2022년 19번째 책, Gi-Wook Shin, Michael Edson Robinson의 Colonial Modernity in Korea
(독서 기간: 2022년 7월 22일~7월 29일)
신기욱 교수와 마이클 로빈슨 교수가 함께 펴낸 책으로, 우리말 번역본 제목은 <한국의 식민지 근대성>이다. 부제는 <내재적 발전론과 식민지 근대화론을 넘어서>로 번역되었다. <한국의 식민지 근대성>이 주목받은 까닭은 식민지 시대를 탈민족주의적 시각에서 접근하고 분석하는 데 있다. 이 책의 저자 다수는 ‘식민지 수탈론’과 ‘식민지 근대화론’을 모두 비판하는 관점을 취한다. 그리고 식민지 지배를 위한 헤게모니가 어떻게 형성되고, 그 과정에서 정체성이 어떻게 변화되는지를 추적한다.
저자 소개
저자 신기욱 교수는 연세대 사회학과를 졸업하고, 워싱턴대학에서 박사학위를 받았다. 1999년 마이클 로빈슨 교수와 함께 하버드대에서 펴낸 '한국의 식민지 근대성(Colonial Modernity in Korea)'을 통해 일제 강점기를 새롭게 인식하는 시각으로 학계의 주목을 받았다. 아이오와 대학 및 UCLA 교수를 역임하고 2001년 스탠퍼드대에서 한국학 전공자로는 처음 종신교수가 된 신교수는 한국학 석좌교수로 이 대학에 한국학을 설립하였으며, 현재 스탠퍼드 대학교 사회학과 교수이면서 아시아태평양연구소 소장을 역임하고 있다.
신기욱 교수에 대한 상세 내용은 다음 링크를 참고 바란다. https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/201808311491786464
[김호기의 100년에서 100년으로] 종족적 민족주의와 민주주의 결합… ‘통일 한국’의 이념 제시
www.hankookilbo.com
노트
Colonial Modernity in Korea
By understanding nationalism as a fluid, constructed, and changeable category that’s neither predetermined nor fixed on a unitary pathway of development, we are able to ask different questions of the period of colonial rule. - p. 2
Colonial hegemony
In the conventional historical understanding, colonialism produced at best a “distorted” modernity and hindered the creation of a “true” modernity. In the value-laden, nationalist perspective, the colonial state as agent of change delegitimated the “modern” itself.
Proper understanding of any hegemonic process must consider its dialectical relations to counter-hegemonic voices. Although Japanese colonialists promoted the dominant ideology through their schools and mass media, Koreans - aware of earlier social, intellectual, and political forms and in the process of creating their own response to the multiple stimuli of modernity, colonialism, and nat’l politics/identity - contested (though not necessarily as nationalist narratives portray) colonial hegemony. This response was complicated further by the rapid and telescoped change characteristic of the twentieth century - for Korea, this change occurred in the context of “colonial modernity.” - p. 9
“Modernity is inherently a historical and Western phenomenon.” - p. 9
“The complex, double-edged nature of modernity suggests that failure of Korean nationalism to overthrow the colonial regime should be understood in part as a result not only of Japanese political repression but also of the interaction of inclusive forces within Japanese cultural hegemony. In the end, the fact that Japanese colonialism successfully denied Koreans liberation doesn’t negate the force of nationalism in the colony. Ignoring, however, the complexity of cultural hegemony obscures the causes that have shaped postcolonial Korean political and cultural development.” - p.12-13
“In short, the notion of the nation wasn’t an immutable given, despite Korea’s long history of maintaining a unified political community. It was contested, negotiated, reformulated, and reconstructed during the colonial period, and the process continues today in different form.” - p. 152
Value-laden - presupposing the acceptance of a particular set of values
“The Japanese had become “torch-bearers” of “the English idea of liberty” on the Asiatic continent - p.31
Cadence - a modulation or inflection of the voice
Sth was the worst offshoot of sth (e.g. communism….Western civilization)
“Instead of conceiving modernity as an emancipatory project, I began w a notion of modernity as a matter of power and domination to which Koreans found themselves subject under Japanese rule.” - p.50
Gestation - the development of something over a period of time
“To obtain popular consent to colonial rule, or hegemony to use the Gramscian term, the campaign stressed “spiritual” aspects of village life as a key part of its efforts. Although the Japanese never abandoned coercion and repression as means of colonial control, they also attempted to exercise ideological/hegemonic domination by promoting “hearty cooperation btwn Japanese and Koreans…and btwn the officials and the ppl.” - p. 71, ch. 3
A model of “colonial corporatism.”
