COLONIAL MODERNITY MATTERS?

Abstract

Abstract This study summarizes the impact of the colonial modernity thesis upon the South Korean academy, debates about the colonial past in Korean historiography, and new approaches that seek to overcome the traditional dichotomy of Korean historiography, macro-analysis and rejection of modernity as ultimate destination. Despite these new approaches, polemic that the colonial modernity thesis instigates, and the inspiration some intellectuals have derived from these, the term 'colonial modernity' has not been embraced by the Korean academy. This study explores this ambivalence, rather than dismissing negative responses as nationalist, because this scholarly ambivalence reveals the ontological dilemma inherent in the study or consideration of South Korea's colonial past. The author contends that this dilemma is not simply a matter of how to accept or reject the colonial modernity thesis; rather, it derives both from Korean scholars' inextricable location within the legacy of Korea's colonial wounds, and from Korean academy's awareness of its marginality and lack of voice in the global academic regime. Keywords: colonial pastKorean academycolonial modernity thesisanti-Japanismglobal academy regimeKorean historiography Acknowledgement This work was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund. Notes 1. Chun uses the term 'global academic regime' to highlight the importance of institutional situatedness in the study of identity, as well as the persistent global division of intellectual labour particularly between Asia and the West. 2. Reviews of these perspectives have been widely conducted within the Korean academy but are mostly inaccessible to English readers. Ahn (2008 Ahn, Y. 2008. "The colonial past in post-colonial South Korea: colonialism, modernity and gender". In Contested Views of a Common Past: Revisions of History in Contemporary East Asia, Edited by: Richter, S. 157–180. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag. [Google Scholar]) provided a fine summary and evaluation in English. 3. Shin (1997 Shin, Y. 1997. Sikminji Geundaehwaron-e Deahan Beepan [Critique on colonial modernization theory]. Changjak-kwa Beepyung, 25(4): 8–38. [Google Scholar]) added that the policy of ethnocide policy distinguished the Japanese Empire from Western empires. All translations from Korean sources are the author's unless otherwise noted. 4. This theory both considers the special conditions of Korean history and presumes universal historic development. One of the most representative groups is called the School of National Economy (Lee 1997 Lee, H. 1997. Naejae-juk Baljeonron Beepan-e Daehan Ban-Beepan [Counter critique on criticism against indigenous development]. Yeoksa Beepyung, 41: 229–242. [Google Scholar]). 5. According to Jung (1999 Jung, Y. 1999. Sikminjin Geundaehwaron Nonjeng-ui Beepan-kwa Shin-Geundaesaron-ui Mosak [Critique on colonial modernization theory and exploration of new perspective on the modern]. Changjak-kwa Beepyung, 27(1): 352–376. [Google Scholar]), the launch of the Research Association of Korean Modern Economy among Korean and Japanese scholars in 1987 was the first collective effort by modernization theorists. 6. According to Seokgon Cho (2006 Cho, S. 2006. Sikiminji Geundaehwaron Yeonkoo Sungkwa-ui Beepanjeok Sooyoung [Critical reception of colonial modernity theory]. Yeoksa Beepyung, 75: 57–75. [Google Scholar]), the theory of indigenous development either ignores or postpones responses to new findings by the school of modernization theory. 7. Changjak-kwa Beepyung is a well-known and respected South Korean critical studies journal. Recently, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies published a special issue on Nakchung Baek, a founder as well as a long time chief-in-editor of this journal (2010). 8. Modernization theory does express some concern that, without substantial evidence, trying to find parallels between the 1930s and the 1960s in Korea might result in romanticizing colonial control (Cho 1998a Cho, S. 1998a. Sikminji Geundaehwaron-kwa Neajeajuck Baljeonron Jeageomto [Review on colonial modernization theory and indigenous development theory]. Dongyangkwa Jeonmang, 38: 62–96. [Google Scholar]). 