[KS] KSR 2006-15:_Transformations in Twentieth Century Korea_, edited by Chang Yun-Shik and Steven Hugh Lee

[Stephen Epstein]

Transformations in Twentieth Century Korea, edited by Chang Yun-Shik and Steven Hugh Lee. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. 2006. xii + 380 pages. ISBN 0-41538-065-0 (hardcover) 

Reviewed by Will Pore 
George Washington University

willpore at gmail.com 

 

 For its multifaceted perspectives on Korean modernization, Transformations in Twentieth Century Korea is an important book. The volume is the product of a series of conferences at the Center for Korean Research at the University of British Columbia where the fifteen contributors gathered to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Ky?nghyang Sinmun. The chapters, which examine agrarian, business, industrial, state, cultural, ideological, and social transformations in twentieth century Korea, are thematically linked and clearly written. 

The Introduction by Steven Hugh Lee sets out the basic features which unite the chapters. Lee argues that the division of modernity into two types ― Japanese and Western ― has created a particularly Korean form of this process and emphasizes its contextual nature. Thus, this work, even though focused on issues of development especially with reference to recent economic and political events in Korea, is historically circumspect and traces the process of modernization in Korea back to the end of the nineteenth century, looking back to the late Chos?n period and the state’s lackluster ability bring about reform. The contributors contrast that with instances of several successful popular movements after 1945 and point to how the intrusion of Western capitalism and culture resulted in the loss of “traditional” Korean values. Lee emphasizes that the volume’s authors have focused on “unique” aspects of Korea’s transformation, a form of capitalist modernity that was “original on its own terms.” And, although Lee writes in defense of the volume’s acknowledged Eurocentric methodology, that interaction and interplay between Western and non-Western worlds are now assumed givens and that important similarities have arisen in their capitalist structures, the book highlights how “tradition” continues to inform and influence South Korean society. 

The contributors situate their arguments within current debates concerning scholarship on Korean modernization and development in the last century by using a diachronic approach that takes the Chos?n, colonial and post-colonial periods into consideration and examining the internal and external agents of the change that have occurred. We are thereby made more aware of the complexities involved in the process of change leading to modernization. 

In the first chapter, Gi-wook Shin takes up perhaps one of the most contentious of these debates in the discussion of Korea’s modern development: that concerning the sprouts of capitalism. The debate is a familiar one, having often been discussed in relation to Chinese and Japanese developmental history as well. In Korea, this debate ranges nationalist historians who have found commercialization and wage labor in eighteenth-century Korea to be indicators of capitalism before the arrival of Japanese imperialism against other scholars who trace capitalism only to the colonial period. Shin’s investigation of Korean capitalism’s agrarian roots gives a more nuanced view of Japanese colonial rule by arguing that it led to neither exploitation nor modernization. Although Korean development was not entirely indigenous, it cannot be considered simply a transplant from the outside either. In such a balanced approach, Shin is able to perceptively equalize the indigenous versus foreign development issues of the Korean development debate. 

In the next chapter, Larry L. Burmeister discusses agricultural cooperative development and change, extending Shin’s treatment of the state in relation to rural development. Burmeister makes the point that the roots of Korean modernity can be better explained by understanding the interactions of agriculture and industry. Equally important is his observation that indigenous activism brought about by dissatisfaction with current conditions was, as Shin concurs, an impetus for organizational reform. This chapter also makes it clear how influential internal and external political developments have been in Korean modernization. 

In the third chapter, Paul Kuznets takes issue with the common perception that Korea is a classless society, by stating that while since the late 1990s income has increased, its distribution has not been as even as sometimes touted. Kuznets acknowledges that there would seem to be little doubt that rapid industrialization in Korea, as in other places in the world, was the cause of many changes. The rapid industrialization of Korea, Kuznets writes, was not a “miracle,” however; it was a feature of many other states in East Asia. Korea’s economic development has primarily been the result of political stability, state economic leadership and the emergence of the chaeb?l. The several other contributing factors that he identifies have been strong policy implementation, “national characteristics,” a compact geography, lack of natural resources and a Confucian cultural heritage. 

The two chapters which follow, by Seung-Ho Kwon and Chung-Sik Suh and John Lie, assess Korean chaeb?l in more detail, by explicating their changing role in Korea’s capitalist development and impact on society. Both chapters are commendable for not losing sight of the progress as well as problems that the chaeb?l have wrought in Korean development. While the chapter by Kwon and Suh conveys a sense of admiration for the awesome dimensions of the Hyundai Corporation, it also tempers such views, as does the following chapter by Lie. In Chapter 5, Lie discusses the frequently abusive power relations of the chaeb?l. In their totality, both chapters acknowledge the familiar features of the close relationship of the Korean state and the large industrial complexes. In place of the celebratory views of the 1980s and 1990s, however, each chapter exhibits a fundamental reticence regarding the accomplishments of the chaeb?l. With the political changes of the late 1980s, came growing expressions of public apprehensiveness about chaeb?l development, especially where their role intersected with the state. This apprehensiveness has continued and is increasingly informed by the growth of socially conscious criticism of the conglomerates within Korea.