“Corporatism is a principle or system for linking society to the state. It differs from pluralism, Marxism, or fascism. Pluralism relies on voluntary associations in linking society to the state, and Marxism relies on class and class organizations. In both cases, the state’s role is minimized or considered an instrument of ruling class. Fascism relies on direct state mobilization w/o intermediary associations and requires an emotional commitment to a charismatic leader. By contrast, the corporatist state encourages the formation of a limited # of officially recognized groups that interact with the state in clearly defined and regulated ways. According to a well-known definition by Philiippe Schmitter, “Corporatism… is a system of interest representation in which the constituent units are organized into a limited # of singular, compulsory, noncompetitive, hierarchically ordered and functionally differentiated categories, recognized/licensed (if not created) by the state and granted a deliberate representational monopoly within their respective categories in exchange for observing certain controls on their selection of leaders and articulation of demands and supporters.” The corporatist system is often adopted by the state as a response to economic crsis and/or erosion of ruling-class hegemony due to class conflict and is employed in ways to encourage economic mobilization and political demobilization. It stresses social harmony and hierarchy; Catholicism and Confucianism are said to offer cultural/ideological bases for such principles of a corporatist system. Yet corporatism appears in diverse forms, such as the societal/pluralist regimes of Western Eur and the state/authoritarian regimes of Latin America and E. Asia.” - p. 75-76
-> As a means of social control / a structure of state-society linkage rather than a “system of interest representation,” corporatism can readily be combined w. Colonialism to produce what we term “colonial corporatism.”
Mainstay - a person or thing on which something else is based or depends.
Modernity at large
Development has two distinct meanings in colonial discourse. On the one hand, development is a global historical movement, an intensification and restructuring of economic activity associated frequently with the expansion of modern capitalism. In another sense, development means conscious activity undertaken to create wealth. - p. 104
Yanaihara Tadao - famous for his opposition to Japanese imperialism in the 1930s
“Self-reconstruction nationalism” by Kenneth Wells - p.120
Metropolitan - 2nd meaning: relating to / denoting the parent state of a colony / dependency
Understanding the nature of colonial modernity became a prerequisite for understanding the increasingly complex and diverse modernity of present-day Korea - p. 130
“Although beyond the scope of this paper, a critical defect of all previous studies of the colonial period should be mentioned here. Socioeconomic research has concentrated almost exclusively on the 1930-45 period, esp. 1945-53. This gap seriously Undermines our understanding of Korea’s modern transformation. Most studies look only at the colonial period itself, stopping abruptly at 1945, and then relate it directly to 1960s or 1970s Korea, leaving out the changes that occurred in the 1950s as part of the chaos of the Korean War. Although this neglect is understandable bc of the lack of source materials abt this period, this critical flaw must be overcome before we can properly evaluate the changes btwn 1930 and 1945 and their impact on 1960s economic growth and modernization. Btwn 1945 and 1960, American forces penetrated liberated Korea, as another totally new, foreign, modern influence. The Korean War was an equally powerful, socioeconomic revolution and changed Korean society once again.” - p.159
Prima facie - based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise
Cognizant - having knowledge / being aware of
Effervescent - vivacious and enthusiastic
In media res - A narrative work beginning in medias res (Classical Latin: [ɪn ˈmɛdɪ.aːs ˈreːs], lit. "into the middle of things") opens in the midst of the plot (cf. ab ovo, ab initio).[1] Often, exposition is bypassed and filled in gradually, through dialogue, flashbacks or description of past events.
Lacuna - an unfilled space or interval; a gap
Epistolary - (of a literary work) in the form of letters
Bildungsroman - a novel dealing with one person's formative years or spiritual education.
roman-fleuve - a novel featuring the leisurely description of the lives of closely related people.
Manumit - release from slavery ; set free
CH 12: MInjok as a Modern and Democratic Construct: Sin Ch'aeho's Historiography
As Andre Schmid pointed out, when intellectuals throughout EA appropriated the neologism, minjok became not only a powerful pol concept but also “a powerful conceptual tool… to rewrite [the] historical past.” (337)
In contrast to these views, I argue in this essay that minjok is a modern construct, not to recognize it as such is to miss the crucial link in the early 20th C KR historiography btwn natlism and democratic thought. To understand this linkage, we might begin w the question when and how peasants of Kyongsang province, for ex. Became KRs.
Examines premodern KR historiography: 삼국사기(doesn’t include Tangun), 삼국유사(does include Tangun but was written under a very different historical context. Mongols invasions)
Sin Ch’aeho’s use of the Tan’gun legend in a 20th-C context was similarly a narrative of resistance, but it was also a re-invention-and not simply a revival-of this old and recurrent narrative in premodern KR historiography. That is to say, earlier representations of KR as a social totality in the Samguk sagi, Samguk yusa, or in the Confucian historiography of the Chosun period did not necessarily, or teleologically, develop into the secular and egalitarian imaginary called the “minjok.” The best evidence that any “transmission” of the past must also be a re-invention is Sin Ch’aeho’s “Toksa sillon” itself. (340-341)
By identifying the minjok, rather than the monarch, as the subject of an evolutionary history (where the strong survive and the weak perish), Sin’s “Toksa sillon” displaced traditional forms of Confucian historiography-편년체, 기전체-with the (tragic) epic form.
In 1908, Sin’s indictment of Kim Pusik’s Samguk sagi for the deletion of Manchuria from KR history and his reconceptualization of state history (kuksa) as the history of the KR nation (minjoksa) were racial conceptual acts. Sin Ch’aeho’s identification of the minjok as the subject of an evolutionary History marks a watershed in modern KR intellectual history.
