뉴스레터

Editor's Note: There were tensions growing in the Korean peninsula in March through April this year. At this juncture, former Konkuk University professor Shin Bok-ryong spoke in an interview with the NAHF on the nature of the division of the Korean peninsula as the root of such tensions, the political thoughts of the Korean people, and the overcoming of the colonial view of Korean history. He also talked about his busy life in his second year of retirement in Namyangju, a suburb city of Seoul, and gave heartfelt advice to the Northeast Asian History Foundation. The interview was conducted by Hong Myeon-gi, the head of Planning Team at NAHF.

● Korean history needs to be approached with a rational perspective to break the stereotypes
● His book History of Korean Thought is the result of his cultural anthropological quest for universality
● He is annotating The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans by Plutarch, and planning to translate Records of the Three Kingdoms

Q I understand that you studied the history of the division of Korea. In your opinion, what caused the Korean peninsula to be divided into two nations, and how can the division be restored?

A Basically, I hold the view that it is the internal contradictions that gave rise to the division of the Korean peninsula and to the Korean War. This is not to deny that the tragic events that occurred in modern Korean history were due in part to the ambition of the neighboring powers or other international factors. What I mean to say is that at least in the division and the war, the internal strife was an independent variable while the international environment was a dependent variable. In this sense, my view is close to re-revisionism. The division and the war could have been avoided if the leaders of Korea in the 1940s through the 1950s had genuinely worried about the future of their country instead of pursuing their selfish ambitions. Once Korea gained independence from Japan, political parties and social organizations sprang up across the country. There were 463 of them in total and the combined number of their members reached 70 millions. In other words, each adult in South Korea joined seven political parties or social organizations. This situation was chaotic and frustrating to the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and the two powers gave up the idea of unifying Korea through talks with Koreans at the U.S.-Soviet joint commission in Korea. The breakdown of the U.S.-Soviet joint commission was the final "bridge of no return" for the unification of the Korean peninsula. In this respect, I think that what happened to Korea was 'separation' rather than 'division.'

Q You have written a number of books. In particular, books like Western Observations of Pre-Modern Korea and A Fresh Observation of Korean History seem to take a fresh approach to Korea history. What are the defining characteristics of your books compared to other existing books on Korean history?

A It is often said that history should be rational. But what something should be is not always the same as what it really is. In reality, history involves a great deal of self-pity and self-flattery. In fact, such emotional elements of history inspire and stir the people. More often than not, however, they also make the people fall into the trap of narcissistic fantasy. When I was young and reading Korean histories written by Westerners, I realized the narrowness of the Korean view of their own history and agonized over what I could do about it. It is as an answer to the question I posed to myself that I translated into Korean the 23 books of the 'Westerners' Records of 19th-Century Korea' series. I am proud that each book of this series has shown us Koreans what we couldn't see ourselves, and thereby contributed to broadening the horizons of Korean history, even if by a little bit. What motived me to look back on ourselves through the eyes of Westerners who had come to this land at that time was the lesson from history repeating itself. I think that from self-reflection through their writings and photographs, we could learn lessons that are necessary and relevant to our lives today. As I put together this series of translations, my intention was not to reinterpret Korean history from the perspectives of Westerners steeped in white supremacy. My only hope is that this series could help Koreans think critically about their tendency to romanticize Korean history.

Q In your opinion, what political thought should the Korean people maintain in this global age? And why is that the history of Korean political thought is mostly about the 'history of religious thought'?

A When I was studying the history of Korean thought, I wasn't obsessed about the traits specific to the history of Korean thought because I valued the universality of human nature in the belief that human lifestyle was essentially the same three thousand years ago as it is today, and that there was not much difference between Westerners and Koreans. In this respect, my book History of Korean Thought is the result of my quest to answer cultural anthropological questions, such as 'What is the universal good of mankind?' and "What is the ultimate value that politics should pursue?" While exploring these questions, I came to the following conclusions.