The following two chapters contain more specific examinations of the state’s role in development, as Steven Hugh Lee analyzes US-Korea relations during the period from 1958 to 1961 and David Kang examines Korea as a developmental state in relation to its society. Lee discusses how the South Korean bureaucracy worked closely with the state in formulating economic policy and thereby shaped the country’s capitalist modernity. Lee is particularly effective when he critiques the application of Walt Rostow’s modernization theory to Korea as an amoral rationale of economic development neglect of political freedom. Kang, too, seems to be aware of this critique as he considers how personal contacts affected the operation of the chaeb?l in the late 1980s, as they undertook planning that fit the state’s political and economic goals. Kang’s treatment of inmaek (personal connections) and honmaek (marriage connections) between upper-level personnel of the conglomerates and government officials will confirm for many the already assumed collusion of interests between the two. But, Kang’s particular interest is an examination of the bureaucratic workings of the Korean developmental state. Lee concludes that Korean development of the 1950s and 1960s, personally sanctioned by Rostow, set the pattern for a top-down direction of economic development at the expense of political freedom. Kang concludes by proposing that, rather than monolithic, Asian economies and capitalist modernity are highly complex and would benefit from the combination of empirical research and theoretical work. Most insightful are the ways in which each author sets Korea’s development in the context of a wider Asia, thus adding to our knowledge of the regional similarities in state connections to development. Additionally, the combination of theoretical and empirical investigation in both chapters challenges the common knowledge basis of state-economy relationships. 

The next section contains three chapters on culture and ideology in which U Chang Kim, Sheila Miyoshi Jager and Daniel Chirot present humanistic and historically embedded approaches to Korean development while maintaining accurate historical perspectives. Kim explores the commonly assumed relevance of Confucianism in Korea by discussing its influence on democracy rather than, as is more frequent, its connection to industrial development. He concludes that Confucianism presents several philosophical and political problems that make it less than compatible with the national realities and global capitalism of which it is today a part. In Chapter 9, Jager describes Korea’s memorial building projects in the late twentieth century and associated attempts to mold values through a discourse of national bloodlines and legitimacy. She notes that during the Park presidency nearly all of the components of this discursive framework had Confucian referents, but by constructing a martial, manly, distinctively Korean past, these components effectively formed a new history. The most ideologically and globally informed of these three chapters is Chirot’s consideration of modernization theory as applied to Korea. Chirot shows a solid grasp of the discourse on the modern age and modernization by stating the need for a sense of history and a sense of perspective on change, whether in Korea or elsewhere. Chirot offers by far the bluntest assertions in the volume regarding Korean economic success, social change and modernization in general, seeing the future of Korea, like that of other emerging economies and democracies as filled with challenges, including economic and cultural closure, seizure of power by corrupt, undemocratic elites and the exploitation of nationalism. 

The final two chapters by Minja Kim Choe on modernization, gender and marriage in South Korea and by Mary C. Brinton and Moonkyung Choi on women and the urban economy, include a wealth of specialized charts, graphs and statistical information. Their in-depth discussions of women in Korea contribute to a more thorough understanding of how Korean society has been affected by modernization. Both chapters hold that changes in social position and opportunities for women did take place in the last decades of the twentieth century but that for women, escaping “tradition” has been more difficult than for men and that frustration and discouragement still face women at several levels. Not only in upper-level management positions but also in Korean society generally questions about combining work and family life as well as improving working conditions for women, including childcare, remain to be resolved. 

The comprehensive approach of this volume to Korean modernization, while not based on entirely new material, will probably offer items of interest to specialists and non-specialists alike. Yet, none of the volume’s contributors broach the subject of the discourse on “normal” countries, although it seems to be the topic driving their discussions of modernization to some extent. During a near century-long process, Korea (at least in the south) has achieved what the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) probably considers the objectives of normalcy in economic, social and political terms. That Korea remains a divided nation, however, in which the northern half has not achieved those objectives, problematizes the achievement of those objectives and the definition of normalcy. As a result, discussions of Korean modernization and development, such as the present work, continue to emphasize, at the exclusion of North Korea, a comparative and international context that depends upon what amounts to Western approval. 

Another issue in this work concerns the discussion (albeit in some cases, only the mention) of Confucianism in seven of the twelve chapters, which comes across as essentializing, if not tired. In fact, it would seem that by now a work on Korean modernization should have been able to argue through and out of deliberations on Confucianism all together. Reference to Confucianism without clearly defining it in a volume by mostly Western trained non-historians suggests that it stands more for an unexplained complexity or vagary than a seriously considered factor. 

Finally, one other minor issue that detracts from this volume is the lack of more complete information on the Ky?nghyang Sinmun. More on the history and “well-known” role of this newspaper in its opposition to authoritarian regimes would have been welcome. 




Citation:

Pore, Will 2006

Review of:_Transformations in Twentieth Century Korea_, edited by Chang Yun-Shik and Steven Hugh Lee

_Korean Studies Review_ 2006, no. 15

Electronic file (to be posted in two weeks): http://koreaweb.ws/ks/ksr/ksr06-15.htm <http://koreaweb.ws/ks/ksr/ksr06-15.htm>