Sociology between Western Theory and Korean Reality

Accommodation, Tension and a Search for Alternatives

Park Myoung-Kyu and Chang Kyung-Sup

Seoul National University

abstract: This article shows the historical phases of development of Korean sociology with a focus on its exposure to and interaction with western sociological thought. Towards explaining a disciplinary history of constant exposure, accommodation and criticism in regard to western social thought, the issues of universalism/particularism and theory/practice serve as focal points of discussion. While western sociology has provided an influential and persuasive perspective on what Koreans have experienced socially, politically and economically in this turbulent century, its incorporation into Koreans’ intellectual life itself is quite a complex and perhaps interesting sociological phenomenon. The article ends with a discussion of Korea’s unique experience of social, political and economic modernization in the 20th century as a fertile ground for new lines of sociological theorizing.

Introduction

In South Korea (hereafter Korea), sociology was introduced as a western knowledge system around the beginning of the 20th century; however, its full development was delayed until after Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonial rule. We suggest that the main history of Korean sociology began with the founding of the first department of sociology at Seoul National University in 1946. For half a century since, Korean sociology has enjoyed impressive developments both as an academic discipline and a base of critical social participation. Now sociology is taught at almost every university and college, and more than 500 professors, researchers and practitioners are members of the Korean Sociological Association (KSA). The popularity and influence of sociology are not confined to academia, but evident across various social and political domains.

As in western countries, the body of knowledge dubbed ‘sociology’ in Korea has been formed not only by the nation’s own intellectual traditions but also by the political aims and practical needs of various social and political – groups. In particular, the turbulent political history of Korea in the 20th century – Japanese colonialism, the Korean War and its Cold War aftermath, authoritarian development under the military political leadership, and the recent democratic transition – has had distinct influences on what Korean sociologists thought and studied, and on what Korean citizens have expected to hear from sociologists. This presented, and continued to present, enormous challenges to sociologists as they struggle to prove the historical relevance of their sociological knowledge. Major scholarly debates have ignited concerning this issue of historical relevance as various theoretical traditions and perspectives of western sociology have been swiftly accepted and as distinct schools or groups of thought have formed in this regard. On the other hand, the social, political and intellectual pressures to confronting Korea’s unique and turbulent historical realities have been too enormous for sociologists to rely solely on westerners’ theoretical discourses.

In this article, we would like to show the historical phases of the development of Korean sociology with a focus on its exposure to, and interaction with, western sociological thoughts.1 In revealing a disciplinary history of constant exposure, accommodation and criticism in regard to western social thoughts, the issues of universalism/particularism and theory/practice anchor our discussion. While western sociology provided an influential and persuasive perspective on what Koreans experienced socially, politically and economically in this turbulent century, its incorporation into Korean intellectual life is quite a complex and interesting sociological phenomenon. Our discussion concludes with a remark that Korea’s unique experience of social, political and economic modernization in the 20th century provides a fertile ground for new lines of sociological theorizing.

Pre-History

Accommodation of Western Social Thoughts

Traditionally, Korea was a very homogeneous society in which even the king was controlled by the ethics of neo-Confucianism. It was an uncompromising cultural basis of political order and social life, and allowed people in every social and political stratum to acquire and maintain a standard value system and Weltanschauung.

But Korea had to ‘open the port’ to the western world in the late 19th century and faced a crisis that threatened a total collapse of society. Disputes and conflicts arose among various political and intellectual groups concerning identification of the proper kind of knowledge to explain the new social phenomena and political events of the period. Their main question was: what kind of knowledge can help make sense of the new world developing currently, and provide prescriptions to rescue Korean society from its imminent political and cultural crisis?

It was in this context that western sociology was introduced to Korean intellectuals as a form of new social thought. In particular, Spencer’s sociology was accommodated as a ‘new social thought’ that explained world history from the perspective of social Darwinism. Spencer’s sociology is deeply related to English industrialism and imperialism, but the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’ was considered by Asian intellectuals as a justification of why their nations should fight against western imperial forces. Korean intellectuals influenced by the idea of progress considered western knowledge as the very power of social progress. To these intellectuals, their nationalist or anti-imperialist cause seemed well served by the social Darwinist logic of ‘conflict for survival’. Modern concepts such as the state, nation, group and society were introduced and used as important intellectual tools in the enlightenment movement in the early 1900s.