First, "political thought is a political interpretation of the evangelical language, writing, and behavior produced by thinkers, politicians, and religious leaders of the time while they agonized over matters of the hard life of the people." The process of such political thought was not an easy one to follow because of its typically religious nature. Religion is prone to prejudice, and that makes it all the more difficult and dangerous to distinguish between right and wrong from the outside. Moreover, as Max Weber once said, discussing a certain religion can be boring to those who don't believe in that religion. When my colleagues pointed out that my writings had religious overtones, I took their words to heart.

Second, what appealed to me was the basic culture of the people rather than major discourses like the Li-Qi theory (理氣論, Principle and Material Force) by Korean scholars Toigye (退溪) and Yulgok (栗谷). I never ceased to feel compassion for the oppressed, and this may explain why I spent my younger years studying Donghak (東學). I wanted to say, "In the community of political science, we have forgotten about these people." After all, the assessment of historical figures in the community of political science is different from that in the communities of philosophy, religious studies, or Korean history.

Third, time and time again, I wanted to dispel the numerous mythical stereotypes in Korean history. For example, Kim Bushik (金富軾) was stereotyped as an obsequious politician and Shin Don (辛旽) as a vicious Buddhist monk. For some figures, however, either deification had gone to extremes or interpreting them in any other way was tabooed. The biography in Korea has been the process of deifying the characters. They need to be stripped of the myths and come down to earth.

Q How did you come to take the approach to Korean history that was different from those adopted in the existing studies on the subjects? And what brought you to the legendary historian Park Chang-hwa (朴昌和) who was active during the period of Japanese occupation?

A Scholar Yi Ik (李瀷) said that there were three assets required for academic success: a good teacher; an inborn penchant for learning; and economic means. And I had Park Chang-hwa for a teacher when I was young as he had moved into our neighborhood during the war. And his teaching proved to be an valuable asset to me. The memories of my childhood when I was highly impressible went on to dominate the rest of my life. I was highly inspired particularly by what he had talked about the Koguryo-centered view of history and the horizon of territory. It was by destiny that my teacher was the one who first addressed the colonial view of Korean history in the history of historical studies in Korea. When I approach ancient Korean history, I, too, strongly resist the Silla-centered view of history. This Silla-centered view of history, combined with Japan's doctrine of Mimana Nihonfu, was a fatal disease that afflicted Korean history. The Silla-centered view of history denied the continental disposition of the Korean people, embodied the perception of self as a weak country and the decadence of the hedonistic royal family, and made the Korean people forget that they had the vigorous spirit as mounted nomads. This situation was aggravated by the division of Korea between north and south as it prompted North Korea to adopt the Koguryo-centered view of history and South Korea the Silla-centered view of history. The loss of the Koguryo-centered view of history in South Korea gave China an accelerated impetus to carry out the Northeast Project.

Q In your opinion, what adverse affects did the 'state-hired' scholars of Japan have on the establishment of the correct history of Korea, and how did they distort Korean history?

A The study of colonial history can be defined as "the style of writing designed to distort, falsify, or omit certain parts of Korean history in order to justify Japan's colonial rule of Korea." The essence of the study of colonial history was to justify Japan's colonial rule of Korea and to stress the inferiority of the Korean people as the basis of such justification. For this reason, the scholars of the study of colonial history 1) claimed that the Korean as a people or Korea as a nation did not have enough power to move Korean history forward; 2) exaggerated the inherent weaknesses of the Korean and/or disparaged or concealed the strengths of the Korean; 3) distorted the borders of Korea in an attempt to regard it as a small and weak river culture restricted within the peninsula rather than a mounted people originating from Manchuria; and 4) gave misleading answers to the questions 'What are some of the desirable types of culture that have appeared over the course of Korean history?' and 'What are some examples of the heritage of such culture?' There are many reasons that such distortion of history still persists today. First, in comparison with the Western world, the Korean people have been exposed to a narrow range of thought. Second, the Korean people lacked the will to reform the existing society. Third, the generation of scholars affected by the study of colonial history is yet to be replaced.

Q You once wrote an essay titled 'In Praise of the Humanities.' That was very exceptional for a researcher of political science or the history of politics. What do the humanities mean to you in your academic journey?

