Advertisement

Colonial Publicness as Metaphor

  • Hae-dong Yun
  • Michael Kim
Part of the Mass Dictatorship in the Twentieth Century book series (MASSD)

Abstract

All colonial empires attempt to create a ‘kingdom of order’, where neither a ‘people’s republic’ nor representative politics in the Western sense are allowed in the colonies. The only possible form of colonial politics that could and did exist was a ‘politics of resistance’. Much of the history of colonial everyday life and thought vanishes, however, when colonies are discussed primarily in terms of the politics of resistance. In other words, the political realm of colonies and of colonialism as a whole cannot be understood simply in terms of the politics of resistance. Rather, the lack of a suitable interpretative paradigm for understanding this aspect of colonialism necessitates a concept of ‘colonial publicness’.

Keywords

Public Sphere Private Sphere Audience Publicness Colonial Period Colonial Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Volker Gerhardt (Kim Chong-gi, trans.), Tasi ilgnün k’ant’ŭŭi yŏnggup’yŏnghwaron (Seoul: Baeksansŏdang, 2007), pp. 281–315 (originally Reflections about Kant’s Perpetual Peace).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The ‘political’ here has been an inherent aspect of all human societies since the beginning of time and is one of the dimensions that determine human existence. The inevitable political and social antagonisms that arise are impossible without a radical stand from a position that accepts these ontological assumptions. Chantal Mouffe (Yi Pokyŏng, trans.), Chŏngch’ijŏkin kŏsŭi kwihwan (Seoul: Humanit’asŭ, 2007), pp. 10–21 (originally The Return of the Political [1993]).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yun Hae-dong, ‘Singminchi insikûi hoesaekchidae’, Singminchiŭi hoesaekchidae (2003).Google Scholar
  4. Yŏksa pip’yŏngsa, Hyŏndae sasang (May 2002).Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    Cho Kyŏng-dal, ‘Bōryoku to kōron’, in Suda Tsutomu, Cho Kyŏng-dal, and Nakashima Hisato, eds, Bōryoku no seiki wo koete – rekishigaku karano chōsen (Tokyo: Aokishoten, 2004).Google Scholar
  6. Cho Kyŏng-dal, ‘15 nen sensō shitano chōsen — shokuminchi kindai ron hihan’, Chōsen shōgakukai gakujutsu ronbunshū 25, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. Both of the papers above were published in Cho Kyŏng-dal, Shokuminchiki chōsen no chishikijin to minshū (Tokyo: Yūshisha, 2008).Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    E.g., Junichi Saito (Yun Dae-sŏk, trans.), Minjujŏk konggongsǒng (Seoul: iŭm, 2009), pp. 50–4 (originally Kōkyōsei, Iwanami shoten, 2000).Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Namiki Masatoshi, ‘Chosen niokeru shokuminchi kindai sei shokuminchi kōkyōsei tainichi kyōryoku’, Kokusaikōryū kenkyū 5 (2003).Google Scholar
  10. Namiki Masatoshi, ‘Shokuminchiki chōsen niokeru “kōkyōsei” no kentō’, in Mitani Hiroshi, ed., Higashi ajia no kōron keisei (Tokyo: Tōkyōdaigaku shuppankai, 2004).Google Scholar
  11. Namiki Masatoshi, ‘Shokuminchi kōkyōsei to chōsen shakai — shokuminchi kōhanki wo chūshin ni’, in Pak Chung-sŏk et al., eds, ‘Bunmei’, ‘kaika’, ‘heiwa’ – nippon to kankoku (Tokyo: Keiō gijukudaigaku shuppankai, 2006).Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Satō Takumi, ‘Fuashisuto teki kōkyōsei — kōkyōsei no hi jiyūshugiteki moderu’, Iwanami kouza, Gendaishakai gaku 24 (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1996).Google Scholar
  13. A critique of Satō Takumi’s work can be found in Mitani Hiroshi, ‘Kōron keisei, hi seiyō shakai niokeru minshuka no keiken to kanōsei’, in Mitani Hiroshi, ed., Higashi ajia no kōron keisei (Tokyo: Tōkyōdaigaku shuppankai, 2004).Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    Yun Hae-dong, ‘Shokuminchi kindai to taishū shakai no tōjō’, in Miyajima Hiroshi, Yi Sŏng-si, and Lim Jie-hyun, eds, Shokuminchi kindai no shiza (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 2004).Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    In contrast, Matsumoto Takenori once argued for the possibility that the ‘public sphere’ can be used as an analytical concept for understanding colonialism. Matsumoto viewed the ‘public sphere’ as the source of the rhetorical power that made it possible to form a consensus between the local regional societies and the central state, but he only suggested the possibility. See Matsumoto Takenori, ‘Toku shū niatatte’, Chōsen shi kenkyūkai ronbunshū 37 (1999) 43–47.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Chi Su-gŏl, ‘Ilchehaŭi chibangt’ongch’i sisŭt’emkwa kun tanwi kwallyo — yuji chibaech’eje’, review of Yun Hae-dong, Chibaewa chach’i (Yŏksa pip’yŏngsa, 2006), Yoksawa hyonsil 63 (April 2007) 345–379.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Yi Chun-sik, ‘T’alminjokronkwa yŏksaŭi kwainghaesŏk: singminchi konggongsŏngŭn kwayŏn silchaehaessnŭn’ga’, Naeilŭl yŏnŭn yoksa 31 (2008), 201–11.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    See Yun Hae-dong, Singminchiinsikŭi hoesaekchidae (Seoul: Yoksa pip’yŏngsa, 2003).Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Yun Hae-dong, ‘Ch’inilgwa panilŭi p’yeswaehoeroesŏ pŏsŏnaki’, Singminchi kŭndaeŭip’aerŏdoksŭ (Seoul: Hyumŏnisŭt’ŭ, 2007).Google Scholar
