­15­vols.­Seoul:­Hyŏnamsa,­1973–75. ———.­Yuktang Ch’oe Nam-sŏn chŏnjip.­14­vols.­Seoul:­Yŏngnak,­2003. Choi­Jang-­jip­and­Chŏng­Hae-­gu.­“Haebang­8-­nyŏnsa­ŭi­ch’ongch’ejŏk­insik.”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­vol.­4,­ed.­Choi­Jang-­jip­et­al.­Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1989. Chŏn­Sŏk-­dam.­Chosŏn kyŏngjesa t’amgu.­Seoul:­Pŏmusa,­1990. Chŏng­Okcha.­Chosŏn hugi Chosŏn Chunghwa sasang yŏn’gu.­Seoul:­Ilchisa,­1998. Chŏng­T’ae-­sik­and­Yi­Ch’ŏl-u.­“Mi’gunjŏnggi­wa­Taegu­10-­wŏl­hangjaeng­esŏ­ŭi­ kidokkyo­chonggyo­chidojadŭl­ŭi­sahoe­chŏngch’ijŏk­hwaldong­kwa­yŏkhal­ŭi­ taehan­ilkoch’al.”­Chiyŏk sahoe yŏn’gu­14,­no.­4­(2006). Chōsen­Sotokufu­. Chōsen koseki zufu,­15­vols.­Seoul:­Chōsen­Sotokufu,­1915–35. Ch’u­Myŏng-­yŏp,­Han’guksa yŏn’gu,­no.­129­(2005). Fukuda­Tokuzō.­“Kankoku­no­keizai­soshiki­to­keizai­tani.”­Keizaigaku kenkyū.­ Tokyo:­Dōbunkan,­1904.

230

BiBLioGraphy

Han­Young-­Woo­[Han­Yŏng-­u].­Han’guk minjokjuŭi yŏksahak.­Seoul:­Ilchogak,­ 1994. ———.­“Uri­nara­yŏksahak­ŭi­hŭrŭm.”­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,­vol.­1,­ed.­ Cho­Tong-­gŏl­et­al.­Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994. ———.­“Yi­Pyŏng-­do.”­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,­vol.­2,­ed.­Cho­Tong-­gŏl­ et­al.­Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994. Han’guk­Yŏksa­Yŏn’guhoe­Kodaesa­Punkwa.­Mundap ŭro yŏkkŭn Han’guk kodaesa sanch’aek.­Seoul:­Yŏksa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994. Han’guksa­yŏn’guhoe,­ed.­Han’guk sahaksa ŭi yŏn’gu.­Seoul:­Ŭryu­munhwasa,­ 1985. Hatada­Takashi.­Nihonjin no chōsenkan.­Tokyo:­Chikuma­Shobō,­1969. Hong­Tae-­yong.­Sinp’yŏn kugyŏk Hong Tae-yong Tamhŏnsŏ.­Kyŏnggi-­do­Paju-­si:­ Han’guk­Haksul­Chŏngbo,­2008. Im­Chong-­guk.­Sillok ch’inilp’a.­Seoul:­Tolbegae,­1991. Im­Pu-­yŏn.­“Yuggyo­ŭiryehwa­ŭi­chŏngchihak:­Mandongmyo­wa­Taebodan­ŭr­ chungsim­ŭro.”Chonggyo munhwa pip’yŏng­15­(2009). Iryŏn.­Samguk yusa.­Seoul:­Sŏjŏng­Sihak,­2009. Kang­Man-­gil.­“Ilje­sidae­ŭi­pansigmin­sahaknon.”­Han’guk sahaksa ui,­ed.­ Han’guksa­yŏn’guhoe.­Seoul:­Ŭryu­munhwasa,­1985. ———.­“Posup’a­chach’ŏ­hannŭn­Kim­sŏnsaeng­kke,”­Hankyŏre sinmun,­January­23,­2000,­8. ———.­Pundan sidae ŭi yŏksa insik.­Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­Pip’yŏngsa,­1978. ———,­ed.­Sin Ch’ae-ho.­Seoul:­Koryŏ­taehakkyo­ch’ulp’anbu,­1990. Kang­Man-­gil­et­al.­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­vol.­2.­Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1985. Kang­Tong-­il.­NamHan eso ŭi chuch’e sasang.­Seoul:­Palgun’gul,­1989. Kim­Dong-­Choon­[Kim­Tong-­chun].­Chŏnjaeng kwa sahoe: uri ege Han’guk chŏnjaeng ŭn muŏt iŏnna.­Seoul:­Tolbaegae,­2000. Kim­Hwal-­lan.­“Na­nŭn­tanbal­ŭl­irrŏkkye­ponda.”­Tongkwang,­no.­37­(September­ 1932). Kim­Ki-­rim.­“‘Missŭ­Koria’­tanbal­hasio.”­Tongkwang­no.­37­(September­1932). Kim­Nam-­sik­et­al.­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­vol.­5.­Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1989. Kim­P’il-­dong,­“Yi­Sang-­baek,”­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,­vol.­2,­ed.­Cho­ Tong-­gŏl­et­al.­Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994. Kim­Sa-­ryang.­Kim Saryang chakp’umjip,­ed.­Im­Hŏn-­yŏng.­Seoul:­Chisik­ŭl­ mandŭnŭn­chisik,­2008. Kim­Tae-­sik.­“Ilje­kangjŏmgi­Kyŏngju­chiŏk­munhwaje­ŭi­suri­pokwŏn­sare.”­ Kyŏngju Silla yujŏk ŭi ŏje wa onŭl: Sŏkkuram, Pulguksa, Namsan.­Seoul:­Sungkyunkwan­taehakkyo­pangmulkwan­kihoeg­chŏnsisil,­2007. Kim­To-­hyŏng.­“Han’guk­kŭndaesa­ŭi­chaju,­tongnip­ŭi­ŭimi.”­Yŏksa pip’yŏng­29­ (May­1995). ———.­Taehan Chegukki ŭi chŏngch’i sasang yŏn’gu.­Seoul:­Chisik­Sanŏpsa,­1994. Kim­Yong-­min.­Han’guk munhak pip’yŏng nonjaengsa.­Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1992. Kim­Yong-­sŏp.­Chosŏnhugi nongŏpsa yŏn’gu.­2­vols.­Seoul:­Ilchogak,­1970–71.

BiBLioGraphy

Kim­Yun-­g yŏng,­Han’guk muncha kŭp ŏhaksa.­1934.­Seoul:­Kyŏngin­munhwasa,­ 1987. Kim­Yun-­sik.­“Haebang­gonggan­ŭi­munhak.”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­vol.­2,­ ed.­Kang­Man-­gil­et­al.­Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1985. ———.­Han’guk hyondae munhaksaron.­Seoul:­Hansem,­1988. ———.­Han’guk kundae munhak sasangsa.­Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1984. Kim­Yun-­sik­et­al.­Haebang konggan ŭi munhak undong kwa munhak ŭi hyonsil insik.­ Seoul:­Han’ul,­1989. Kuksa­kyojae­p’yŏnch’an­wiwŏnhoe.­Han’guksa kaesŏl.­Seoul:­T’amgudang,­1983. Kuksa­p’yŏnch’an­wiwŏnhoe.­Chungjong sillok.­http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.­Kojong sillok.­http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.­Koryŏsa.­http://db.history.go.kr/KOREA/ ———.­Kwanghae’gun ilgi.­http://silok.history.go.kr ———.­Sejong sillok.­http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.­Sŏngjong sillok.­http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.­Sŏnjo sillok.­http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.­Sukjong sillok.­http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.­T’aejo sillok.­http://sillok.history.go.kr ———.­Yŏngjo sillok.­http://sillok.history.go.kr Kŭm­Chang-­t’ae.­“Tasan­ŭi­sajikje­wa­ch’eje­kojŭng.”­Chongkyohak yŏn’gu­16­(1997). Kume,­Kunitake.­“Nihon­fukuin­no­enkaku.”­Shigakkai zasshi­1­(December­1889– February­1890). Kwŏn­Hyŏk-­su.­19-segi mal Han-Chung kwan’gyesa yŏn’gu.­Paeksan­charyowŏn,­ 2000. K.­Y.­“Tanbalhan­kamsang.”­Tongkwang,­no.­37­(September­1932). Lee­Chong-­Sik­[Yi­Chŏng-­sik].­“Naengjŏn­ŭi­chŏn’gae­kwajŏng­kwa­Hanbando­ pundan­ŭi­koch’akhwa.”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­vol.­2.­Seoul:­Chaek­ sesang,­2006. Lee­Jinhee.­“Kwandong­taejijin­ŭl­ch’udoham:­Ilbon­cheguk­ŭi­‘pulyŏng­sŏnin’­ kwa­ch’udo­ŭi­chŏngch’ihak.”­Asea yŏn’gu­51,­no.­1­(2008). Lee­Kwang-­Rin­[Yi­Kwang-­nin].­Yu Kil-chun.­Seoul:­Tonga­ilbosa,­1992. ———.­“Yun­Ch’i-­ho­ŭi­Ilbon­yuhak.”­Tongbang hakji­59­(1988). Lew­Young-­Ick­[Yu­Yŏng-­ik],­ed.­Yi Sŭng-man yŏn’gu.­Seoul:­Yonsei­University­ Press,­2000. Lim­Jie-­Hyun­[Im­Chi-­hyŏn]­et­al.­Kuksa ŭi sinhwa rŭl nŏmŏsŏ.­Seoul:­Humŏnistŭ,­ 2004. Paek­Nam-­un.­Chōsen hōken shakai keizaishi.­Tokyo:­Kaizōsha,­1937. ———.­Chōsen shakai keizaishi.­Tōkyō:­Kaizōsha,­1933. ———.­“Chosŏn sahoe kyŏngjesa­ch’ulp’an­e­taehan­sogam,”­Chungang­(November­ 1933). ———.­Paek Nam-un chŏnjip,­trans.­Ha­Il-­sik.­Seoul:­Iron­kwa­silch’ŏn,­1991–94. Pak­Ch’an-­mo.­“Haebang­chikhu­Han­Hyo­ŭi­munhakpip’yŏng­koch’al.”­Hyŏndae munhak iron yŏn’gu­27­(2006).

231

232

BiBLioGraphy

Pak­Chi-­hyang­et­al.,­eds.­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­vols.­1­and­2.­Seoul:­ Ch’aek­Sesang,­2006. ———­et­al.,­“Taedam,”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­vol.­2.­Seoul:­Ch’aek­Sesang,­2006. Pak­Chi-­wŏn,­Yŏrha ilgi,­trans.­and­ed.­Kim­Hyŏl-­cho.­Kyŏnggi-­do­P’aju-­si:­Tolbegae,­2009. Pang­Kie-­chung­[Pang­Ki-­jung].­“1930-­nyŏndae­mulsan­changnyŏ­undong­kwa­ minjok­chabonjuŭi­kyŏngje­sasang.”­Tongbang hakji­115­(2002). ———.­“Haebanghu­kukka­kŏnsŏl­munje­wa­yŏksahak.”­Han’guksa insik kwa yŏksa iron.­Seoul:­Chisik­sanŏpsa,­1997. ———.­Han’guk hyŏndae sasangsa yŏn’gu.­Seoul:­Yŏksa­pip’yŏngsa,­1992. ———.­“Paek­Nam-­un­yŏn’gu­I.”­Yŏksa pip’yŏng­7­(summer­1989). Park­Chan-­seung­[Pak­Ch’an-­sŭng].­Han’guk chŏngch’i sasangsa yŏn’gu.­Seoul:­ Yŏksa­pip’yŏngsa,­1992. Park­Hyon-­ch’ae­et­al.­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­vol.­3.­Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1987. Park­Tae­Gyun­[Pak­T’ae-­g yun].­“Haebang­chŏnggaek­Pak­Hŏn-­yŏng­kwa­8-­wŏl­ t’eje.”­Obsŏbŏ­8­(2002). Rhee­Syngman­[Yi­Sung-­man].­Ilminjuui kaesol.­Seoul:­Ilminjuui­poguphoe,­1949. ———.­Tongnip chŏngsin,­in­Ihwajang sojang Unam Yi Sŭngman munsŏ.­Seoul:­ Kukhak­charyowŏn,­1998. ———.­Yi Sŭng-man yŏn’gu,­ed.­Lew­Young-­Ick.­Seoul:­Yonsei­University­Press,­ 2000. Ro­Myoung-­ho­[No­Myŏng-­ho].­“Koryŏ­sidae­ŭi­tawŏnjŏk­ch’ŏnhakwan­kwa­Haedong­Ch’ŏnja.”­Han’guksa yŏn’gu,­no.­105­(1999). ———.­“Tongmyŏng­Wangpyŏn­kwa­Yi­Kyu-­bo­ŭi­tawŏnjŏk­ch’ŏnhakwan.”­Chindan hakbo­83­(1997). Ryu­Si-­hyun,­Ch’oe Nam-sŏn yŏn’gu: cheguk ŭi kŭndae wa singminji ŭi munhwa.­ Seoul:­Yŏksa­pip’yŏngsa,­2009. Sekino­Tadashi.­Chōsen bijutsushi.­Keijō:­Chōsen­shigakkai,­1932. Shim­Ji-­yon,­ed.­Haebang chŏngguk nonjaengsa.­Seoul:­Han’ul,­1986. Shin­Yong-­ha­[Sin­Yong-­ha].­“Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­ŭi­mujŏngbujuŭi­tongnip­sasang,”­Sin Ch’ae-ho,­ed.­Kang­Man-­gil.­Seoul:­Koryŏ­taehakkyo­ch’ulp’anbu,­1990. Sin­Ch’ae-­ho.­Sin Ch’ae-ho yŏksa nonsŏljip,­trans.­Chŏng­Hae-­yŏm.­Seoul:­Hyŏndae­ silhaksa,­1995. ———.­Tanjae Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip,­vols.­1–4.­Seoul:­Tanjae­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­sŏnsaeng­kinyŏm­saŏphoe,­1987. ———.­Tanje Sin Ch’ae-ho chŏnjip.­10­vols.­Chungnam­Chŏnan-­si:­Tongnip­Kinyŏmgwan­Han’guk­Tongnip­Undongsa­Yŏn’guso,­2007. Sin­Hyŏng-­gi,­ed.­Haebang 3-nyŏn ŭi pip’yŏng munhak.­Seoul:­Segye,­1988. Sin­Il-­ch’ŏl.­“Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­ŭi­kŭndae­kukkakwan.”­Sin Ch’ae-ho,­ed.­Kang­Man-­gil.­ Seoul:­Koryŏ­taehakkyo­ch’ulp’anbu,­1990. ———.­Sin Ch’ae-ho ŭi sahoe sasang yŏn’gu.­Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1984. Sŏ­Chae-­pil­[Philip­Jaisohn].­“Nonsŏl,”­Tongnip sinmun­(April­7,­1896),­in­Tongnip sinmun nonsŏljip.­Seoul:­Songjae­munhwa­chaedan­ch’ulp’anbu,­1976.