All of these accommodations were made by individual intellectuals and journalists without academic institutional support. Independent academic institutions for specialized education and research in sociology had yet to be established. In fact, sociology, and social sciences more generally, were not clearly differentiated from western social thought, that appeared as a powerful, scientific and functional type of knowledge. AU was subsumed in the popular conception of ‘western culture’.

The Development of Korean Sociology

The history of Korean sociology in the post-liberation era may be divided into five stages: 1945–53, 1953–70, 1970–80, 1980–90 and 1990 onwards. During each of these stages there were changes in the efforts to accommodate western social theories, and the tensions originated from particular Korean social realities.

Nation-State Building and Academic

Institutionalization: 1945–53

By the time independence from Japan was won on 15 August 1945, the material and cultural fabric of Korean society was literally devastated. This problem was particularly serious in the knowledge sector. Most of the conscientious intellectuals who had joined the national liberation movement did not have sufficient academic grounding in scientific research. Many of the professional scholars with formal high education suffered a moral stigma due to their collaborative activities with Japanese colonial power. However, many intellectuals were indispensable in building a new independent nation-state. The imbalance between social demands and the supply of social-scientific knowledge was very serious.

On the other hand, there was a severe ideological conflict among intellectuals about the way to build a new independent nation-state. Intellectual disputes between Marxists and non-Marxists can not be differentiated from the struggles between progressive and conservative political groups to gain the political hegemony in the post-liberation era. Generally speaking, Marxist narratives had a stronger influence on people and spread throughout Korean society rapidly. Marxism, having been an intellectual tool for criticizing Japanese imperialism, enjoyed a strong moral legitimacy.

However, the superpower involvement in the Korean peninsula made the status of Marxist social science diverge quite dramatically between North and South Korea. With Soviet support, Marxist intellectuals acquired political hegemony in the northern part of the peninsula. By contrast, the occupation by the American military government in the southern part led to a highly adverse situation where Marxist intellectual activities and social movements were systematically, and often brutally, suppressed. Some progressive intellectuals willingly moved to North Korea where, they thought, the promise of socialism was being fulfilled; whereas many northerners fled to South Korea for different reasons. There began a harsh ideological conflict between Korean intellectuals which would exert a long-lasting impact on the social sciences and social thought in both Koreas.

In this ideological dilemma, the formal school systems were stabilized and expanded. Under the American military government, it was decided to merge Kyungsung University and several professional colleges into one major national university. Under this plan, Seoul National University was founded in 1946 and became a national hub for higher learning and professional research (Seoul National University 1996). With the political division between South and North, most Marxist-oriented professors left or were expelled from the university. In the same year, the first department of sociology was established as part of the College of Humanities and Arts, Seoul National University The first chair of the Department of Sociology was Lee Sang-Baek, a renowned scholar, politician and sportsman (International Olympic Committee member) who was educated in Japan. He understood sociology as a central social-scientific discipline in the age of civil society. In ‘Order and Progress’, written in 1950, he argued that the sociology of A. Comte and Saint-Simon undertook an indispensable mission towards the ‘reorganization of society’ and the ‘creation of a new concept of society’ (Lee, 1950). He anticipated that Korean sociology could play the same role in developing civil society in Korea.

Since he was educated in and had researched the history of East Asia, he thought social studies should be based upon concrete historical conditions. He argued that sociological theory should be developed within the historical context because social theories have different social meanings and political roles in different contexts. In addition, he emphasized that Marxism be recognized as one of the great sociological traditions. He argued that, in western history, sociology had played a very reactionary, ideological role as well as a constructive, positive one. He criticized not only the Marxist ‘dogmatic formula’ but also the ‘optimistic positivism’ of western sociology (Lee, 1977: Vol. 3, 478–9). Lee’s open position to the diverse lines of social thought was rather exceptional in the rigid ideological environment of his era. His concept of sociology left an important intellectual imprint on Korean sociology.