9. Attempts to call for new approaches include sociocultural theory, theory of colonial modernity, and other postcolonial approaches. These viewpoints have yet to find a common terminology, however. 10. For more detailed discussions, see Barlow (1997 Barlow, T. E. 1997. "Introduction: on "colonial modernity". In Formations of Colonial Modernity in East Asia, Edited by: Barlow, T. E. 1–20. Durham/London: Duke University Press. [Google Scholar]) in Formations of Colonial Modernity in East Asia and Shin and Robinson in Colonial Modernity in Korea (1999). 11. Other works that broke ground in this regard are Kim (1999 Kim, J. 1999. Geundaui Hyungsung [Construction of Modernity: Permitting Dance Hall in Seoul], Seoul: Hyunsil Moonhwa Yeonkoo. [Google Scholar]), Geundaui Hyungsung [Construction of Modernity: Permitting Dance Halls in Seoul]; Shin (2003 Shin, M. 2003. Modern Boy Gyungsung-ul Geotta [Modern Boy Strolling Kyungsung: Faces of Modernity], Seoul: Hyunsil Moonhwa Yeonkoo. [Google Scholar]), Modern Boy Gyungsung-ul Geotta [Modern Boy Strolling Kyungsung: Faces of Modernity]. Seoul, Hyunsil Moonhwa Yeonkoo; Bodrae Kwon (2003). Yeonae-ui Sidae [Age of Romance: Cultural Trends in 1920s]. Seoul, Hyunsil Moonhwa Yeonkoo; Junghwan Chun (2003). Geundaejuk Chekilgi [Modern Reading: Birth of Readers and Korean Modern Literature]. Seoul, Prun Yeoksa; Kwon, M.-A. (2005). Yeoksa-ui Fascism [Fascism of History: Imperial Fantasy and Gender Politics]. Seoul, Chek-Sesang. 12. In the same volume, Kim (1997 Kim, H. 1997. "Iljeha Janyo Yangyuk-kwa Erini-ui Hyungsung [Child rearing and construction of child under Japanese Empire]". In Geunda Jooche-wa Sikminji Gyuryul Kwonryul [Modern Subjectivity and Colonial Discipline Power], Edited by: Kim, H. and Jung, J. 222–276. Seoul: Moonhwa Kwahak-Sa. [Google Scholar]), examined how the introduction of modern education into child-rearing nurtured colonial subjects for the Japanese Government. 13. Shin's (2006 Shin, J. 2006. "Cheyuk Gyoyook-ui Gunsahwa-wa Kangjedeon Geongang [Militarization of physical education and enforced heath]". In Sikminji-ui Ilsang: Jibae-wa Gyunyeul [Everyday Life of the Colony: Control and Rupture], Edited by: Kong, J. and Jung, G. 229–256. Seoul: Moonhak-kwa Kwahak-Sa. [Google Scholar]) examination of modern education Korea focused on physical education during the colonial period. The author suggested parallels between the military mobilization of the 1940s and the authoritarian control (of South Korea) by President Jung-Hee Park in the 1970s. 14. Kang (2006 Kang, N. 2006. "Youngeo Gyoyuk kwa Youngeo Weesang [English and its Social Status]". In Sikminji-ui Ilsang: Jibae-wa Gyunyeul [Everyday Life of the Colony: Control and Rupture], Edited by: Kong, J. and Jung, G. 401–432. Seoul: Moonhak-kwa Kwahak-Sa. [Google Scholar]) traced the social status associated with English in Korea and the language's functional usage there. Even during colonization, English was a form of cultural capital although this cache was motivated in part by the popularity of Hollywood films. In any case, Koreans under Japanese rule were eager to learn English. 15. As Ahn (2008 Ahn, Y. 2008. "The colonial past in post-colonial South Korea: colonialism, modernity and gender". In Contested Views of a Common Past: Revisions of History in Contemporary East Asia, Edited by: Richter, S. 157–180. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag. [Google Scholar]) clarified, while modernity is interpellated against colonialism 'some of the dichotomous concepts are often seen in conjunction with the gender dichotomy male/female' (p. 165). The conjunction of strong nationalist commitment and masculine ideology forces even nationalist historians into either ambivalence about or dismissal of gender-specific issues during the colonial period. 