BiBLioGraphy

Son­Chin-­t’ae.­Chosŏn minjoksa kaeron.­1948.­Yŏkdae Han’guksa nonsŏn,­ed.­Yi­Ki-­ baek.­Seoul:­Saemunsa,­1993. ———.­Son Chin-tae sŏnsaeng chŏnjip.­6­vols.­Seoul:­T’aehaksa,­1981. Son­Yŏng-­jong­et­al.­Chosŏn t’ongsa.­P’yŏngyang:­Sahoe­kwahak­ch’ulp’ansa,­1991. Song­Ch’an-­sŏp.­“Ilje­ŭi­singmin­sahak.”­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,­vol.­2,­ ed.­Cho­Tong-­gŏl­et­al.­Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994. Song­Ki-­ho.­“Silla­chungdae­sahoe­wa­Parhae.”­Han’guksa t’ŭkgang.­Seoul:­Sŏul­taehakkyo­ch’ulp’anbu,­1990. ———.­“Yu­Tŭk-­kong.”­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,­vol.­2,­ed.­Cho­Tong-­gŏl­ et­al.­Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1994. Song­Kŏn-­ho­and­Kang­Man-­gil,­eds.­Han’guk minjokjuuiron.­Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­ pip’yŏngsa,­1982. Song­Kŏn-­ho­et­al.­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­vol.­1.­Revised­edition.­Seoul:­ Han’gilsa,­1989. ———.­Han’guk hyondae inmulsa ron.­Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1974. Sŏul­taehakkyo­inmun­taehak­Han’guk­hyŏndaesa­yŏn’guhoe.­Haebang chŏngguk kwa minjok t’ongil chŏnsŏn.­Seoul:­Segye,­1987. Tongnip sinmun.­http://www.kinds.or.kr/­(Han’guk­ŏllon­chinhŭng­chaedan). Tongnip sinmun nonsŏljip.­Seoul:­Songjae­munhwa­jedan,­1976. Uchida­Jun.­“Ch’ongnyŏkjŏn­sigi­chae-­Chosŏn­Ilbonin­ŭi­‘NaeSŏn­Ilch’e’­chŏngchaek­e­taehan­hyŏmnyŏk.”­Asea yŏn’gu­51,­no.­1­(2008). Yasuda,­Hiroshi.­“Kindai­Nihon­ni­okeru­‘minzoku’­kannen­no­keisei,”­Shisō to gendai­31­(September­1992). Yi­Chang-­hŭi.­“Oeran­chung­ŭi­sahoesang.”­Han’guksa,­vol.­29.­Seoul:­Kuksa­ p’yŏnchan­wiwŏnhoe,­1995. Yi­Chi-­wŏn.­“1930-­nyŏndae­minjokjuŭi­kyeyŏl­ŭi­kojŏk­pojŏn­undong.”­Tongbang hakchi,­June­1993. ———.­“An­Chae-­hong.”­Han’guk ŭi yŏksaga wa yŏksahak,­vol.­2,­ed.­Cho­Tong-­ gŏl­et­al.­Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­Pip’yŏngsa,­1994. Yi­Ch’ŏl-­sŏng.­“Singminjisigi­yŏksainsik­kwa­yŏksasŏsul,”­Han’guksa­23.­Seoul:­ Han’gilsa,­1994. Yi­Ch’ŏng-­wŏn,­Chosŏn sahoesa tokbon.­Tokyo:­Paekyangsa,­1936. Yi­Hwang-­jik.­“Kŭndae­Han’guk­ŭi­ch’ogi­kongnonjang­hyŏngsŏng­mit­pyŏnhwa­e­ kwanhan­yŏn’gu.”­Sahoe iron­32­(2007). Yi­Ki-­baek.­Han’guk sahak ŭi panghyang.­Seoul,­Ilchogak,­1978. ———.­Han’guksa sillon.­Seoul:­Ilchogak,­1967. ———.­Kuksa sillon.­Seoul:­T’aesŏngsa,­1961. ———.­“Sahoe­kyŏngje­sahak­kwa­silchŭng­sahak­ŭi­munje.”­1971.­Yŏksa wa minjok.­Seoul:­Ilchogak,­1997. Yi­Ki-­mun.­“Han’gul­ŭi­yŏn’gu­wa­pogup.”­Han minjok tongnip undongsa,­vol.­2.­ Seoul:­Kuksa­p’yŏnch’an­wiwŏnhoe,­1987. Yi­Kyun-­yong.­Singanhoe yŏn’gu.­Seoul:­Yoksa­pip’yŏngsa,­1993. Yi­Man-­yŏl.­Han’guk kŭndae yŏksahak ŭi ihae.­Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­ 1981.

233

234

BiBLioGraphy

Yi­P’il-­yŏng.­“Tan’gun­yŏn’gusa.”­Tan’gun,­ed.­Yun­I-­hum­et­al.­Seoul:­Seoul­taehakkyo­ch’ulp’anbu,­1994. Yi­Puk-­man.­Yijo sahoe kyongjesa.­Seoul:­Taesang­Ch’ulp’ansa,­1948. Yi­Pyong-­ch’on,­ed.­Pukhan hakgye ŭi Han’guk kundaesa nonjaeng: Sahoe sŏngkyŏk kwa sidae kupun.­Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­pip’yŏngsa,­1989. Yi­Pyŏng-­do.­Chosŏnsa taegwan.­Seoul:­Tongjisa,­1948. ———.­Koryŏ sidae ŭi yŏn’gu: T’ŭkhi chiri toch’am sasang ŭi palchŏn ŭl chungsim ŭro.­1954.­Seoul:­Asea­munhwasa,­1980. ———.­Yŏksaga ŭi yuhyang,­ed.­Chindan­hakhoe.­Seoul:­Ilchogak,­1991. Yi­T’ae-­jin.­Kojong sidae ŭi chae-chomyŏng.­Seoul:­T’aehaksa,­2000. Yi­U-­song­and­Kang­Man-­gil,­eds.­Han’guk ŭi yoksa insik.­Seoul:­Ch’angjak­kwa­ pip’yŏngsa,­1976. Yi­Yŏng-­hun.­Taehan Min’guk iyagi.­Seoul:­Kip’arang,­2007. ———.­“Wae­tasi­haebang­chŏnhusa­inga.”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chaeinsik,­vol.­1.­ Seoul:­Chaek­sesang,­2006. Yu­In-­ho.­“Haebang-­hu­nongji­kaehyŏk­ŭi­chŏn’gaekwajŏng­kwa­sŏnggyŏk.”­Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik,­vol.­1,­ed.­Song­Kŏn-­ho­et­al.­Seoul:­Han’gilsa,­1979. Yu­Kil-­chun.­Sŏyu kyŏnmun: Chosŏn chisigin Yu Kil-chun, Sŏyang ŭl pŏnyŏk hada,­ trans.­and­ed.­Hŏ­Kyŏng-­jin.­Seoul:­Sŏhae­munjip,­2004. Yun­Ch’i-­ho.­Yun Ch’i-ho ilgi.­Seoul:­Kuksa­py’ŏnchan­wiwŏnhoe,­1973–1989. Yun­Hae-­dong­et­al.­Kŭndae rŭl tasi ignŭnda: Han’guk kŭndae insik ŭi saeroun p’aerŏdaim ŭl wihayŏ.­Seoul:­Yŏksa­pip’yŏngsa,­2006. Yun­Kŏn-­ch’a,­“Minzoku­gensō­no­satetsu:­‘Nihon­minzoku’­to­iu­jiko­teiji,”­Shisō,­ no.­834­(December­1993).

Sources­in­English Abernethy,­David­B.­The Dynamics of Global Dominance.­New­Haven:­Yale­University­Press,­2002. Allen,­Chizuko­T.­“Ch’oe­Namsŏn­at­the­Height­of­Japanese­Imperialism,”­Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies­5,­no.­1­(2005). ———.­“Early­Migrations,­Conquests,­and­Common­Ancestry:­Theorizing­Japanese­Origins­in­Relation­with­Korea,”­Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies­8,­ no.­1­(2008). ———.­“Northeast­Asia­Centered­around­Korea:­Ch’oe­Namsŏn’s­View­of­History.”­Journal of Asian Studies­49,­no.­4­(1990). Anderson,­Benedict.­Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.­London:­Verso,­1983. Anghie,­Antony.­Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law.­ Cambridge:­Cambridge­University­Press,­2004. Arendt,­Hannah.­The Origins of Totalitarianism.­1968.­Oxford:­Benediction­Classics,­2009. Armstrong,­Charles.­The North Korean Revolution, 1945–1950.­Ithaca:­Cornell­University­Press,­2003.

BiBLioGraphy

Badger,­Reid.­The Great American Fair: The World’s Columbian Exposition and American Culture.­Chicago:­N.­Hall,­1979. Badiou,­Alain.­Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil,­translated­by­Peter­ Hallward.­New­York:­Verso,­2001. Bailey,­Anne­M.,­and­Josep­R.­Llobera,­eds.­The Asiatic Mode of Production: Science and Politics.­London:­Routledge,­1981. Balibar,­Etienne,­and­Immanuel­Wallerstein,­eds.­Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities.­New­York:­Verso,­1991. Barnett,­Ferdinand­L.­The Reason Why the Colored American Is Not in the World’s Columbian Exposition,­ed.­Robert­W.­Rydell.­1893.­Chicago:­University­of­Illinois­Press,­1999. Barrows,­John­Henry,­ed.­The World’s Parliament of Religions.­Vol.­1.­Chicago:­The­ Parliament­Publishing­Company,­1893. Beasley,­W.­G.,­and­Edwin­G.­Pulleyblank.­Historians of China and Japan.­London:­ Oxford­University­Press,­1961. Bederman,­Gail.­Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917.­Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­Press,­1984. Berlant,­Lauren.­Cruel Optimism.­Durham:­Duke­University­Press,­2011. Bernstein,­Gail­Lee.­Japanese Marxist: A Portrait of Kawakami Hajime, 1879–1946.­ Harvard­East­Asian­Series,­no.­86.­Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Press,­1976. Bharucha,­Rustom.­Another Asia: Rabindranath Tagore and Okakura Tenshin.­New­ Delhi­and­New­York:­Oxford­University­Press,­2009. Bird,­Isabella­L.­Korea and Her Neighbors.­Boston:­kPi,­1985.­(1897) Bohnet,­Adam­Clarence­Immanuel.­“Migrant­and­Border­Subjects­in­Late­ Chosŏn.”­Ph.D.­dissertation,­University­of­Toronto,­2008. Breuker,­Remco­E.­“Contested­Objectivities:­Ikeuchi­Hiroshi,­Kim­Sanggi­and­the­ Tradition­of­Oriental­History­(Tōyōshigaku)­in­Japan­and­Korea.”­East Asian History­29­(2005). ———.­“Koryŏ­as­an­Independent­Realm:­The­Emperor’s­Clothes?”­Korean Studies­27­(2004). Burris,­John­P.­Exhibiting Religion: Colonialism and Spectacle at International Expositions.­Charlottesville:­University­of­Virginia­Press,­2002. Buswell,­Robert.­“Buddhism­in­Korea.”­Buddhism and Asian History,­ed.­Joseph­M.­ Kitagawa­and­Mark­D.­Cummings.­New­York:­Macmillan,­1989. Ceuster,­Koen­de.­“The­Nation­Exorcised.”­Korean Studies­25,­no.­2­(2001). Chandra,­Vipan.­Imperialism, Resistance, and Reform in Late Nineteenth-Century Korea.­Berkeley:­Institute­of­East­Asian­Studies,­University­of­California,­1988. Chang,­Gordon­H.­“Whose­‘Barbarism’?­Whose­‘Treachery’?­Race­and­Civilization­in­the­Unknown­United­States–Korea­War­of­1871.”­Journal of American History­89,­no.­4­(2003). Chatterjee,­Partha.­The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories.­Princeton:­Princeton­University­Press,­1993. ———.­Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse.­Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­1986.

235

236

BiBLioGraphy

Chicago­Daily­News,­The Chicago Record’s History of the World’s Fair.­Chicago:­Chicago­Daily­News­Co.,­1893. Choe,­Yŏngho,­et­al.,­eds.­Sources of Korean Tradition,­vol.­2.­New­York:­Columbia­ University­Press,­2000. Choi,­Jang-­jip.­“Political­Cleavages­in­South­Korea.”­State and Society in Contemporary Korea,­ed.­Hagen­Koo.­Ithaca:­Cornell­University­Press,­1993. Chou,­Evan­Shan.­“‘A­Story­about­Hair’:­A­Curious­Mirror­of­Lu­Xun’s­Pre-­ Republican­Years.”­Journal of Asian Studies­66,­no.­2­(2007). Chow,­Kai-­wing.­“Narrating­Nation,­Race,­and­National­Culture:­Imagining­the­ Hanzu­Identity­in­Modern­China.”­Constructing Nationhood in Modern East Asia,­ed.­Kai-­wing­Chow,­Kevin­M.­Doak,­and­Poshek­Fu.­Ann­Arbor:­University­of­Michigan­Press,­2001. Chow,­Rey.­Women and Modernity: The Politics of Reading between East and West.­ Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­1991. Choy,­Bong-­Youn.­Koreans in America.­Chicago:­Nelson-­Hall,­1979. Clark,­Donald­N.­“Sino-­Korean­Tributary­Relations­under­the­Ming.”­The Ming Dynasty, 1398–1644,­part­2,­ed.­Denis­Twitchett­and­Frederick­W.­Mote.­The Cambridge History of China,­vol.­8.­Cambridge:­Cambridge­University­Press,­ 1998. Conner,­Walker.­“A­Nation­Is­a­Nation,­Is­a­State,­Is­an­Ethnic­Group,­Is­a.­.­.­.”­ Ethnic and Racial Studies­1,­no.­4­(1978). Cronon,­William.­Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West.­New­York:­W.­W.­ Norton,­1992. Cumings,­Bruce.­“Archaeology,­Descent,­Emergence:­Japan­in­British/American­Hegemony,­1900–1950.”­Japan in the World,­ed.­Masao­Miyoshi­and­H.­D.­ Harootunian.­Durham:­Duke­University­Press,­1993. ———.­“The­Korea­War:­What­Is­It­That­We­Are­Remembering­to­Forget?”­Ruptured Histories: War, Memory, and the Post–Cold War in Asia,­ed.­Sheila­Miyoshi­ Jager­and­Rana­Mitter.­Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Press,­2007. ———.­The Origins of the Korean War:­Vol.­1,­Liberation and the Emergence of Separate Regimes, 1945–1947.­Princeton:­Princeton­University­Press,­1981. ———.­The Origins of the Korean War:­Vol.­2,­The Roaring of the Cataract, 1947– 1950.­Princeton:­Princeton­University­Press,­1990. De­Bary,­W.­M.­Theodore,­and­Jahyun­Haboush­Kim.­The Rise of Neo-Confucianism in Korea.­New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­1985. Degras,­Jane.­The Communist International, 1919–1943.­3­vols.­London:­Oxford­University­Press,­1956–65. Deleuze,­Gilles­and­Felix­Guattari.­Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.­ 1977.­Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­1983. Deuchler,­Martina.­Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys: The Opening of Korea, 1875–1885.­Seattle:­University­of­Washington­Press,­1977. ———.­The Confucian Transformation of Korea:­A Study of Society and Ideology.­ Cambridge:­Council­on­East­Asian­Studies,­Harvard­University,­1992.

BiBLioGraphy

———.­“The­Practice­of­Confucianism:­Ritual­and­Order­in­Chosŏn­Dynasty­ Korea.”­Rethinking Confucianism: Past and Present in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam,­ed.­Benjamin­A.­Elman,­John­B.­Duncan,­and­Herman­Ooms.­Los­ Angeles:­uclA­Asian­Pacific­Monograph­Series,­2002. Dirlik,­Arif.­Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution.­Berkeley:­University­of­California­ Press,­1991. Doak,­Kevin.­“Ethnic­Nationalism­and­Romanticism­in­Early­Twentieth-­Century­ Japan.”­Journal of Japanese Studies­22,­no.­1­(1996). ———.­“What­Is­a­Nation­and­Who­Belongs?”­American Historical Review­102,­ no.­2­(1997). Duara,­Prasenjit.­“Bifurcating­Linear­History:­Nation­and­Histories­in­China­and­ India.”­positions­1,­no.­3­(1993). ———.­Rescuing History from the Nation.­Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­Press,­ 1995. ———.­Sovereignty and Authenticity: Manchukuo and the East Asian Modern.­Lanham,­Md.:­Rowman­and­Littlefield,­2003. Dudden,­Alexis.­Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power.­Honolulu:­University­of­Hawaii­Press,­2004. ———.­“Japan’s­Engagement­with­International­Terms.”­Tokens of Exchange:­The Problem of Translation in Global Circulations,­ed.­Lydia­H.­Liu.­Durham:­Duke­ University­Press,­1999. Duncan,­John­B.­“Hyanghwain:­Migration­and­Assimilation­in­Chosŏn­Korea.”­ Acta Koreana­3­(July­2000). ———.­The Origins of the Chosŏn Dynasty.­Seattle:­University­of­Washington­ Press,­2000. Eckert,­Carter.­Offspring of Empire: The Koch’ang Kims and the Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism, 1876–1945.­Seattle:­University­of­Washington­Press,­1991. Eckert,­Carter,­et­al.­Korea, Old and New: A History.­Cambridge:­Korea­Institute,­ Harvard­University,­1990. Em,­Henry.­“Civil­Affairs­Training­and­the­U.S.­Military­Government­in­Korea.”­ Chicago Occasional Papers on Korea,­ed.­Bruce­Cumings.­Chicago:­Select­Papers­ No.­6,­Center­for­East­Asian­Studies,­University­of­Chicago,­1991. ———.­“Historians­and­History­Writing­in­Modern­Korea.”­Oxford History of Historical Writing:­Vol.­5,­Historical Writing Since 1945,­ed.­Axel­Schneider­and­ Daniel­Woolf.­New­York:­Oxford­University­Press,­2011. ———.­“Minjok­as­a­Modern­and­Democratic­Construct:­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho’s­Historiography.”­Colonial Modernity in Korea,­ed.­Gi-­Wook­Shin­and­Michael­E.­Robinson.­Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Asia­Center,­1999. ———.­“‘Overcoming’­Korea’s­Division:­Narrative­Strategies­in­Recent­South­ Korean­Historiography.”­positions: east asia cultures critique­1,­no.­2­(1993). Engels,­Frederick.­The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State:­In the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan.­1884.­New­York:­International­Publishers,­1942.

