창작과 비평

In Relation to the Tradition of East Asia and the Modern World

Lim Hyoung-taek
Professor of Korean Chinese Classics, sungkyunkwan University

5. Perceptoins of Korean Culture during Colonialization

The discussion so far has been about problems our people faced during the transition from the traditional East Asian world to the modern world. Ultimately, the task of establishing an independent nation state came to the forefront, and it was a historically justifiable demand. After 1910, however, as the acutely painful experiences of our earlier generation tell us, the open path to a modern world was interrupted. How are we to view our culture during the period of colonialization by Japan? Were these rare debates about civilization made irrelevant?
In the early 20th century, when the West's version of the modern world overtook the entire globe, an extraordinary situation was unfolding in East Asia. An island country named Japan had rapidly matured into a modern nation. It had become the sole success story of capitalism in the non-Western world. Japan had at last gained hegemony over East Asia, the last arena of competition among world powers. It would be Japan that annexed the Korean peninsula and then trampled into the Chinese continent. The annexation also marked the first time an imperialist relationship was established between two non-Western nations. This unusual situation in the East Asian region merits particular attention.
East Asia would see its historical significance as a unique cultural sphere dissolve as it came into contact with the modern world order. At the same time intra-East Asian interrelations had become much more active and complex. As it emerged as the dominant country in the region, Japan quickly drew back its so-called logic of "de-Asianism," fervently advocated up to that point, and in turn proclaimed a new "Asianism." According to Asianism, "the advanced modernized nation," i.e. Japan, shoulded the all-important duty of saving the yellow race from the invasion of the whites, and, furthermore, of guiding its backward neighbors toward modernization. Its claim was, in short, was that it was going to build an "Asia of Asians." This approach later leads to the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," which was in fact used to disguise their militarist invasion. As is shown in Sin Chaeho's desigantion of Japan as a "robber nation" in his Joseon Hyeongmyeong Seoneon東洋革命宣言 ("The Declaration of Joseon Revolution"), it would be hard to say that Japan's argument was anything other than the self-justification of a robber nation. From other quarters, however, surfaced a different logic, calling for Asia's peace and alliance in face of aggressive Japan-oriented Asianism. An Junggeun's Dongyang Pyeonghwa Ron東洋平和論 ("An Essay on Peace in Asia") in Korea, and Sunwen's "Great Asianism" in China are a few examples. Our independence fighters, operating in China, asserted that "resolving the problems of China is the key to resolving Joseon's," showing true efforts to rebuild a genuine Asia through alliances between nations.
The primary factor that contributed to the emergence of Japan as hegemony is the successful outcome of its plans to learn and follow the Western ways. Tokyo became a virtual learning ground of modern civilization for Asians of other nations. That is why a considerable number of new generation intellectuals from China as well as Korea studied abroad in Japan. Japan had paved the way for the import of Western academic culture. Another point to note is that, when the Japanese translated Western works, they capitalized on their tradition of Chinese characters; therefore, Western concepts were introduced and employed easily in Korea and China as well. It would be worthwhile to see whether there was a certain cultural strategy involved in Japan's acceptance Chinese characters as its own, without animosity, and in being dilligent about the teaching of Chinese characters. Whatever the case may be, there is no doubt that Japan was the "second most important region" of the modern world order, and at the same time, the center of the cultural sphere of Chinese character-using countries.
What were the consequences of the imperialist relations between the governing (Japan) and the governed (Korea)? The issue of assessing the period of colonialization has recently surfaced as a subject of attention in Korean academic circles. Opinions contrast sharply on whether Japanese colonialization was a period of "modernization" or a period of "exploitation," for the colonial period falls under the time frame of the formation of modern culture. Although I had no intention of dealing with this matter in this essay, it seems inevitable here. In relation to conceiving our culture under Japanese rule, I will mention the current issues of the academic community.
Looking over the dispute, I was struck by a peculiar thought that the fuss over whether colonialization should be interpreted as development (modernization) or as exploitation is like the "blind man fumbling over an elephant" (knowing the parts without seeing the whole picture ― translator's note). Governing colonies is an internal phenomenon of capitalism, happening in no other than a modern environment. There is no question about it being an oppressive system and an exploitive structure. At the same time, the logic of colonialization justifies itself with the cause of the colony's modernization. There is no denying that while governing a colony, the ruling nation introduces modern ways, controlling and managing its colony according those ways. Therefore, it is also true that colonialism brings about some sort of change and development in the colonies.
