Pori Park. Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms: Korean Buddhism under Colonial Rule. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, 2009. 158 pp. $20.00, paper, ISBN 978-1-55729-094-6.
Reviewed by Hwansoo Kim
Published on H-Buddhism (November, 2010)
Commissioned by Jin Y. Park (American University)
For so long, English-language scholarship on ing the precolonial (1877-1910) and colonial peri‐ colonial Korea has given scant attention to Korean od (1910-45), wrote key articles beginning in the Buddhism, despite its importance to the colonial early 1990s. Their research has been a spring‐ government. Most scholarship on colonial Korea board for those seeking to comprehend the multi‐ has predominantly focused on the political, eco‐ ple dimensions of Korean Buddhism during the nomic, social, and cultural arenas of Japanese period in question. Pori Park and Satona Suzuki colonialism in Korea, and has overlooked the role completed dissertations titled “The Modern Re‐ of religion in general and Buddhism in particular. making of Korean Buddhism: The Korean Reform In the past three years, three books have been Movement During Japanese Colonial Rule and published that fll this gap: Han Yongun’s Selected Han Yong’un’s Buddhism (1879–1944)” in 1998 Writings, translated by Vladimir Tikhonov (Kore‐ and “Japanese Buddhist Missionary Activities in an name Pak Noja) and Owen Miller (2008); Trial Korea, 1877–1910” in 2000, respectively. They and Error by Pori Park (2009); and Makers of were followed by Micah Auerback’s dissertation Modern Korean Buddhism edited by Jin Y. Park titled “Japanese Buddhism in an Age of Empire: (2010). These books are aligned with the growing Mission and Reform in Colonial Korea, 1877– trend in scholarship that seeks to excavate the re‐ 1931” and my own “Strategic Alliances: The Dy‐ alities of colonial Korea by viewing this period namic Relationship between Korean and Japanese through the larger East Asian and global context Buddhism, 1877–1912,” both in 2007. These recent and by drawing out the multifaceted experience additions, along with other articles on the topic in of Koreans under Japanese rule. Prior to the pub‐ the Japanese, Korean, and, most recently, English lications of these books, Henrik Sørensen and languages, have greatly advanced a critical under‐ Vladimir Tikhonov, who are two representative standing of Korean Buddhism during the precolo‐ scholars among others of Korean Buddhism dur‐ nial and colonial period. H-Net Reviews
English-language scholarship, however, has an Buddhism, by the end of the colonial period, done the most to shed new light upon Korean was not able to fully recover from the centuries- Buddhism during the modern period with the long stigmatization by Neo-Confucians during the publication of the aforementioned three books. Chosŏn dynasty (1392–1910). This marginalization Among these, Pori Park’s book is distinct in that had so crippled Korean Buddhism fnancially, so‐ hers is the frst monograph that provides a sweep cially, and politically that it disabled Korean Bud‐ of the history of modern Korean Buddhism, with dhism in the colonial and even postcolonial eras. an in-depth examination of the colonial period. That is, the lack of political and social clout, she Tikhonov and Miller’s book is a translation of the maintains, prevented Buddhist leaders from tak‐ selected writings of Han Yongun, one of the most ing full advantage of the interregnum following prominent monks during the colonial period. Jin the disintegration of the Chosŏn’s Neo-Confucian Park’s book is an anthology that encompasses Ko‐ social and political structure. Because of the un‐ rean Buddhism from the precolonial era up to the stable situation of Korean Buddhism on the present day. ground, reforms undertaken by leading monastic Trial and Error is more than a historical work and lay leaders tended to be too hasty, radical, in that Park engages key scholarly issues in the and ideal to bear fruit. In addition, the paucity of study of colonial Korea. First and foremost, Park material and human resources, compounded by a distances herself from the Korean language schol‐ passive disposition among Korean Buddhists, arship that predominantly confnes itself to the compelled them to emulate the education, propa‐ nationalist paradigm. In so doing, she locates her gation, and institutional programs of Japanese work within the East Asian and global context by Buddhism and Christianity rather