Newsletter

Q Please tell us how you've been doing and what research topics you have particularly been interested in these days.

Baik Young-seo I've been busier than usual again since I started serving as dean of the college of liberal arts at the university I'm teaching at. I would like to consider the job a rare opportunity before I retire, which is pretty soon, to become deeply involved in experimenting with the meaning and potential of the humanities as an academic system. In the meantime, I've been meaning to write a new book, which is for the moment titled Korea-China Relations: Major Episodes that Mark the Bilateral History of Sixty Years, so I've been reading relevant research findings in order to draft an outline for the book. My plan is to describe not only the diplomatic history between the two countries, but also highlight the history of civilian exchange of, for instance, people, knowledge, or objects that have traveled across the border between Korea and China. The bilateral relations will thereafter be portrayed within the context of East Asian history.

Q As a scholar of Chinese history, what was it that caused you to take an interest in the theory of East Asia?

Baik Young-seo From the summer of 1990, I stayed in Cambridge, Massachusetts for about a year because I had been invited as a visiting scholar at the Harvard-Yenching Institute. At the time, I remember feeling rather perplexed over how often people there would inquire about the history of Korea and its current situation even though I had been studying Chinese history. It was then when I came to realize I should use my experience from Korea to develop my own approach toward Chinese history under an "East Asian perspective." I also met Professor Prasenjit Duara who had been giving a special lecture at Harvard and was able to strongly identify with him when he said that, in his research on Chinese history as a scholar from India, he made use of the sensitivities and interests Indian people possess toward religion. Once I returned to Korea, the country was already on its way to advancing into China and other parts of East Asia and an influx of labor had begun from ethic Koreans in China to others from different Southeast Asian countries. The time had come to move beyond a geographic imagination limited to the southern half of the Korean peninsula and expand it to simultaneously look at Korea in the context of East Asia and vice versa. Fortunately, my personal awakening had naturally coincided with the needs of the times back then.

Q What would you count as progress made from examining with and arguing for an "East Asian perspective"? What would be the significance of such progress and which direction do you think should the theory of East Asia be heading in the future?

Baik Young-seo Since being advocated from the early 1990s, the East Asia discourse has been considered in South Korea to have gained a so-called "power of discourse." Yet, it is difficult to give an affirmative answer if you were to ask whether the discourse has enough power to overcome the instabilities actually present in East Asia. That is why developments of the East Asia discourse and solidarity movements so far are now coming under scrutiny. However, a crisis like this could also end up presenting a vehicle for change. Because change tends not to occur without a sense of crisis. By expanding the geographic range of my research interests from mainland China and the Japanese archipelago toward Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Okinawa, I am personally looking into the major sites where contradictions in the modern history of East Asia have been concentrated. The task that lies ahead of the East Asia discourse is reorganizing itself by actively engaging the "core site" perspective, which is a refined version of the "dual peripheral perspective," as well as the "glocalogy" perspective. The dual peripheral perspective refers to a critical awareness that it is necessary to simultaneously possess two peripheral views: one that East Asia has been oppressed by the West into believing that it has not been a principal agent in the Western-centric developments of world history and the other that comes from having been oppressed by the hierarchy within East Asia. The glocalogy perspective represents both a view and a methodology which combines things that are local, regional, and global into a single dimension and also determines the area of study.

Q The Northeast Asian History Foundation has reached its tenth anniversary. What are your thoughts on how the foundation has spent the past ten years?

Baik Young-seo Back in 2006, the South Korean society under President Roh Moo-hyun's administration had been fairly interested in conceiving the idea of an East Asian community. What could have been more central than historical reconciliation in shaping an identity as an "East Asian"? That was precisely why the Northeast Asian History Foundation was newly established. On how the Foundation has handled the task of historical reconciliation for the past decade, I would say that it represents "the trajectory of the impetus for historical reconciliation in East Asia." It has more than made its presence known through countless research projects, policy alternative suggestions, and educational and promotional programs. It has not only contributed to raising awareness toward distorted descriptions and perceptions in history textbooks in China, but has also contributed to making progress in studying ethnic minorities and borderlands of China, theories on Chinese ethnicities and empires, and China's relations with Korea.

Q How have the issues and conflicts surrounding history changed between Korea, China, and Japan between 2006 when the Foundation was established and a decade later today? Do you think there has been a change in the efforts made by each country to resolve such issues and conflicts?

Baik Young-seo Ten years ago, multiple countries used to be highly interested in forming an East Asian community. Nowadays, we are witnessing the so-called "Asian paradox" phenomenon where increased economic exchange is accompanied by a rise in political and security conflicts. The region has also become greatly confused about its identity due to an overlap of collective historical memories. That confusion is barely being contained by the United States' "balancing act." East Asian countries do not seem to be active in trying to break this sort of pattern because they figure they are each benefiting from it. So, disputes surrounding history and territory as well as mutual distrust continues to grow worse and more intense. The reality we are facing today is that the only attempt being made is to issue stopgap measures to extinguish distrust.

