뉴스레터

Interviewer: Seo Hyun-ju, head of the Office of Education and Public Relations, Northeast Asian History Foundation

Written by Yun Hyun-ju

Jeong Tae-heon

Professor of Korean History at Korea University

Professor Jeong Tae-heon graduated from the department of trade at Korea University, and earned master’s and doctoral degrees of history at the university’s graduate school. His major is economic history of Japan’s colonial era, and he led the Institute for Korean Historical Studies and the Association for Korean Historical Studies. He authored many books, including “Breakup of Modernism for Peace”, “Political Economics of Railroads in the Korean Peninsula”, “Looking for Cultural Heritage in Japan’s Colonial Era”, and “Korea’s Economic History in the 20th Century”.

As Japan excluded Korea from the white list and has imposed trade sanctions, Korea and Japan are waging another battle. Against this backdrop, “Anti-Japan Tribalism”, alleging that Japan’s colonial rule contributed to Korea’s industrialization and modernization, is causing controversy. We recently met Jeong Tae-heon, a professor of the Korean history department at Korea University, who published “Breakup of Modernism for Peace”, through the Foundation and listened to his thoughts on the “colonial modernization theory”. He said the theory amounts to denying the significance of the post-liberation launch of an independent state and lashed out at the fabrication and vulnerability of Korean conservatives sympathizing with this logic.

“Breakup of Modernism for Peace”

Q

You published recently “Breakup of Modernism for Peace”. It seems to be a well-timed publication. Why did you decide to publish the book, and what did you focus on while writing?

A

The Japanese government is waging economic warfare, and Japan’s rightists surrounding the Abe administration stick to their militaristic historical awareness, saying that Korea is unthankful despite its economic growth and modernization through the colonial rule. Furthermore, some Korean conservatives openly support this argument. Conservatives in every country stress leadership, putting nation and race before all else, but their support for the colonial rule shows how shallow they are. In fact, they crossed the critical point much earlier. I therefore wanted to offer a chance to properly reflect upon the painful past with a book that can be read easily. It is time to cast light on the optical illusion of modernism through which the colonial capitalism unfolded while national sovereignty was being lost was understood to be identical to capitalism and its aftermath. When I was thinking of that, the Northeast Asian History Foundation happened to suggest the book publication. I compiled the book revolving around historical facts taking place while modernism was changing according to the times—from colonialism to developmentalism after World War II and neoliberalism after the 1990s.

Q

There has been controversy over the colonial industrialization theory that it is an “inconvenient fiction” or an “inconvenient truth”. To clarify this, it is necessary to talk about what is meant by industrialization in colonies. What is industrialization in colonies, and how has it changed the lives of colonial peoples?

A

No other word is abused without principle more than the word “industrialization”. By definition, industrialization means “human rights of individuals”, “establishment of modern nation states”, and “creation of a capitalist system”. Yet does any one of these apply to the circumstances in colonies? Of course not. But it has been awhile since some have claimed that quantitative growth is industrialization. In particular, as industrialization in the Western world and Japan expanded under imperialism, indicators of quantitative growth dictated by the market economy were held in high regard. Adhering to market logic resulted in looking at mere individuals and enterprises among the three entities of capitalism, and the essential importance of the state, the most crucial entity, was neglected. This is an awful misunderstanding. The state plays the role of creating and maintaining the market and lays the groundwork for its own enterprises to grow. Also, it is the state that establishes protective trade policies for the interests of its own enterprises. Britain until the mid-19th century and the United States before World War II and recently are such cases. Could we imagine today’s America if the US had remained as a British colony? Of course, this is the story between ill-natured hegemonic states, but it is the historical reality. Japan did not create a market that did not inherently exist in Korea, but transformed the market of Koreans into one headed by Japan. And the Japanese government and its proxy, the Government-General of Korea, took the initiative of economic policies. For convenience’s sake, let’s call this modernization process “colonial modern times”. Then why did the aggressors pursue modernism? The answer is simple. They needed the modernization of the colonies at any cost. I will explain this part later. How did modernization change colonial people? It enabled them to accept modernization voluntarily and gave a will for political independence. The specter of modernization and modernization theory haunts our society even today. Aggressors’ “colonial spirit” caused colonial peoples to think that there was no alternative to modernization and to empathize with the aggressors, resulting in occupying their very minds. Colony people were imbued with a feeling of helplessness as they were lost in the “just” game of force owing to their weaker strength. This complex prompted colonial peoples to accept the pecking order in which their national traits are inferior and to become devoid of critical thinking about imperialism.

Jeong Tae-heon, Professor of Korean History at Korea University

Q

I feel heavy-hearted at the statement that the spirit as well as reality were occupied. On to a different topic, I’ll ask a question about the book’s content. You are expressing a position to oppose the argument that Japan’s rule of the Korean Peninsula became the basis for Korean capitalism. Why do you negate the quantitative growth based on GDP numbers?

A

As a matter of fact, GDP is a statistical index that became popular following World War II. There were some statistical methods before that, but most of them were based on estimation. You may believe that all GDP figures talked about until the first half of the 20th century were estimates. I myself do not deny GDP’s usefulness. But it would be like putting the cart before the horse to say that diverse analytical methods and visions are lacking because GDP is about aggregate amounts. Furthermore, it is reckless to talk about growth merely with GDP numbers without considering how Koreans lived in the era of colonial capitalism. Dealing in rice between countries is trade. Basically, however, there were no tariffs between Korea and Japan at the time. A sovereign state could have tried to industrialize itself with tariff revenues, but that was impossible then. Korea was defined as a cheap rice producer merely devoted to Japan’s economy. The colonial Joseon that lost sovereignty could not implement any policies to protect its domestic market and raise “homeland capital”. It existed merely as a tool for Japan’s capitalism and war of aggression. Focusing on quantitative growth would cause too many cooks to spoil the broth because it made no sense in the colonial period to believe that increases in GDP numbers would lead to better lives. Therefore, that is quite beside the point.