237

238

BiBLioGraphy

Ernest­F.­Fenollosa.­Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art: an Outline History of East Asiatic Design.­New­York:­Frederick­A.­Stokes,­1911. Fogel,­Johua­A.­“The­Debates­over­the­Asiatic­Mode­of­Production­in­Soviet­Russia,­China,­and­Japan.”­American Historical Review­93,­no.­1­(1988). Fukuzawa,­Yukichi.­An Encouragement of Learning,­trans.­David­A.­Dilworth­and­ Umeyo­Hirano.­Tokyo:­Sophia­University­Press,­1969. Geertz,­Clifford.­“Notes­on­the­Balinese­Cockfight,”­The Interpretation of Cultures.­ New­York:­Basic­Books,­1973. Gellner,­Ernest.­Nations and Nationalism.­Ithaca:­Cornell­University­Press,­1983. Giddens,­Anthony.­The Nation-State and Violence.­Berkeley:­University­of­California­Press,­1987. Grayson,­James­H.­Korea: A Religious History.­New­York:­Oxford­University­Press,­ 1989. Griffis,­William­E.­A Modern Pioneer in Korea: The Life Story of Henry G. Appenzeller.­ New­York:­Fleming­H.­Revell,­1912. Haboush,­JaHyun­Kim.­“Constructing­the­Center:­The­Ritual­Controversy­and­ the­Search­for­a­New­Identity­in­Seventeenth-­Century­Korea.”­Culture and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea,­ed.­JaHyun­Kim­Haboush­and­Martina­Deuchler.­ Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Asia­Center,­1999. ———.­“Filial­Emotions­and­Filial­Values:­Changing­Patterns­in­the­Discourse­ of­Filiality­in­Late­Chosŏn­Korea.”­Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies­55,­no.­1­ (1995). Han,­Hong-­koo.­“Wounded­Nationalism:­The­Minsaengdan­Incident­and­Kim­Il­ Sung­in­Manchuria.”­Ph.D.­dissertation,­University­of­Washington,­1999. Han,­Young-­woo.­“Kija­Worship­in­the­Koryŏ­and­Early­Yi­Dynasties:­A­Cultural­Symbol­in­the­Relationship­between­Korea­and­China,”­The Rise of NeoConfucianism in Korea,­ed.­W.­M.­Theodore­de­Bary­and­JaHyun­Kim­Haboush.­ New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­1985. Handy,­E.­S.­Craighill,­and­Mary­Kawena­Pukui.­The Polynesian Family System in Ka-u, Hawai’i.­Rutland,­Vt.:­Charles­E.­Tuttle,­1972. Hardt,­Michael,­and­Antonio­Negri.­Commonwealth.­Cambridge,­Mass.:­Belknap­ Press­of­Harvard­University,­2009. ———.­Empire.­Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Press,­2000. ———.­Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire.­New­York:­Penguin­ Books,­2004. Harootunian,­Harry­D.­Things Seen and Unseen: Discourse and Ideology in Tokugawa Nativism.­Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­Press,­1988. ———.­Toward Restoration: The Growth of Political Consciousness in Tokugawa Japan.­Berkeley:­University­of­California­Press,­1970. Harootunian,­Harry­D.,­and­Tetsuo­Najita.­“Japanese­Revolt­against­the­West.”­ The Cambridge History of Japan,­vol.­6,­ed.­Peter­Duus.­Cambridge:­Cambridge­ University­Press,­1988. Hevia,­James­L.­Cherishing Men from Afar: Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of 1793.­Durham:­Duke­University­Press,­1995.

BiBLioGraphy

———.­English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteenth-Century China.­ Durham:­Duke­University­Press,­2003. Hinsley,­F.­H.­Sovereignty.­2nd­edition.­Cambridge:­Cambridge­University­Press,­ 1986. Hobsbawm,­E.­J.­Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality.­ Cambridge:­Cambridge­University­Press,­1990. Homer­B.­Hulbert.­“Introductory­Note,”­Korea Review­(1901). Hopkins,­Terence­K.,­and­Immanuel­Wallerstein.­“Patterns­of­Development­of­the­ Modern­World-­System.”­Review­1,­no.­2­(1977). Hughes,­Theodore.­Literature and Film in Cold War South Korea: Freedom’s Frontier.­ New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­2012. Huh,­Tae-­yong.­“A­Critical­Review­on­the­Issue­of­Proto-­Nationalism­during­Late­ Chosŏn.”­International Journal of Korean History­12­(August­2008). Humphrey,­Caroline,­and­James­Laidlaw.­The Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of Worship.­Oxford:­Clarendon­Press,­1994. Hwang,­Su-­young.­“Sŏkkuram­Grotto­Shrine.”­Koreana­6,­no.­4­(1992). Ihwa­Yŏksagwan.­Ewha Old and New: 110 Years of History (1886–1996).­Seoul:­Ewha­ Woman’s­University­Press,­2005. Iryŏn.­Samguk yusa,­trans.­Tae-­Hung­Ha­and­Grafton­K.­Mintz.­Seoul:­Yonsei­University­Press,­2004. Jaisohn,­Philip.­My Days in Korea and Other Essays.­Seoul:­Yonsei­University­Press,­ 1999. Jameson,­Fredric.­The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act.­ Ithaca:­Cornell­University­Press,­1981. Karl,­Rebecca.­Staging the World: Chinese Nationalism at the Turn of the Twentieth Century.­Durham:­Duke­University­Press,­2002. Kawashima,­Fujiya.­“Cultural­Localism­in­the­Late­Chosŏn­Dynasty­and­Its­Significance­in­Modern­Korea.”­Bulletin of Hiroshima Jogakuin University,­no.­45­ (December­1995). Kedourie,­Elie.­Nationalism.­London:­Hutchinson,­1960. Ketelaar,­James­Edward.­Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution.­Princeton:­Princeton­University­Press,­1990. Kim,­Dong-­Choon­[Kim­Tong-­chun].­“The­Long­Road­Toward­Truth­and­Reconciliation:­Unwavering­Attempts­to­Achieve­Justice­in­South­Korea,”­Critical Asian Studies­42,­no.­4­(2010). ———.­The Unending Korean War: A Social History.­Larkspur,­Calif.:­Tamal­Vista­ Publications,­2009. Kim,­Dong-­Uk.­“Chongmyo.”­Korea Journal­40,­no.­3­(2000). Kim,­Key-­Hiuk.­“The­Aims­of­Li’s­Policies­towards­Japan­and­Korea,­1870–1882.”­ Chinese Studies in History­24,­no.­4­(1991). ———.­The Last Phase of the East Asian World Order: Korea, Japan, and the Chinese Empire, 1860–1882.­Berkeley:­University­of­California­Press,­1980. Kim,­Kyu­Hyun.­“Reflections­on­the­Problems­of­Colonial­Modernity­and­‘Col-

239

240

BiBLioGraphy

laboration’­in­Modern­Korean­History.”­Journal of International and Area Studies­ 11,­no.­3­(2004). Kim,­Richard.­The Quest for Statehood: Korean Immigrant Nationalism and U.S. Sovereignty, 1905–1945.­New­York:­Oxford­University­Press,­2011. Kim,­Youngna.­20th Century Korean Art.­London:­Laurence­King,­2005. King,­Ross.­“Nationalism­and­Language­Reform­in­Korea:­The­Questione della Lingua­in­Precolonial­Korea.”­Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity,­ ed.­Pai­Hyung-­Il­and­Timothy­R.­Tangherlini.­Berkeley:­Institute­of­East­Asian­ Studies,­University­of­California,­1998. ———.­“Western­Protestant­Missionaries­and­the­Origins­of­Korean­Language­ Modernization.”­Journal of International and Area Studies­11,­no.­3­(2004). Koselleck,­Reinhart.­Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time,­trans.­Keith­ Tribe.­Cambridge:­Mit­Press,­1985. Koskenniemi,­Martti.­The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960.­Cambridge:­Cambridge­University­Press,­2001. Krasner,­Stephen­D.­Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy.­Princeton:­Princeton­University­Press,­1999. Kwon,­Insook.­“Feminists­Navigating­the­Shoals­of­Nationalism­and­Collaboration:­The­Post-­Colonial­Korean­Debate­over­How­to­Remember­Kim­Hwal-­ lan.”­Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies­27,­no.­1­(2006). Laclau,­Ernesto,­and­Chantal­Mouffe.­Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.­London:­Verso,­1985. Lancaster,­Lewis­R.­Introduction­to­Buddhism in Koryŏ:­A Royal Religion,­ed.­ Lewis­R.­Lancaster,­Kikun­Suh,­and­Chai-­Shin­Yu.­1996;­Fremont,­Calif.:­ Asian­Humanities­Press,­2002. Larsen,­Kirk­W.­Tradition, Treaties, and Trade: Qing Imperialism and Chosŏn Korea, 1850–1910.­Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Asia­Center,­Harvard­University­ Press,­2008. Ledyard,­Gari.­“Hong­Taeyong­and­His­Peking Memoir,”­Korean Studies­6­(1982). Lee,­Chong-­Sik.­Korean Workers’ Party: A Short History.­Stanford:­Hoover­Institution­Press,­1978. ———.­Revolutionary Struggle in Manchuria.­Berkeley:­University­of­California­ Press,­1983. Lee,­Chulwoo.­“Modernity,­Legality,­and­Power­in­Korea­under­Japanese­Rule.”­ Colonial Modernity in Korea,­ed.­Gi-­Wook­Shin­and­Michael­Robinson.­Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Asia­Center,­1999. Lee,­Jinhee.­“The­Enemy­Within:­Earthquake,­Rumours­and­Massacre­in­the­Japanese­Empire.”­Violence: “Mercurial Gestalt,”­ed.­Tobe­Levin.­New­York:­Rodopi,­ 2008. Lee,­Ki-­baik­[Yi­Ki-­baek].­A New History of Korea,­trans.­Edward­W.­Wagner.­Cambridge:­Harvard-­Yenching­Institute,­1984. Lee,­Namhee.­The Making of Minjung: Democracy and the Politics of Representation in South Korea.­Ithaca:­Cornell­University­Press,­2007.

BiBLioGraphy

Lee,­Peter,­et­al.,­eds.­Sourcebook of Korean Civilization:­vol.­1,­From Early Times to the Sixteenth Century.­New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­1993. ———­et­al.,­eds.­Sourcebook of Korean Civilization:­vol.­2,­From the Seventeenth Century to the Modern Period.­New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­1996. Lee,­Yeounsuk.­The Ideology of Kokugo: Nationalizing Language in Modern Japan,­ trans.­Maki­Hirano­Hubbard.­Honolulu:­University­of­Hawaii­Press,­2010. Lee,­Yur-­bok.­“Establishment­of­a­Korean­Legation­in­the­United­States,­1887– 1890.”­Illinois Papers in Asian Studies­3­(1983). Lensen,­George­Alexander.­Balance of Intrigue: International Rivalry in Korea and Manchuria, 1884–1899,­vol.­2.­Tallahassee:­University­Presses­of­Florida,­ 1982. Lew,­Young­Ick.­“An­Analysis­of­the­Reform­Documents­of­the­Kabo­Reform­ Movement,­1894.”­Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities­40­(December­ 1974). ———.­“The­Conservative­Character­of­the­1894­Tonghak­Peasant­Uprising:­A­ Reappraisal­with­Emphasis­on­Chon­Pong-­Jun’s­Background­and­Motivation.”­ Journal of Korean Studies­7­(1990). ———.­“Korean-­Japanese­Politics­behind­the­Kabo-­Ŭlmi­Reform­Movement.”­ Journal of Korean Studies­3­(1981). ———.­“Minister­Inoue­Kaoru­and­the­Japanese­Reform­Attempts­in­Korea­ During­the­Sino-­Japanese­War,­1894–1895.”­Journal of Asiatic Studies­27,­no.­2­ (1984). ———.­“On­Two­English­Documents­Related­to­Pak­Yong-­hyo’s­Reforms,­1895.”­ Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities­42­(December­1975). ———.­“The­Reform­Efforts­and­Ideas­of­Pak­Yong-­hyo,­1894–1895.”­Korean Studies­1­(1977). ———.­“Yuan­Shih-­k’ai’s­Residency­and­the­Korean­Enlightenment­Movement,­ 1885–94.”­Journal of Korean Studies­5­(1984). Lippert,­Wolfgang.­“The­Formation­and­Development­of­the­Term­‘Political­Economy’­in­Japanese­and­Chinese.”­Mapping Meanings: The Field of New Learning in Late Qing China,­ed.­Michael­Lackner­and­Natascha­Vittinghoff.­Boston:­Brill­ Academic­Publishers,­2004. Liu,­Lydia.­“The­Desire­for­the­Sovereign­and­the­Logic­of­Reciprocity­in­the­ Family­of­Nations.”­Diacritics­29,­no.­4­(1999). ———.­Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity. China, 1900–1937.­Stanford:­Stanford­University­Press,­1995. Locke,­John.­Second Treatise of Government,­ed.­C.­B.­Macpherson.­Indianapolis,­ Ind.:­Hackett,­1980. ———.­Some Thoughts Concerning Education,­ed.­John­W.­and­Jean­S.­Yolton.­ New­York:­Oxford­University­Press,­1989. Marshall,­Byron­K.­“The­Tradition­of­Conflict­in­the­Governance­of­Japanese­Imperial­Universities.”­History of Education Quarterly­17,­no.­4­(1977). Masuzawa,­Tomoko.­The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Universal-

241

242

BiBLioGraphy

ism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism.­Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­ Press,­2005. Mbembe,­Achille.­“Necropolitics,”­Public Culture­15,­no.­1­(2003). Mehta,­Uday­Singh.­Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth Century British Liberal Thought.­Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­Press,­1999. Miller,­Owen.­“The­Idea­of­Stagnation­in­Korean­Historiography,”­Korean Histories­ 2,­no.­1­(2010). Min,­Hyŏn-­ku.­“Koryŏ­Politics­under­Mongol­Control:­Dynastic­Continuity­During­the­Period­of­Royal­Absence.”­International Journal of Korean History­1­ (2000). Moore,­Barrington.­Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World.­Boston:­Beacon­Press,­1966. Morgan,­Lewis­Henry.­Ancient Society.­New­York:­Henry­Holt,­1878. Mutsu,­Munemitsu.­Kenkenroku: The Memoirs of Count Mutsu Munemitsu,­trans.­ Gorden­M.­Berger.­Tokyo:­University­of­Tokyo­Press,­1982. Myers,­Ramon­H.,­and­Mark­R.­Peattie,­eds.­The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895– 1945.­Princeton:­Princeton­University­Press,­1984. Nahm,­Chun-­woo.­“Discoveries­of­Hitherto­Forgotten­Sciences­in­Sŏkkuram­ Temple,”­Chindan hakbo­32­(1969). Ngai,­Mae­M.­“Transnationalism­and­the­Transformation­of­the­‘Other’:­Response­ to­the­Presidential­Address.”­American Quarterly­57,­no.­1­(2005). Norman,­Jerry.­Chinese.­Cambridge:­Cambridge­University­Press,­1988. Notehelfer,­F.­G.­“On­Idealism­and­Realism­in­the­Thought­of­Okakura­Tenshin.”­ Journal of Japanese Studies­16,­no.­2­(1990). Numata,­Jirō.­“Shigeno­Yasutsugu­and­the­Modern­Tokyo­Tradition­of­Historical­Writing.”­Historians of Japan and China,­ed.­W.­G.­Beasley­and­E.­G.­Pulleyblank.­London:­Oxford­University­Press,­1961. Okakura,­Kakuzō.­Ideals of the East with Special Reference to the Art of Japan.­London:­John­Murray,­1903. ———.­The Awakening of the East­[1938].­Tokyo:­Seibun-­kaku,­1940. Oliver,­Robert­T.­Syngman Rhee: The Man behind the Myth.­New­York:­Dodd,­ Mead,­1954. Osterhammel,­Jūrgen.­Colonialism,­trans.­Shelley­Frisch.­Princeton:­Markus­ Wiener,­2005. Pai,­Hyung­Il.­Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State-Formation Theories.­Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Asia­Center,­2000. ———.­“The­Creation­of­National­Treasures­and­Monuments:­The­1916­Japanese­Laws­on­the­Preservation­of­Korean­Remains­and­Relics­and­Their­Colonial­Legacies.”­Korean Studies­25,­no.­1­(2001). Pak,­Che-­ga.­“Chonju­ron,”­Sources of Korean Tradition,­trans.­Martina­Deuchler,­ ed.­Yŏngho­Ch’oe­et­al.­New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­2000. Palais,­James­B.­Confucian Statecraft and Korean Institutions: Yu Hyŏngwŏn and the Late Chosŏn Dynasty.­Seattle:­University­of­Washington­Press,­1996.