Reflexive Turns in Sociology: 1970–80

In the 1970s, Korean sociology confronted the issues of ‘indigenization’ and ‘relevance’. These issues surfaced in response to the period’s rapid social change with high rates of urbanization and industrialization. In the face of these social problems, the meaning of the social sciences in Korea was critically discussed. These became the main subjects of the annual meetings of the KSA in the early 1970s, for example: ‘Theories and Methods in Contemporary Sociology – Their Relevance for Korean Society’ (1970), ‘Reflections of Korean Sociology’ (1972) and ‘Universalism and Particularism in the Social Sciences’ (1973). Along with the issues of relevance and indigenization, sociological studies in the 1970s began to attend to a much wider range of social issues than in the 1960s. Particularly popular issues among young scholars were urban problems, stratification and social mobility, cultural anomie and social development. However, this awakening failed to develop into a sustained and systematic collective project for a Korean sociological paradigm. Instead, only modest efforts to modify western social theory to fit Korean social realities were made

In this context, some sociologists raised the question of whether western sociology was able to explain Korean society without severe distortion of historical realities. There was an argument that ‘indigenization’ of social sciences was no less important than the accommodation of western social theory. The political conservatism in the sociology of the time strengthened these critics’ claims. During the 1970s, intellectual and public concern grew in regard to such social and political problems as labour exploitation, urban pathology and oppression of the civil sphere. Even the brutal measures of the authoritarian regime could not effectively suppress social unrest caused by such problems. However, academic sociology, dominated by structural-functionalism, was not fully ready to deal with these issues of conflict and unrest. Thus a sort of disenchantment was inevitable; not only with the incumbent political regime, but also with academic sociology. Quite naturally, this transition in sociology was not warmly welcomed by the military-led government, which was hypersensitive to any social or political criticism of its authoritarian developmentalism. Some endeavors towards alternative approaches in sociology appeared in the late 1970s. One of the most well-known cases was ‘Minjung sociology’ – meaning ‘sociology for the oppressed grassroots’. Han Wan-Sang (1981), a well-known liberal sociologist, criticized not only the dictatorship of the authoritarian military regime but also the ‘ahistoric and apolitical’ nature of mainstream sociology. He criticized the lack of ‘relevance to social issues’ of Korean sociology and tried to accommodate more critical and humanist lines of western sociological thought, including those of C. Wright Mills and Peter Berger. At the same time, he became a renowned case of an activist intellectual, whose sociological thought justified resistant political actions.

The response from universities was more radical. Within universities throughout Korea, young researchers and students had a growing awareness that American sociology was an inadequate tool for explaining such Korean social realities as labour exploitation, class conflict, neo-colonial dependency, suppression of democracy, national division and so forth. These young scholars and graduate students pushed for ‘Korean sociology’, and/or ‘Third World sociology’, as alternative lines of sociology, which advocate the close link between theory and praxis. It was in this context that Latin American dependency theory, introduced through book translations, became extremely influential among students and some young scholars in Korea. At the same time, there developed a serious tension between American-trained teachers of sociology, and inward-looking radical students and young scholars (Department of Sociology, SNU, 1996). This tension began in the late 1970s and continued throughout the 1980s.

In contrast to these progressive young scholars and students, many established sociologists opted to serve as functionaries for the government-led process of social and economic modernization. For instance, a group of sociologists helped the Korean government initiate and implement the world-famous Saemael Undong (new village movement). These sociologists provided various theoretical and empirical materials for justifying and substantiating the programmes of government-induced mobilization of grassroots peasants.3 Although such efforts fell short of forming a distinct identity of Saemael sociology, they nonetheless represented a significant occasion for sociologists’ practical participation in the modernization project led by the government.

Search for Alternatives: 1980–90

The decade of the 1980s was full of political conflict and incidents. The Kwangju Uprising against the military in 1980 left hundreds of civilians killed by armed soldiers. Brutal crackdowns on civil political demonstrations and labour movements continued across the country. The tacit approval of the new military regime by the USA ignited anti-American sentiment among Korean intellectuals and lay citizens together. A brief period of relentless authoritarian rule by the military was succeeded by an overwhelming upsurge of social movements for democratization and labour justice. After decades of authoritarian suppression by the state, Koreans suddenly rediscovered the forceful sphere of civil society.