There is more that is worth considering here. The imperialist relationship was established in a non-Western region, and between close neighboring countries at that. This special factor widely exposed an apparent contradiction; Japan, on the one hand, systematically intensified destruction and violence in the colony, and on the other, elaborated the cause of development and revolution, i.e. of modernization. Those who view colonialization as modernization claim that we should consider both sides of exploitation and development. Yet they pour all their efforts in gathering evidence to verify whether or not there really had been exploitation. The verification certainly does nothing to settle the heated argument. Rather, the advocates of the "colonial modernization" are apt to be seen as those aiming to "beautify" colonialism; thus, the arguments that followed are bound to get off to a bumpy start.
Returning to my main subject, let us take a look at the cultural aspects of the colonialization. The arguments so far have adhered to a logic based on economics, and culture, the mirror of the times, has been left out in the cold. No doubt, colonialism is a system brought about by the logic of economics. However, there are some aspects that economics is blind to. Seen through the mirror of culture, a true perspective of the times which economics failed to capture, comes within our grasp. I firmly believe that we will be able to comprehend the painful stories of the people who lived during these times, their agony leading to creation and originality of renwen, the manifestation of wenming, and their everyday feelings and emotions.
Had our culture truly existed during Japanese rule? If so, how are we to assess it? There is plenty of room for negative judgment on the matter. It has generally been said that our culture during that period was a mere transplant, devoid of its own self-identity. Some even point out that the period was an age of "cultural rape," and this is not totally off the mark. During the previous age of modern enlightenment, a modern endeavor was undertaken to establish a new civilization by integrating the core of our tradition and the essence of Western culture. Various activities were directed toward that goal.
This autonomous modern project seemed to dissolve as our country entered the dark period of colonialization. Numerous disheartening occurences, such as the destruction of tradition and the misinterpretation and distortion of our culture were unfolding in a complicated series of events. Still, we cannot overlook the undeniable fact that our culture took a surprisingly big leap, especially during the 1920s and 30s. With regard to literature, my own area of study, a new literature was established with the introduction of Western literature, and it has led up to the modern Korean literature of today. To give a positive assessment of our modern literature, we can say that it has produced a large number of epochal works unprecedented in the history of Korean literature. I dare say there was significant progress on two important grounds: modernity and the achievement of a national literature. Furthermore, our modern literature takes on global significance in that it spoke explicitly for the pain of all oppressed people of the world and their hope for freedom. Our writers yielded remarkable works even under the harsh scrutiny of the censure system, which hunted out all works that dealt with the oppressive structure of imperialism and its various manifestations.
In one sense, we may have been playing into the hands of the Japanese. There was criticism at the time, pointing out that we gained the novels and songs at the expense of our territory. Should we have defended the cause of our nation like the supporters of cheoksa wijeong even in literature? The history of North Korea's literature, which places central importance on "revolutionary anti-Japanese literature," is a case in point. Seong sammun成三問, a loyal retainer of the Joseon court, asked of Baiyi伯夷 and Shuji叔齊, the celebrated faithful courtiers of China, "Would you rather reap fern than starve to death? No matter how small a weed, do you realize whose territory it is from?" From Seong's conceptual purity, we can identify a paradoxically frightening sense of reality. In ancient times, even when Baiyi and Shuji fled to the mountains in order to avoid eating the crops yielded from the "land of injustice," they were criticized by Seong. In modern times, some did refuse to work for the "Japs" and left the country to work in the independence movement overses. But man cannot be free from the conditions of life, and the greater majority of people eked out a livelihood, tied to the daily life of colonialism. It took uncommon courage indeed to refuse to go along. It was the reality of the times, and it requires a closer look.
After 1901, Japanese militarist rule triggered the Samil Undong("the March First Movement"). This movement in turn gave sudden rise to a new modern culture, enabling the people to reach higher levels of cultural growth even during the oppressive military regime of the 1930s. Sunwen, China' father of modern revolution, is said to have told Gim Changsuk right after the March First Movement that "it is a rare case in all of history that such a large-scale revolution broke out in less than a decade of colonial rule" (Byeogong 73-nyeon Hoesanggi ("The Reminiscences of Old Man Byeok at the Age of 73")). Excessive persecution, no doubt, set off reactionary resistance.
The resistance took on a modern tone. The people's capacities and consciousness developed within the harsh reality of the time. While their bodies were shackled in the daily life of colonial rule, their consciousness matured in aiming to tear down the fetters, resulting in countless bouts of conflict and agony within themselves. Here lies the dynamic characteristics of man and the originality of renwen. Consequently, I myself have thought that our culture during the colonial rule is a product of a subjective and progressive countermove against heterogeneous modern situations, and a manifestation of self-discovery and self-expression. The remarkable underlying ability of our culture to digest foreign culture, which had been thoroughly displayed when we adopted huaxia wenming, once again exhibited itself in the adoption of Western culture. Moreover, the previously prevalent discourses on civilization worked as a buffer in the collision with the unfamiliar Western culture.