haphazardly. employing the framework of “colonial moderni‐ Japanese colonial rule further undermined the re‐ ty.” This concept, introduced in the late 1990s, has form eforts of Korean Buddhist establishments been energetically debated between and among by forcibly confning their work to the nonpoliti‐ Korean- and English-language scholars. Using this cal. Under these circumstances, Korean Buddhist interpretative tool and other, new approaches, leaders compromised with colonial authorities Park shows that in the frst half of the twentieth and limited their religious programs to institu‐ century Korean Buddhism, like other Buddhisms tional reforms, rather than also pursue social and in Sri Lanka and China, became even more of an political agendas. Park concludes that, due to underdog that it had been in the Chosŏn period. It these factors, all trials at reform were subject to now had to wrestle with the forces of modernity error and eventually to “failure” (p. 9). introduced primarily through Japanese coloniza‐ The book comprises fve chapters that trace tion. Therefore, Korean Buddhism during the the cycle of trial and error. Chapter 1, titled “Re‐ colonial period can be characterized, she asserts, bound,” provides a brief history of Korean Bud‐ as a series of endeavors among Buddhist leaders dhism during the Chosŏn dynasty and then dis‐ to reform their own tradition, to create a new, cusses a paradigm shift in late nineteenth-century modern identity, and to make their religion social‐ Korean Buddhism. The demise of the Chosŏn dy‐ ly responsive and nationally benefcial. The nasty and the infux of Japanese Buddhist and theme of the reform of Korean Buddhism under‐ Western Christian missionaries prompted Korean girds Park’s discussion throughout. Buddhists to seize upon “a chance to turn around At the outset, Park’s evaluation of the Korean their fate” (p. 33). Nevertheless, the damage done Buddhist reform movement is indicated in the to Buddhism by the Chosŏn’s anti-Buddhist poli‐ book’s title: Trial and Error. She argues that Kore‐ cies and “their long-term efects” (p. 12) inex‐ orably led Korean Buddhist reform eforts to be‐
2 H-Net Reviews come mired by “confusion and confict” (p. 35). forms. Park points out that the periodical divide This disarray, chronic to the Korean Buddhist parallels the colonial government’s change in poli‐ community under Japanese rule, is detailed in the cy from military rule (budan seiji) to cultural rule remaining four chapters. (bunka seiji) in the aftermath of the 1919 March Chapter 2, titled “Caught in-Between,” exam‐ First Movement. ines the unfavorable situation that Korean Bud‐ In chapter 3, Park looks at how the reforms of dhists found themselves in from the late nine‐ Korean Buddhism were excluded from political teenth century to 1911. In order to maximize the engagement and thus were primarily religious in chance of Korean Buddhism’s survival, Korean nature. As such, Korean Buddhists focused on en‐ Buddhist leaders approached Japanese Buddhist suring institutional survival through clerical edu‐ clerics, whom they considered “brethren” and cation, propagation, and the publication of jour‐ “benefactors” (p. 34). Yet, Korean Buddhist leaders nals. A number of key monastics disseminated had to wrestle with the fact that these Japanese ideas for reforming the Korean sangha, and Park Buddhists were also colonizers who prioritized examines three leading fgures: Han Yongun, both their national prerogatives and the needs of Hyegŭn, and Kwŏn Sangno. Park focuses on Han’s their sect. In addition, Korean Buddhists were am‐ vision of reform as articulated in his 1913 Trea‐ bivalent about the colonial government. Fully cog‐ tise on the Reformation of Korean Buddhism, and nizant of how Korean Buddhism could be used to places it as an exemplar in the larger eforts to‐ pacify Korean subjects, the colonial government ward reform. She divides Han’s program into four sought to cultivate an amicable relationship with areas: unifcation of the doctrinal orientation of Korean Buddhist monks. Many Buddhist leaders the sangha, simplifcation of practices, centraliza‐ reciprocated the colonial government’s favors by tion of the sangha administration, and reforma‐ accepting the colonial government as the protec‐ tion of sangha policies and customs (p. 53). How‐ tor of Buddhism. But the colonial government’s ever, the vision of reform promoted by Han and approach was double-edged. The colonial govern‐ others