BiBLioGraphy

———.­Politics and Policy in Traditional Korea.­Cambridge:­Harvard­University­ Press,­1975. ———.­“Stability­in­Chosŏn­Dynasty­Korea,”­Occasional Papers on Korea­3­(June­ 1975). Palmer,­Spencer­J.,­ed.­Korean-American Relations: Documents Pertaining to the Far Eastern Diplomacy of the United States,­vol.­2.­Berkeley:­University­of­California­ Press,­1963. Pang,­Kie-­chung­[Pang­Ki-­jun].­“Yi­Hun-­gu’s­Agricultural­Reform­Theory­and­ Nationalist­Economic­Thought.”­Seoul Journal of Korean Studies­19,­no.­1­ (2006). Pang,­Kie-­chung,­and­Michael­D.­Shin,­eds.­Landlords, Peasants, and Intellectuals in Modern Korea.­Cornell­East­Asia­Series­No.­128,­Ithaca:­Cornell­University­ Press,­2005. Park,­Tae-­Gyun.­“Different­Roads,­Common­Destination:­Economic­Discourses­in­ South­Korea­During­the­1950s.”­Modern Asian Studies­39,­no.­3­(2005). Pastreich,­Emanuel.­“The­Reception­of­Chinese­Vernacular­Narrative­in­Korea­ and­Japan.”­Ph.D.­dissertation,­Harvard­University,­1997. Perez,­Louis­G.­“Mutsu­Munemitsu­and­the­Revision­of­the­‘Unequal’­Treaties,”­ Ph.D.­dissertation,­University­of­Michigan,­1986. Poole,­Janet.­“Colonial­Interiors:­Modernist­Fiction­of­Korea,”­Ph.D.­dissertation,­ Columbia­University,­2004. Pyun,­Chong­Wha.­“The­Visit­of­the­Korean­Mission­to­Boston­in­1883­and­the­ Beginning­of­Scientific­and­Technological­Interactions­between­Korea­and­the­ United­States.”­Han’guk kwahak sahakhoeji­4,­no.­1­(1982). Rhee,­Syngman.­The Spirit of Independence: A Primer of Korean Modernization and Reform,­translated,­annotated,­and­with­an­introduction­by­Han-­kyo­Kim.­ Honolulu:­University­of­Hawaii­Press,­2001. Ricoeur,­Paul.­Lectures on Ideology and Utopia,­ed.­George­H.­Taylor.­New­York:­ Columbia­University­Press,­1986. ———.­The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning of Language.­Toronto:­University­of­Toronto­Press,­1977. Robinson,­Michael­E.­“Colonial­Publication­Policy­and­the­Korean­Nationalist­ Movement.”­The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945,­ed.­Ramon­H.­Myers­and­ Mark­R.­Peattie.­Princeton:­Princeton­University­Press,­1984. ———.­Cultural Nationalism in Colonial Korea, 1920–1925.­Seattle:­University­of­ Washington­Press,­1988. ———.­“National­Identity­and­the­Thought­of­Sin­Ch’aeho.”­Journal of Korean Studies­5­(1984). Rosenberg,­Justin.­The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations.­London:­Verso,­1994. Rostow,­W.­W.­A Proposal: Key to an Effective Foreign Policy.­New­York:­Harper­and­ Brothers,­1957. ———.­The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto.­Cambridge:­ Cambridge­University­Press,­1960.

243

244

BiBLioGraphy

Rydell,­Robert.­All the World’s a Fair.­Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­Press,­1984. Scalapino,­Robert­A.,­and­Chong-­Sik­Lee.­Communism in Korea.­2­vols.­Berkeley:­ University­of­California­Press,­1972–73. Schmid,­Andre.­Korea between Empires, 1895–1919.­New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­2002. ———.­“Rediscovering­Manchuria:­Sin­Ch’aeho­and­the­Politics­of­Territorial­ History­in­Korea.”­Journal of Asian Studies­56,­no.­1­(1997). ———.­“Tributary­Relations­and­the­Qing-­Chosŏn­Frontier­on­Mount­Paektu.”­ The Chinese State at the Borders,­ed.­Diana­Lary.­Vancouver:­ubc­Press,­2008. Schmitt,­Carl.­The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.­New­York:­Telos­Press,­2003. Seager,­Richard­Hughes.­The World’s Parliament of Religions: The East / West Encounter, Chicago, 1983.­Bloomington:­Indiana­University­Press,­1995. Shim,­Jae-­Hoon.­“A­New­Understanding­of­Kija­Chosŏn­as­a­Historical­Anachronism.”­Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies­62,­no.­2­(2002). Shin,­Gi-­Wook,­and­Michael­E.­Robinson,­eds.­Colonial Modernity in Korea.­Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Asia­Center,­1999. Shin,­Ju­Baek­[Sin­Chu-­baek].­“Perception­of­August­15­Remembered­in­and­Forgotten­from­Korean­Textbooks.”­Review of Korean Studies­8,­no.­1­(2005). Shin,­Michael­D.­Introduction­to­Landlords, Peasants and Intellectuals,­ed.­Pang­ Kie-­chung­and­Michael­D.­Shin.­Ithaca:­Cornell­University­Press,­2005. Shin,­Yong-­ha.­“The­Revolutionary­Movement­of­the­Tonghak­Peasant­Army­of­ 1894:­Seen­vis-­à-­vis­the­French­Revolution,”­Korea Journal­29,­no.­10­(1989). Sill,­John­M.­B.­Letter­to­the­secretary­of­state,­January­4,­1895,­in­KoreanAmerican Relations: Documents Pertaining to the Far Eastern Diplomacy of the United States,­Vol.­2,­ed.­Spencer­J.­Palmer.­Berkeley:­University­of­California­ Press,­1963. Smith,­Sidonie,­and­Julia­Watson.­Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting Life Narratives.­2nd­ed.­Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­2010. Snodgrass,­Judith.­Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West: Orientalism, Occidentalism, and the Columbian Exposition.­Chapel­Hill:­University­of­North­Carolina­ Press,­2003. Sohn,­Pokee.­Social History of the Early Chosŏn Dynasty: The Functional Aspects of Governmental Structure.­Seoul:­Jisik-­sanup­Publications,­2000. Son,­Min­Suh.­“Enlightenment­and­Electrification:­The­Introduction­of­Electric­ Light,­Telegraph­and­Streetcars­in­Late­Nineteenth­Century­Korea.”­Reform and Modernity in the Taehan Empire,­ed.­Kim­Dong-­no,­John­B.­Duncan,­and­ Kim­Do-­hyung.­Seoul:­Jimoondang,­2006. Stalin,­Joseph.­Marxism and Linguistics.­New­York:­International­Publishers,­1951. Suh,­Hee-­Kyung.­“Atrocities­Before­and­During­the­Korean­War,”­Critical Asian Studies­42,­no.­4­(2010). Suh,­Jae-­Jung.­“Truth­and­Reconciliation­in­South­Korea,”­Critical Asian Studies­ 42,­no.­4­(2010).

BiBLioGraphy

Suh,­Serk-­Bae.­“The­Wanpaoshan­Incident­and­the­Anti-­Chinese­Riots­in­Colonial­ Korea,”­unpublished­paper. Tanaka,­Stefan.­“Imaging­History:­Inscribing­Belief­in­the­Nation.”­Journal of Asian Studies­53,­no.­1­(1994). ———.­Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pasts into History.­Berkeley:­University­of­California­Press,­1993. ———.­New Times in Modern Japan.­Princeton:­Princeton­University­Press,­ 2006. Tocqueville,­Alexis­de.­The Old Regime and the French Revolution,­trans.­John­Bonner.­New­York:­Harper­and­Brothers,­1856. Trachtenberg,­Alan.­The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age.­New­York:­Hill­and­Wang,­1982. Trautmann,­Thomas.­Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship.­Berkeley:­ University­of­California­Press,­1987. Uchida,­Jun.­Brokers of Empire: Japanese Settler Colonialism in Korea, 1876–1945.­ Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Asia­Center,­2011. United­States,­Office­of­the­Provost­Marshal­General.­History of Military Government Training,­vol.­1.­1945.­Microfilm. Van­der­Grijp,­Paul.­“Pioneer­of­Untaught­Anthropology:­Recontextualizing­ Lewis­H.­Morgan­and­His­Kinship­Perspective.”­Dialectical Anthropology­22­ (1997). Van­Lieu,­Joshua­John.­“Divergent­Visions­of­Serving­the­Great:­The­Emergence­ of­Chosŏn-­Qing­Tributary­Relations.”­Ph.D.­dissertation,­University­of­Washington,­2010. Vermeersch,­Sem.­The Power of the Buddhas: The Politics of Buddhism During the Koryŏ Dynasty.­Cambridge:­Harvard­University­Asia­Center,­2008. Wales,­Nym,­and­Kim­San.­Song of Ariran: A Korean Communist in the Chinese Revolution­[1941].­San­Francisco:­Ramparts­Press,­1972. Weber,­Eugen.­Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870– 1914.­Stanford:­Stanford­University­Press,­1976. Weinstein,­Lucie­R.­“The­Yumedono­Kannon:­Problems­in­Seventh-­Century­ Sculpture.”­Archives of Asian Art­42­(1989). Wells,­Kenneth­M.­New God, New Nation: Protestants and Self-Reconstruction Nationalism in Korea, 1896–1937.­Honolulu:­University­of­Hawaii­Press,­1990. Whatmore,­Sarah.­“Dissecting­the­Autonomous­Self:­Hybrid­Cartographies­ for­a­Relational­Ethics.”­Geographic Thought: A Praxis Perspective,­ed.­George­ Henderson­and­Marvin­Waterstone.­New­York:­Routledge,­2008. White,­Hayden.­The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation.­Baltimore:­Johns­Hopkins­University­Press,­1987. White,­Trumbull.­The World’s Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893.­Philadelphia:­ P.­W.­Ziegler,­1893. Williams,­Raymond.­Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society.­London:­ Fontana,­1983.

245

246

BiBLioGraphy

Yi,­T’ae-­jun.­Eastern Sentiments,­trans.­Janet­Poole.­New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­2009. Young,­Robert.­White Mythologies: Writing History and the West.­New­York:­Routledge,­1990. Yun,­Peter.­“Rethinking­the­Tribute­System:­Korean­States­and­Northeast­Asian­ Interstate­Relations,­600–1600.”­Ph.D.­dissertation,­uclA,­1998.

inDex

Abernethy,­David,­187n10 Acheson,­Dean,­155,­226n43 Adwaitism,­92 Akiba,­Takashi,­219n39 Allen,­Horace­N.,­44,­53,­186n3,­188n11 alphabet.­See­Korean­alphabet Altars­of­Land­and­Harvest­(sajik),­ 22–23,­174n4,­174n6,­182n72 Altar­to­Heaven,­26–27,­176n26 American­Methodist­Episcopal­ Church,­56,­64,­193n49 anarchists:­Chinese,­214n75.­See also­ Sin­Ch’ae-­ho An,­Chae-­hong:­and­Chosŏn ilbo,­108,­ 117,­123,­126,­213n71,­219n35;­education,­216n11;­imprisonment,­216n11,­ 219n35;­with­Interim­South­Korean­ Government,­147–48;­and­Korean­ Communist­Party,­147,­223n24;­and­ Korean­studies,­131,­220n47;­nationalist­historiography­of,­126–27,­131,­ 146,­147–48,­158,­202n110,­212n59,­ 220n51,­223n18;­and­Sin’ganhoe,­117,­ 118,­213n71;­as­wartime­abductee­to­ North­Korea,­213n71,­223n25 An,­Ch’ang-­ho,­110,­111,­203n111,­ 206n126 Anderson,­Benedict,­6,­54,­79 Anglo-­Chinese­College,­63,­192n47,­ 193n49 An,­Hwak,­99,­212n59 Arendt,­Hannah,­145 Arikishi,­Tadaichi,­107 Armstrong,­George­Buchanan,­65 Armstrong,­Muriel,­65 Arnett,­Benjamin­W.,­189n27 Asiatic­society,­119,­123,­131–33,­220n50 Association­for­Korean­History­Re-

search­(Chosŏnsa­yŏn’guhoe),­145,­ 149 Auerback,­Micah,­116 autonomous­subject.­See­sovereign­ subject­(chuch’e) Awakening of the East, The­(Okakura),­ 91–92,­208n16 Badiou,­Alain,­160 Balibar,­Etienne,­101,­106 Bancroft,­Hubert­Howe,­59 Barnett,­Ferdinand­L.,­61,­192n41 Barrows,­John­Henry,­57–58,­189n27,­ 190n28 Bederman,­Gail,­191n32 Beijing:­in­colonial­era,­106–07,­109,­ 214n75;­and­Koryŏ­court,­26 Benjamin,­Walter,­129 Berlant,­Laurent,­160 Bharucha,­Rustom,­208n17 Bird,­Isabella,­22 Breuker,­Remco,­24,­26,­128 Britain:­and­Chosŏn­Korea,­30,­37,­44;­ colonial­rule­in­India,­10,­57,­88;­and­ Egypt,­30;­and­Great­Game,­30;­imperialism­in­China,­177n35,­184n89 Bronze­Age,­102 Buchanan,­James,­65 Bücher,­Karl,­12,­119 Buddhism:­and­Chosŏn­dynasty,­ 32–34,­178n42;­and­Japanese­colonial­rule,­9–10,­115–16;­and­Korean­ origin­narratives,­32,­178n43;­and­ Koryŏ­dynasty,­31–32;­and­Three­ Kingdoms­period,­93;­and­World­ Parliament­of­Religions,­60.­See also­ Guze­Kannon;­Iryŏn;­Sŏkkuram Burris,­John­P.,­57

248

inDex

capitalism:­global,­17.­See also­capitalist­ sovereignty capitalist­sovereignty,­8,­55,­66,­187n9,­ 194n61 Chandra,­Vipan,­210n38 Chang,­Chi-­yŏn,­202n111,­209n27 Chang,­Si-­wŏn,­156–57 Chang,­To-­bin,­99,­212n59 Charter­Oath­of­Meiji,­41–42,­182n76 Chewang un’gi­(Rhymed­Record­of­Emperors­and­Kings;­Yi),­81 Chicago,­Ill.:­immigrants,­60–61,­ 191n39.­See also­World’s­Columbian­ Exposition­of­1893 China:­and­British­imperialism,­ 177n35,­184n89;­decentering­of­in­ Korean­historiography,­36–37,­96,­ 120,­196n73;­exclusion­of­Chinese­ immigrants­from­U.S.,­59,­187n5,­ 191n31;­and­hair­cutting,­4,­172n10;­ and­Japanese­imperialism,­171n3;­ May­Fourth­Movement,­109;­and­ nineteenth-­century­sovereignty,­43;­ tributary­relationships,­5–6,­23–27,­ 28–30,­34–36,­37,­39,­40–41,­43,­45,­ 46,­54,­175n9,­196n73–74,­201n107,­ 204n121;­and­World’s­Columbian­ Exposition,­58–59,­191n31.­See also hanmun­(Chinese­writing­system);­ Korean­declaration­of­independence­ from­China;­Manchuria;­Ming­dynasty;­Qing­(Manchu)­dynasty;­ Sino-­Japanese­War Chindan­Society­(Chindan­hakhoe):­ during­colonial­period,­127–28,­129;­ journal­published­by,­127–28,­129,­ 219n40;­and­positivist­historiography,­13,­127,­128,­129;­postcolonial­ reconstitution­of,­14,­145,­146,­147,­ 149,­158,­222n14,­223n23.­See also­Yi,­ Pyŏng-­do Chinese­Exclusion­Act­of­1882,­59 Ch’oe,­Hyŏn-­bae,­128 Ch’oe,­Nam-­sŏn,­107,­119,­121,­127,­ 128,­146,­212n59,­217n17,­217n20,­ 220n42,­220n51

Ch’oe,­Rin,­117 Choi,­Jang-­yip,­154–55 Choi,­Kyu-­hwa,­225n36 Choi,­Sang-­ryong,­225n38 Ch’ŏndogyo­faction,­117,­221n1 Chŏng,­Hae-­gu,­154–55 Chŏng,­In-­bo,­135,­202n110,­212n59,­ 220n51,­220n54 Chŏngjo­(Chosŏn­monarch),­29,­ 181n64 Chŏng,­Kyŏng-­wŏn,­53,­186n2 chongmyo.­See­Royal­Ancestral­Temple­ (chongmyo) Chŏng,­Pyŏng-­ha,­171n9 Chŏng,­Tasan,­131.­See also­Chŏng,­Yag-­ yong Chŏng,­To-­jŏn,­33 Chŏng,­Yag-­yong,­131,­174n6 Chŏn,­Sŏk-­dam,­148 Cho,­Pak,­27–28,­177n29,­219n36 Cho,­Pong-­am,­228n52 Chōsen bijutsushi­(Sekino),­92–93 Chōsen­Bukkyōdan,­115–16 Chōsen hōken shakai keizaishi­(Economic­History­of­Korean­Feudal­ Society;­Paek),­12,­118–19,­130,­133,­ 173n28,­217n15 Chōsenjin­(Koreans),­10–11,­103,­104– 05,­212n60 Chōsen shakai keizaishi­(A­Social­Economic­History­of­Korea;­Paek),­12,­ 114,­117,­118–19,­120,­121,­130,­133,­ 134–35,­173n28,­209n28,­217n15,­ 218n26,­220n52,­220n54 Chōsenshi­(History­of­Korea;­Hayashi),­ 95,­210n35 Chōsenshi­(Korean­History;­sckH),­ 107,­146,­220n42,­223n19 Chōsenshi­henshūkai­(Society­for­the­ Compilation­of­Korean­History),­ 128–29,­146,­217n17,­220n42 Chōsen shiryō shushin­(Collection­of­ Korean­Documents;­sckH),­107,­ 220n42 Chōsen shiryō sōkan­(Archive­of­Korean­ Documents;­sckH),­107,­220n42

inDex

Chōshū­domain,­41 Chosŏn,­Ancient,­32,­80,­176n28,­ 203n112 Chosŏn­haksulwŏn­(Korean­Academy­ of­Sciences),­14,­144,­145 Chosŏn ilbo­(newspaper),­17,­108,­116– 17,­123,­125,­156,­213n70–71,­216n8,­ 219n34–35 Chosŏn­Korea­(1392–1910):­Altars­of­ Land­and­Harvest,­22–23,­174n4,­ 174n6,­182n72;­Altar­to­Heaven,­ 26–27,­176n26;­and­Buddhism,­ 32–34,­178n42;­capital­of,­176n19;­ China-­centered­tributary­system,­5–6,­23–27,­28–30,­34–37,­ 39,­40–41,­43,­45,­46,­196n73–74,­ 201n107;­Christian­missionaries,­9,­ 62,­74,­186n3,­192n45;­and­civilization­discourses,­5,­28–29,­35,­36,­62,­ 180n58,­196n73,­210n40;­collective­ identity,­76–77,­79;­and­Confucian­ ethics,­33–37,­44,­179n55,­180n57– 58,­201n105;­coup­attempt­of­1884,­ 56,­65,­188n18,­199n92;­Deliberative­ Council,­38,­39–40;­deterritorialization/reterritorialization,­4–5,­29,­ 50;­diplomacy­with­West,­7,­43–46,­ 54–55,­183n85,­186n3,­187n5;­Hall­of­ Eternal­Peace,­174n4,­175n8;­Hideyoshi­invasions,­35,­175n8,­179n55,­ 180n57;­Inspection­Mission­to­ Japan,­56,­181n68,­188n14;­Kabo­reforms,­38–40,­42,­68–69,­193n55,­ 198n82;­Manchu­invasions,­5,­36,­ 180n57;­and­Mandate­of­Heaven,­6,­ 21–22,­24–25,­26,­27–28;­national­ language,­196n72;­official­written­ language,­67,­69;­as­protectorate­of­ Japan,­9,­51,­75,­79;­purges­of­literati­and­factional­strife,­12,­94,­150,­ 224n30;­relationship­to­Ming­dynasty,­5–6,­27,­28–29,­35,­172n14,­ 196n74,­202n107;­relationship­to­ Qing­dynasty,­5–6,­28,­29,­34–35,­ 36,­37,­39,­40–41,­196n73,­202n107;­ relationship­with­Britain,­30,­37,­