The weakening of authoritarian politics paved the way for the emergence of an autonomous civil society and independent labour power which, in western countries, had been responsible for the establishment of sociology as an influential academic discipline. Sociology was once again called in to explain such an impressive historical development and often measures for building a democratic and egalitarian new society. Korean sociologists began to form academic circles and undertook major collective research projects on the structural conditions of Korean society. Sociological perspectives – progressive or radical ones, in particular – had expanded influence across almost all branches of the social sciences, and sociologists led various interdisciplinary studies and seminars on political, economic, cultural and social issues. The practical value of sociological knowledge became openly recognized both by the ruling camps of society. such as the government and business, and by the rebellious groups such as labour movement organizations, political dissidents and student activists.

While sociology became an influential and respected discipline in this period, severe criticism was launched against conservative western sociology, and alternative theories and models were sought by various competing groups of sociologists. The issue of relevance of sociological knowledge was brought centre stage once again. This time, however, the intellectual concern materialized into more systematic efforts at building alternative lines of sociology appropriate for Koreans’ concrete historical realities. Even many conservative senior scholars openly professed that serious efforts had to be made to revise and refine borrowed western sociological concepts, theories and methods, before they were applied to the Korean situation. Alternative lines of sociology were discussed mainly in the following four ways: a Third World paradigm in sociology, a Marxist reanalysis of Korean society, a social-historical analysis and a sociology of national division.

First, under the continuing heavy influence of dependency and world system theorists, some young scholars proposed to incorporate a Third World paradigm in sociology. According to Park Jae-Mook (1986), a Third World paradigm in sociology deals with social issues particular to Third World historical realities. He identified four methodological elements of Third World sociology, namely: orientation towards unified social sciences, emphasis on historical analysis, incorporation of the world-system concept and the conception of society as a totality. Young scholars in this bent warmly welcomed Immanuel Wallenstein’s criticism of ‘ahistorical model-building’ and his plea for ‘historical social science’. The influence of world-system theorizing was also revealed in these scholars’ criticism of the conventional unit of social analysis, namely society or country. Instead, they argued Korea should always be recognized as part of an integrated world system.

Second, the Marxist response was made by a group of young scholars and students in the disciplines of sociology, economics, political science, law, history and literature who considered Marxism a viable alternative in the social sciences. They envisioned their endeavour not as a new one but as a recovery of the oppressed tradition, that is intellectual debates and social movements of Korean socialists in the colonial and early post- colonial period. The works of Marx and Engels were circulated widely, read collectively and translated into Korean. Such concepts as class struggle, exploitation and revolution were upheld as truly scientific tools for analyzing and predicting social change. There was a serious debate regarding whether Korea is an independent capitalist society where class conflict between the domestic bourgeoisie and proletariat is the central dynamic of social change, or a dependent capitalist society where national subordination to neo-colonial forces is the crucial determinant of social change. Young sociologists, who formed the core of this perspective, were vocally critical of conventional sociology taught and studied in universities, and instead established their own arenas for research, seminar and publication. They called these activities ‘the academic movement’ (Kim, 1987).

Third, the social historical response to the issue of ‘irrelevance of Korean sociology’ was made by scholars who thought that social research cannot be guided properly by abstract theory alone. They argued that western social theory, including structural-functionalism and Marxism, reflects westerners’ particular historical experiences. Shin Yong-Ha, the leading figure in this group, stressed that a good theory could be built up only by starting from particular Korean historical realities (Shin, 1981). He emphasized that the uniqueness of Korean history – such as its long history, cultural unity, experience of Japanese colonialism and South–North national division – had to be taken into account seriously in any explanation of Korean society. Scholars in this camp proposed to establish ‘Korean sociology’ by building up original social theory based upon particular historical realities of Korean society and by establishing an institutional framework for training high-quality. indigenous sociologists without depending on western universities (Shin et al,, 1982). They claimed that their method of social research is closely related to the Silhak (real science) tradition of the Chosun Dynasty. At the same time, they were heavily influenced by European schools of social history, such as the Annales School in France.