A I think that every reader has dreamed one time or another in their youth of becoming a writer himself. I also had my humble share of reading. Back in my days of reading variously without any guidance, I just kept reading without a purpose or direction. By the time those days were over and I became a student of social science, I realized that all the reading of the humanities I had done in the past had nourished me. My lectures and writings were basically aimed at asking this question: "So what does such intellectual discourse mean to your life?" I didn't want to lecture or write what the students can and will forget about once the finals were over. After all, writing began with the humanities, regardless of one's major. Literature, history, and philosophy are the starting points of all disciplines. If you are studying engineering, animal husbandry, or medicine, it is all the more essential that you read the humanities. The Eastern and Western classics are of value to you regardless of your major. What's the use of natural science if it doesn't have philosophy about life? It would be as tasteless as dry rice. Aristotle, Albert Einstein, and Sigmund Freud all started out as natural scientists but became philosophers later in their lives discussing life. Basically, writing and speaking is difficult if you don't study the humanities. The notion that the computer replaces our life is terrible just to think about.

Q On the list of your books, the collection of essays Let Me Fill Your Library catches my eye with its unique title. How does this book differ from your other books on politics? I gather that this book was a kind of mental break you took from the dry research of the history of politics. Do you agree?

A As I was approaching retirement, it occurred to me one day that I should write the story of my life that I hadn't had the chance to talk about during my lectures. You could call it a melodrama depicting joy and sorrow in life, or a monologue by an intellectual of living in our time, or the tale of an average citizen's life. The motto of my life was to live a "life of humanity," and I wanted to talk about it. So I wrote about episodes that happened in and around school, about my mundane life in the city, and about what I wanted to tell my children. And the result is that book. I am not in position to write a memoir, but glad to have left behind the story of my life in the form of essay collection.

Q When did you move to Namyangju? Please tell us about your personal life these days.

A It has been almost two years since I moved into the apartment complex in Namyangju. I was born in a mountain village (Geosan) in Chungcheong Province and have had ups and downs in my life, but never have I thought that I would move into Gyeonggi Province. I spend my time reading, taking a walk, and attending the Sunday Mass. Once in a while, I go up to Seoul to meet old friends of mine. I love it. As my children are no longer under my wings, I sometimes feel as though I suffer from empty nest syndrome. I was never absent from school, except during the Korean War, and worried if and how I was going to manage my life after retirement. But now I think I manage it well. These days, I am devoting myself to annotating The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans by Plutarch. That is one of the things I dreamed of doing when I was younger. I'm almost done. The next project I'm thinking about is to translate Records of the Three Kingdoms because I want to be the first to translate both the Western and the Eastern classics of heroes. I am drawn to these two books because they remind me of the soul of my younger self that overcame suffering. And if the Heaven grants me more time, I would like to use it to polish the Korean edition of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. But it is only up to the Heaven whether this dream of mine can come true. (He makes weekly visits to the Konkuk University Library to check out and/or return books, and also gives special lectures once in a while. He said that he had resigned from his chair professorship this year, and emphasized that annotation and translation should be also regarded as important academic disciplines.)

Q Finally, if you had any words of suggestion to the Northeast Asian History Foundation, what would they be?

A First of all, remember that the war of history is a long-term one. Neither China nor Japan is an easy opponent. Have a long-term view instead of getting caught up in events at hand. This war will probably last a millenium. Secondly, achieve interdisciplinary convergence while maintaining a balanced and friendly relationship between general history and specific history, such as the history of politics, the history of economy, or the history of military. General history and specific history are not mutually exclusive but complementary with each other. When the ability to collect historical records in general history is balanced with the methodology in specific history, great academic achievements can be made. Thirdly, always keep in mind that you have been called by the state to carry out important missions. Your positions at NAHF are Joseon's equivalent of the director of Hongmungwan (弘文館: Office of Special Advisors) or the high-ranking officers of Seungmunwon (承文院: Bureau of Diplomatic Correspondence). I hope that people at NAHF will be committed to the nation and people, armed with the pride of official historians, educators, and administrators.