16. Kwon (2006 Kwon, M. 2006. "Yeoja Spy-Dan-ui Shinwha-wa Joeun Ilbonin Deugee [Myth on women's spy group and becoming good Japaneses]". In Geundaerul Dasi Ilnunda [Rereading Modernity: Toward a New Paradigm for Korean Modernity], Edited by: Yoon, H., Chun, J., Huh, S., Hwang, B., Lee, Y. and Yoon, D. 189–215. Seoul: Yeoka Beepyung-Sa. [Google Scholar]) examined the women's spy discourses that became widespread in colonial Korea after the Sino-Japanese War (1936–1937). Chun (2006 Chun, J. 2006. "1920-30s-ui Chekilgi-ui Moonhwa-wa Byunhwa [Culture of book reading and its transformations in 1920-30s]". In Geundaerul Dasi Ilnunda [Rereading Modernity: Toward a New Paradigm for Korean Modernity], Edited by: Yoon, H., Chun, J., Huh, S., Hwang, B., Lee, Y. and Yoon, D. 19–95. Seoul: Yeoka Beepyung-Sa. [Google Scholar]) explored the growing market for children's books and modernized patterns of book reading during the colonial period (the former shifted from recitation to personal reading; the latter shifted from the scriptures to functional materials such as textbooks). Daesuk Yoon (2006), Guncha Yoon (2006) and Haedong Yoon (2006) found structural homology (the repetition of fascist logic in the definition of 'national literature') between the mobilization of the 1940s and the national development movement of the 1970s. 17. Lee (2006 Lee, S. 2006. Ilsang-ul Tonghae Bon Sikminji Geundaesung [Colonial modernity through everyday life]. Yeoksa Beepyung, 76: 484–499. [Google Scholar]) also referred to the issue of its methodology by arguing that research on discourse might distort images of the colonial past by generalizing unique or particular experiences. 18. For the recent reformation of Higher Education and colonial condition of knowledge production in South Korea, see Kang (2009 Kang, M. 2009. 'State-guided' university reform and colonial conditions of knowledge production. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 10(2): 191–205. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). 19. Nonetheless, Jung (2008 Jung, Y. 2008. Gildeuejiji Annun Hoiseak-ui Dasungsung [Polyphony of the grey zones]. Moonhakwa Sahoi, 77: 407–412. [Google Scholar]) acknowledged that this book brings many ambiguous possibilities into focus. 20. Several Korean academics are seriously offended particularly by the epilogue's description of Korean historiography. In his epilogue, Eckert (1999 Eckert, C. J. 1999. "Epilogue: exorcizing Hegel's ghosts: toward a postnationalist historiography of Korea". In Colonial Modernity in Korea, Edited by: Shin, G.-W. and Robinson, M. 363–378. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar], p. 366) argues that 'nationalist paradigms have so dominated intellectual life in Korea that they obfuscated, subsumed or obliterated virtually all other possible modes of historical interpretation'. 21. Not every author in the volume took the same position. In her examination of the consumption of American films during the colonial period, Lee (2006 Lee, S. 2006. Ilsang-ul Tonghae Bon Sikminji Geundaesung [Colonial modernity through everyday life]. Yeoksa Beepyung, 76: 484–499. [Google Scholar]) argued that the construction of cultural landscapes should be explicated through the perspective of colonial modernity as a universal experience, not of modernization of a specific colony. 22. Sakai (2003 Sakai , N. 2003 Nai Sasang Yeojung [My academic trajectories] , trans . Lee , G.-S. , in Kukminjooui-ui Poiesis: Sakai Naoki [Poiesis of Nationalism: Essays by Naoki Sakai] , Y.-S. Lee , Seoul , ChangBi . [Google Scholar]) mentioned that the delight of writing in English is a possibility of addressing something to people of various nations, not just to an Anglophone community and suggested subversively appropriating 'an imperial history of English'. I do not much agree with the latter. 23. Chun (2008 Chun, A. 2008. The postcolonial alien in us all: identity in the global division of intellectual labor. Positions, 16(3): 689–710. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], p. 696) further argued that 'We should really be deconstructing underlying institutional regimes and not simply conceptual representations'.