[KS] Re: On Horace H. Underwood's paper

[Horace H. Underwood]

Dear korean-studies friends:

I am grateful to Shin Jong-Hwa for some kind comments.  But for all
of you who are already laughing, I am by no means "one of the most
significant specialists on Korea."  I am not even a Koreanist, though
I sometimes call myself an amateur.  I AM, however, a specialist in
international education in Korea, a vanishingly small field in which
I have little competition.  It was from that point of view that I wrote
for the Academy of Korean Studies - a point of view they might
not have particularly thought of.  The korean-studies listserv represents
international Korean studies, indeed, but I come to the intersection
of Korean studies and international education more from the
international education side.  If that raises interesting issues, I'm
glad.

Horace H. Underwood, Executive Director
Korean-American Educational Commission (Fulbright)
Seoul, Korea
hhu at fulbright.or.kr

-----Original Message-----
From: Jong-Hwa Shin <syreg at hotmail.com>
To: korean-studies at mailbase.ac.uk <korean-studies at mailbase.ac.uk>
Date: Sunday, May 02, 1999 9:52 PM
Subject: On Horace H. Underwood's paper


>Dear Member
>
>     I have currently read a paper written by Horace H. Underwood, titled
as
>The Internationalization of «National Studies» and Intentional Korean
>Studies in ‘Korean Studies in the Information Age of the 21st
>Century’(Selected Papers of the 10th International Conference on Korean
>Studies), published by the Academy of Korean Studies and Korea Fulbright
>Foundation. 1998. pp.29-6?.
>     It is very interesting to me, not only because the paper deals with
>current status of Korean studies outside Korea, but also because it unveil
>problems around Korean studies and ‘national studies’, especially inside
>Korea. The author well describes almost all aspects of Korean studies which
>I want to know in a short paper. I think that it could be possible because
>he is one of the most significant specialists on Korea. Even though his
>paper does not direct to develop any specific theoretical arguments for the
>social sciences, his description on Korean studies and introduction on the
>dilemma between ‘national studies’ and ‘Korean studies’ are enough to
>provide many ideas for theorising ‘Korean studies’ as an academic field.
>
>     I would like to make three observations in my research interest on his
>paper. Please give me your feedback, if you are interested in it or you
>better know .
>
>1. debate on ‘Korean studies’ and ‘national studies’
>     It is a well known fact that none of academic institutions in Korea
has
>the department of ‘Korean studies’. All departments in humanities faculty
>which study Korean language and Korean literature are called as ‘Studies
for
>‘national’(with bold) language and literature’. As far as I am concerned,
>Underwood is not satisfied with this kind of naming style in Korea. He
>argues in turn that this is one of obstacle of internationalisation of
>Korean studies.
>     I think that investigation of this phenomenon could be a research
topic
>in Korean studies. I am not sure whether or not this style of naming
>academic disciplines is partly under the influence of Confucian heritage or
>the Japanese colonialism. Do you have any idea of other cases in East Asian
>countries, for example, China, Japan, Taiwan, and North Korea? Do they
>similarly call like ‘national studies’ in South Korea? Do you know any
other
>paper dealing with this controversial issue?
>
>2. Quantitative Increase of Korean Studies outside Korea
>     It is needless to say that the economic growth of Korea opened and
>developed Korean studies. However, this thesis should be carefully
>investigated: there are double interests from Korea and other countries.
>Korean Government’s policy called ‘globalisation’ has provided a source of
>developing Korean studies, in terms of financial support. By the way, many
>countries ,which have made close economic relations with Korea, are also
>very active, at least positive, to build Korean studies in their
>universities. However, it should be stressed that many Korean students who
>studied in abroad play major role in developing Korean studies. In this
>observation, we can compare the case of Korean Studies and other regional
>studies. Maybe there would be similar ways of developing in Japanese
>studies, and partly Chinese Studies, but it must be different from those of
>major European countries and the USA. (Do you know any publications
>historically analysing the Japanese case and the Chinese case?).
>
>3. Introduction and development of Korean studies in ‘the social sciences’
>     If we observe Korean studies in ‘the social sciences’ rather than
>humanities, it will be more clear that how Korea has been analysed by
social
>scientists and its contribution to the development of the social sciences
in
>general. I think that the Korean case is illustrated as the major empirical
>example of ‘neo-institutionalist view’ in political economy, its unique
>formation of big conglomerates and strong labour movements in industrial
>relations, its unlinear but certain democratisation process in politics,
and
>so on. However, it should be stressed that there emerges a new trend doing
>historical analysis of problems of Korean modernity(in broad sense) and
>relocating its theoretical formation in the Social Sciences, for example,
>distancing the Korean case from, what they call, Western theories, and
>Koreanisation of social theory. It is observed that some papers in this
>trend have already published. I am ready to read any papers, conference
>proceedings. Please contact to me.
>
>     Underwood’s paper also provide many implications which are directly
>related to Korean government’s policy on Korean studies until 1998. Overall
>and once again, I am sure that this paper is very helpful. In spite
>importance and seriousness of the issues, it is very easy to read. Just
try!
>Thank you.
>
>Best Wishes
>
>Jong-Hwa Shin
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%