Q Since you've been part of the regularly held "East Asian History Research Forum," what do you think it has achieved as a meeting of historians in East Asia and what is being planned for the forum's future?

Baik Young-seo The East Asian History Research Forum (hereinafter Forum) was launched by historians who attended an international conference hosted by the Foundation in 2008. The purpose of creating the Forum was to "provide opportunities for scholars studying East Asian history to exchange opinions in order to help resolve conflicts arising in East Asia due to differing perceptions of history." At the time, there were government-sponsored meetings for Chinese and Japanese scholars, or for Korean and Japanese scholars, but none for scholars of all three countries, so I think that is where the Forum's significance lies. The Forum's main event is an international conference held annually over the first Friday and Saturday of November. This year's conference will be our ninth and will be co-hosted with the Kyoto University's Institute for Research in Humanities. From the outset, we agreed that scholars participating in the Forum would represent a city instead of a country. So, for example, a scholar from Taiwan could join us. That way the Forum would be facilitating cross-border academic exchange between civilians. At the conference held in Shanghai in 2013, we were able to make a "joint statement" to express our concern toward territorial disputes. Drafting the statement was no easy task between representatives coming from four different academic cultures and interests, but we finally managed to mediate all the opinions and that remains as an invaluable experience. As for future plans, we will continue to hold academic discussions on current issues as well as regularly review disputes on history that takes place year after year in each society so as to expand channels for communication.

Q You once wrote a column titled "What should China be to us?" for the Seonam Foundation's newsletter in 2010. If you were to be asked the same question today in 2016, what would be your answer?

Baik Young-seo Recently, I've been arguing that the question should be "What are we to China?" instead of "What is China to us?". The change in the question's subject implies that Korea shouldn't focus on the influence China will have on itself, but should instead think proactively about the influence Korea may have on China. We should take note that the Korean peninsula's location and role has played a key role at each turning point throughout the history of East Asia. We need not even go as far back as the Imjin War of 1592-1598, the First Sino-Japanese War, or the Russo-Japanese War for it to become clear that the Korean peninsula's current division, marked by North Korea's nuclear threat, is pivotal to peace in East Asia. If Korea can manage to actively develop a framework of peace and perform internal reforms according to that framework, China will be compelled to question what Korea means to itself.

Q As a humanities scholar and educator interested in East Asia, is there anything you would like to say to the younger generation now studying East Asian history?

Baik Young-seo You keep bringing up big questions. When I teach "Introduction to East Asian Studies" to undergraduates, the topic of my first lecture is always "East Asian sensitivity." The intention for doing so is to stress that the course's purpose is to develop the capacity to sympathize with East Asia. More important than reading and writing about East Asia is to develop an emotional literacy capable of relating to and adequately responding to the emotions and circumstances of people living in the present. That sort of literacy helps us learn to see situations around the world through the perspectives of those people and will allow us to draw the strength to resolve conflicts. Striving to learn languages, cultures, and history would be the necessary foundation to achieving all this.

Q As a member of the Foundation's first advisory committee and as an expert in the modern and contemporary history of China, how do you think the Foundation should spend its next ten years?

Baik Young-seo I remember a concern mentioned by one of the members during a meeting of the Foundation’s first advisory committee. The concern was that since someone who argues for the East Asia discourse has become head of the committee, the Foundation might be at risk of dissolving Korean history in East Asian history. The answer I gave as an advocate of the East Asia discourse back then and still stand by now is "reconciliation between national history and the history of East Asia." Disputes concerning history cannot be resolved by solely tending to the interests of Korean history or to the domestic public opinion. That sort of awareness has served as a principle for the Foundation for the past decade and I believe it should stay as one for the following decade. Considering the documentary "The Rise of the Great Powers" produced by China and the current trend of applying a global perspective in understanding Chinese history, Korea must broaden its view in looking at its own history so that it may become more convincing to China as well as the rest of the world. The will and confidence to make that happen is what Korea now needs most.

Q The Foundation is being asked to meet various expectations from the government, the public, and academia. What do you think the Foundation should do hereafter?

Baik Young-seo The Foundation started out with its own set of difficulties from the very beginning. As a government-funded research institute, it has to juggle between the roles of academic research, policy consulting, education, and promotion, which makes it prone to becoming negligent toward long-term studies. Moreover, the Foundation's leadership cannot serve consecutive terms, so it's difficult for the Foundation's projects to stay on a steady path. These are all systematic limitations for the Foundation. However, no matter how solid such limitations are, there is bound to be room for opportunities. Humans are bound to history, but are also not prisoners or captives of it. The dynamic face of history may be principal agents collectively seeking opportunities to shape a future of their own even though they live under systematic limitations set into motion by the past. It's not easy to achieve, but there doesn't seem to be any other way. I hope everyone at the Foundation can take part in intensely reviewing the Foundation's achievements and limitations so far and use the review's findings to revise if necessary and fulfill the Foundation's vision over the upcoming decade.