A Post-Confucian Civil Society: Liberal Collectivism and Participatory Politics in South Korea
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT Title of Document: A POST-CONFUCIAN CIVIL SOCIETY: LIBERAL COLLECTIVISM AND PARTICIPATORY POLITICS IN SOUTH KOREA Sungmoon Kim, Doctor of Philosophy, 2007 Directed By: Professor C. Fred Alford Department of Government and Politics This dissertation explores how South Koreans have creatively appropriated the meanings of democratic civility and national citizenship using Confucianism- originated familial affectionate sentiments (chŏng), while refusing their liberal individualistic counterparts through a cross-cultural and comparative theoretical approach. By investigating four recent civil-action cases in South Korea, it argues that the chŏng-induced politico-cultural practice of collective moral responsibility (uri- responsibility), which transcends the binary of individualism and collectivism and of liberalism and nationalism, represents the essence of Korean democratic civility. It theorizes the ethical quality that uri-responsibility generates, when practiced in the public sphere of a national civil society, in terms of “transcendental collectivism,” and claims that unlike a liberal civil society aiming to empower the independent self’s individual agency, the post-Confucian dialectic between agency and citizenship is focused on the interdependent selves’ shard cultural-political identity, collective freedom, and democratic citizenship. This dissertation generalizes the liberal yet non- individualistic political practices that transcendental collectivism promotes in terms of “liberal collectivism” as opposed to liberal individualism, and argues that liberal collectivism has great potential to contribute to both liberal nationalism and participatory democracy in post-Confucian Korea. A POST-CONFUCIAN CIVIL SOCIETY: LIBERAL COLLECTIVISM AND PARTICIPATORY POLITICS IN SOUTH KOREA By Sungmoon Kim Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2007 Advisory Committee: Professor C. Fred Alford, Chair Professor Benjamin R. Barber Professor James M. Glass Professor Margaret M. Pearson Professor Seung-kyung Kim © Copyright by Sungmoon Kim 2007 Dedication To my parents, Kim Jung-seop (김중섭) and Woo Gyung-ja (우경자) for their endless love and sacrifice ii Acknowledgements Comparative political theory is still a nascent discipline in the field of political theory and, due to its multi-disciplinary and cross-cultural nature, it would be almost impossible to write an intelligible thesis on it without guidance from scholars versed in Western or East Asian political theories, or ideally both. In this respect, I am very fortunate to have worked with C. Fred Alford, my dissertation advisor and academic mentor. Since my first day at College Park, Professor Alford has been a great mentor, not only by virtue of his insights into both the Western and East Asian political traditions, but, more importantly, due to his unique way of “doing” political theory— always striving to make it relevant to everyday life. Although my dissertation does not begin to reach the level of subtlety and sophistication that Professor Alford’s works embody, my effort to weave political theory and empirical reality is inspired by his philosophical commitments and greatly enhanced by his academic guidance. If Professor Alford was my fountainhead, other members of my dissertation committee helped me navigate all different and difficult terrains of political theory and political science. Professor Benjamin Barber was my savior, who read every line of my work and provided both constructive criticism and friendly encouragement. Without him, I would not have been able to connect my interest in Confucianism and Korean culture to the discourse of democratic theory. Professor James Glass taught me various theories of individual and group psychology as powerful lenses through which to shed completely new light on both classical cannons and human reality, and constantly reminded me of the importance of “audience” to which my thesis should be addressed. Professors Margaret Pearson and Seung-kyung Kim were invaluable in iii holding my otherwise abstract and generally normative claims empirically grounded. Even if I couldn’t fully live up to their political scientific rigor, Chapter 6, where I engage a critical dialogue with comparative political science, is largely indebted to their comments and criticisms. I am also thankful to other faculty at the Department of Government and Politics for their instruction, mentorship, and example. In particular, I deeply appreciate Professor Miranda Schreurs’ kindness and care, which was as important as academic direction and advice to an international student like me. Soo Yeon Kim, Scott Kastner, Ernest Wilson, Karol Soltan, and Steve Elkin all played their part in making my graduate experience a very delightful one. I also thank peer graduate students Ciqi Mei, Samir Fayazz, Edi Frajman, Sung-Wook Paik, Yukyung Yeo, Susan Lee, and Jenny Wüstenberg, not only for their comments on my dissertation but also their general intellectual challenges and consistent friendships during my graduate life. Special thanks are due to Mike Evans, who read the entire dissertation manuscript at least twice and provided extensive comments. Most of all, I am thankful to my family. My parents Kim Jung-seop and Woo Gyung-ja, who sacrificed everything for their children’s education and well-being (as most “chŏngish” Korean parents do), have been an everlasting emotional and spiritual bulwark for me. Without their love and sacrifice, I would be a “nobody.” To them I dedicate this dissertation. And finally, I wish to thank my wife Sejin, whose companionship alone is the single greatest source of happiness in my life. iv Table of Contents DEDICATION.............................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................iii TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 1 The Conditions of Civil Society and Democratic Consolidation.............................. 1 Korean Democracy after Democratization: A Challenging Case............................. 7 Approach................................................................................................................. 17 Cases and Methodology.......................................................................................... 22 Outline of the Argument ......................................................................................... 29 CHAPTER 2: CIVIL SOCIETY AND DEMOCRATIC LIFE .................................. 34 The State of Civil Society Studies .......................................................................... 34 Civil Society and Liberal-Individualistic Citizenship............................................. 45 The Transcendental Basis of Civil Society: A Weberian Thesis............................ 52 CHAPTER 3: TRANSCENDENTAL COLLECTIVISM AND CONSOLIDATING DEMOCRACY........................................................................................................... 57 Introduction............................................................................................................. 57 Confucian Transcendental Individualism and Democratizing Civil Society.......... 61 Democratic Civility and Consolidating Civil Society ............................................ 76 The Social Psychology of Uri and Chŏng .............................................................. 85 Uri-responsibility and Uri-world: A Shift to Transcendental Collectivism ........... 94 Summary and Concluding Remarks ..................................................................... 102 CHAPTER 4: BEYOND A JURIDICAL SOCIETY URI-RESPONSIBILITY AND CHŎNGISH CIVIL SOCIETY.............................. 104 Introduction: Rule of Law, Agency, and Civil Society ........................................ 104 Chŏngish Civil Society and Its Kantian Critique.................................................. 108 The Concept of the Political: Contractual versus Familial................................... 116 Uri-responsibility and Chŏngish Civil Society..................................................... 133 Summary and Concluding Remarks ..................................................................... 145 CHAPTER 5: BEYOND LIBERAL CITIZENSHIP LIBERAL NATIONALISM AND RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP....................... 147 Introduction........................................................................................................... 147 v The Politics of Nationality Law in 2005: A Case................................................. 152 Liberal Nationalism: The Contextual Individual and Embedded Citizenship...... 156 The Confucian Ideal of the State and Its National Reinvention in Modern Korea162 Democratization and the Crisis of Kukka ............................................................. 167 Struggle for Chŏngish Nation and Responsible Citizenship................................. 171 Chŏngish Citizenship