Q

What is the difference between colonial capitalism and capitalism?

A

On the surface, colonial capitalism and capitalism appear similar, but there is in fact a qualitative difference. Capital accumulation, reproduction structure, and development prospects are unthinkable in the system of colonial capitalism. As modern institutions in Korea were transplanted by Japan, agricultural production increased, and total economic aggregates rose in accordance with the industrialization in the 1930s; but no Koreans were aware that they became better off under Japan’s colonial rule, regardless of whether they were farmers, capitalists, or socialists. In fact, even pro-Japanese businesspeople had a lot of complaints, believing that their business environment was poor and discriminatory.

Q

Japan says it just “invested” in Korea but did not “exploit”. There are also allegations that the Japanese Empire’s policy of industrializing Korea in the 1930s became the basis for Korea’s rapid growth in the 1970s. What are your thoughts on this?

A

The important thing is that Joseon’s industrialization was only devoted to Japan’s policy of invading the continent, and had nothing to do with industries in Joseon. In the late 1980s, some economists tried to find the origin of Korea’s economic development from the Japanese Empire’s policy of industrializing Joseon in the 1930s. They claimed that experiences of having absorbed late-onset benefits in the course of Joseon’s industrialization became the background for rapid growth after the 1970s. There had been no such arguments before. This was because the Cold War system collapsed and neoliberalism, the newest version of modernism, prevailed; it was the reactionary phenomenon to the “1987 System”, which is important in modern Korean history. But we must look at the background and characteristics of Joseon’s industrialization and its influence on the Korean economy altogether. The crisis of Korea’s rural communities under the agricultural economic system becomes the crisis of colonial rule instantly. In the wake of the Great Depression, the Government-General of Korea switched to a landlord-centered agricultural policy and made Joseon’s industrialization policy compatible. Then Japanese capital was lured into Joseon. Japan changed its method of colonial rule from selling consumer products in Joseon in exchange for raw materials and foods to selling capital goods like machinery in Joseon in exchange for raw materials and intermediary goods. Japan reset its colonial policy in the direction of serving its own interests as the environment surrounding Japan changed at home and abroad. It was natural that there was no industrial relevance in Korea. It was the by-product of processes in which Japan was coping with the Great Depression and expanding its invasion into China. For this reason, the colonial industrial structure collapsed right after Japan’s defeat. Joseon’s industrialization was led by Japan’s capital and government. Korea’s rapid post-liberation growth was not an easy process, but was possible thanks to economic policies realized democratically between political power and the people. Of course, its negative aftermath was not small, but it will be better to wrap it up there.

Q

There are also claims that Koreans’ quality of life improved in terms of education and medical treatment during Japan’s colonial period. It is true that the number of schools and hospitals increased. But you dispute this argument, saying that this was also meant for the Japanese. Can you give the reason for this?

A

It is necessary to scrutinize why the Government-General of Korea built schools and hospitals and how they were operated. Japan denied the conventional educational system and created a new ordinary education system. The name “ordinary school” is unique, is it not? It might mean that Koreans only deserve “ordinary” education like speaking, reading, and writing so that they can be handled easily. It was education designed to nurture people who could be handled easily by Japan. For example, the barriers of discrimination in railroads were strong, with Japanese monopolizing skills above certain levels in the employment structure. The Government-General of Korea built modern medical institutions to appease Koreans and emphasize the civilizational excellence of colonial rule, but the internal story was quite different. Japan’s establishment of hospitals was due to concerns about Japanese in Korea contracting contagious diseases. This was badly needed to spur the migration of Japanese to Joseon. Just look at the fact that Japanese people among users of Jahye Hospital in every region were 14 to 20 times more than Koreans.

Q

You mentioned the issue of compulsory mobilization in your book. Can you talk in more detail about the fact that Japan’s colonial labor policy created the tragic diaspora?

A

I cannot help but mention economic conditions under colonial rule in talking about diaspora. As Korea provided rice for Japan, rice output increased, but the farmers’ basis of life collapsed. After all, they lived as poor and unemployed people near cities. Japan’s ruthless plundering in the form of rice delivery afterward shattered even farmers’ everyday lives. These colonial circumstances created the tragic diaspora, causing more than 10% of the population to flee abroad. After all, Koreans who had to endure famine and discrimination became subject to compulsory mobilization, the last destination of colonial rule. They met the angel of death. It can be said that compulsory mobilization was the fruit of complicity between Japan and its enterprises, realized while the Japanese government was receptive to their demand for labor mobilization. There is no denying that the greatest driver of migration in the history of Korea’s overseas compatriots was Japan’s colonial rule.

Q

The argument that Korea’s modernization would not have been possible without Japan’s rule will not die down easily. We expect you to perform diverse activities in the face of this. Do you have any plans?

A

That is “hypothetical politics”. It is like misjudging the truth if fake news is injected. The servile spirit left by colonialism remains stubbornly intact. The public always has the task of making up for the state’s democratization; but when we talk about the “modernization” and capitalism that proceeded in the imperialism-colony relationship, it is essential to indicate whether the state exists as the core consideration. That is why I used the concepts of “colonial modern times” or “colonial capitalism”. I am considering writing a book about Korea’s modern and contemporary history as seen in connection with world history before my retirement in a few years. We may not be capable of taking the lead in world history, but we can affect Northeast Asia where we live to the fullest. I would like to conduct research that contributes to this.