Finally, and relatedly, some scholars argued the two Koreas – South and North – should be studied together, with keen attention paid to their mutual conflict and influence if any meaningful conclusions were to be drawn about social, structure and change in either Korea. They emphasized that the national division, the Korean War and its emotional aftermath and the capitalist vs socialist system of competition between South and North Korea are all unique and critical elements of Koreans’ modern history. The so-called ‘Bundan [division] sociology’ was proposed by Lee Hyo-Jae and other congenial scholars. Unfortunately, Bundan sociology failed to be substantiated into a systematic and comprehensive body of theoretical and methodological knowledge concerning the divided societies of South and North Korea. Nonetheless, the gradual dissolution of the Cold War confrontation worldwide made Korean citizens more optimistic about national reunification, and Korean sociologists more conscious of the urgent need to analyze the social consequences of the civil war and national division and conflict (KSA, 1992).

Efforts to establish alternative lines of sociology inevitably put conservative senior scholars in an uneasy position as their theoretical and methodological views were often criticized as lacking ‘relevance’. Interestingly, these scholars had long been emphasizing that serious revision and refinement of borrowed western sociological knowledge are necessary before it can be applied to the particular historical conditions of Korean society. Conciliatory efforts were made to accommodate the Marxist perspective into the formal institutions of research and professional cooperation. For instance, when KSA held a special conference in 1989 for those who considered Marxism an alternative social science, Kim Kyong-Dong, president of the KSA, emphasized that sociology is an academic discipline which can incorporate a wide range of perspectives simultaneously, including both Marxist and non-Marxist sociology. Even though his conciliatory remark did not end the intellectual conflict, the Marxist influence on Korean sociology suddenly dwindled amid the demise of Marxist political regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s.

Korean Sociology Today

Political democratization in Korea, which culminated with the election of a former political dissident to the state presidency in 1992, had a profound impact on the role of sociology in Korean society. The role of sociology as a dissident doctrine against right-wing dictatorship gave way to a more practical role of providing perspectives on or explanations of social policy issues. Sociologists are now given more opportunities in advisory functions for the government, political parties, business corporations and social movement organizations (for women’s rights, labour rights, environmental protection, etc.).4 As the influence of radical and progressive sociology on political and economic matters has gradually dissipated, new areas of sociological research are being developed concerning environmental crises, the emerging information society, science and technology, medicine and welfare, globalization and so on (KSA, 1995; Department of Sociology, SNU, 1996). There is an increasing emphasis on professionalism in sociological research and education, that is the separation of science from ideology and praxis. Consequently, the boundaries of sociological analysis are being redefined constantly.

In a word, the 1990s appear to be a decade of diversity in sociological research and practice. This diversity has in part been generated as a result of Korean sociologists’ active accommodation of western thoughts. For instance, in the early 1990s, Koreans were rapidly exposed to post- modernist thought in sociology and other disciplines of cultural studies. Even graduate students in sociology began to produce theses on post- modernist theory (Department of Sociology, SNU, 1996). However, this fervour has not been successful in evaluating whether, to what degree or in what aspects Korean society itself is postmodern. More recently, the modernist critique of postmodernism by Habermas and Giddens has enjoyed an increasing influence in Korea. The postmodern debate soon gave way to the efforts to rediscover modernity in early modern Korean history. Under modernization theory in the 1960s and 1970s, modernity in Korean society was appraised only in terms of its degree of resemblance to western society. In the mid-1990s, however, modernity is conceptualized in a much more complex and subtle way that may illuminate the Korean way of becoming modern (e.g. Institute for Korean Historical Studies, 1996).

In the 1990s, the praxis orientation of many progressive Korean sociologists has been matched with another line of western influence, namely new social movements. In the Korean context, the concept of ‘new’ social movements may not sound entirely valid because even ‘old’ social movements, such as the labour movement and the citizenship rights movement, have not been fully developed. Nonetheless, almost all of the issues of the new social movements, such as ecological concerns, gender discrimination, consumer rights, medical protection, cultural welfare, media abuse and even foreign workers’ human rights have already become serious concerns in Korean society and thus attract a lot of public attention and participation (Korean Social Science Research Council, 1996). Sociologists have actively responded to this situation by drawing lessons from western societies about new social movements, and providing appropriate judgments and strategies for various social organizations in their action programmes.

