© 2011 Jongtae Kim THE DISCOURSE OF SŎNJIN’GUK: SOUTH KOREA’S EUROCENTRIC MODERN IDENTITIES AND WORLDVIEWS BY JONGTAE KIM DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2011 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Jan Nederveen Pieterse, Chair Professor Norman K. Denzin Professor Tim F. Liao Professor James W. Hay Assistant Professor Brian J. Dill ABSTRACT Incorporated into the Eurocentric world order, Koreans have represented their national self and the world within the framework of Eurocentric discourses throughout the processes of modernization in changing global and national circumstances. What I call the discourse of sŏnjin’guk is a historically constructed knowledge system based upon the relations constructed around the concepts of sŏnjin’guk (advanced country) and hujin’guk (backward country). It has provided South Koreans with dominant interpretive frameworks of national identities and worldviews in their national developmental processes. One of its most notable characteristics is a hierarchical distinction between sŏnjin’guk and hujin’guk, in which the former has the latter as its alienated other. As an ideal image, sŏnjin’guk has played important roles in guiding the transformation of the Korean society, e.g., as an urgent national goal and central reference points. As previous research is rare, this dissertation aims to answer basic questions about the concept of sŏnjin’guk and a system of knowledge constructed around it. The primary foci of this dissertation lie on the basic assumptions, characteristics, formation and transformation, and historical backgrounds of the discourse of sŏnjin’guk. In particular, this study examines its central concepts, classificatory frameworks, contexts of use, and identity constructions; historical conditions of its formation and transformation; contestations over and challenges to it; and its comparison with neighboring East Asian countries’ dominant discourses. Grounded upon the theories of ii discourse, hegemony, developmentalism, and Eurocentrism in the global historical context, this study assumes that developmentalism is a global discursive construction reflecting Eurocentric worldviews in specific historical circumstances. Methodologically, this study employs the discourse analysis of newspaper texts as the main research method with semi-structured interview skills as supplementary one. As a contribution mainly to global studies, cultural studies, development studies as well as Korean studies, this dissertation shows the following major findings and arguments. First, the discourse of sŏnjin’guk is premised upon a distinction between sŏnjin’guk and hujin’guk, into which South Koreans have projected their positive and negative developmental values into them respectively. Second, the discourse has its historical root in the early modern discourses of kaehwa (enlightenment) and munmyŏng (civilization) in terms of Korea’s discursive responses to the Eurocentric world order. Third, the discourse has transformed its connotations and political implications in changing historical circumstances since its rise as a hegemonic discursive system supporting South Korean developmental regime in the 1960s. Fourth, the basic assumptions and ideas of the discourse are challenged and contested in a variety of ways by counter-developmentalist socio-economic groups. And last, the discourse shows South Koreans’ distinctive national identities and worldviews compared with Chinese and Japanese mainstream discourses on national identity. iii To Father, Mother, Youngmi, and Wonjun iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project would not have been possible without the support of many people. Above all, I would like to offer my heartfelt appreciation to my advisor Jan Nederveen Pieterse, who led me to the road to scholarly learning, with numerous insightful teachings and unswerving belief in me. I have been happy all through this project because of his cheerful encouragement and clear guidance. I would also like to greatly thank my committee members, Norman Denzin, Tim Liao, James Hay, and Brian Dill, who provided much helpful advice and generous support for this project. I am especially thankful to Hay for his important teachings in cultural studies, and to Liao for his insightful suggestions on Asian issues. My parents, Dong-Ryeol Kim and Deok-Soon Yoo, silently watched their eldest son’s late learning with indescribable emotional support. I am eternally grateful to them. And finally, I am greatly indebted to my wife Youngmi Park and son Wonjun Kim, who supported my studying abroad by being at my side. v TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 THE FORMATION AND TRANSFORMATION OF KOREANS’ EUROCENTRIC WORLDVIEWS: KAEHWA AND MUNMYŎNG DISCOURSES .... 61 Appreciating the Power of the West: The Hansŏng Sunbo (1883-1884) and the Hansŏng Jubo (1886-1888) ...................... 66 Eurocentrism in the Discourses of Kaehwa and Munmyŏng: The Tongnib Sinmun (1896-1899) and the Taehan Maeil Sinbo (1904-1910) ............ 74 The Crisis and Reconstruction of the Munmyŏng Discourse: The Chosun Ilbo and the Dong-A Ilbo (1920s-30s) ..................................................... 84 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 100 CHAPTER 2 THE DISCOURSE OF SŎNJIN’GUK: CONCEPTS, REPRESENTATIONS, AND IDENTITIES ........................................................................................................ 102 The Concept of Sŏnjin’guk: Meanings, Roles, and Contexts .................................... 106 The Concept of Hujin’guk: Meanings, Attributes, and Contexts .............................. 116 The Representation of Sŏnjin’guk ............................................................................. 118 The Representation of Hujin’guk ............................................................................... 127 Self National Identity in the Discourse of Sŏnjin’guk ............................................... 130 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 134 CHAPTER 3 THE HISTORICAL FORMATION AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE DISCOURSE OF SŎNJIN’GUK ................................................................................... 137 The Discursive Change from Munmyŏng to Development: 1948-1960 .................... 139 The Formation and Development of the Discourse of Sŏnjin’guk: 1961-1979 ......... 148 International Pressure and Idealizing Sŏnjin’guk: 1980-1992 ................................... 157 Segyehwa and Global Standard for Sŏnjin’guk: 1993-1997 ...................................... 165 Neoliberal Sŏnjin’guk and Sŏnjinhwa: 1998-the Present .......................................... 176 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 181 vi CHAPTER 4 CHALLENGES TO THE DISCOURSE OF SŎNJIN’GUK ......................................... 185 The Grounds of Challenge ......................................................................................... 188 Challenges to the Concept of Sŏnjin’guk ................................................................... 190 Challenges to the Concept of Hujin’guk .................................................................... 209 Perspectives on the Differentiation between Hujin’guk and Sŏnjin’guk ................... 216 Challenges to National Self-Identity and Resistances to the Sŏnjinhwa Project ....... 222 Resistances to Eurocentrism ...................................................................................... 226 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 232 CHAPTER 5 THE WEST AND EAST ASIAN IDENTITIES: A COMPARISON OF THE DISCOURSES OF KOREAN SŎNJIN’GUK, JAPANESE NIHONJINRON, AND CHINESE NEW NATIONALISM ................................................................................ 236 The Perceptions of the West ...................................................................................... 247 The Perceptions of Self National Identity ................................................................. 254 The Subjectivities of Modernities and Postmodernities ............................................ 259 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 267 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 271 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 292 vii INTRODUCTION “What is the political party that will lead our fatherland to sŏnjinhwa and sŏnjin’guk, following the wishes of President Park Chung-Hee? Isn’t it the Grand National Party? In order for the Grand National Party to lead our country to sŏnjin’guk, President Lee Myung-Bak should make a success. [. .] I think that it is the calling of our times that the Grand National Party put South Korea up to the level of sŏnjin’guk by re-taking power for the next term, and also think that there is no other political party than the Grand National Party in South Korea to be able