Korean Studies Internet Discussion List KOREAN STUDIES REVIEW
Yoonmi Lee, Modern Education, Textbooks and the Image of the Nation: Politics of Modernization and Nationalism in Korean Education, 1880-1910. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2000. 160 pages. ISBN: 0-8153-3874-0.
Reviewed by Hyung-chan Kim
Western Washington University
Few books on Korean education in English are available for the English reader who may desire to know about educational ideas and institutions that have shaped the present educational system either in South or North Korea. Still fewer books have been made available in English to inform the reader, be they native or foreign, of the complex relationships between Korea's modern education and the Korean process of modernization/ Westernization. The present volume, originally written as a doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin-Madison under the able guidance of Michael Apple, affords those of us interested in the social, cultural, and political foundations of education an opportunity to read about a variety of theoretical considerations concerning modernization as they relate to education. Furthermore, this book will also draw particular attention from the reader who is interested in examining the interlocking relationships between how ideas are constructed in education to promote certain political interests and ideologies and how they are put into textbooks for public consumption for students in school.
The book is unique in its treatment of topics dealing with the way in which modernization in Korea has been intertwined with nationalism during the three decades when Korean independence was besieged by its neighboring powers, namely Japan, China, and Russia. The book is divided into seven chapters. Chapter One, an introduction to the book, entitled "Problems, Issues, and Method," lays the groundwork for a variety of theoretical explanations with regard to the concept of modernization. The author's attempt to differentiate between Western modernization and non-Western modernization deserves attention from those of us who are interested in examining how non-Western countries such as China and Korea failed to modernize, while Japan, another non-Western nation, successfully modernized itself. Some scholars have argued that Japan was successful in bringing about modernization due to its late entry into the world system of capitalism, while others have suggested that China failed in its modernization effort due to the Western capitalist intrusion that not only constrained but also distorted its socioeconomic and political advancement. Insofar as Korea's failure to modernize itself is concerned, according to the author, this so-called dependency theory is unable to account for the Korean case of modernization, because Korea entered into the world capitalist system even later than Japan did. The author challenges the "failure thesis," to borrow from her own words, and attempts to explain Korea's modernization as a complex process of building or constructing Korea's nationalism or national identity. To the extent that Korean nationalism emerged in this process of modernization, Korea was successful in its efforts to bring about modernization.
What is missing from the author's analysis of the modernization/Westernization of Korea, or of any country or people for that matter, is a deep understanding of what modernization entails. Certainly, we know that modernization is not synonymous with modernity. The author seems to have developed the notion that nationalism in Korea was a positive outcome of modernization by means of modern education, but it is difficult to claim that the individual's freedom, autonomy, and rationality, the three pillars of modernity, have been enhanced by modern education in general. On the contrary, personal freedom and autonomy have been oppressed in many countries around the world in the name of modern education that is designed to teach school children to be patriotic and to follow the dictates of their leaders. In reality, modernization has misrepresented and misappropriated the principles of modernity.
In Chapter Two, entitled "Theories: Modern Mass Education and the Construction of National Identity," the author suggests that modern mass education is mainly responsible for instilling in the minds of a people a sense of cultural homogeneity and of identity within the nation-state.
This national identity, which is actually a myth, is constructed for transmission in schools, as the author writes in this chapter. There is very little argument against this claim. But one has to question the statement made by the author to the effect that "school knowledge is neither a reality imposed by dominant social groups, nor the product of a social consensus, but the result of a contest." A fundamental assumption behind this statement is that dominated groups may construct school knowledge, not the dominant groups. But if school knowledge is a result of a contest between groups, and one group defeats another group in the contest, it is logically correct to state that the winner gets to construct school knowledge. In other words, the dominant group has the opportunity to construct what is known as school knowledge.
In Chapter Three, entitled "The Emergence of Modernizers and Their Ideology," the author makes a significant contribution to our understanding of Korean modernizers' understanding of Darwinism then popular in the West, within the context of their desire to modernize Korean society in order to make it "fit" to survive in the world where only the fit survive. According to the author, Korean modernizers interpreted this notion of "survival of the fittest" in terms of social and political rather than biological survival. In connection with Darwinism, there developed two rather opposing ideas of nationalism and Asianism. The ideology of Asianism, originally developed in Japan by those who feared the invasion of the East by the West, was embraced by Korean modernizers who believed that Asians were not inferior to Westerners; they fell behind the West mainly due to the lack of certain characteristics that could help them win in the struggle for survival. The ideologues of Asianism were believers in Asian solidarity against Western aggression. With the Japanese colonization of Korea, this ideology was met with strong resistance coming from Korean nationalists.
In Chapter Four, entitled "The Politics of State Formation, Nation Building and Modern Education," the author seems somewhat confused over the concept of tradition and that of traditionalism. On page 63, the author uses "Traditionalism versus Modernization" as a subtitle, implying that the politics of modernization was between those who supported traditionalism and those who desired modernization. But on the following page the author states that Confucianists' ideology was "pro-tradition and elitist." This use of the term "tradition" is rather confusing. Tradition has to be clearly differentiated from traditionalism. The former points to particular socio-cultural practices that have endured through time sufficiently to be still functioning effectively in the lives of people, while the latter suggests a strong proclivity on the part of those who support anything that is embedded in tradition, be it functional or not. There is a minor error on page 68. China was not defeated in Korea as a result of the Shimonoseki Treaty, as the author claims; rather, the Shimonoseki Treaty was concluded as a result of China's defeat in Korea.
In Chapters Five and Six, the author makes a thorough analysis of textbooks published between 1894 and 1910. The author classifies and analyzes the political and ideological messages of textbooks in order to find how Korea's nation-state as well as ethnic identity were constructed by the textbook writers for transmission to children in school. In Chapter Six, the author states, "it is important to note how they [Korean modernizers] perceived the Western modernity." But the author has not elaborated on how they actually perceived modernity as understood and practiced in the West.
In the concluding chapter, the author suggests that today the two Koreas might have to redefine or re-imagine through negotiation the common elements of the nation in order to bring about unification of the divided people. The author is right in suggesting that North and South Korea have to redefine what common cultural elements would bind Koreans together in a modern nation-state, if they are going to achieve a peaceful unification.
They may also determine that there are no major common cultural elements that can hold them together in a nation-state, thus deciding to maintain two separate nations. Either way, what Koreans in both south and north should avoid is the ideological insistence that there are common cultural elements holding them together, thus justifying the concept of unification at any cost. Such a stringent ideological position might well lead to another cultural and perhaps even military conflict.
Citation:
Kim, Hyung-chan 2002
Review of Modern Education, Textbooks and the Image of the Nation: Politics of Modernization and Nationalism in Korean Education, 1880-1910, by Yoonmi Lee (2000)
Korean Studies Review 2002, no. 5
Electronic file: http://koreanstudies.com/ks/ksr/ksr02-05.htm
Return to Index of Reviews
Return to Entry Page