notwithstanding, Park concludes that, due ment simultaneously sought to strengthen Korean to “fnancial difculties and a lack of direction Buddhism as it tightened its control over Korean and vision” (p. 67), Korean Buddhists failed to im‐ Buddhist institutions through the 1911 Temple Or‐ plement these programs. dinance. This ordinance brought “a system of or‐ In chapter 4, Park turns her attention to re‐ der” (p. 49) to Korean Buddhist establishments, forms after 1919, the period in which the colonial which, on the whole, was benefcial to Korean regime eased its strict policies. Park writes that Buddhism. However, Park points out that the mi‐ the Buddhist reforms of this period displayed a cromanaging of the major head temples by the political dimension. For example, young monks colonial authorities usurped Korean Buddhists of defed the colonial government’s policies on Bud‐ their ability to develop an autonomous institu‐ dhism, specifcally the 1911 Temple Ordinance. tion, and thus crippled the possibility of true re‐ Another example is the movement among young form. monks of pursuing minjung Pulgyo or taejung Chapter 3 deals with Korean Buddhist reform Pulgyo (people’s Buddhism) as opposed to kwanje movements from 1910 to 1919, and chapter 4 Pulgyo (bureaucratic Buddhism). By virtue of a takes up reforms from 1919 to 1945. In these two “possible socialist infuence” (p. 76) on the min‐ chapters, Park makes a major contribution to the jung movement, Park suggests that it could have feld by ofering an insightful distinction between been “a way of resisting the Japanese govern‐ these two periods with respect to Buddhist re‐ ment” (p. 77). But she also cautions that these na‐
3 H-Net Reviews tionalistic sentiments were more complicated ical of social inequalities, colonialism, and mili‐ than the “simple dichotomy” centering on a na‐ tarism as counter to the values of liberty and tionalism rooted in a “nation-state” (p. 70). To but‐ equality” (p. 116). Park is in agreement with other tress her point, Park incorporates the concept of scholars who view Han as a staunch nationalist, “ethical nationalism,” a Christian self-reconstruc‐ noting that he resisted the forced family registry tion program which prioritized strengthening Ko‐ in the 1940s, went without heat in winter out of reans’ individual, religious, and cultural identity disgust for Japanese rule, and did not capitulate to in order to gradually obtain political indepen‐ the cajoling of the colonizers. However, Park dence. She views the Buddhist nationalism that writes that Han’s nationalistic discourse was not Korean Buddhists generated as one of a number narrowly defned. Rather, he employed it as a of diverse manifestations of nationalist discourse “strategic means” (p. 117) to cater to the needs of and as one that prioritized the revitalization of people and to ultimately accomplish the fulfll‐ their own religion within the confnes of colonial ment of a liberalism and cosmopolitanism that rule. Yet, even this type of nationalist movement would go beyond national, racial, and cultural initiated by young monks did not last long. Many boundaries. A close examination of Han’s life and collaborated comfortably with the colonial system writings suggest to Park that, in the midst of con‐ for their personal and group ends without follow‐ tinuous trial and error among Korean Buddhist ing through on the goals they set out for the bet‐ monastics in their reform movements, there was terment of Korean Buddhism. Park concludes the a unique Buddhist monk who was both nationalis‐ chapter by saying that Korean Buddhists were not tic and cosmopolitan. In her assessment, Han suc‐ successful either in devising a nationalist identity ceeded in presenting a systematic doctrinal foun‐ or in bringing about the institutional reforms that dation for formulating a Korean Buddhist nation‐ would have made their religion socially respon‐ alist identity and for overcoming the hasty secu‐ sive. larization and the clumsy modernization of Kore‐ In chapter 5, the heart of the book, Park tries an Buddhism. Despite Han’s heroic life and con‐ to redeem Korean monastics’ double failure. She structive vision for Korean Buddhism, Park con‐ returns to Han Yongun’s vision of reform as a case cludes, “Unfortunately, however, Han’s ideas re‐ study. Han sought to resolve an impasse (p. 94) mained ideals and were not expanded or devel‐ that plagued Korean Buddhism’s central institu‐ oped into grassroots movements” (p. 