44;­relationship­with­Russia,­30,­37,­ 44,­44–45;­relationship­with­U.S.,­ 29–30,­37,­40,­44,­45–46,­54,­178n37,­ 181n68,­183n87,­184n88,­184n91,­ 184n93–94,­186n3,­187n5;­ritual­ practices,­37,­47–51,­185n100–106;­ slaves­(nobi ),­23,­38,­175n7,­179n55,­ 180n57,­198n82;­social­status­system,­23,­72,­78,­83,­177n30,­198n82,­ 201n105;­and­sovereignty,­5–7,­23,­ 30–31,­34,­35,­37,­39,­43–46,­51,­ 184n88,­184n93;­Tan’gun­foundation­ myth,­6,­27–28,­32,­79–81,­176n28,­ 196n74,­203n112,­203n114–115;­ Temple­to­Heaven,­35,­175n8;­Tonghak­rebellion,­38,­181n67;­Treaty­ of­Friendship­and­Commerce­with­ U.S.,­29–30,­40,­46,­54,­178n37,­ 184n94;­Treaty­of­Kanghwa,­29,­ 180n61,­182n73;­tributary­system­ with­Jurchen,­35;­use­of­Chinese­ writing­system,­64–65;­and­wŏndan­ (Round­Altar),­26–27,­28,­176n23,­ 176n25;­and­wŏn’gudan­(Round­Hill­ Altar),­51,­177n29;­World’s­Columbian­Exposition­exhibit,­7,­53–54,­ 55–56,­61–62,­186n2–3,­188n13.­See also­Korean­declaration­of­independence­from­China;­Korean­vernacular;­Royal­Ancestral­Temple­(chongmyo);­sadaebu­(scholar-­officials) Chosŏn kŭl­(Korean­script),­68,­70 Chosŏn­munhakga­tongmaeng­(Federation­of­Korean­Writers),­142,­ 221n4,­222n8 Chosŏn sanggo munhwasa­(Cultural­History­of­Ancient­Korea;­Sin),­108 Chosŏn sanggosa­(History­of­Ancient­ Korea;­Sin),­99,­107–09,­213n70 Chosŏn wangjo sillok­(Annals­of­the­ Chosŏn­Dynasty),­172n11,­182n74,­ 205n125 Chosŏn yŏksa­(textbook),­120 Cho,­Tong-­gŏl,­77,­129 Chow,­Rey,­9 Cho,­Yun-­jae,­145,­146,­219n39,­223n18

249

250

inDex

Christianity.­See­Christian­missionaries;­liberal-­bourgeois­(Christian)­ class;­World­Parliament­of­Religions Christian­missionaries:­and­Chosŏn­ Korea,­9,­62,­74,­186n3,­192n45;­ distribution­of­Bibles,­197n76;­and­ Korean­vernacular,­9,­70,­197n76;­ and­Tan’gun­legend,­80 chuch’e.­See­sovereign­subject­(chuch’e) Chumong,­founder­of­Koguryŏ,­25 Ch’u,­Myŏng-­ŏp,­25 Chunghwa,­36 Ch’ungjŏng­(Koryŏ­monarch),­26 Ch’ungnyŏl­(Koryŏ­monarch),­26,­ 176n22 Chu,­Si-­g yŏng,­9,­64,­68,­70,­71 Chu,­Yŏng-­hŏn,­99 Cleveland,­Grover,­184n93 colonialism:­and­sovereignty,­3,­4;­ U.S.­presence­in­Philippines,­10,­75,­ 88,­184n95;­U.S.­presence­in­South­ Korea,­14,­16,­150.­See also­Britain;­ Japanese­colonial­rule Confucian­ethics:­and­Chosŏn­Korea,­ 33–37,­44,­179n55,­180n57–58,­ 201n105;­and­Koryŏ,­78,­80–81.­See also­Confucian­historiography Confucian­historiography,­80–82,­99,­ 205n124 Confucius,­28 Conner,­Walker,­77 Cumings,­Bruce,­17,­105–06,­154,­156,­ 225n41 Davis,­Linnie,­62,­83 Deleuze,­Gilles,­177n35 Democratic­People’s­Republic­of­Korea­ (dPRk):­establishment­of,­148.­See also­North­Korea deterritorialization:­definition,­177n35;­ and­Euro-­American­imperialism,­ 4–5,­29,­50,­177n35 Deuchler,­Martina,­44,­45 Dirlik,­Arif,­214n75 Douglass,­Frederick,­61 Duara,­Prasenjit,­100–101,­200n98

Dudden,­Alexis,­30 Duncan,­John,­101,­177n30,­211n50 Eckert,­Carter,­78–79 economy.­See kyŏngje­(economy) empiricist­historiography,­212n59.­See also­positivist­historiography Engels,­Frederick,­121,­122,­132 ethnic­nation.­See minjok­(ethnic­ nation) Euro-­American­imperialism:­citizen­ development­under,­206n127;­deterritorialization­and­reterritorialization­in,­4–5,­29,­50,­177n35;­and­East­ Asian­sovereignty,­31,­79,­192n44;­ and­equality,­4–5,­31;­as­example­ for­Japanese,­10;­and­Korean­sovereignty,­3,­4–5,­7,­8,­61–62,­65–66,­ 67;­world-­wide­reach,­55,­105,­ 187n10.­See also­Britain Euro-­American­modernity:­accommodation­of­Korean­modernity­to,­4–5,­ 65–66,­67;­influence­on­Korean­vernacular,­8,­50,­65–66,­68,­70,­71;­and­ Native­Americans,­7,­58 Ewha­(Women’s)­College,­2,­171n4 fascism,­107,­118 Fenollosa,­Ernest­F.,­63,­90–91,­92,­ 207n11,­208n15 Foote,­Lucius­H.,­45,­56,­188n17 France:­French­Revolution,­98;­Triple­ Intervention,­47,­50–51,­185n98;­ turning­peasants­into­Frenchmen,­78 Fujiwara­period,­96 Fukuda,­Tokuzō,­12,­95–96,­119,­133,­ 209n28 Fukuzawa,­Yukichi,­44,­181n68,­193n53 futei senjin­(malcontent­Koreans),­115 Gandhi,­Virachand­Raghav,­57,­189n26 Geertz,­Clifford,­185n103 Gellner,­Ernest,­201n104 Germany,­Triple­Intervention,­47,­ 50–51,­185n98 Giddens,­Anthony,­43 Godes,­Mikhail,­133

inDex

Gotō,­Shinpei,­103 “great­enterprise.”­See­Korean­sovereignty;­taeŏp­(great­enterprise) Great­Game,­30 Great­Han­Empire,­51,­186n109 Great­Kantō­Earthquake,­115,­215n2 Griffis,­William­E.,­64 Guattari,­Félix,­177n35 Guze­Kannon,­90–92,­93,­208n13–14 Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi chae-insik­(Reexamination­of­Korean­History­Before­ and­After­Liberation),­17–18,­156– 58,­227n46,­227n48 Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­(Korean­History­Before­and­After­Liberation;­ Song),­16,­17,­152–55,­224n31–32,­ 224n35,­227n46,­227n49 Hae,­Wŏn,­212n59 haidong­(haedong),­25 hair­cutting:­essay­on­bob­haircut,­1–3,­ 11,­171n1–3;­Japanese­topknot­decree,­4,­5,­171n9,­172n11;­as­signifier­ of­modernity,­1–3,­4,­30;­symbolism­ in­China,­4,­172n10 Hall­of­Eternal­Peace,­174n4,­175n8 Han­dynasty,­23,­178n40 han’gŭl­(modern­alphabet),­42,­68,­ 193n55,­197n76 Han,­Hyo,­138,­142,­143 Han,­Kyu-­sŏl,­74 hanmun­(Chinese­writing­system):­as­ classical­Chinese,­67,­195n64;­differentiating­from­Korean­vernacular,­ 72;­Korean­use­of,­9,­64,­67,­69,­72 Han,­Paek-­kyŏm,­99 Han,­Sŏl-­ya,­138,­140,­141,­221n4 Hansŏng sinbo­(newspaper),­193n53 Hanyang­(Seoul):­Royal­Ancestral­ Temple,­23–24;­and­Western­diplomats,­183n85.­See also­Seoul Han,­Yŏng-­u­(Han­Young-­Woo),­80,­ 203n115,­206n128 Hardt,­Michael,­18,­55,­66,­187n9,­ 194n61 Harootunian,­Harry,­184n96

Harrison,­Benjamin,­58–59 Hatada,­Takashi,­94,­95 Hayashi,­Taisuke,­95,­209n27,­210n35 Hay,­John,­74 Hayti,­Republic­of,­61 Hegel,­Georg­Wilhelm­Friedrich,­47,­ 108,­109,­187n9 hegemonies:­and­military­advantage,­ 212n61;­and­productive­advantage,­ 212n61;­and­World­System­theory,­ 105–07.­See also­Euro-­American­imperialism;­nation-­state­system He,­Ruzhang,­44 Hevia,­James,­177n35 Hideyoshi­invasions,­35,­175n8,­179n55,­ 180n57 Hirai,­Ryuge­Kinzō,­57 historiography:­role­in­tending­to­nation’s­spirit,­51;­violence­of,­200n98.­ See also­Confucian­historiography;­ Japanese­colonial­historiography;­ Korean­historiography;­Marxist­historiography;­nationalist­historiography;­positivist­historiography;­postcolonial­historiography Hŏ,­Hŏn,­146 Holy­Roman­Empire,­42–43 Hong,­Christine,­206n130 Hong,­Hyo-­min,­221n4 Hong,­Tae-­yong,­36–37,­180n60 Hong,­Yŏng-­sik,­188n18 Hopkins,­Terence,­213n61 Hōryūji­Temple,­90–91 Hoshino,­Hisashi,­94 Huang,­Zunxian,­44–45 Hughes,­Theodore,­212n58 Huh,­Tae-­yong,­35 Hulbert,­Homer­B.,­80 Humphrey,­Caroline,­185n106 Hwang,­Hyŏn,­171n9 Hwangsŏng sinmun­(Capital­Gazette),­ 202n111 Hwang,­Ŭi-­don,­212n59 Hwanin,­32,­121,­178n43,­203n112,­ 204n122

251

252

inDex

Hwanung,­121,­178n43,­203n112,­ 204n122 hyangga­(poetry),­8,­67,­195n65 Hyŏn,­Ch’ae,­95,­97,­209n26 Ibsen,­Henrik,­1 Ideals of the East­(Okakura),­92 idumun­(script),­67,­195n64–65 Ii,­Naosuke,­60 Ikeuchi,­Hiroshi,­128,­205n125 Im,­Hwa,­138–39,­142–43,­160,­221n4 Imjin­Wars,­179n55.­See also­Hideyoshi­ invasions imperialism:­differentiating­from­nationalism,­6,­51–52;­Euro-­American­ sovereignty­complicit­in,­3,­5,­43–44;­ and­liberalism,­7;­violence­of,­97.­See also­Euro-­American­imperialism Inaba,­Iwakichi,­120 Independence­Club,­64,­74,­193n56,­ 198n82,­199n89 Independent, The­(newspaper).­See Tongnip sinmun­(The­Independent) India:­British­colonial­rule,­10,­57,­88;­ and­Koryŏ­Korea,­32 inmin­(people),­76 Inoue,­Kaoru:­and­deterritorialization­ of­Korea,­4–5,­29,­30,­183n87;­as­ envoy­to­Chosŏn­Korea,­30,­37–39,­ 44,­56,­65,­180n61,­181n68,­183n87,­ 188n14,­188n15;­reform­program,­ 38–39,­42;­and­Treaty­of­Kanghwa,­ 180n61.­See also­Korean­declaration­ of­independence­from­China Inspection­Mission­to­Japan,­56,­ 181n68,­188n14 Iryŏn,­32,­120,­176n28,­178n43,­ 203n112.­See also Samguk yusa­ (Memorabilia­of­the­Three­Kingdoms;­Iryŏn) Itō,­Hirobumi,­180n61,­181n67 Jains,­32 Jaisohn,­Philip­(Sŏ,­Chae-­pil):­1884­ coup­attempt,­65,­188n18;­and­Independence­Club,­64,­193n56,­199n91;­

as­influence­on­Rhee,­199n93;­name­ change,­65;­and­Tongnip sinmun­(The­ Independent),­64,­193n56,­194n57,­ 198n81;­U.S.­citizenship,­65,­194n59;­ on­use­of­vernacular­Korean,­68,­69,­ 70,­71–72 Japan:­annexation­of­Korea,­9,­27,­ 193n55;­Charter­Oath­of­1868,­ 41–42,­182n76;­claiming­of­Korea­ as­protectorate,­9,­51,­75,­79;­emperor­system,­47;­ethnic­consciousness,­67,­195n66;­fascism,­107;­Great­ Kantō­Earthquake,­115,­215n2;­Guze­ Kannon,­90–92,­93,­208n13–14;­ Inspection­Mission­to,­56,­181n68,­ 188n14;­invasion­of­Chosŏn­Korea,­ 34;­invasion­of­Manchuria,­107,­115,­ 118,­125,­171n3;­invasion­of­Shanghai,­171n3;­and­Korean­vernacular,­ 67;­Meiji­reforms,­30;­Meiji­Restoration,­41,­182n76;­relationship­with­ United­States,­29–30,­44,­46,­47,­60;­ Russo-­Japanese­War,­46,­51,­74–75;­ as­self-­designated­curator­for­Asian­ art,­9–10,­89–93;­and­sovereignty­ discourse­in­19th­century,­43–44,­ 46–47;­strategic­interest­in­Korea,­ 29–31;­surrender­to­U.S.,­13–14,­139,­ 224n32;­Taft-­Katsura­Agreement,­ 46,­75,­184n95;­transformation­of­ peasants­into­kokumin,­67–68,­103;­ Treaty­of­Kanghwa,­29,­180n61,­ 182n73;­and­World’s­Columbian­Exposition­exhibit,­60,­191n35,­207n11.­ See also­Inoue,­Kaoru;­Japanese­colonial­rule;­Japanese­historiography­ (pre-­colonial);­Korean­declaration­ of­independence­from­China;­Sino-­ Japanese­War;­Tokugawa­Japan Japanese­colonial­historiography:­complicity­of­Korean­historians­with,­ 10,­12,­13,­94,­95–96,­123–25;­four­ themes­characterizing,­94;­histories­of­Korea,­95–96,­97–98;­justifications­for­control­of­Korea,­9,­

inDex

10,­12,­13,­14,­87–88,­89,­92,­93–94,­ 212n59;­on­Korean­annexation­as­ restoration,­11–12,­93–94,­95,­100,­ 150,­212n59;­on­Korean­factionalism,­12,­94,­150;­Mansenshi­framework,­13,­93,­129,­144;­origins­of,­ 94–95;­on­role­of­external­forces­ in­Korean­development,­12,­94,­95,­ 150,­212n59;­on­shared­ancestry­of­ Japanese­and­Koreans,­12,­94,­95,­ 150,­210n43;­stagnation­theory,­12,­ 94,­96,­118–19,­131,­133,­150,­209n28,­ 212n59;­and­tōyōshi­(Oriental­history)­framework,­13,­96–97,­128,­ 129,­209n30,­209n32;­violence­of,­ 97.­See also­Japanese­historiography­ (pre-­colonial);­Sŏkkuram Japanese­colonial­rule:­annexation­of­ Korea,­9,­27,­100,­193n55;­and­Buddhism,­9–10,­115–16;­censorship­ laws,­116,­173n28;­and­coercion,­ 10,­87,­103,­216n6;­construction­of­ hegemonic­authority,­9–10,­87–88,­ 105–07;­creation­of­Chōsenjin­as­subjects,­10–11,­103,­104–05,­212n60;­ creation­of­Korean­nation-­state,­ 10,­102–05,­115–16;­disbanding­of­ Korean­Army,­88;­emergence­of­ Korean­(Christian)­bourgeois­class,­ 7,­58,­62,­75–76;­forced­abdication­of­ King­Kojong,­88,­115;­forced­assimilation,­103–04;­Great­Depression,­ 115;­heritage-­management­laws,­90,­ 92,­123,­207n9;­home­rule­movement,­117–18;­Japanese-­Korean­reconciliation­project,­116;­knowledge-­ production­as­function­of,­10,­11,­88,­ 89;­Korean­Communist­Party,­115,­ 118;­Korean­independence­movement,­114–15,­116,­117,­118,­202n111,­ 213n71;­Korean-­language­publications,­116–17,­216n7–9;­Korean­ Provisional­Government,­109–12,­ 202n111,­214n78,­224n32;­Korean­ studies,­10,­123–24,­125–29,­131,­

