Newsletter

Joseon's foreign relations play a major role in understanding the historicity of the kingdom's relations with China. Nevertheless, the dichotomous notion of Chinese versus non-Chinese and a discourse of "China as an empire" based on hierarchical Sinocentrism continues wield a great influence on those studying the period not only in east Asia, but in the West as well.

Moreover, China has been trying to disseminate Sinocentrism as widely as possible since the 2000s. For instance, the Qing History Project (淸史工程) has been aimed as currently justifying China's prominence by highlighting the diplomatic relations with its neighboring tributaries prior to the nineteenth century. This signifies the possibility for the histories of Korean kingdoms such as Koguryo or even Joseon to become sucked into a black hole of historical distortion. Before the West began to extend its powers into the East by the nineteenth century, the sixteenth and seventeenth century made up the second half of the East Asian intercontinental order as Joseon became invaded by Japan and then the Qing in between Later Jin's establishment, Ming's fall, and the Qing's establishment. It was a time familiar to Koreans as when an "traditional East Asian order" unfolded. The period can therefore be considered as the key to tracing the origin of conflicts surrounding history in East Asia. And the present seems to be an apt time to newly consider historical facts pertaining to the dynamics in East Asia, including the Korea-China relations, during the traditional era.

Global History as an Alternative

Occidental scholars have typically understood the dynamics between East Asian countries within the framework of a Sinocentric East Asian order ever since it was built by John King Fairbank. Lately, the emergence of a global history based on comparative studies between European and non-European history has prompted moves to newly examine what East Asian history means in the context of world history. The focal point is to reconsider the Eurocentrism held by occidental scholars by zooming in on the interactions some occidental countries had with non-European regions since the eighteenth century as such countries expanded into the world and modernized themselves through capitalism and industrialization.

However, a global history is yet to mature in terms of analyzing individual historical sources and data as well as developing logic, which are both central to comparative studies. Especially when limiting the scope to Korea, China, and Japan, occidental scholars have steadily cumulated data and produced research outcomes on Chinese and Japanese history for more than half a century, but have invested relatively less effort to do so for Korean history. An obvious imbalance in utilizing sources could pose the question of whether they are properly equipped with the basic conditions necessary for comparative research. Occasional case studies performed without establishing a sufficient foundation for research could set into motion a trend driven by topics that may eventually undermine the expandability and continuity distinct to comparative research.

At the same time, it is also necessary to more closely examine research done by proponents of a global history who are involved in studying Chinese history such as Andre Gunder Frank, Kenneth Pomeranz, and R. Bin Wong. Such scholars aim at relativizing Eurocentrism by conducting a comparative analysis on Europe and East Asia's development prior to the eighteenth century, before Western Europe reached the peak of its expansion and colonization throughout the world. To limit the period of Europe's domination is, in a way, a creative idea. However, the idea becomes developed one step further, it is bound to come against the issue of deciding which country, dynasty, or polity is to each represent Western Europe and East Asia.

The studies done by proponents of a global history focus on multiple European countries including Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and France, whereas for East Asia, they mainly revolve around China. The size of the territory and economy of the Qing was indeed large enough to be compared to its Western European counterparts of the time. Yet, covering China alone in studies comparing Europe and East Asia appears to be a predisposition that values superficial equivalence. The approach of generalizing the history of China into that of East Asia creates the risk of treating the histories of other countries in the same region as accessories to Chinese history.

Pursuing a global history has thus exposed a vulnerability in the research base for reviewing how neighboring countries of China and Japan individually responded and devised security strategies against developments in world history since the eighteenth century. This is because previous research has been unable to break away from a Sinocentric view of East Asian history and either treated or neglected non-Chinese polities as largely passive entities. Considering this, more in-depth academic discussions should take place about research methodologies and the use of historical sources in studying a global history, regardless of the interest and support such studies are already attracting from various experts in Korea who specialize in modern to contemporary Korean history, East Asian history, or history education. This also precisely why the dynamics in international relations within East Asia during the sixteenth and seventeenth century need to be newly discussed.

In Search of a New Direction

What then would be required to escape the magnetic field of discourse of "China as an empire"? The sixteenth to seventeenth century international order in Northeast Asia gradually became reshuffled from a competition between the Han Chinese-based Ming, the Jurchen-based Qing, and Joseon into a hegemony dominated by the Jurchen-based Qing.

What is notable is that, unlike between the thirteenth and fifteenth century, the Jurchens managed to overcome centuries of disunity and secure the largest territory ever by taking over not only that of Ming, but those of today's Inner Mongolia, Tibet, and East Turkestan. If comparative studies become capable of performing a more diachronic, synchronic cross-analysis between the Goryeo-Song relations and Joseon-Ming relations, the Ming's relations with Goryeo and Joseon, the Goryeo-Yuan relations and Joseon-Qing relations, and Joseon's relations with the Ming and Qing, we should be able to better understand in the context of the times how the Jurchens and Qing were able to take advantage of the existing international order in Northeast Asia and at the same time manage to create a new pattern of order. We should also be able to gain insight into the historicity of international order in Northeast Asia including Korea-China relations and develop enough discernment to see through the politicization of history that has recently swept across historical conflicts.

Lately, Korean scholars have been employing diverse historical perspectives and primary sources to broaden their range of research into the dynamics in the relations the Ming, Mongolia, Goryeo, and Joseon each had with the Jurchens and Qing over the sixteenth to seventeenth century. This carries significant meaning for utilizing sources Chinese and occidental scholars tend to have less access to. The projectile of their research aims at discovering the complexity of multiple layers that existed between forces within an individual polity and between different polities and how those affected the interaction of dynamics in Northeast Asia. We must therefore search for research opportunities to overcome Sinocentric historical narratives as we continue to expand the spectrum of research in Korean academia by dealing with a diversity of topics and critical views.

Since it will be realistically impossible to dissolve a Sinocentric view of history only through Korea-China relations or exchange with Chinese scholars, it is necessary to engage in comparative studies worthy of sharing with scholars around the world. Although the concept of a global history currently has the problem of possessing a Sinocentric view of East Asian history, it still emphasizes the importance of comparative studies and interdisciplinary research. If we can adopt its advantages and focus on the sixteenth to seventeenth century multi-layered interactions and multilateral relations between the Ming, Jurchen-based Qing, and Joseon, we may be able to cross-examine the dynamics of relations that took place within and outside of East Asia. That way we can ultimately build a foundation for comparative research that supports in-depth studies on East Asian history as well as horizontal narratives of world history and contribute to ensuring the expansion and continuity of decentralized, non-hegemonic studies on Northeast Asian history.