  20. 22.
    Tong Sŏn-hŭi, ‘Ilcheha chosŏnin top’yŏngŭihoe tohoe ŭiwŏn yŏn’gu’ (Academy of Korean Studies, doctoral diss., 2005).Google Scholar
  21. 23.
    The vigorous opposition to the relocation of the Chungnam provincial administrative building took place over a long period and therefore attracted the interest of many researchers from different angles. The most representative example attempted to analyse this movement with the concept of a ‘bureaucratic-maintenance system’. Chi Su-gŏl, ‘Ilcheha kongjujiyŏk yujijiptanŭi toch’ŏngijŏn pantaeundong (1930.11–1932.10)’, Yŏksawa hyonsil 20 (1996) 119–228.Google Scholar
  22. 24.
    Chōsensōtokufu, Chōsen no gunshū (1926), 227–28.Google Scholar
  23. 25.
    Wolfgang Schivelbusch (Ch’a Mun-sŏk, trans.), Nyutil, se p’yǒnŭi tŭrama (Seoul: Chisikŭi p’ungkyŏng, 2009), pp. 86–104 (originally Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt’s America).Google Scholar
  24. Chi-yŏng, trans.), Munhwaminjujuŭi (Seoul: Hanul, 2001), pp. 86–138 (originally Cultural Democracy: Politics, Media, New Technology, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  25. 27.
    Sŏ Chae-gil, ‘Ilche singminchigi radio pangsonggwa “singminchi kûndaesŏng”’, Sai 1 (2006) 181–214.Google Scholar
  26. Sŏ Chae-gil, ‘Han’gukkûndae pangsongmunye yŏn’gu’ (Seoul National University Ph.D. diss., 2007).Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    Michael Robinson also argues that the radio broadcasts in the Korean language had the dual effect of supporting Japan’s ultimate goal of culturally assimilating the Koreans and overturning this effort. See Michael Robinson, ‘Broadcasting, Cultural Hegemony, and Colonial Modernity in Korea, 1924–1945’, in Gi-Wook Shin and Michael Robinson, eds, Colonial Modernity in Korea (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    Yu Sŏn-yŏng conceptualises the transformation and reconfiguration of modern visuality through the concept of spectatorship. Yu Sŏn-yŏng, ‘Ch’ogiyŏnghwaûi suyonggwa kwan’gaeksŏng’, in Yun Hae-dong et al., eds, Kŭntaerŭl tasi ilgnŭnta, vol. 2 (Seoul: Yŏksabip’yŏngsa, 2006).Google Scholar
  29. 31.
    Miyata Setsuko (Yi Hyŏng-nang, trans.), Chosŏnminjunggwa hwangminhwajŏngch’aek (Seoul: Ilchokak, 1994).Google Scholar
  30. Pyŏn ûn-jin, ‘Ilche chŏnsi p’asichûmki (1937–45) chosŏn minjungûi hyŏnsilinsikkwa chŏhang’ (Korea University doctoral diss., 1998). Miyata Setsuko’s work presents pioneering research on the issue, but she provides a passive interpretation because the rumours of the Korean people did not lead to an antiwar movement that challenged Japanese rule. Criticism of Miyata’s work can be found in Cho Kyŏng-dal (Hŏ Y ŏng-ran, trans.), Minjungkwa yut’op’ia (Seoul: Yŏksabip’yŏngsa, 2009), pp. 288–89.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    Tanaka Eihikari (Yu ûn-kyŏng, trans.), Ch’wihan pae (Seoul: Sohwa 1999), pp. 188–89.Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    Yi Si-jae, ‘Ilchemalûi chosŏninyuŏnûi yŏn’gu’, Han’guksahoehak, 1987. This paper is an analysis of Minami Hiroshi and Satō Kenji, eds, Kindai shomin seikatsushi, vol. 4, Ryūgen (Tokyo: San’ichishobou, 1985). If the rumours spread in Japan are combined, then the percentage of Korean rumours should be much higher.Google Scholar
  33. 38.
    Hannah Arendt (Yi Chin-u, Pak Mi-ae, trans.), Chŏnch’ejuŭiŭi kiwŏn 1 (Seoul: Han’gilsa, 2006), pp. 267–542 (originally The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1948).Google Scholar
  34. Shinohara Masatakeshi, Kōkyō kūkan no seiji riron (Tokyo: Jinbun shoin, 2009), pp. 149–220.Google Scholar
  35. 39.
    This attempt is similar to Mitani Hiroshi’s explorations on the possibility of democracies in non-Western societies through the formation of public opinion. Mitani Hiroshi, ‘Kōron keisei, hi seiyō shakai niokeru minshuka no keiken to kanōsei’, in Mitani Hiroshi, Higashi ajia no kōron keisei (Tokyo: Tōkyōdaigakushuppankai, 2004).Google Scholar
  36. 40.
    Kang Sang-jung, Yosimi Syunya, and Kim Kyŏng-wŏn (Im Sŏng-mo, trans.), Sekyehwaŭi wŏnkŭnbŏp — saeroun konggonggongganŭl ch’ajasŏ (Seoul: Isan, 2004).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Hae-dong Yun and Translated by Michael Kim 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hae-dong Yun
  • Michael Kim

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations