International Journal of Korean History (Vol.5, Dec. 2003) 1

Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945∼2000

Min Hyonku*

Introduction

The study of Korean history has made significant developments over the last fifty years in , receiving more attention than other academic fields. This may be a natural phenomenon in that it directly concerns the study of her own nation and people. At the same time, it has experienced several upheavals during this period, and many more issues wait to be resolved in the future. Summarizing all the trends and achievements in the field of Korean history over the last fifty years is no simple matter. 1 It certainly has experienced the same kinds of turmoil that Korea went through. Despite this, there has been significant works done in various fields related to Korean history, and in every decade. A detailed analysis of the results of such works will make it clear that a general reorganization of modern Korean history should be undertaken. This paper will analyze the characteristics of the development of the

* Professor, Dept. of Korean History, Korea University

2 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000 study of Korean history since 1945. This paper will first divide the last fifty years into three distinct periods in order to facilitate the analysis of the work that has been done in the field of Korean history during that period. With regards to the first two periods, that is, from 1945 to 1979, this paper focuses on the work that was done establishing the basic structure of the study of Korean history. As for the third period, from 1980 onwards, this paper examines the direction of the study of Korean history, and the changes and conflicts that emerged among scholars regarding the interpretation of history. This paper will also search for new methodologies with which to pursue the study of Korean history in the future. Although it employs a basic approach, this paper hopes to further the general understanding of the development of the study of Korean history. Just as our future depends greatly on our past and present, an analysis of the achievements in the field of Korean history, past and present, as well as discussions on new methodologies, will serve to bolster the future of this field.

Developments in the Field of Korean History amid Social Upheavals

Since 1945, the field of Korean history has developed amid the political and social upheavals that marked each period. Undoubtedly, the complicated of Korean history over the last half century has influenced the focus, direction and ultimately the development of the study of modern Korean history, which led to the current state of the study of modern Korean history.

Min Hyonku 3

As mentioned earlier, the development of the study of Korean history since 1945 can be separated into three distinct periods. The first is the period that began immediately after liberation from Japanese colonial rule to the April 1960 Revolution. This period marks the birth of the study of modern Korean history amid significant social and political changes and upheavals. The second period began with the April 1960 Revolution and ended with the collapse of the Yushin System in 1979. This second period, although operating under limitations, saw a nationalist environment take root in the field of modern Korean history. As the study of modern Korea history grew dramatically during this period, we can also refer to it as a developmental period. We are currently in the third period, which began with the ascension of the military government of Chun Doohwan. However, this paper will consider the year 2000, which saw the North-South Summit that created a new amicable atmosphere on the peninsula, as the cutoff point for this third period. This third period was marked by great changes in the international sphere and by the emergence of new theories within Korea, such as Minjung and Minjunglon. Thus, we can identify this third period as one marked by the search for a new level of development amid chaos, change and conflict.2 In August 1945, Korea was liberated from Japanese colonial rule, which began a new era in Korean history. However, the Korean peninsula was divided into North and South as a result of the new Cold War order. Further complicating the matter, Korean War broke out and the hostility deepened as the division became official at the end of the war. Subsequently, Korea experienced several trials and tribulations during this period. South Korea was soon established as an independent nation-state based on liberal

4 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000 democracy. This period is thus significant in that it marks the beginnings of the study of modern Korean history from the end of the Taehan Empire. The study of Korean history was liberated together with the nation from the previous quasi-comatose state it had been forced into by Japanese colonization. The field also became more active following the liberation.3 During the early stage three main streams evolved in history: nationalist approach, socio-economic approach and positivist approach. As these three approaches conflicted with the colonialist approach promoted by the Japanese, they were driven underground as a part of Japan’s policy to erase Korean history. With the liberation, interest in Korea’s history and language, which constitute the national identity, increased, leading to the recreation of the field of Korean history. Korean scholars began once again to conduct research under the guise of educational and research organizations, and their research results were published into books. A great number of scholars focused on training history teachers. The three approaches were revived and a new nationalist approach that would incorporate all three was sought for. Due to the conflicts between leftists and rightists, the division of the peninsula and of the Korean War, the main trends in the study of Korean history underwent serious changes. Currently, in South Korea, there are only those with a positivist view towards the study of history. Because of the Cold War system, many scholars either voluntarily left South Korea and headed North or were taken against their will. As such, the hostile relationship between North and South Korea made it impossible for historical views to develop freely. However, these positivist scholars, who received modern education and developed a purely research oriented approach to the study of history, were able to maintain their positions within

Min Hyonku 5

South Korean academia after liberation. Although the study of Korean history during this first period on the surface appears to have taken a step backwards due to all the social and political turmoil of the time, it is nonetheless a crucial period in that it is the beginning of the study of modern Korean history. History departments were established in new universities across the country, thus setting the necessary foundation for the pursuit of research and the education of future scholars. A few history-related associations were also set up during this early period; the Chin-tan Hakhoe, which was reestablished in 1945 and the Korean Historical Association, which was founded in 1952. A significant volume of journals was also published during this period, which brought about a new awareness of the subject amongst foreign academia. Although this period was faced with its share of difficult conditions, a lot of research was done, and many books on history-related topics designed for the general public were published. The Chin-tan Hakhoe first published Korean History (7 Volumes) in 1959. This series summarized the research on Korean history that was conducted after the liberation from the Japanese. 4 As such, although the study of Korean history began under less than auspicious circumstances, a foundation built on the belief of a democratic and positivist approach to history was established during this period. The April 1960 Revolution was a significant event that left a footprint on contemporary Korean history: students and civic movements had overthrown the Rhee Syngman regime. This was a major victory for Korean democracy. However, the military coup of May 16, 1961 changed the political situation overnight. With the establishment of the Yushin system in 1972, the military dictatorship of Chunghee continued unabated for

6 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000 almost twenty years that followed. During the Park regime, Korea achieved rapid economic growth while pursuing modernization and export-oriented industrialization. As a result, Korea became recognized as a newly industrialized country and to receive increased attention from the international community. Also, it was during this period that nationalism emerged as the strongest driving force of the state. The April 1960 Revolution and the military coup of 1961 shared the common thread of nationalism, a force which, while restraining political and social development, made Korea’s rapid economic development possible. With such rapid economic development, Koreans became more confident with their Korean identity, which in turn, strengthened Korean nationalism. Interest in Korean history then expanded tremendously and several excavations of historical sites were undertaken. It was under this atmosphere that the study of Korean history was able to blossom and achieve remarkable results. First amongst these achievements was undoubtedly the emergence of an anti-colonial approach to the study of Korean history.5 Japan began to exercise its control over Korea at the end of the 19th century, and Korea eventually fell under Japan’s direct colonial rule. The historical research conducted by the Japanese in Korea at the time was designed to justify their invasion and their rule over Korea. In this context, the above-mentioned anti-colonial approach to the study of history was designed to bring to light the distortions that emerged as a result of the adoption of a heteronymous view of Korean history. This period saw a great increase in the amount of work done in each field of history. The Korean historians who appeared after liberation became

Min Hyonku 7 the vanguard of the history field, helping to produce a new generation of scholars, which led in turn to a marked improvement in the quality and quantity of the research. The biggest issue during this period was how to classify the various stages of Korean history. The most representative of these works was the Classification of the Various Periods of Korean History (1970)6 and Korean History (National Institute of Korean History, 1978; 25 volumes), which was published with the help of hundreds of scholars.7 During the second period, the study of Korean history solidified. The Association for Korean Historical Studies was established in 1967 for the sole purpose of advancing the study of Korean history. With regards to methodologies, there emerged a belief during the first period that Korean history should be pursued based on a nationalist approach. However, during the second period, this nationalist approach was combined with a positivist one and there were calls for a global perspective within the study of Korean history. Nevertheless, the hostile relationship between North and South Korea persisted and deterred the development of the study of Korean history during this second period. As a result, historical materialism remained a tabooed subject and could not receive any support from the academia that followed the government policy. The Yushin system collapsed in October 1979 following the assassination of the President Park Chunghee. Contrary to the overwhelming desire of the people for democracy, another military dictatorship soon took over its predecessor’s place. Although this new military dictatorship ended with the popular uprisings of 1987, the political situation remained unstable until the civilian government in 1993. This period marked the spread of the democratization drive to labor movement, resulting in a new and more

8 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000 complicated phase towards democracy. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the advent of talks between the two served as both a source of hope and of conflict for the South Korean population. The Inter-Korea Summit held in P’yŏngyang in June 2000 provided a new hope that unification could be achieved in this lifetime. However, the South’s positive engagement with the North led to many internal conflicts within South Korean society. The Minjung and Minjunglon based approach emerged as the most dominant strand in the study of Korean history in the last twenty years. This was accompanied by political and societal chaos and conflict. It was a period marked by deepening democratization process, the warming of ties between the two Koreas, and an upgrade in Korea’s international standing with the 1988 Olympics. It was also a period of much suffering from the multitude of social and political changes such as the labor-management and ideological conflicts, and the outstanding issues between the two Koreas. However, the study of Korean history further developed despite the chaos and conflict within the society. The new military dictatorship was accompanied by a group of untrained historians. This group who received support from the government, attempted to beautify the history of ancient Korea by adopting unscientific methods to the study of Tan’gun and of Kochosŏn, which created many conflicts with regards to Korea’s ancient history.8 They filed lawsuits against some historians to correct ‘mistakes’ found in textbooks and demanded a hearing at the National Assembly on the subject. Moreover, the new military dictatorship actively oppressed any scholar who attempted to question this extreme nationalist view of history that caused many historians to lose their jobs. This seriously stunted further

Min Hyonku 9 development of the study of Korean history. However, there were also many historians who participated in the democratization movement and actively resisted the military dictatorship. Moreover, historical materialism, which as mentioned above had previously been regarded as off limits, began to make inroads into the study of Korean history. This development was closely related to the emergence of a much more intense and violent labor movement. As a result, a new research tendency known as Minjung sahak (people’s history) began to spread. As the military dictatorship was brought to an end and intellectual freedom increased, these Minjung sahak historians began to organize many associations designed to improve their standing within the field and used these as a platform to criticize the positivist approach to history. These Minjung historians advocated an activist approach to history. They accepted a unification-oriented view of history as a means of achieving the unification of Korea, which has become the most dominant issue in Korean society today. This new research tendency has continued all the way to the present. While the main focus continued to be on established scholars, a new group of scholars appeared during this third period. Many papers were published in the field of contemporary Korean history, a development closely related to the emergence of the above-mentioned new tendency in the study of Korean history. In conclusion, while the study of Korean history faced many difficulties since the 1980’s, a tremendous amount of new research was conducted and new research tendencies were developed.

10 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000 A Shift toward a More Positive View of Korean History

The prevalent view of Korean history these days has been created by the research that has been conducted over the last fifty years. Following the onset of the study of Korean history at the end of the 19th century, the field has developed despite continuous turmoil and chaos. Yet, a scholarly tradition has also been able to take root amid all of these difficulties, and Korea has been able to establish a unique historical view that is based on various approaches to history. The current prevalent view of Korean history was first established during the second period. Therefore, the trends and research in this period, when the focus was on developing a more positive view of Korean history, should be granted extra merit. The historical view that emerged following liberation was focused on establishing the uniqueness of Korean history and superiority of Korean culture. The most influential book of this period was The History of Korea, written by Pyungdo in 1948. This book presented a rich narrative of the research that had been conducted up until that point on the Korean history. Lee attempted to correct the distortions of Korean history created by the Japanese by putting more emphasis on Kochosŏn(Old Chosŏn) and the Tan’gun myth, and by raising Korea’s cultural superiority and uniqueness as exemplified by , the Taechanggyŏng, turtleships, and ancient maps. However, as this book failed to properly criticize the distortions, it was also limited in some regards.9 Chun Kwanwoo’s Pan’gye Yu Hyŏngwŏn (1953), which deals with ,10 can be regarded as the most remarkable work using positive approach to ever have been published. Chun, who appeared after liberation,

Min Hyonku 11 analyzed the Pan’gye Surok written by Yu Hyŏngwŏn, a renowned 17th century scholar. He developed interest in this subject as the awareness of the importance of Silhak grew among Chosŏn scholars. During the 1930s, Chun identified Yu Hyŏngwŏn’s Kyŏngse theory (a theory to resolve political and social problems) as the origin of Silhak, which emerged as a new school of thought during the latter period of the Chosŏn dynasty. Chun also recognized Silhak as a direct ancestor of Korean modernity. Chun’s research identified and further developed issues regarding Korean modernity that had first been raised by Chosŏn scholars during the Japanese colonial era. Furthermore, Chun also helped shed a new light on the development of Silhak during the late Chosŏn period, a period which had been seen as being of little importance in history and marked by rampant factional disputes and social chaos. Consequently, the study of Silhak became very active, and a number of new scholars appeared, such as Han Woogeun, Lee Kawon, Kim Yongdeok and Yiseob.11 Due to Chun’s work, in Silhak became the most popular research subject for a long time and his work also contributed to a marked increase in the people’s interest in the late Chosŏn dynasty. The late Chosŏn dynasty was a very interesting one in that it was the time immediately before the opening of the country to the outside world. The socio-economic factors of this period became the most widely researched subject among scholars. Research on the late Chosŏn dynasty began at the end of the 1950s. During the early stages of the study, much focus was placed on social changes and on the economic structure of the time. However, during the second period of the study of Korean history, more research began to be conducted on agriculture, commerce and industry.

12 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000

With regards to research on agriculture, much attention was paid to the improvements made in technology as exemplified by the rice transplantation and cultivation methods developed in the late Chosŏn. Attention was also paid to the new agricultural management system of the era. These improvements brought about significant increase in the amount of acreage per peasant, while the size of the agricultural labor force decreased. As for commerce, the currency system spread widely. With the increase of the marketplace, the size of enterprises also grew, which in turn increased the amount of capital available in the market. Meanwhile, the number of privately sold handicrafts began to increase remarkably as large capitalists began to corner the market. Researchers also paid a lot of attention to the independent production structure of artisans during the late Chosŏn dynasty (Kim Yongseob, Seong Chansik, You Wondong, Kang Mangil, Kim Youngho).12 The research done in the field of socio-economic development during the late Chosŏn was closely related to the search for the origins of capitalism in Korea. Researchers identified the seeds of capitalism as the first sign of modernity in Korea, sown during the Chosŏn dynasty. By doing so, these researchers were arguing that Chosŏn society had the potential to develop its own form of capitalism. This kind of research helped to develop the theory of internal development. The study of Korean history during the 1960s was focused on the period following the Kanghwa Treaty. Interest in this period was further heightened by the fact that it was regarded as being an extension of the socio-economic developments that occurred during the late Chosŏn period, which was cut off by Japanese aggression that forced Chosŏn to open its

Min Hyonku 13 doors. Much interest was focused on discovering the exact state of Chosŏn before this stage, and of its development during the opening period. The studies of the opening period that were conducted during the 1960s focused primarily on the reformers and on enlightenment movement led by Kim Okkyun. This was followed by more in-depth studies of topics such as the Kapsin Coup, Kabo Reform and the . Scholars also attempted to link Chosŏn’s opening philosophy to the Bukhak theory of Silhak. This attempt to form a link between Chosŏn’s opening and Silhak was based on a belief that Korean modernity began well before Chosŏn’s opening to the outside world. This kind of research structure was used to analyze the period spanning from the emergence of Silhak to the signing of the Kanghwa treaty (Lee Kwangrin, Cho Kijun, Kim Youngho, Lew Youngick).13 Much research into Korean ancient history, which can be regarded as the origin of Korean history, was conducted during this period. This research, focused on proving the uniqueness of Korea, yielded many results. At the beginning of the 1960s some artifacts from the Paleolithic era were uncovered in both North and South Korea — in Kulp’o-Li, Un’gi in Hamgyŏngbuk-do province (North Korea) and Sŏkchang-Li, Kongju, in Ch’ungch’ŏngnam-do province (South Korea). As a result, interest in the Stone Age increased greatly among the scholars. The scholars attempted to prove the existence of a unique Bronze Age culture in Korea before the advent of the Iron Age, debunking the theory that the Bronze and Stone ages had overlapped. Scholars also argued that an independent Bronze Age culture had developed in the area covering Manchuria’s Songhwa River and Liao River Basin all the way down to the Korean peninsula. This structure

14 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000 was then used to establish the activities of ancient Koreans. The scholars lengthened Korean history and as further excavations were conducted to prove the generally accepted notion of the development of Korean history. It was at this time when the Muryŏng Royal Tomb from the Paekche dynasty era was discovered, further fueling interest in the study of Paekche ( Kim Wonryong, Son Bogi, Kim Jeongbae).14 Research was also conducted on the period from the end of the Silla dynasty to the beginning of the Koryŏ dynasty, and on the period of dynastic change between Koryŏ and Chosŏn. The research on the transitional period between Silla and Koryŏ resulted in a number of findings. As a result of the chaotic situation that emerged at the end of the Silla dynasty and of the reforms that occurred in the post-Three Kingdoms era, Korean society underwent tremendous changes, going from the bone-rank system of the Silla (kolp’um) to Koryŏ’s hereditary aristocratic order. It was during this transition period when Confucianism became the ruling ideology and Zen Buddhism became the religion of the ruling class. On the other hand, research on the period of dynastic change between Koryŏ and Chosŏn also yielded the following results: The chaos that reigned from the the era of military rule until the intervention of the Yuan dynasty resulted in the rise of the Sadaebu class who later founded the Chosŏn dynasty. Scholars tended to view these dynastic changes as periods of great developments rather than as simple changes in dynasties or power structures (Kim Chuljun, Lee Kibaik, Kim Dujin, Choi Pyunghon and Lee Woosung).15 Additionally, much work was conducted on various land systems used throughout Korean history. Comprehensive studies on the land systems of the Silla, Koryŏ and Chosŏn dynasties revealed that while on the surface all

Min Hyonku 15 land belonged to the crown, in reality this was not the case, with much land actually in private hands. As for the ruling system, some of the research conducted during the second period proved that Koryŏ’s ruling system was quite distinct from that of the Tang and Song dynasties, and that this system became even more efficient under the Chosŏn dynasty. They also proved that during the Koryŏ dynasty, the Hyangli system was used to strengthen central control. In addition, much research was conducted on the cultural and scholarly achievements made under these various dynasties. As such, most of the research conducted after the 1960s was focused on rearranging Korea’s history and culture from antiquity all the way down to the Chosŏn dynasty (Chun Kwanwoo, Kang Jinchul, Lee Woosung, Pyun Taeseob, Lee Sungmoo).16 This pursuit of a more constructive view of Korean history began with studies on Silhak in the 1950s and further developed during the 1960s and 1970s. This search for a more constructive approach to Korean history was accompanied by a repudiation of the colonial view of history. The publication of Lee Kibaik’s A New History of Korea is a good example of this approach that incorporated the works of the above-mentioned Korean scholars. In the preface of the book, Lee sharply criticized the colonial view of Korean history. The second edition of this book was printed in 1976. In this book, Lee successfully created a comprehensive history of Korea. 17 Refusing to use the kingdom-based chronology of Korean history that had been used in the past, Lee separated Korean history into 16 different periods, based on a particular power group of each period. Lee also encouraged other scholars to contribute to his work, favoring the works of the scholars who

16 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000 were active during the first and second periods of the study of Korean history. Lee’s work is a symbol of positive approach to Korean history that was adopted after liberation and his view of history remains pertinent today.

A Search for New Methodologies

Debate over which methodologies should be used to analyze Korean history was limited in the period immediately following liberation. On the other hand, during the colonial era, criticizing the traditional view of history and of the nationalistic approach to history, based on a socio-economic standpoint was quite common. In all likelihood, this lack of debate over methodologies during the early period of the study of Korean history was caused by the fact that researchers were actively pursuing their own studies with their own approaches, with little time left over for debate of any sort. The failure of the materialistic view of history to take root due to the Korean War and the ensuing division of the peninsula may also have played a part in the lack of debate over methodologies in the early period. However, during the second period, debates began to emerge over the direction of Korean history and methodologies. Criticism on the colonialist view of history also became more common during this second period. The issue soon became the question of overcoming the limitations of the positivist and nationalist approaches to history that had become dominant during this second period. Some other issues that aroused much debate included how to promote the study of Korean history, and how to assure that the study of Korean history did not fall into the trap of jingoism or political

Min Hyonku 17 forces. Nevertheless, this second period saw a great body of research, which resulted in many debates about methodologies.18 However, during the third period, serious debates emerged over methodologies and over the very nature of the study of Korean history, with some of these descending into a quasi-chaotic state. In fact, this third period will probably be remembered as the period of most heated debate over methodologies. At the beginning, the biggest issue related to the use of methodologies in the study of Korean history was how to incorporate the modern era into these studies. At the end of the 1970s, Kang Mangil became the first to criticize scholars’ inability to incorporate current issues into their research. Kang maintained that the study of Korean history after liberation ignored the contemporary problems that Korean society was faced with. Kang claimed that Korean history should reflect contemporary demands and the current situation, and that more focus should be placed on modern history, with historical evaluations of the modern era. Furthermore, Kang stressed that the study of Korean history should increasingly focus on creating a unification-oriented nationalist approach to history to overcome the division of the nation, and that further emphasis be placed on historical practicalism.19 Kang concluded that the study of Korean history should reflect more closely the current issues and that Korean historians should become the leaders of the unification movement. Naturally, Kang’s arguments were met with much resistance from other scholars. The arguments raised by Kang regarding the need to reflect the spirit of the times, and the current issues were deemed to be contradictory to the objectives of historical studies. The scholars criticized Kang’s assertion that historians should focus more on contemporary history because history

18 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000 should be seen as a continuum that cannot be broken down into little pieces, as a part of the overall stream of history if one is to ascertain the historical actuality of a given period. Scholars also criticized Kang’s argument that national unification was the most important task of this period. They pointed out that a historian’s task is not to lead research down a particular path, and that contemporary issues such as the unification movement were clearly outside the sphere of the study of Korean history (Lee Kibaik, Yang Pyung- woo).20 Nevertheless, Kang’s arguments induced many new scholars to join the field. His book, The Perception of History in the Divided Era (1978), greatly influenced the work of progressive scholars during the third period. In the 1980s, progressive scholars who had participated in the anti- dictatorship movement became the founders of the Minjung approach to history, which resulted in the establishment of the Organization of Korean Historians in 1988.21 With this association serving as an impetus, many debates were held regarding the characteristics of Korean history and the methodologies to be used. Some of the main issues that were raised by these Minjung historians can be found in Minjung History (Minjung Historical Association, 1987), and Essays in Korean History (Organization of Korean Historians, 1989).22 These progressive scholars severely criticized the mainstream scholars’ practice of adopting a neutral view of history from an inordinate amount of resources being focused on a few select classes. They asserted that the mainstream scholars had become captured by the state, and were nothing more than simple tools in the promotion of the Yushin system. Progressive scholars placed much emphasis on the work conducted by those scholars who adopted a nationalism and socio-economic approach to history during

Min Hyonku 19 the Japanese era, even going as far as labeling themselves the direct descendants of this school. Positivism was also scorned and labeled as a remnant of the colonial view of history. The Minjung historians advocated the establishment of a scientific and practical approach to Korean history. This quest was included in the manifesto of the Organization of Korean Historians. However, these scholars do not employ the term scientific in the traditional sense of the word, that is, there is little if not any emphasis placed on positivism or on a theoretical approach to history. Rather, their understanding of the term is based on the notion of historical materialism. Also, practicalism implies a direct role in the reform of the structure of the state for them.23 Therefore, this historical materialism, of which the very name had been a taboo and had been known as socio-economic history in the colonial era, began to reappear during this period as a result of the changes in the international environment. The Minjung scholars believed that the development of Korean history should be based on the theory of social formation and identified three distinct stages of development. The reemergence of historical materialism can be regarded as a contribution to the diversification of the study of Korean history. The prolonged absence of historical materialism from the national debate served as an obstacle to the development of intellectual freedom. However, the interpretation of history based on historical materialism and the over- emphasis on reforming society based on a more practical approach to history carry certain dangers as well. First and foremost, such an approach runs the risk of blurring objectivity in the study of Korean history, of resulting in over-emphasis on the socio-economic aspect of history, and of spreading

20 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000 factional conflicts. Other scholars have pointed out the inappropriateness of analyzing Korean history based on the theory of social conflict. Some have called these Minjung historians the Korean version of Marxist scholars who focus solely on the search for the Minjung revolution while ignoring the neo-Marxist trends that have emerged in the West.24 In fact, some of the historical materialists have now become much more visible, moving away from their Minjung pretense. These days, unification has become the most dominant issue in the study of Korean history. It became the primary study subject with the changes in international environment following German reunification and the rapprochement between North and South Korea. In 1998, a national conference was held on unification and historical education.25 As such, the historians advocating practicalism have been at the forefront of the movement promoting unification, which has become the most popular research topic, and the most pressing national matter. The unification theory developed by Korean scholars is based on the nationalist approach to history. This nationalist approach includes different concepts of Korean nationalism existing in North and South Korea. It aims to overcome the historical approaches developed during the Cold War era, and pursues the development of a national society comprising all Koreans. The scholars of this approach maintain that unification should be focused on the resolution of national issues rather than on social and class struggles. Others have maintained that this unification theory should include various forms of nationalism rather than on exclusive or jingoistic notions (Kang Mangil, Park Chanseung).26 Most scholars have been focusing on the need to bring about the

Min Hyonku 21 peaceful unification of the peninsula, rejecting the concept of forced unification, with emphasis on the need to unify as equals, rather than one side absorbing the other. Also, given the diametrically opposed natures of the North and South Korean systems, the need to adopt an incremental approach to unification has become very important. The belief that the historical views developed throughout the division should be done away with in order to achieve unification has also gained ground amongst scholars. So far, North and South Korea have focused on creating a historical view that justifies the legitimacy of each country, governing system and of power holders. The time has come for such views to be done away with. Instead, these should be replaced by a nationalistic approach to unification (Pang Kijoong).27 At the same time, the role of history education in the unification theory should be given more attention. This new unification-oriented historical view has been developed by progressive scholars who belong to the Minjung historians’ group. Their activities initiated exchanges between North and South Korean scholars and some of these scholars are now playing an active role in building the foundation for unification. However, many people remain skeptical about this school of thought, whether the scholars should participate in the unification movement, and whether the historical viewpoint of North Korean scholars has any value that might benefit the study of Korean history. These new movements, which emerged during the third period, have shaken the established notions of Korean history, while providing an opportunity to reconsider the past. In all likelihood, this third period will be remembered as the one in which new methodologies were developed, and further diversification was brought to the study of Korean history.