124). She tion by envisioning a socially engaged Buddhism. goes on to say that postcolonial Korean Buddhism Park cites Han’s writings published between the is still struggling with similar issues and that 1910s and 1930s to analyze Han’s doctrinal, philo‐ therefore “Han’s insight could be still relevant” sophical, and soteriological system. Han equated (p. 125). the traditional practice of Sŏn (meditation) with In this 158-page book, Park takes on the the pursuit of enlightenment and Kyo (sutra stud‐ breadth of historical events in Korean Buddhism ies or wisdom) with saving society. With Sŏn ad‐ during the colonial era and examines many of the dressing “existential sufering” and Kyo address‐ key issues, problems, and dilemmas that it en‐ ing “social sufering” (p. 113), the unity of the two countered. She avoids tendentious nationalistic created a holistic vision for modern Buddhism. rhetoric that blames all the problems of Korean Park attributes Han’s doctrinal justifcation for Buddhism on the Japanese and instead grants Ko‐ the Sŏn/Kyo integration to his desire to resolve rean Buddhists more agency. Park insightfully tensions in the Korean sangha, but she gives spe‐ brings to light the problems not necessarily as‐ cial weight to his writing on social equality, liber‐ cribable to colonialism but inherent in Korean ty, and freedom on the global level. Han “was crit‐
4 H-Net Reviews
Buddhism throughout its premodern and modern understand Han, his later writings need be taken history. into consideration. That being said, this book would have beneft‐ Of course, addressing these points would in‐ ed from considering the following. First, the re‐ crease the length of this compact book and thus search relies predominantly on Korean sources compromise its usefulness as an introduction to and does not integrate Japanese documents writ‐ the topic. All in all, Park’s book sets the terms for ten during the colonial period in Korea and about further research on Korean Buddhism during the Korean Buddhism. As Park acknowledges, Japa‐ colonial era. The frst book-length work on colo‐ nese Buddhism was a major reference point for nial period Korean Buddhism, Park’s publication the reforms of Korean Buddhism, much more so can be used as core textbook for classes on mod‐ than Christianity. A close examination of the intel‐ ern Korean and East Asian Buddhism. Both schol‐ lectual, institutional, and personal interactions ars and students of Korean Buddhism in particu‐ between the two Buddhist communities in their lar and of Buddhism in general will beneft from almost seven-decade relationship (1877–1945) in Trial and Error’s contribution to the feld. Korea would make her points more substantiated, Note nuanced, and thus more convincing. Moreover, [1]. Pulgyo (Sin) 7 (1937): 1; and Han Yong’un the integration of Japanese primary sources, al‐ chŏnjip 2: 359. See also Mun Tŏksu, “Han Yong’un beit not ample but still available, would have kwa Yu Ch’ihwan” Kyŏngnam siron (October 11, complexifed Park’s conclusion that Buddhist re‐ 2004). forms were a failure. Second, Park’s characterization of Han as a staunch nationalist who criticized Japanese colo‐ nialism and sought political independence re‐ quires more textual evidence. Park provides as a key piece of evidence Han’s frontal attack on Japa‐ nese colonialism from The Proclamation of Inde‐ pendence that Han helped write for the March First movement in 1919. Yet, Han’s overall politi‐ cal stance adduced from his other writings seems less confrontational. His other writings on socially engaged Buddhism and cosmopolitanism, which are rather metaphysical and speculative, can be viewed as trying to avoid direct confict with colo‐ nial authorities rather than challenging them head-on. In addition, although Park does not men‐ tion it, there have been debates among Korean- language scholars on a problematic essay that Han purportedly wrote in 1937. In the preface of a Korean Buddhist journal Han lauds Japan’s war against China in the same year.[1] This is another piece of evidence that problematizes the view of Han as an uncompromising nationalist. To fully
5 H-Net Reviews
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-buddhism
Citation: Hwansoo Kim. Review of Park, Pori. Trial and Error in Modernist Reforms: Korean Buddhism under Colonial Rule. H-Buddhism, H-Net Reviews. November, 2010.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=31201
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
6