219n39;­March­First­Movement,­116,­ 202n111;­Naisen­Ittai­policy,­103,­118,­ 212n58;­national­script­of,­193n55;­ and­particularism,­124–25,­133–34;­ Peace­Preservation­Law­of­1925,­ 114–15,­131;­resistance­by­Righteous­ Armies,­4,­88,­115;­sumptuary­laws,­ 171n8;­surrender­to­U.S.,­13–14,­139,­ 224n32;­topknot­decree,­4,­5,­171n9,­ 172n11;­Wanpaoshan­Incident­of­ 1931,­124–25;­Western­colonialism­ as­example­for,­10,­15–16,­88,­103.­ See also­Japanese­colonial­historiography;­Sŏkkuram Japanese­historiography­(pre-­ colonial):­shift­in­names­for­China,­ 96;­spatial­imagining­of­greater­ Japan,­99–100,­210n43;­Tokyo­tradition,­94;­tōyōshi­(Oriental­history),­ 13,­96–97,­128,­129,­209n30,­209n32;­ writing­of­nationalist­history,­94–95.­ See also­Japanese­colonial­historiography Jimmu,­Emperor,­11,­120 Jin­dynasty,­24,­25,­26,­80 Jingū,­Empress,­95 Jurchens:­and­Chosŏn­dynasty,­35;­and­ Koryŏ­dynasty,­24–25,­175n14 Kaegyŏng­(Kaesŏng),­26,­176n19,­ 203n116 Kaesŏng,­26,­176n19,­203n116 Kanda,­Naibu,­63 Kanga-­kai­(art­society),­92 Kang,­Man-­gil,­15–16,­98,­151,­153–54,­ 159,­225n38,­227n45,­228n54 Kanō,­Tessai,­90,­91 Kant,­Immanuel,­186n4 Karl,­Rebecca,­71,­197n80 Katsura,­Tarō,­75.­See also­Taft-­Katsura­ Agreement Kawashima,­Fujiya,­201n105 kcP.­See­Korean­Communist­Party­ (kcP) Kedourie,­Elie,­100,­101

253

254

inDex

Keijō­Imperial­University,­13,­14,­127,­ 130,­147 Keizai yōroku­(The­Essence­of­Economics;­Satō),­68 Kenkenroku­(A­Record­of­Arduous­ and­Selfless­Service­to­the­Throne;­ Mutsu),­46,­185n98 Khubilai,­Khan,­81,­176n22 Kido,­Kōin,­41 Kija,­27,­126–27,­219n36–37 Kim,­Chŏng-­ho,­99 Kim,­Chul,­157 Kim,­Dae­Jung,­157 Kim,­Dong-­choon,­149 Kim,­Han-­Kyo,­210n36 Kim,­Hong-­jip,­38,­188n15 Kim,­Hwal-­lan,­2,­171n4 Kim,­Il­Sung,­148,­155 Kim­Il­Sung­University,­148 Kim,­Ki-­rim,­1–3,­11,­171n1–3 Kim,­Ku,­154,­216n9 Kim,­Kwang-­jin,­148 Kim,­Nam-­ch’ŏn,­138,­142,­221n4,­ 222n8 Kim,­Ok-­kyun,­65,­188n16,­188n18,­ 192n47 Kim,­Pu-­sik,­26,­80,­83,­98–99,­ 204n116,­206n129.­See also Samguk sagi­(Historical­Record­of­the­Three­ Kingdoms;­Kim) Kim,­Sang-­gi,­128,­223n23 Kim,­Sa-­ryang,­138,­141,­142,­143,­ 222n6–7 Kim,­Sŏk-­hyŏng,­148 Kim,­Sŏng-­su,­117,­118,­216n9,­220n51 Kim,­T’ae-­jun,­129–30,­220n46 Kim,­T’aek-­yŏng,­97,­209n27 Kim,­Wŏn-­bong,­146 Kim,­Yong-­sŏp,­15,­151,­159,­190n30,­ 224n30 Kim,­Yun-­sik,­30,­45 King,­Ross,­67,­193n53,­197n76 Koguryŏ­kingdom:­boundaries,­211n52;­ and­Buddhism,­31;­collapse,­211n52;­ dates,­204n117;­and­Japanese­his-

tory,­209n25;­and­Korean­ethnic­nation,­101;­as­part­of­Three­Kingdoms,­ 25;­state­histories,­35,­203n115.­See also­Three­Kingdoms Kojiki­(Record­of­Ancient­Matters),­ 11–12,­94,­95,­210n43 Kojong­(Chosŏn­monarch):­conspiracy­ against,­74;­forced­abdication,­88,­ 115;­Inspection­Mission­to­Japan,­ 56,­181n68,­188n14;­modernizing­reforms,­38,­39,­181n64,­188n11;­proclaiming­of­Great­Han­Empire,­51,­ 186n109,­199n92;­reign,­23;­relationship­with­Japan,­38–40,­44;­relationship­with­U.S.,­45–46,­183n87,­ 184n88,­184n93;­and­topknot­decree,­4,­5,­171n9,­172n11;­and­World’s­ Columbian­Exposition,­53,­186n2–3.­ See also­Korean­declaration­of­independence­from­China kokubun­(Japanese­national­script),­ 193n55 Kokushi gan­(A­Survey­of­Japanese­History),­94,­95 Kŏmundo­(islands),­30 Kongmin­(Koryŏ­monarch),­26 Korea.­See­Chosŏn­Korea;­Japanese­ colonial­rule;­postcolonial­Korea Korean­(Christian)­bourgeois­class.­See­ liberal-­bourgeois­(Christian)­class Korean­alphabet:­role­of­Christian­ missionaries,­9,­70,­197n76.­See also han’gŭl­(modern­alphabet);­Korean­ vernacular;­kungmun­(national­ script);­script Korean­Communist­Party­(kcP),­115,­ 118,­140,­145,­153,­154,­221n2,­221n4 Korean­Daily­News­(Taehan maeil sinbo),­82,­202n111,­206n126 Korean­declaration­of­independence­ from­China:­Inoue’s­role­in,­5,­6,­ 22,­38,­40,­42,­44,­49–50,­183n87;­ Japan’s­interest­in,­5,­6,­9,­22,­37,­ 38–40,­42,­44,­50;­King­Kojong’s­ role,­5,­6,­9,­21–22,­27,­37,­38,­40–41,­

inDex

42,­44,­47–51,­174n2,­174n5,­182n71– 72,­183n79,­185n100,­186n107;­ritual­ actions,­6,­21–22,­40–41,­47–51,­ 174n2,­174n5,­182n72,­185n100–102,­ 186n107.­See also­Kojong­(Chosŏn­ monarch) Korean­Historical­Association­(Yŏksa­ hakhoe),­145,­222n15 Korean­historiography:­decentering­ of­China,­36–37,­96,­120,­196n73;­ emergence­of,­66;­histories­and­textbooks­of­Korea,­95–96,­97–98,­101– 02,­107,­120,­210n35,­211n54;­impact­ of­Japanese­surrender­on,­13–14;­ and­Mansenshi­framework,­13,­93,­ 129,­144;­and­nationalism,­76–84,­ 200n98,­201n104;­and­peoplehood,­ 70–76;­and­Sŏkkuram­narrative,­ 10,­94;­and­Tan’gun­legend,­79–81;­ three­competing­schools­of,­13;­ training­of­historians­at­Japanese­ universities,­13.­See also­Marxist­historiography;­nationalist­historiography;­positivist­historiography Korean­language.­See­Korean­vernacular Korean­literati:­as­impediment­to­ progress,­72;­on­ŏnmun,­69,­195n64,­ 196n71;­purges­in­Chosŏn­Korea,­ 12,­94,­150,­224n30.­See also sadaebu­ (scholar-­officials) Korean­modernity:­accommodation­to­ Euro-­American­norms,­4–5,­65–66,­ 67;­emergence­of,­66;­hair­bob­as­ signifier­for,­1–3;­and­semantic­innovation,­8,­50,­66–70;­and­sovereign­ subjectivity,­66;­and­sovereignty,­ 3;­and­topknot­decree,­4,­5,­171n9,­ 172n11.­See also­Korean­alphabet Korean­nationalism:­development­of­ nation-­state,­102–05;­differentiating­ from­imperialism,­6,­51–52;­and­historiography,­10,­11,­76–84,­200n98,­ 201n104 Korean­People’s­Republic­(kPR),­147

Korean­Provisional­Government,­109– 12,­202n111,­214n78,­224n32 Korean­sovereignty:­accommodation­ to­Euro-­American­norms,­3,­4–5,­7,­ 8,­61–62,­65–66,­67;­and­concept­ of­peoplehood,­70–76;­as­“great­ enterprise,”­4–5,­7,­18;­and­World’s­ Columbian­Exposition,­54,­55,­61.­ See also­Korean­declaration­of­independence­from­China;­minjok­ (ethnic­nation) Korean­vernacular:­articulations­of­ capitalist­sovereignty­in,­8–9,­50,­ 67–70,­194n61;­and­autonomous­ Korean­subjectivity,­63–64;­first­ vernacular­newspaper,­64–65;­influence­of­Euro-­American­modernity­on,­8,­50,­65–66,­68,­70,­71;­ nationalization­of,­9;­and­patriotism,­64;­pre-­modern­writing­styles,­ 67;­role­of­Christian­missionaries,­ 9,­70,­197n76;­and­self-­presentation,­ 63,­63–64,­64;­spoken,­67.­See also­ Korean­alphabet;­semantic­innovations;­Yun,­Ch’i-­ho Korean­War,­112,­149,­154,­155,­156,­ 223n25,­226n43 Koryŏ­dynasty­(936–1392):­art,­93;­ and­Buddhism,­24,­31–32,­175n13;­ capital­of,­26,­203n116;­collective­ identity,­76–77,­78,­79,­211n50;­and­ Confucian­historiographic­principles,­80–81;­elite­class,­211n50;­ founder­and­founding,­24,­25,­31,­ 80;­historiographies­of,­80–81,­ 203n115,­204n121;­imperial­claims­ and­practices,­24–26,­175n11,­175n13,­ 176n16;­Mongol­invasions,­24,­26,­ 81,­176n22;­music,­24–25,­175n13,­ 175n15;­relationship­with­Jin,­24,­ 26,­80;­scholar-­officials­(sadaebu),­ 177n30;­sovereignty,­24–25,­26–27;­ tributary­relationship­with­China,­ 24,­26,­175n9,­204n121;­tributary­ system­with­Jurchen,­24–25,­175n14

255

256

inDex

Koryŏsa,­24,­175n9,­175n11,­175n13–15 Krasner,­Stephen,­43 Kropotkin,­Pyotr,­111,­112,­214n75,­ 214n78 kukhanmun­(mixed­script),­69,­193n53 Kuksa kyobon­(Yi­and­Kim),­146–47 Kuksa sillon­(A­New­History­of­Korea;­ Yi),­14,­150 Kume,­Kunitake,­11–12,­94,­99–100,­ 210n43 kŭndaehwa­(modernization),­14,­15,­ 150,­151 kungmun­(national­script):­designation­as­national­script,­9,­64,­68–69,­ 193n55;­and­ethnic­nation,­65–66;­ first­newspaper­to­use,­64–65;­King­ Sejong’s­alphabet­as­basis­for,­9,­64;­ and­Yun’s­diary,­63.­See also­Korean­ alphabet;­Yun,­Ch’i-­ho Kŭnŭhoe­(nationalist­women’s­movement),­171n4 Kuroda,­Kiyotaka,­178n36 Kwangjong­(Koryŏ­monarch),­32 Kwangju,­people’s­uprising­in,­16,­153,­ 159,­225n36–37 Kwŏn,­Hyŏk-­su,­45 Kwŏn,­Kŭn,­120 Kwŏn,­Tŏk-­kyu,­99,­212n59 K.Y.­(anonymous­student),­2,­3,­11,­160 kyŏngje­(economy),­8–9,­68,­195n68,­ 196n70 Kyŏngsŏng­University,­130 Kyūshū,­11–12 Laidlaw,­James,­185n106 Lancaster,­Lewis,­31,­178n40 language.­See­Korean­vernacular Ledyard,­Gari,­29 Lee,­Chulwoo,­115,­216n6 Lee,­Kwang-­Rin,­188n15–16 Lee,­Peter,­203n115 Lensen,­George­A.,­182n72 Lew,­Young­Ick,­183n87 Liang,­Qichao,­202n111,­205n123 Liao­dynasty,­24,­25,­26,­175n9

liberal-­bourgeois­(Christian)­class:­ emergence­of,­7;­inclusionary­pretensions­but­exclusionary­impact,­ 7,­58,­75–76;­link­to­anticommunist­liberal-­bourgeois­subjectivity,­ 190n30;­racism­of,­7,­58,­62 Li,­Hongzhang,­30,­45,­180n61 Li,­Shizeng,­214n75 Liu,­Lydia,­54,­77,­200n101 Locke,­John,­186n4 Low,­Frederick­F.,­187n5 Lu,­Xun,­172n10 Maitreya,­32 Manchuria:­erasure­from­Korean­history,­80,­83;­inclusion­in­Korean­ nationalist­history,­98,­99,­100,­ 210n36,­211n45;­Japanese­invasion­ of,­107,­115,­118,­125,­171n3;­Korean­ settlers­in,­124–25,­218n33–34;­and­ Koryŏ­court,­79;­power­balance­with­ China,­202n107;­Wanpaoshan­Incident­of­1931,­124–25 Manchus:­Chosŏn­invasions,­5,­36,­ 180n57;­overthrow­of­Ming­dynasty,­ 34,­35,­182n71.­See also­Qing­(Manchu)­dynasty Manmin­kongdonghoe­(People’s­Assembly),­74,­199n89–91 Mansenshi­(Manchuria-­Korea­spatial­ conception),­13,­93,­129,­144 March­First­Movement,­116,­202n111 Marxist­historiography:­convergence­ with­nationalist­historiography,­15,­ 151,­159,­228n54;­critique­of­colonialist­and­nationalist­historiography,­84,­123,­144–45.­See also­Marxist­intellectuals;­Paek,­Nam-­un Marxist­intellectuals:­and­concept­of­ minjung,­111–12;­migration­to­North­ Korea,­14,­148;­plans­for­postcolonial­academic­institutions,­13–14,­ 144–45;­in­postcolonial­period,­ 144–45,­148–49;­on­self-­criticism,­ 140;­under­colonial­rule,­115,­117–18,­

inDex

119.­See also­Korean­Communist­ Party­(kcP);­Marxist­historiography;­ Paek,­Nam-­un Marxist­League­of­Scientists­(Kwahakja­tongmaeng),­145 Marx,­Karl,­132 Masuzawa,­Tomoko,­189n20 May­Fourth­Movement,­109 Mbembe,­Achille,­3 McKinley,­William,­46 Mehta,­Uday,­75 Meiji,­Emperor,­41,­182n76 Meiji­Japan.­See­Japan Mencius,­28 Merleau-­Ponty,­Maurice,­185n106 Millet,­Lizzie­Goodhue,­63 Mimana­(Kaya),­95,­209n27 Ming­dynasty:­demand­for­human­tribute,­5,­35,­172n14,­179n53;­overthrow­ by­Manchu,­34,­35,­36,­182n71,­ 196n73;­relationship­with­Chosŏn­ Korea,­5–6,­27,­28–29,­35,­172n14,­ 196n74,­202n107 minjok­(ethnic­nation):­and­autonomous­subjectivity,­84;­and­colonial­ rule,­117,­123–24,­201n102;­emergence­of,­66,­77;­etymology,­67–68,­ 77,­195n67,­200n99–100;­in­nationalist­historiography,­3–4,­13,­51,­ 77–78,­79–80,­81–84,­98,­100–101,­ 215n81;­as­political­concept,­4,­76,­ 77;­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­on,­77–78,­79–80,­ 81–84,­98,­215n81 minjung­(people,­the­subaltern):­as­autonomous­national­subject,­16,­17,­ 76,­117;­Sin­Ch’ae-­ho­on,­98,­107,­ 110–12,­214n78,­215n79,­215n81 Min,­Queen,­21,­182n68,­199n92 Min,­Yŏng-­hwan,­74,­192n48 Min,­Yŏng-­ik,­54,­194n59 missionaries.­See­Christian­missionaries Miyazaki,­Muryū,­67 modernity:­Kim’s­discourse­on­Korean,­ 1–3;­two­paths­to,­15,­151–52,­