22 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000

Nevertheless, there remain several issues that need immediate attention: what is the nature of history and what are its limitations?; Can historical objectivity be maintained when researchers pursue specific objectives?; Is it correct for historians to establish new descriptions of history and to participate in the reform movement under the name of practicalism?; How can the problems caused by the severe criticism of positivism, which have weakened the foundation of the study of Korean history, be resolved? Above all, historians should value the tradition of the study of modern Korean history that has developed in Korea over the last fifty years.

Conclusion

This paper has reviewed the major trends in the study of Korean history since 1945. Korea has undergone much political turmoil since liberation, and subsequently, the study of Korean history has developed some special characteristics. Modern Korean history started out amidst great hopes following liberation from Japanese colonial rule. However, it soon was faced with many constraints stemming from the division of the country. Nevertheless, this early period in the study of Korean history is significant in that the foundation for future study was established under a democratic system during this first period. In the aftermath of the April 1960 Revolution and of the 1961 Military Coup, the study of Korean history began to develop, based on a nationalist approach, at as rapid a pace as the country’s economic development. A more positive view of Korean history was developed during this second period.

Min Hyonku 23

The period from 1980 to 2000 was filled with incredible tension for the study of Korean history, and was marked by the rise of the Minjung and democracy movements that resisted against the military government, the advent of the civilian government, and the rapprochement between North and South Korea. Differences emerged within the field of Korean history over the issues of historical actuality, practicalism and unification. These differences lead to many conflicts and turmoil within the study of Korean history. This also caused much concern in that such conflicts ran the risk of undermining the foundation of the study of Korean history that has been established over the last fifty years. However, when looked at from a macroscopic standpoint, these conflicts can be regarded as a part of the search for new historical methodologies. Following liberation, the study of Korean history saw its limits as to the scope of its activities due to the ideological conflict that eventually divided the nation into two entities. During the prolonged era of the military dictatorships, the study of Korean history formed a kind of symbiotic relationship with the government based on a nationalist approach to history. Still, the scholars attempted to protect the main tenets of democracy and adopted a critical attitude of the government. This kind of development process led to the formation of the characteristics of the present-day study of Korean history and also created many of the conflicts the study faces today. In the future, the study of Korean history should attempt to further stabilize its positivist roots by preserving the universal principles of the field. There is a need for everyone to take a more open-minded approach to the contentious issues of the day in order to resolve the controversy surrounding the proper means of viewing history and methodologies to be employed. By

24 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000 doing so, the study of Korean history can develop into a new stage and see more scholarly value placed on its work. This paper, of course, also has limitations of its own. For example, only a small number of the remarkable achievements that have been made were identified. This was especially true of the section dealing with the constructive approach to Korean history, where, due to the limited space, several significant contributions had to be left out. For the same reason, research conducted by Japanese scholars was not included either in this paper. Also, scant attention was paid to the theory of colonial modernization and to the revisionist school, both of which were important factors in the search for new methodologies. It is my hope that these shortcomings will be addressed in a future paper.

Notes :

1 Following liberation in 1945 many works dealing with the history of Korea began to appear. Some of the most prominent of these works, which arereferred to in this paper include: Lee Kibaik, “Korean History in the Modern Era”, Hanguk Hakbo, Vol.41 (1985). This paper was reprinted in the book entitled The Reorganization of Korean History; Roh Taedon et al., Perceptions of Modern Korean History (Ilchokak 1991) ; Park Chanseung “Korean History as Viewed by South Koreans Following the Division”, Korean Historians and History, Vol.2 (Changbi Publishers, 1994) ; Yun Byeongseok, “50th Anniversary of the Liberation from Colonial Rule and Achievements in the Field of Korean History”, Commemoration of the Achievements in the Field of Korean History on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Liberation from Colonial Rule (Academy of Korean Studies, 1995). From 1968 onwards, the Korean Historical Association has published, Yuksa Hakbo. In every issue of this book there is a section entitled “Reexamination of the Study of Korean History and Future Prospects”, which has been very useful. 2 I also used this method with regards to the study of Koryŏ history. I divided it into three different periods. 1) the early stages of the study of Koryŏ history (1945~61), 2) the stabilization of the study of Koryŏ history (1961~78), and

