[KS] Re: list problem
Bruce Cumings
bcumings at midway.uchicago.edu
Tue Feb 19 12:57:31 EST 2002
Dear all,
Kim Hyung-a's message is very interesting. I found no use of charyok
kaengsaeng in NK materials of the late 1940s; they used chaju, charip
kyongje, and various similar euphemisms, but in 1949 in internal materials
they began talking about chajusong, which was the only Korean term besides
chu'che that was used in NK English propaganda materials, and so far as I
could tell, chajusong came in with Kim Jong Il's rise to power--his term,
as opposed to his father's chuch'e. I don't know if that was what they
meant to connote, of course, but the use of chajusong in 1949 and
thereafter seemed clearly related to the departure of Soviet troops, with
an eye toward building a self-reliant socialist economy.
Because I found no usage of charyok kaengsaeng in that early time period, I
had assumed that the NKs got it from China, since it was a term the Maoists
used all the time in the 1960s (usually translated as "regeneration through
one's own efforts"), and it has a very Chinese ring to it (particularly in
Korean). The NKs borrowed a lot of Maoist rhetoric, beginning in 1946-47
and continuing thereafter (Mao's "mass line," etc.). But the 1930s
Japanese usage may well be the origin of this term for connoting
self-reliance, autarky, bootstrap self-reliance, etc.
BC
At 10:38 AM 2/15/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>>>Dear Ruediger and all,
>>>
>>>The discussion on "Chuch'e" is certainly interesting and will probably
>>>stimulate the minds of many for some time to come. Similarities between
>>>North Korea and pre-war Japan certainly warrant our further attention.
>>>It would be worth noting the background to Kim Il Sung's strategic
>>>motivation for adopting this term. By promoting "self-reliance"
>>>(chuch'e), what was he trying to achieve? His key objective was to build
>>>North Korea's autarchic system economically, politically and
>>>ideologically. Moreover, Kim sought economic "chuch'e" as the basis for
>>>political, ideological and social chuch'e. It is for this purpose, in my
>>>view, that North Korea frequently equates the objective of chuch'e to
>>>that of "charyok kaengsaeng". The latter term was also used in Japan in
>>>the mid 1930s - under the Saito government - referring to
>>>"self-assistance in resuscitation" (jiriki kyosei* in Japanese). Kim's
>>>chuch'e policy, especially for economic chuch'e or "charyok kaengsaeng",
>>>closely resembles the wartime Japan's autarchic strategy which the
>>>Japanese tried in Korea and Japan during WWII. During WWII, Japan, like
>>>the Soviet Union, followed the autarchic road for survival because they
>>>had no alternative. After 1941, in particular, Japan had to rely on its
>>>own means/technology and resources because it had become isolated from
>>>the West. In so doing, the Japanese empire mobilized best available
>>>human resources, including engineers and scientists, to produce
>>>substitute materials, including for gasoline, lubricants and methanol,
>>>which Japan used to import. During this period, Japan constructed many
>>>factories and developed its technology, as well as mobilizing workers,
>>>in North Korea, all of which Kim Il Sung, of course, inherited. In fact,
>>>those workers helped Kim to build a wartime Japanese-style autarchic
>>>policy after 1953 - perhaps even earlier.
>>>
>>>By the way, this line of argument represents O Wonch'ol's analysis of
>>>North Korean economic policy in the early 1970s, and his analysis became
>>>the basis for President Park's defense-oriented heavy and chemical
>>>industrialization policy during the Yusin era (1973-1979). In fact, O
>>>was the architect of the HCI program and was Park's Senior Economic
>>>Secretary from 1971 to 1979.
>>>
>>>If anyone is interested in O's own thinking on this issue, see his 1995
>>>article: "Pukhan kyongje munojin kkadak" (The Reasons for the Collapse
>>>of North Korea's Economy), Sindong-a, January 1995, pp.148-167. For a
>>>detailed analysis of the Japanese use of "jiriki kyosei" in economic
>>>development planning, see Gordon Mark Berger, Parties Out of Power in
>>>Japan, 1931 -1941, Princeton University Press, 1977.
>>>
>>>
>>>Kim Hyung-a
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 12:25 AM 2/12/02 -0500, you wrote:
>>> >Ruediger's question has certainly generated a fascinating discussion, and
>>> >I can't add much to the lustre already created by Petrov, Cumings,
>>> >Armstrong, Hoffman, Ch'oe et al. But as with many other modern issues
>>> >that I jump into from time to time, I want to mention the classical
>>> echoes
>>> >of the term kukch'e/kokutai. It is frequently seen in 19th century
>>> >Confucian writings, but in a sense that is never refected by the usual
>>> >translations-- national body, body politic, national polity, national
>>> >essence, national entity, etc. Apart from the fascist ring of some of
>>> >these renderings, which is important, it is hard to imagine what kukch'e
>>> >actually MEANT to the multitudes that were forced to mouth the word
>>> >everyday. I have always found most of the translations opaque and
>>> >inadequate. But in the classical discourse, kukch'e connoted something
>>> >like the national face-- and I mean the face that one loses. The element
>>> ><ch'e> has a lot to do with <ch'emy^on>, and that is a concept which
>>> >resonates deeply in all members of East Asian societies. The kukch'e can
>>> >be hurt, it can be embarrassed, it can be insulted, it can be sullied.
>>> >The members of the society must behave in such a way that the kukch'e
>>> will
>>> >not be "lost." This sense of the word resonates with emotions and ethics
>>> >that spring from deep sources in the traditional psyche. It is
>>> because of
>>> >those resonances that the term had so much manipulative power.