190n30.­See also­Euro-­American­ modernity;­Korean­modernity modernization­theory,­14,­15,­150,­151 Mongols:­Koryŏ­invasions,­24,­26,­81,­ 176n22.­See also­Yüan­dynasty­(Mongols) Morgan,­Lewis­H.,­121,­122 Mun,­Il-­p’yŏng,­202n110,­212n59 Mutsu,­Munemitsu,­42,­46,­47,­60,­ 181n67,­185n98 Myoch’ŏng,­25–26,­80,­83,­203n116 Myŏngjong­(Chosŏn­monarch),­175n8 Nagasaki­Prefecture,­35 Naisen­Ittai­policy,­103,­118,­212n58 Naka,­Michio,­120 nation.­See minjok­(ethnic­nation);­ minjung­(people,­the­subaltern);­ nation-­state­system National­Academy­of­Sciences­ (Chosŏn­haksulwŏn),­14,­144,­145 National­Democratic­Front,­146 National­Guidance­League,­148–49 nationalist­historiography:­in­1930s,­ 125–29;­convergence­with­Marxist­ historiography,­15,­151,­159,­228n54;­ creation­of­autonomous­Korean­subjectivity,­11,­52,­104–05;­definitions­ of,­202n110,­212n59;­distinguishing­from­national­historiography,­ 202n110;­inclusion­of­Manchuria,­ 98,­99,­100,­210n36,­211n45;­Kedourie­and­Duara’s­critique­of,­ 100–101;­and­leftist­politics,­16,­116,­ 118,­119–20;­links­to­Confucian­historiography,­82;­link­to­patriotism,­ 98;­Marxist­critiques­of,­84,­119,­123,­ 124,­125,­133,­134,­144–45,­151,­158,­ 217n17;­and­“new­nationalism,”­126,­ 147–48,­158;­New­Right­critiques­ of,­17,­155–58,­159,­160;­origins­of,­ 98–99,­206n128;­and­particularism,­119–20,­124,­125,­133–34;­and­ ­positivist­historiography,­13,­14–15,­­ 127–29;­in­South­Korea,­202n110;­

257

258

inDex

nationalist­historiography­(continued) and­Tan’gun­legend,­79–81,­98,­99,­ 100;­and­textual-­critical­historiography,­13,­14,­127,­128,­129,­150,­ 219n38;­themes­of,­97.­See also minjok­(ethnic­nation);­postcolonial­historiography;­Sin,­Ch’ae-­ho national­script.­See kungmun­(national­ script) nation-­state­system:­development­of­ global,­102;­domination­by­West,­47,­ 55,­82;­and­Japan,­47;­and­Korea,­ 71,­82;­as­“natural”­form­of­political­community,­102,­110;­and­sovereignty,­3,­6;­in­World­Systems­framework,­105–07 Native­Americans:­at­World’s­Columbian­Exposition,­59;­Yun’s­contempt­ for,­7,­58,­62,­84 Negri,­Antonio,­18,­55,­66,­187n9,­ 194n61 New­Right,­17,­155–58,­159,­160 Ngai,­Mae,­191n31 Nihon shoki­(The­Chronicles­of­Japan),­ 11–12,­94,­95,­210n43 Noguchi,­Zenshirō,­60 Norman,­Jerry,­196n72 North­Korea:­establishment­of,­148;­ historiography,­101,­148;­migration­of­intellectuals­to,­14,­148;­state­ nationalism,­112 Notehelfer,­F.G.,­208n15–16 Numata,­Jirō,­94 Okakura,­Kakuzō,­90,­91–92,­93,­ 207n11,­208n15–17.­See also Awakening of the East, The­(Okakura);­Ideals of the East­(Okakura) ŏnhae-bon­(script),­193n53,­195n64 ŏnhanmun­(script),­67,­195n64 ŏnmun­(vulgar­script),­68,­69,­195n64 Ōtori,­Keisuke,­37–38 Paejae­Boys’­High­School,­64,­74,­ 199n93 Paekche­kingdom:­and­Buddhism,­31;­

dates,­204n117;­and­Japanese­history,­209n25;­and­Korean­ethnic­ nation,­101;­as­part­of­Three­Kingdoms,­25;­state­history,­203n115 Paek,­Nam-­un:­critique­of­nationalist­and­colonialist­historiography,­ 84,­119,­124,­125,­133,­134,­151,­158,­ 217n17;­critique­of­stagnation­theory,­ 118–19,­133;­education,­130,­209n28,­ 217n15;­imprisonment,­131;­on­ Korean­historical­development,­12,­ 13,­15,­119,­127,­130–32,­133,­134–35,­ 136–37;­and­Marxist­historiography,­13,­84,­114–15,­117,­119,­124,­129,­ 131,­134–35,­136,­137,­160,­201n102,­ 212n59;­migration­to­North­Korea,­ 14,­15,­148,­220n54;­plans­for­postcolonial­academic­institutions,­ 13–14,­144–45,­147,­222n12;­political­ activism,­131,­146,­221n4;­on­Punalua­family­structure,­121–23,­136,­ 158;­recasting­as­nationalist­historian,­15,­151;­on­Tan’gun­legend,­120,­ 121,­218n21.­See also Chōsen hōken shakai keizaishi­(Economic­History­ of­Korean­Feudal­Society;­Paek);­ Chōsen shakai keizaishi­(A­Social­ Economic­History­of­Korea;­Paek) paeksŏng­(common­people),­72–74,­ 75 Pai,­Hyung­Il,­90 Pak,­Che-­ga,­34 Pak,­Chi-­wŏn,­34,­35,­36,­180n59 Pak,­Chong-­yang,­184n93,­199n90 Pak,­Hŏn-­yŏng,­146,­147,­153,­221n2,­ 221n4 Pak,­Mun-­kyu,­129 Pak,­Myŏng-­lim,­225n41 Pak,­Si-­hyŏng,­99,­148 Pak,­Sŏng-­ch’un,­199n90 Pak,­Ŭn-­sik,­51,­202n110,­212n59 Pak,­Yŏng-­hyo,­39,­65,­74,­188n18,­ 199n92 Palais,­James,­175n7 Palhaego­(Yu),­35,­210n40

inDex

Pang,­Kie-­chung,­145,­223n17–18 Parhae­kingdom,­35,­80,­83,­98–99,­ 204n116,­211n52.­See also­Three­ Kingdoms Park,­Chung­Hee,­150,­222n11,­224n35 particularism.­See­nationalist­historiography Pastreich,­Emanuel,­205n123 Paterman,­Carole,­187n4 Peace­of­Westphalia,­3,­42–43.­See also­ Westphalian­sovereignty Peace­Preservation­Law­of­1925,­114– 15,­131 people.­See futei senjin­(malcontent­ Koreans);­inmin­(people);­minjok­ (ethnic­nation);­minjung­(people,­ the­subaltern);­paeksŏng­(common­ people);­sovereign­subject­(chuch’e) People’s­Assembly­(Manmin­kongdonghoe),­74,­199n89–91 Perry,­Commodore­Matthew­C.,­60,­ 184n91 Philippines,­and­US­colonial­rule,­10,­ 75,­88,­184n95 positivist­historiography:­and­Mansenshi­framework,­13,­129,­144;­merging­with­modernization­theory,­14,­ 15,­150,­151;­perceived­complicity­ with­colonialism,­13,­129,­145–46;­ perceived­objectivity,­13,­143–44;­in­ postcolonial­Korea,­143–50;­precursors­to,­209n23;­recasting­as­nationalist­historiography,­14–15,­144,­151;­ and­tōyōshi­framework,­13,­129,­144.­ See also­Chindan­Society­(Chindan­ hakhoe) postcolonial­historiography:­anticolonial­nationalism­and­two­paths­to­ modernity,­15–16,­151–53,­190n30;­ and­modernization­(kŭndaehwa)­theory,­14,­15,­150,­151;­New­ Right­critique­of­nationalist­historiography,­17,­155–58,­159,­160;­ 1960–1980,­150–55,­158–59;­post-­ liberation­to­1960,­143–50,­151,­158,­

202n110;­postnationalist­historiography,­16–17,­159–60;­textbooks­and­ academic­studies,­14,­129,­146–47.­ See also minjung­(people,­the­subaltern);­positivist­historiography postcolonial­Korea:­academic­institutions,­13–14,­144–45,­147;­partition­ of,­14,­140,­148,­152,­153,­224n32;­ self-­criticism,­138–43,­160;­U.S.-­ Soviet­Joint­Commission­talks,­152– 53,­154,­155.­See also­North­Korea;­ positivist­historiography;­postcolonial­historiography;­South­Korea;­ U.S.­Army­Military­Government­in­ Korea­(usAMgik) Protestant­missionaries.­See­Christian­ missionaries Punalua­family­structure,­121–23,­136,­ 158 “P’ungipsong”­(folk­song),­24–25,­ 175n13 Pyongyang:­as­proposed­Koryŏ­capital,­ 26,­203n116;­Sino-­Japanese­War,­39,­ 46;­Yüan­commanderies­in,­26 Qing­(Manchu)­dynasty:­and­Chosŏn­ Korea,­5–6,­28,­29,­34–35,­36,­ 37,­39,­40–41,­196n73,­202n107;­ national­language,­196n72;­overthrow­of­Ming­dynasty,­34,­35,­36,­ 182n71,­196n73.­See also­China;­Sino-­ Japanese­War race:­and­sovereignty,­3;­as­synonym­ for­nation,­77.­See also­racism racism:­of­liberal-­bourgeois­(Christian)­class,­7,­58,­62;­in­nineteenth-­ century­U.S.,­59,­61,­62,­83–84,­ 192n44 Reiss,­Ludwig,­94 religion.­See­Buddhism;­Christianity Republic­of­Korea­(ROk):­establishment­of,­148.­See also­South­Korea reterritorialization:­definition,­177n35;­ and­Euro-­American­imperialism,­ 4–5,­29,­50,­177n35

259

260

inDex

Rhee,­Syngman:­critiques­of­common­people,­72–74,­75;­critiques­ of­Korean­aristocracy,­72,­74,­75,­ 199n89,­199n91;­education,­74,­ 75,­199n93;­imprisonment,­72,­74,­ 199n93;­and­Korean­provisional­government,­109,­110–11,­202n111;­on­ Korean­sovereignty,­75;­and­liberalism­(Christian),­74,­75–76;­post-­ Russo-­Japanese­War­negotiations,­ 74–75;­as­president­of­South­Korea,­ 144,­148,­149,­150,­152–53;­translations­by,­199n93.­See also Tongnip chŏngsin­(Spirit­of­Independence;­ Rhee) Ricoeur,­Paul,­194n60 Righteous­Armies,­4,­88,­115 ritual­practices:­and­authorship,­6,­49,­ 51–52,­185n106;­cultural­meanings­ of,­185n103.­See also­Chosŏn­Korea;­ Korean­declaration­of­independence­ from­China;­Royal­Ancestral­Temple Robinson,­Michael,­116,­205n123,­ 216n7–8 Rockefeller­Foundation,­149 Rodgers,­John,­187n5 Rogers,­Michael,­180n58 Roh,­Moo-­hyun,­17,­156,­157,­227n46,­ 227n52 Ro,­Myoung-­ho,­24,­175n13 Roosevelt,­Theodore,­46,­74,­199n94 Rosenberg,­Justin,­68,­196n70 Rostow,­W.W.,­14 Royal­Ancestral­Temple­(chongmyo):­ construction­and­expansion,­23–24,­ 175n8;­ritual­practices,­22–23,­ 47–51,­174n4,­174n6,­185n100–102.­ See also­Korean­declaration­of­independence­from­China Russia:­and­Chosŏn­Korea,­30,­37,­ 44–45;­and­Great­Game,­30;­Triple­ Intervention,­47,­50–51,­185n98.­See also­Russo-­Japanese­War Russo-­Japanese­War,­46,­51,­74–75,­106 Rydell,­Robert,­59,­192n43

sadaebu­(scholar-­officials):­on­declaration­of­independence­from­China,­ 6,­182n71;­limitations­on­power­ of,­181n66;­power­dynamics­of,­28,­ 177n30;­ritual­practices­and­guidance,­23,­26–28,­29,­32–33,­35–36,­ 176n23,­185n104–105 Saitō,­Makoto,­107 Sakai,­Naoki,­197n78 Śakro­Devānām­Indra,­32 Samguk sagi­(Historical­Record­of­ the­Three­Kingdoms;­Kim),­80,­83,­ 98–99,­204n116 Samguk yusa­(Memorabilia­of­the­ Three­Kingdoms;­Iryŏn),­81,­146,­ 204n119 samhan­(Koguryŏ,­Silla,­and­Paekche),­ 25 Satō,­Nobuhiro,­68 Schmid,­Andre,­34,­77,­95,­96,­98,­99,­ 181n67,­198n81,­200n100,­209n26,­ 211n45 Schmitt,­Carl,­21,­174n1 sckH.­See­Society­for­the­Compilation­ of­Korean­History­(sckH) Scranton,­Mary,­171n4 script.­See Chosŏn kŭl­(Korean­script);­ idumun­(script);­kokubun­(Japanese­ national­script);­kukhanmun­(mixed­ script);­kungmun­(national­script);­ ŏnhae-bon­(script);­ŏnhanmun­ (script);­ŏnmun­(vulgar­script) Seager,­Richard,­55 Sejo­(Chosŏn­monarch),­27,­176n23 Sejong­(Chosŏn­monarch):­Hall­of­ Eternal­Peace,­175n8;­and­Korean­ alphabet,­9,­64,­196n71;­and­national­ language,­196n72 Sekino,­Tadashi,­88–89,­92–93,­ 207n3–4 semantic­innovations:­as­articulations­ of­capitalist­sovereignty,­8–9,­50,­ 66–70,­194n61;­definition,­194n60;­ for­the­word­“country,”­69–70;­ for­the­word­“economy,”­8–9,­68,­

inDex

195n68,­196n70.­See also minjok­ (ethnic­nation) Seoul:­as­Chosŏn­capital,­176n19;­and­ Chosŏn­wŏndan,­176n25;­and­Sino-­ Japanese­War,­62.­See also­Hanyang­ (Seoul) Seoul­National­University,­14,­130,­147,­ 149 Shanghai,­106–07,­109,­171n3,­214n75 Shigeno,­Yasutsugu,­94 Shim,­Jae-­hoon,­219n37 Shin,­Yong-­ha,­214n75,­214n78,­215n81 Shiratori,­Kurakichi,­96,­97,­106,­109,­ 120,­209n30 Shōtoku,­Prince,­207n12–13 Shufeldt,­Robert,­45,­184n91 Shun,­28 Silk­Road,­31 Silla­kingdom:­art­and­architecture,­ 93;­boundaries,­211n52;­and­Buddhism,­31;­caste­system,­31;­collective­identity,­76–77,­79,­204n116;­ dates,­204n117;­and­haedong,­25;­ and­Japanese­history,­209n25;­and­ Korean­ethnic­nation,­101;­link­to­ Parhae,­98–99,­204n116;­as­part­of­ Three­Kingdoms,­25;­poetry,­8;­and­ sovereignty,­24–25;­state­history,­ 203n115;­successor­to,­80.­See also­ Three­Kingdoms Sill,­John­M.B.,­44 Sin,­Ch’ae-­ho:­anarchism,­102,­107–13,­ 214n73,­214n78,­215n81,­217n17;­biographical­writing,­202n111,­205n123;­ critique­of­Samguk sagi­(Kim),­83,­ 206n129;­critiques­of­Rhee,­109,­ 110;­education,­202n111;­exile,­126;­ imprisonment,­108;­on­Korean­sovereignty,­51;­on­kungmun,­198n81;­ on­minjok,­77–78,­79–80,­81–84,­98,­ 215n81;­on­minjung,­98,­107,­110–12,­ 214n78,­215n79,­215n81;­names­for­ China,­96,­109;­and­nationalist­historiography,­13,­26,­35,­51,­77,­79–80,­ 81–84,­95,­97–99,­102,­107–09,­