Min Hyonku 25

3) the expansion and diversification of the study of Koryŏ history (1978~95). [“Analysis and Reexamination of the Study of Koryŏ History 1945~1995”, Commemoration of the Achievements in the Field of Korean History on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Liberation from Colonial Rule (Academy of Korean Studies, 1995)]. Therefore, similar methodologies were also used in this paper. 3 I also analyzed the study of Korean history after the liberation as a part of the study for the Chin-tan Hakhoe [“Summary of the 60-year History of the Chin-tan Hakhoe”, The 60-year History of the Chin-tan Hakhoe, (Chin-tan Hakhoe, 1994)]. 4 These 7 volumes consist of the following: 1) Kim Jaewon and Lee Pyungdo, Korean History (Ancient History), 1959; 2) Lee Pyungdo, Korean History (Medieval History), 1962; 3) Lee Sangbaek, Korean History (1st Stage of Early Modern History), 1962; 4) Lee Sangbaek, Korean History (2nd Stage of Early Modern Korean History), 1965; 5) Lee Sungeun, Korean History (Modern Korean History), 1961; 6) Lee Sungeun, Korean History (Contemporary Korean History), 1963; 7) and Korean History (A Chronology of Korean History), 1959. All the volumes were published by Eulyu Munhwasa. However, I have included them among the achievements of the first period because the majority of these researchers’ activities were conducted during this time. 5 Lee Kibaik, “ Preface”, A New History of our Nation (1961). This preface was republished as “Criticism of the Colonialist Approach to the Study of Korean History”, The Nation and History (Ilchokak, 1971) ; Kim Yongseob, “Korean History as viewed by Japanese Historians”, Sasanggye (February 1963). This essay was republished in Reanalysis of Korean History (Singu Munhwasa, 1969). 6 In December 1967 the Economic History Association of Korea held a conference on the methods of classifying the various stages of Korean history. During this conference nine scholars presented their reports. This association held another conference on the same topic in March 1968. On the second occasion, 13 scholars presented their papers. The results of this conference were published in a book entitled Classification of the Various Periods of Korean History (Eulyu Munhwasa, 1970). 7 The National Institute of Korean History began to publish works on Korean history in 1973 with the aim to publish all research related to the field of Korean history. To this end, an executive committee was set up that consisted of Kim Chuljun, Lee Kibaik, Han Woogeun, Hong Yiseob, Lee Kwangrin, Choi Younghee and Lee Hyunjong. The project was officially completed with the publication of the 23rd volume of the series entitled Korean History: General remarks. However, a 24th volume, Korean History; A general index and a 25th volume, Korean History: Bibliography of Korean History was later

26 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000

published in 1981. 8 This issue of untrained historians was brought up at a hearing before the National Assembly on November 26 and 27, 1981. For details see Yun Jongyoung, Turmoil over the Accuracy of the History Textbooks (Haean, 1999). 9 Lee’s book has been reprinted many times under different titles, but the contents have remained by and large the same. Other editions of his book include, The History of Korea (Dongjisa, 1948) ; The National History of Korea (Baekyoungsa, 1952) ; A New National History of Korea (Bomungak, 1955) ; Korean History (Bomungak, 1964). 10 Chun’s paper was published in Yŏksa Hakbo, Vol.2, (1952) and Yŏksa Hakbo Vol.3. Chun’s research was then extended and reprinted in, “Comprehensive study of Pangae Yu Hyŏngwŏn”, Yŏksa Hakbo, Vol.10 (1958). Chun then included this paper in the Study of the Late Period of the Chosŏn Dynasty (Ilchokak, 1980). 11 Han Woogeun, “Sŏngho ”, Yuksa Hakbo, Vol.7 (1954), “The Concepts of Silhak”, Chin-tan Hakbo, Vol.19 (1958), “Sŏngho Yi Ik: His Economic Philosophy”, Chin-tan Hakbo, Vol.20 (1959) ; Lee Kawon, “The Life and Thoughts of Pak Jiwon”, Sasanggye (October 1958), A Study of Pak Jiwon’s Novels (Ulyu Munhwasa, 1965) ; Kim Yongdeok, “Kyuchanggak”, Compilation of Research from Joongang Univ., Vol.2 (1957), “Pak Jeka”, Sahakyungu, Vol.10 (1961) ; Hong Yiseob, Chŏng Yakyong’s Political and Economic Thought (The Research Library of Korea, 1959). 12 Kim Yongseob, “The Techniques of Rice Cultivation in the Late Yi Dynasty: On the spread of rice transplantation method”, Asiatic Studies, Vol.7, I ssue. No. 1 (1964), “The Techniques of Water Field Rice Cultivation in the Late Yi Dynasty: On the spread of the rice and barley two-crop method”, Asiatic Studies, Vol.7, Issue. No.4 (1964), “Changes in Social Status and in Farmland Occupancy during The Late Chosŏn”, Sahakyungu, Vol.15 (1963) ; Seong Chansik, “The Gwangjak Phenomenon during the Late Chosŏn”, A Compilation of Papers to Mark the 60th Birthday of Lee Haenam (1970), The handicraft Industry during the Late Chosŏn (1970) ; You Wondong, Commerce and Industry in the Late Chosŏn (1968) ; Kang Mangil, Development of Commercial Capital in the late Chosŏn (1973) ; Kim Youngho, “Development of the Handicraft Industry and of the New Management Structure in the Late Chosŏn”, Taedong Munhwa Yungu, Vol.9 (1972). 13 Lee Kwangrin, Korea’s Opening Period, 1969, Korea’s Enlightenment Party (1973); Cho Kijun, The History of Korean Capitalism (1973) ; Kim Young-ho, “The Relationship between Silhak and Korea’s Opening Philosophy”, The Journal of Korean History (1972) ; Lew Youngick, “Japanese Policy toward Korea with Regard to the Kabo [1894] Reform Movement”, Yŏksa Hakbo Issue 65 (1975).