Some see natlism as a rational attempt by the weak and poor peoples of the world to achieve autonomy and liberty, whereas others see natlism as “one of Eur’s most pernicious exports,” whose inevitable consequence has been the annihilation of freedom. In contrast, I argue that, as in other natlist movements, KR natlism embodies both democratic (liberating) and oppressive tendencies, and these tendencies manifest themselves most directly in the writing of natlist historiography in KR. Focusing on the historiography of Sin, I show how natlist historiography resisted the degrading assertions of JP colonialist historiography and helped to create a modern form of civil society in KR. At the same time, I explain how this natlist historiography has inhibited the deepening of demo by suppressing heterogeneity and discontinuity in KR history.
“Toksa sillon” (1908)
- examines 신채호의 독사실론, 조선상고사, 조선혁명선언
In criticizing these textbooks [written by J scholars], Sin 1) identified the history of KR w the fortunes of the minjok as constituted by the descendants of Tan’gun; 2) gave the ggr size of KR as abt ten times the customary 3,000 square li, thus appropriating nearly all of Manchuria; 3) took great pains to assert a distinct, separate ethnicity for the KR ppl, tracing a precise, singular genealogical history beginning w Tan’gun thru Old Chosun-Puyo-Koguryo-Parhae-Koryo-Chosun; and 4) characterized, w/o equivocation, history as an instrument or a vehicle for instilling patriotism among youth.
Sin’s identification of a country’s history w the history of the ppl (minjoko) parallels the revolutionary shift that occurred with the FR Rev. The opening sentence of “Toksa sillon” reflects the republican ideal held by Sin and many other leading natlist intellectuals of that time.
Sin’s “Toksa sillon” “became the first in a long line of KR history writing that wielded the Manchurian connection to create a natlist history that reveled in the grandeur of an ancient past.” (345)
Sin problematized orthodox conceptions of KR’s natl space. Two decades prior to Sin’s Toksa sillon, JP historians had begun to question the “limited” conception of JP’s natl space. The spatial imagining of a greater JP and Sin’s greater KR shared a similar strategy, but their pol aims were diametrically opposed – Kume was creating a historical framework for JP colonialism, and Sin a historical framework for KR resistance.
* Minjok as a totalizing discourse
“Colonialist Historiography”
Colonial historiography, written mostly by JP historians but also by a number of KR historians, provided justification for JP control over KR by narrating KR history in terms of “lack” – for ex. KRs lacked the capacity for autonomous devl, or KRs lacked a progressive spirit.
Present-day SK historians identify four characteristics of colonialist historiography (일제식민사학): t’ayulsongron(타율성론), external forces (CH, Manchurian, and JP) had determined KR’s historical devl; chongch’esong-ron(정체성론), KR history was stagnant (the late Chosun had not even reached the feudal stage of devl); tangp’asong-ron(당파성론), factionalism is deeply ingrained into the KR pol culture (as evidenced by successive literati purges and factional strife during Chosun); and ilson tongjoron(일선동조론), JP and KR shared common ethnic origins, and thus JP’s colonization of KR represented the restoration of ancient ties.
Minjok as a Totalizing Discourse
If, however, minjok is a 20thC contruct, and a derivative discourse at that, how was it that KR natlism became such a powerful mobilizing force?
Colonialism and Natlism
The proliferation of discourses on KR identity stemmed from the necessity to “nationalize.” (351). For both KRs and JP, the necessity of producing KR subjects was prompted by the devl of the global nation-state system.
The slogan of naisen ittai, however, reveals the ambivalence of JP’s racist policy throughout the colonial period, the ambivalence marked by the combination of exteriorization and internal exclusion. JP, as the interior (nai), excludes KR (sen) as the “outside”; at the same time, this outside (KR) must become one w the interior, which is always already there. It was in this sense that JP colonialism was “constructive” for both the colonizer and colonized: the construction of JP superiority as demonstrated by the inferiority of KRs, and the superiority claimed by the colonizer generating a self-image of inferiority among KRs.
Minjok and Minjung
In Sin’s anarchist writings (1925 on), the all-embracing identity of minjok is replaced by the more partisan category of minjung… it is worth quoting at length from Sin’s intro to CS.
“What is history? It is the record of the state of metnal activity in human society wherein the struggle btwn the “I”(a) and the “non-I” (pi-a) developed through time and expands through space. World history, then is a record of such a state for all of mankind, whereas KR history is a record of such a state for the Korean ppl… The more frequent the contact btwn I and the non-I, the more heated will be the struggle of the I against the non-I. And so there is no respite in the activity of human society, and there will never be a day when the forward advance of history will be completed…”
Sin also denounced those natlists who advocated “diplomacy” and “preparation”. Syngman Rhee was “stupid (어리석고 용렬하다) for banking on foreign intervention to solve the prob of natl survival. As for An Ch’angho and others who argued for “preparation,” Sin reminded them that they should be preparing for a war of independence.
♥공감과 댓글 감사합니다♥
댓글