>>> > One other comment I wanted to make concerns the literary genre
>>> >represented by Paek Nam'un's speech. It is indeed one of the classical
>>> >exercises that followed the tenk^o, or ch^onhyang in Korean, meaning "a
>>> >turning" but connoting so much more. Almost every intellectual, but
>>> >especially those on the left, had to do their tenk^o--turn away from
>>> >communism and turn toward the protection and nurturing of the kokutai.
>>> >It started with a confession of moral and philosophical errors, then a
>>> >positive response to the demand for a renewal of the self. The new self
>>> >then had to demonstrate repeatedly its new commitment and direction
>>> >through public speeches, and through a new tone in whatever a given
>>> >individual did, whether it was art, literature, music, scholarship,
>>> >journalism, whatever. People who got to this point seldom ever got off
>>> >the hook. Against this background, my first inclination would be not to
>>> >take Paek Nam'un's speeches or other writings after the tenk^o too
>>> >seriously. The pressure exerted by the multitude of handlers and guides
>>> >who followed up on the tenk^o was enormous. You want to take a trip?
>>> >Give a speech and we'll think about it. You want your kids to stay in
>>> the
>>> >prestigious school where they're enrolled? Write an article and it
>>> can be
>>> >arranged. Otherwise... All of this usually developed without torture or
>>> >imprisonment, but there was pain enough.
>>> >
>>> >Gari Ledyard
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Leonid Petrov
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Dear Frank,
>>> >>
>>> >> In April 1941, the founder of the Marxist Socio-economic school of
>>> >> historiography, Paek Nam-un, gave a public lecture titled "The Morality
>>> >> of Regulated Economy". One section of his lecture was titled
>>> "T'ongje-Ui
>>> >> chuch'e-wa sinch'eje-Ui sOngkkyOk" [The Subject of Control and the
>>> >> Nature of the New System]. There Paek argued that Korea [uri kukch'e]
>>> >> must become a subject [chuch'e] of the new Japanese economic control
>>> and
>>> >> therefore help the Japanese people [ilbon kungmin] fulfill the
>>> Emperor's
>>> >> policy on the creation of the country's invincible might [kUmgu
>>> mugyOl].
>>> >>
>>> >> We can see that in this piece the word "chuch'e" was used in its
>>> original meaning -- "subject" -- albeit a little bit broadened by the
>>> fascism-tilting author.
>>> >>
>>> >> This lecture was given at the Keijo Daiwa Hall, the usual venue for
>>> >> "patriotic" events held in the Japanese-occupied Seoul.[1] Paek also
>>> >> argued for successful creation of the Japan-Manchuria-China bloc in
>>> East
>>> >> Asia as was suggested by the "Eight Corners under One Roof" [hakko
>>> >> ichiu] motto. He also compared the merits of Japanese economic system
>>> >> (which he unequivocally called "our national economy") with that of
>>> >> Germany and Italy. Paek claimed that, from the moral point of view, the
>>> >> Japanese economic model, based on the Imperial system, was far more
>>> >> advanced than those implemented by some "prominent leaders" in
>>> >> Europe.[2] Despite the timid criticism of over-regulation and rising
>>> >> prices, Paek called upon his countrymen to mobilize all national
>>> >> resources and prepare themselves for the extremes of wartime economy.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> [1] Paek Nam-un, 'Tosei Keizai-no Rinrisei' [The Morality of Regulated
>>> >> Economy], Toyo-no Hikari, (June 1942), No. 4-6.
>>> >>
>>> >> [2] Paek Nam-un, 'T'ongje KyOngje-Ui YullisOng' [The Morality of
>>> >> Regulated Economy], Ha Il-sik, trans., Hwip'yOn. Paek Nam-un ChOnjip
>>> 4.,
>>> >> Seoul: Iron-gwa Silch'On, 1991, pp.282-284.
>>> >>
>>> >> With best regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> LEONID A. PETROV
>>> >> Division of Pacific and Asian History
>>> >> Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies
>>> >> The Australian National University
>>> >> ****************************************
>>> >> Mob: +61-403076604
>>> >> Tel: +61(2) 6125 3172 (office)
>>> >> Fax: +61(2) 6125 5525 (office)
>>> >> E-mail: petrov at coombs.anu.edu.au
>>> >> WWW: <http://north-korea.narod.ru>http://north-korea.narod.ru
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> From: "Ruediger Frank" <rfrank at eplus-online.de>
>>> >> To: <Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
>>> >> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 8:03 PM
>>> >> Subject: [KS] Chuch'e
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> > Dear list,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I am currently writing an article on the political system of North
>>> Korea
>>> >> > for a German university textbook. Needless to say that in the
>>> course of
>>> >> > this work I have to deal with the term Chuch'e.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > As far as I remember having heard, a philosophical term called
>>> Shutaisei
>>> >> > (Chuch'esOng) has already been used by the Japanese in the 1920s,
>>> long
>>> >> > before Kim Il-sOng introduced Chuch'e in his speech to the
>>> propagandists of
>>> >> > the Nodongdang on December 28, 1955. Is that correct? And if yes,
>>> in which
>>> >> > context has it been used before?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thanks a lot for your help.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Best regards,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Ruediger Frank
>>> >> > ***********************
>>> >> > Ruediger FRANK
>>> >> > Humboldt-University Berlin
>>> >> > Korea Institute
>>> >> > Fon: +49-30-55 99 878
>>> >> > Fax: +49-30-2093-6666
>>> >> > e-mail: ruediger.frank at rz.hu-berlin.de
>>> >> > Web: <http://www2.hu-berlin.de/korea>http://www2.hu-berlin.de/korea
>>> >> > ***********************
>> ><<<<
><<<<
>
>
></blockquote></x-html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20020219/49b7f47a/attachment.html>
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list