Min Hyonku 27

14 Kim Wonryong, Korean Archeology (1973) ; Son Bogi, “Culture in Sŏkchang-Li During the Paleolithic Era”, Yŏksa Hakbo, Vol.35, 36 (1967) ; Kim Jeongbae, “History of Korean Bronze Age Culture”, The Journal of Korean History, Vol.6 (1971). 15 Kim Chuljun, “The Characteristics of the Ruling Class during the Post-Three Kingdom Era”, A Compilation of Papers to Mark the 60th Birthday of Lee Sangbaek (1964), “Choe Sŭngno’s Twenty-eight Point Policy Memorial”, A Compilation of Papers on the History of Buddhism to Mark the 60th Birthday of Cho Myungki (1965) ; Lee Kibaik, “Koryŏ Kyŏngkungo”, A Compilation of Papers to Mark the 60th Birthday of Lee Pyungdo (1956), “Confucian- based Political Thought During the United Silla and Early Koryŏ Dynasties”, Taedong Munhwa, Vol. 6-7 (1970) ; Kim Dujin, “Nanghye’s Zen Buddhism”, Yŏksa Hakbo, Vol.57 (1973) ; Choi Pyunghon, “The Emergence of the Nine Mountain Sects of Son at the end of the Silla Dynasty”, The Journal of Korean History, Vol.7 (1972) ; Lee Woosung, “Political Power During the Koryŏ Dynasty”, Yŏksa Hakbo, Vol.23 (1964). 16 Chun Kwanwoo, “History of Korean Land Systems Part 2”, History of Korean Civilization II (1965) ; Kang Jinchul, “History of Korean Land Systems Part 1” History of Korean Civilization II (1965); Lee Woosung, “The Yŏngŏp System during the Koryŏ Dynasty”, Yŏksa Hakbo, Vol.28 (1965), “The Wangto Philosophy and Kongjŏn System during the Silla Dynasty”, A Compilation of Papers on the History of Buddhism to Mark the 60th Birthday of Cho Myungki (1965) ; Pyun Taeseob, The Political System of the Koryŏ Dynasty, (Ilchokak, 1971) ; Lee Sungmoo, “The Hyangli System during the Early Chosŏn Dynasty”, The Journal of Korean History, Vol.5 (1970). 17 After the publication of A New History of Korea, Lee continued to accept contributions from other scholars, which led to the publication of a new edition in 1990 and to the printing of a Korean version in 1991. However, the book’s structure has remained the same throughout each edition. The following are a list of some of the reviews written about this book: Hatada Takashi, Chosŏn Hakbo, Vol.50 (1969) ; Chosŏn Hakbo, Vol.63 (1972) ; Chun Kwanwoo, Changjak gwa Bipyung (Winter Edition, 1976) ; Na Gaksoon, Wolgan Tokseo (April 1980) ; Min Hyonku, Chunggyeong Munhwa (January 1984) ; Lee gidong, Shin Donga (January 1985) ; Kim Unho, Chulpan Journal (May 5, 1988). 18 A representative example of the results of such a debate is How Should We View Korean History (Samsung Foundation of Culture, 1976). This book accounts a debate where Lee Kibaik as the Chair and Ko Byungik, Lee Woosung, Chun Kwanwoo, Shin Yongha, Lee Kwangrin, Cha Hasoon and Han Woogeun participated as panels. 19 Kang Mangil, “Reflections on the View of National History”, Yŏksa Hakbo, Vol.68 (1975), “The Lack of Historical Actuality in the Study of Korean

28 Trends in the Study of Modern Korean History, 1945~2000

History”, Hankuk Hakbo, Vol.5 (1976), “Characteristics of Korean History in the Divided Era”, Perceptions of History in the Divided Era (1978). 20 Lee Kibaik, “The Dilemma of Historical Actuality and the Understanding of Korean History”, Munhak gwa Jiseong, Vol.32 (1978) ; The Direction of Korean History (1978) ; Yang Pyungwoo, “Fact and Fiction with Regards to the Unification-Oriented Nationalist Approach to History: Kang Mangil’s approach to overcoming history in the divided era”, Munhak gwa Jiseong, Vol.39 (1980) ; Yŏksaroncho (1987). 21 For more on the establishment of the Organization of Korean Historians, see, Lee Kidong, “The Minjung Approach to History”, The Perception of Modern Korean History (1991), pp.166~169 ; Korean History During the Transition Period (1999). 22 Minjung History I includes “Towards a Better Understanding of Korean History” (pp.13~36). Another article, “Methodologies for Understanding Korean History and Related Tasks” (pp.17~59), can be found in Essays in Korean History. These two books have helped to shed light on some of the historical viewpoints of these progressive historians, including their approach to history, evaluation of the study of Korean history, and their classification methods. 23 Lee Kidong, “The Minjung Approach to History”, The Perception of Modern Korean History (1991), pp.170~73 ; Korean History During the Transition Period (1999). 24 Lee Kibaik, “Historical Materialism and Modern Korean History”, Lectures on Korean History, Vol.20 (1997) ; Lee Kidong, “The Minjung Approach to History”, The Perception of Modern Korean History (1991) ; Korean History During the Transition Period (1999). 25 On May 29~30, 1998 the 41st National Conference of History Scholars was held under the theme of Unification and Historical Education. During this conference, four papers were presented including Pang Kijoong, “Unification and the Tasks of Korean Historians” and Kim Hanjong, “The Issue of Integrating the Education of History in North and South Korea.” The other papers dealt with the unification of China and Germany. 26 Kang Mangil, “The Historical Search for Unification”, The Direction of Korean History in the 21st Century and Related Tasks (1997) ; Park Chanseung, “How Should The Study of History be Conducted in North and South Korea?”, The Use of our National History to Advance the cause of Unifica-tion (1998). 27 Pang Kijoong, “Unification and the Tasks of Korean Historians”, presented at the 41st National Conference of History Scholars.