160,­202n110,­202n111,­205n123,­ 206n128,­210n35,­211n45,­212n59,­ 214n78;­and­Sinminhoe,­206n126;­ on­Tan’gun­legend,­79–80,­81–82,­ 120;­textbook­critiques,­97–98,­ 210n35–36.­See also Chosŏn sanggo munhwasa­(Cultural­History­of­Ancient­Korea;­Sin);­Chosŏn sanggosa­ (History­of­Ancient­Korea;­Sin);­ “Toksa­sillon”­(A­New­Way­of­Reading­History;­Sin) Sinclair,­Upton,­61 Sin’ganhoe:­dissolution,­107,­117,­118,­ 123;­founding,­117,­118,­213n71 Sin,­Il-­ch’ŏl,­195n66,­215n81 Sinminhoe­(New­People’s­Association),­82,­202n111,­206n126 Sino-­Japanese­War:­Britain’s­involvement,­184n89;­and­China-­centered­ tributary­system,­46;­engagements,­ 38,­39,­46,­181n67;­Japanese­victory­ over­China,­6,­46–47,­106,­184n89;­ media­portrayals­of­Korea,­95;­occupation­of­Seoul,­62;­reforms­preceding,­38;­Tonghak­rebellion,­38,­ 181n67;­Triple­Intervention,­47,­ 50–51,­185n98 Sino-­Japanese­War,­Second,­134,­220n51 Sin Taehan­(newspaper),­109 Sin,­Yong-­ha,­111 Smith,­Adam,­187n9,­196n70 Smith,­Sidonie,­193n51 Snodgrass,­Judith,­60 Sŏ,­Chae-­pil.­See­Jaisohn,­Philip Society­for­the­Compilation­of­Korean­ History­(sckH),­107.­See also Chōsenshi­(Korean­History;­sckH);­ Chōsen shiryō shushin­(Collection­of­ Korean­Documents;­sckH);­Chōsen shiryō sōkan­(Archive­of­Korean­ Documents;­sckH) Society­of­Korean­Language­Research,­ 128 socioeconomic­(Marxist)­historiography.­See­Marxist­historiography

261

262

inDex

Sŏkkuram:­as­apex­of­Korean­cultural­history,­10,­87,­90,­93,­173n22,­ 206n2;­discovery­of,­87,­88;­as­Japanese­colonial­project,­9–10,­87,­ 88–90,­93,­103,­207n4;­original­ structure,­89,­173n22,­207n6;­restoration­of,­9–10,­87,­89–90,­93,­103;­ as­story­of­Korea­itself,­10,­93–94;­as­ World­Heritage­site,­87,­173n22 Sŏ,­Kwang-­bŏm,­39–40,­65,­188n18,­ 194n59 Son,­Chin-­t’ae,­77,­127,­128,­145,­146,­ 149,­158,­201n102,­219n39,­223n18,­ 223n23,­223n25 Sone,­Arasuke,­88 Song,­Chin-­u,­117,­118,­123,­216n9 Song­dynasty,­23,­24,­26 Sŏngjong­(Chosŏn­monarch),­37 Song,­Ki-­ho,­204n116 Song,­Kŏn-­ho,­16,­152–53.­See also Haebang chŏnhusa ŭi insik­(Korean­History­Before­and­After­Liberation;­ Song) Song,­Si-­yŏl,­28–29,­34,­35 Sŏnjo­(Chosŏn­monarch),­205n123 Son,­Pyŏng-­hŭi,­221n1 South­Korea:­academic­institutions­ and­posts,­13–14,­144–45,­147,­148,­ 223n22;­anticommunist­repression,­ 7,­14,­148–49,­157,­190n30,­213n71,­ 223n23;­establishment­of,­148;­ideological­hegemony,­16,­152–53;­interim­government,­147–48;­Kwangju­ uprising,­16,­153,­159,­225n36–37;­ land­reform,­156–57,­227n49;­military­coup,­150;­National­Guidance­ League,­148–49;­Rhee­regime,­144,­ 148,­149,­150,­152–53;­Roh­administration,­17,­156,­157,­227n46,­227n52;­ state­nationalism,­112;­student­revolution­of­1960,­144,­149,­150,­158–59;­ Truth­Commissions,­157,­227n52;­ and­U.S.­neocolonialism,­14,­16,­150.­ See also­Korean­War;­postcolonial­ historiography;­postcolonial­Korea;­

Seoul­National­University;­U.S.­ Army­Military­Government­in­Korea­ (usAMgik) sovereign­subject­(chuch’e):­as­author­ of­personal­meaning,­3,­6;­and­colonial­Korea,­2–3,­70–76,­84;­emergence­of­idea,­193n51;­and­Korean­ nationalism,­11,­52,­104–05;­and­ Korean­vernacular,­63–64;­and­ nationalist­historiography,­11,­52,­ 104;­and­peoplehood,­70–76;­privileged­in­West,­6–7,­186n4;­and­sovereignty,­3,­5,­18,­160.­See also minjok­ (ethnic­nation);­minjung­(people,­ the­subaltern) sovereignty:­capitalist,­8,­55,­66,­ 187n9,­194n61;­and­colonialism,­3,­ 4;­compromises­in,­43;­conceptual­ origins­of,­3,­42–43;­East­Asian,­ 31,­79,­192n44;­Euro-­American,­3,­ 54–55;­as­example­for­Japanese­imperialism,­3,­43–44;­and­imperialism,­3,­4,­194n61;­as­machine,­55,­ 67,­194n61;­and­nation-­state­system,­3;­as­political­power­and­police­ power,­4,­55,­198n80;­productive­ capacity­of,­3–4;­role­of­deterritorialization/reterritorialization,­4–5,­ 29,­50,­177n35;­violence­of,­7–8;­ Westphalian,­6,­30,­37,­43.­See also­ Chosŏn­Korea;­Korean­sovereignty;­ Peace­of­Westphalia;­sovereign­subject­(chuch’e) Soviet­Union:­and­Joint­Commission­ talks,­152–53,­154,­155;­and­North­ Korea,­140,­154–55,­157;­and­socialism,­107 Spencer,­Herbert,­46 Spirit of Independence­(Rhee).­See Tongnip chŏngsin­(Spirit­of­Independence;­Rhee) Śrī­Mahādevī,­32 subjectivity.­See­sovereign­subject­ (chuch’e) Sui­Empire,­35

inDex

Suiko,­Empress,­91,­208n13 Sukchong­(Chosŏn­monarch),­29 T’aebaek­mountain­range,­34 Taehan maeil sinbo­(Korean­Daily­ News),­82,­202n111,­206n126 T’aejo,­founder­of­Chosŏn­dynasty­ (r.1392–1398),­21,­27,­28,­174n4,­ 175n8,­176n19,­177n30,­196n74 T’aejo,­founder­of­Koryŏ­dynasty­ (r.918–943),­24,­25,­31,­175n9 taeŏp­(great­enterprise),­4,­31,­172n11 Taewŏn’gun­(regent),­21,­38 Taft-­Katsura­Agreement,­46,­75,­ 184n95 Taft,­William­Howard,­75.­See also­Taft-­ Katsura­Agreement Tagore,­Rabindranath,­208n17 Tanaka,­Stefan,­13,­96,­97,­100,­210n43 Tang­dynasty,­23,­24,­25 Tang­Taizong,­Emperor­of­China,­34 Tan’gun­legend:­colonialist­readings­ of,­120,­121;­contemporary­reading­ of,­203n114;­Iryŏn­as­narrator,­120,­ 203n112,­204n122;­as­Korean­foundation­myth,­6,­27–28,­32,­79–80,­ 176n28,­196n74,­203n112;­as­narrative­of­resistance,­81,­120,­204n122;­ nationalist­readings­of,­79–81,­98,­ 99,­100,­120–21;­Paek’s­reading­of,­ 120,­121;­in­Samguk yusa,­176n28,­ 203n112,­204n119;­Sin’s­reading­of,­ 79–80,­81–82,­120;­and­state­rituals,­ 219n36 Terauchi,­Masatake,­89 textual-­critical­historiography:­in­colonial­Korea,­13,­127,­128,­219n38;­in­ postcolonial­era,­14,­129,­150 Three­Kingdoms­period,­25,­31,­80–81,­ 93,­101,­134,­209n25.­See also­Koguryŏ­kingdom;­Paekche­kingdom;­ Silla­kingdom Tibet,­34 Tocqueville,­Alexis­de,­145 T’oham,­Mt.,­87,­88

“Toksa­sillon”­(A­New­Way­of­Reading­History;­Sin),­79,­81–82,­83,­87,­ 97–99,­206n128,­210n36 Tokugawa­Japan:­linguistics,­67,­96;­ nativist­(kokugaku)­views­on­Japan’s­ origins,­95,­219n38;­opening­to­ Western­trade,­60;­overthrow,­41;­ tradition­of­evidential­research,­ 94–95,­209n23 Tokyo­Fine­Arts­Academy,­92 Tokyo­Imperial­Museum,­92,­207n11 Tokyo­Imperial­University,­63,­90,­92,­ 94,­97,­128,­207n11 Tonga ilbo­(newspaper),­83,­116–17,­118,­ 123–24,­125,­135–36,­188n16,­216n8– 9,­218n28 Tongguk saryak­(Hyŏn),­95,­210n35 Tonghak­rebellion,­38,­181n67.­See also­ Sino-­Japanese­War Tongkwang,­1,­171n1 tongnip,­41,­182n74 Tongnip chŏngsin­(Spirit­of­Independence;­Rhee),­72–74,­75–76,­198n83,­ 199n93 Tongnip sinmun­(The­Independent):­ circulation,­197n79;­on­civilizational­hierarchy,­71,­198n81;­closing­ of,­74;­on­common­people,­73;­on­ decentering­of­China,­96;­English­ name,­193n54,­194n57;­founding­of,­ 64,­193n56;­on­free­trade,­198n82;­ and­representations­of­unity,­71,­72,­ 197n80;­and­use­of­Korean­vernacular,­64–65,­71–72,­73 topknots:­Japanese­decree­ordering­ cutting­of,­4,­5,­171n9,­172n11;­symbolism­of,­4 tōyōshi­(Oriental­history),­13,­96–97,­ 128,­129,­209n30,­209n32 Trachtenberg,­Alan,­61 Treaty­of­Friendship­and­Commerce­ of­1882,­29–30,­40,­46,­54,­178n37,­ 184n94 Treaty­of­Kanghwa,­29,­180n61,­182n73 Treaty­of­Portsmouth,­74–75,­199n94

263

264

inDex

Treaty­of­Westphalia.­See­Peace­of­ Westphalia Truman,­Harry­S.,­226n43 Tsuda,­Sōkichi,­128 Tsushima,­35 Turkic­nomadic­kingdoms,­31,­178n40 Uchida,­Jun,­11 Ŭiyŏldan,­109,­203n111 Ŭlchi,­Mundŏk,­101 United­States:­exclusion­of­Chinese,­ 59,­187n5,­191n31;­New­Deal,­107;­ and­Philippines,­10,­75,­88,­184n95;­ post-­war­occupation­of­Korea,­140;­ relationship­with­Chosŏn­Korea,­ 29–30,­37,­40,­44,­45–46,­54,­178n37,­ 181n68,­183n87,­184n88,­184n91,­ 184n93–94,­186n3,­187n5;­relationship­with­Japan,­29–30,­44,­46,­47,­ 60;­Taft-­Katsura­Agreement,­46,­75,­ 184n95;­Treaty­of­Friendship­and­ Commerce­of­1882,­29–30,­40,­46,­ 54,­178n37,­184n94.­See also­Korean­ War;­racism;­South­Korea;­U.S.­ Army­Military­Government­in­Korea­ (usAMgik) U.S.­Army­Military­Government­in­ Korea­(usAMgik),­14,­130,­140,­ 146–48,­154,­221n5 Vermeersch,­Sem,­25,­32 violence:­in­Christian­liberal-­bourgeois­ thought,­7,­58;­of­colonialist­historiography,­97;­of­historiography,­ 200n98;­of­imperialism,­97;­of­sovereignty,­7–8 Vivekananda,­Swami,­189n26 Wallerstein,­Immanuel,­105,­106,­ 213n61 Wang,­Kŏn.­See­T’aejo,­founder­of­ Koryŏ­dynasty­(r.918–943) Wanpaoshan­Incident­of­1931,­124–25 Waseda­University,­13,­127 Watson,­Julia,­193n51 Weber,­Eugen,­78

Weinstein,­Lucie,­208n14 Wells,­Ida­B.,­192n41 Wells,­Kenneth,­199n91 Western­hegemony.­See­Euro-­ American­imperialism;­Euro-­ American­modernity Westphalian­sovereignty,­6,­30,­37,­43.­ See also­sovereignty Whatmore,­Sarah,­186n4 White,­Trumbull,­191n35 Williams,­Raymond,­187n4 Wŏnjong­(Koryŏ­monarch),­24 World­Parliament­of­Religions,­55,­ 56–58,­60,­189n20,­189n26–27,­ 190n28 World’s­Columbian­Exposition­of­1893:­ Chinese­exhibit,­58–59,­191n31;­ displays­and­structures,­55,­58–60,­ 191n32,­192n42;­Japanese­exhibit,­ 60,­191n35,­207n11;­Korean­exhibit,­ 7,­53–54,­55–56,­61–62,­186n2–3,­ 188n13;­Native­American­exhibits,­ 59;­and­racism,­59,­61,­191n32,­ 192n41;­visitors,­60,­192n42.­See also­ World­Parliament­of­Religions;­Yun,­ Ch’i-­ho World­Systems­theory,­105–06 Wu,­King­of­Zhou,­127 Wu,­Zhihui,­214n75 Yalu­River,­34 Yanagi,­Sōetsu,­87,­206n2 yangban­class:­as­ruling­elite,­78,­ 177n30,­181n66,­201n105.­See also sadaebu­(scholar-­officials) Yao,­28,­81 Yi,­Ch’ŏk,­Crown­Prince,­21,­171n9 Yi,­Chŏng-­sik,­157 Yi,­Ch’ŏng-­wŏn,­131,­134–35,­148,­ 212n59,­218n26 Yi,­Hŭi-­sŭng,­128 Yi,­Hwang­(Toegye),­28 Yi,­I­(Yulgok),­28,­174n5 Yi,­In-­yŏng,­146,­158,­223n15,­223n23,­ 223n25

inDex

Yi,­Kang,­74 Yi,­Ki-­baek,­14,­81,­150,­151,­158–59,­ 224n27–28 Yi,­Ki-­yŏng,­138,­140–41,­221n4 Yi,­Kwang-­su,­117,­123–24,­146,­220n51,­ 223n20 Yi,­Nŭng-­hwa,­107 Yi,­Pyŏng-­do:­appointment­to­Seoul­ National­University,­14,­147,­ 206n125;­and­Chindan­Society,­14,­ 127,­128,­145,­147,­149,­219n40;­and­ Chosŏn wangjo sillok,­205n125;­colonial­historiography,­13,­127–28,­ 128–29,­146,­206n125,­209n23,­ 223n19–20;­education,­220n42;­ postcolonial/South­Korean­historiography,­146–47,­149–50 Yi,­Sang-­baek,­222n10,­223n17,­223n23 Yi,­Sŏng-­g ye.­See­T’aejo,­founder­of­ Chosŏn­dynasty­(r.1392–1398) Yi,­Sŏn-­gŭn,­222n11 Yi,­Sŭng-­hyu,­81 Yi,­Sun-­sin,­135,­202n111,­205n123,­ 218n28 Yi,­T’ae-­jin,­181n64,­181n67 Yi,­T’ae-­jun,­138,­140,­141–42,­143 Yi,­Wŏn-­jo,­138,­143 Yi,­Yŏng-­hun,­157,­227n46 Yi,­Yun-­jae,­128 Yŏksa­hakhoe­(Korean­Historical­Association),­145,­222n15 Yŏngjo­(Chosŏn­monarch),­29 Yŏnhŭi­chŏnmun,­130,­135,­217n15 Young,­Robert,­109,­213n68 Yŏ,­Un-­hyŏng,­146,­147,­216n9,­221n4 Yüan­dynasty­(Mongols):­defeat­of­ Koryŏ,­24,­26,­81,­176n22;­founder,­ 176n22;­human­tribute­demands,­

172n14,­179n53;­and­Korean­sovereignty,­24 Yuan,­Shikai,­45,­181n64,­181n67,­ 184n93 Yu,­Cha-­myŏng,­109,­214n75 Yu,­Hong-­ryŏl,­223n23 Yu,­In-­ho,­227n49 Yu,­Kil-­chun,­4,­38,­39,­64,­171n9,­ 172n11,­181n68,­193n53 Yulgok,­28,­174n5 Yumedono­(Hall­of­Dreams),­91,­ 207n12 Yun,­Ch’i-­ho:­diary,­57,­61,­62,­63–64,­ 70,­189n26–27,­192n44,­192n47,­ 193n50;­discomfited­by­ethnic­nation,­7,­83–84;­education,­55–56,­62,­ 188n15–16,­189n19,­192n45;­family­ and­background,­188n15,­188n18;­ government­appointments,­62,­ 192n48;­and­Independence­Club,­ 64,­74,­193n56,­199n89,­199n91;­ and­Korean­vernacular,­63–64,­64,­ 70,­193n50;­and­liberal-­bourgeois­ (Christian)­influence,­7,­58,­62,­ 83–84,­188n16;­marriages­and­children,­192n46;­as­mentor­to­Kim­ Hwal-­lan,­171n4;­on­Native­Americans,­7,­58,­62,­84;­and­Tongnip sinmun­(The­Independent),­64,­74,­ 193n56,­194n57;­at­World­Parliament­ of­Religions,­56–58;­and­World’s­ Columbian­Exposition,­7,­55–56,­ 58–59,­61,­84,­188n13 Yun,­Peter,­201n107,­204n121 Yun,­Ung-­ryŏl,­188n15,­188n18 Yu,­Tŭk-­kong,­35,­98,­99,­210n40 Zhu,­Xi,­28

265