The 1990s represent a unique period in the relationship between Korean sociology and western thoughts and experiences. An increasing number of Korean sociologists have begun their own empirical investigations of western societies under active institutional support for overseas area studies (Centre for Area Studies, SNU, 1991–2). That is, the West became considered not only a source of theoretical insights, but also an object of empirical scrutiny. Overseas area studies have been active concerning former and current state-socialist countries as well. While there is not an identifiable Korean perspective on western societies in these area studies, they are expected to provide Korean scholars with opportunities to rigorously examine the relevance of western theory in the westerners’ own historical context before it is applied to Korean society Thus, there will be a fundamental change in the relationship between western theory and Korean sociology as a result of Koreans’ own investigations of western societies.

On the other hand, there is an explosive growth of scholarly interest in Korean society by European and American academics, accompanied by an even more rapid increase of special programmes of research and education in Korean studies (Howard, 1994). Western scholars’ keen attention to Korean society heightened with Korea’s exceptional economic performance in recent decades. Such economic performance raised interest not because it was achieved by Koreans, but because most other Third World countries have failed to achieve the same goal. Thus, the Korean experience was considered to represent a unique path of historical transformation in the Third World. All types of theories and perspectives have been applied to the Korean case, including liberal market theory, statist theory, neo-Weberian cultural theory, colonial modernization theory and so on. No matter which theory or perspective is applied, western scholars admit the uniqueness of the Korean situation. More recently, as some other developing countries have been able to enjoy a similar economic success story, abundant comparative social research between Korea and these followers is being undertaken to analyze any common and/or distinct elements of social, economic and political change. In addition, many social scientists from these follower countries are visiting Korea in order to explore any lessons or insights from the Koreans’ experience.

While new patterns of interaction between western thoughts and Korean sociology develop in the 1990s, earlier motivations for establishing an autonomous paradigm in Korean sociology are kept alive. Sociologists engaged in social-historical research continue to discuss the need for building up a creative social theory based upon Koreans’ particular historical experiences and social thoughts. Some of the senior sociologists who have been responsive to western theories confess the limit of these thoughts in explaining the unique cultural and historical characteristics of the Korean people and society, and instead propose the incorporation of ancestors’ observations, theory and philosophy in sociological theorizing (e.g. Kim, 1993). In addition, various empirical studies generated rigorous and convincing results which concur on the unique nature of social change and economic development in modern Korea. Koreans are often told by western sociologists and political economists that their historical experience constitutes a unique model of modernization and thus presents an empirical basis for new theories of social and economic change. All of these efforts and developments are certain to generate a synergic effect on the autonomous development of Korean sociology.

Conclusion

The first half-century of Korean sociology, between 1946 and 1996, has been a history of constant exposure, accommodation and criticism with regard to western social thought. After having been integrated into the capitalist economic order, and the Cold War political order under heavy American influence, Koreans have somehow been able to achieve various elements of western-style modernization; for instance, urbanization, industrialization, economic growth, class restructuring, individualization and even democratization. Thus, sociological knowledge borrowed from western societies did have some use in explaining various aspects of social change. However, there is a fast-growing awareness that the historical conditions, processes and outcomes of social, economic and political modernization in Korea are not and cannot be the same as those of western societies. In fact, an increasing number of western scholars themselves have tried to remind Koreans of this fact. While there has not been a certain direction set collectively in establishing a uniquely Korean paradigm of sociology, Koreans’ social experiences do appear to offer a fertile ground for creating innovative sociological theories and perspectives. As many other developing countries have recently joined the path of rapid economic and social change, it seems the Korean experience and its sociological explanations are becoming valuable references for sociological studies in these countries.

References

Alatas, Syed Farid (1996) ‘Western Theory and Asian Realities: A Critical Appraisal of the Indigenization Theme’, paper presented at the Asia Pacific Regional Conference of Sociology, Quezon City, the Philippines.

Baek Nam-Un (1933) Social and Economic History of Chosun (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kaejosa.

Centre for Area Studies, SNU, ed. (1991–2) A Study on the Current Situation, Problems and Promotion Measures of Area Studies in Kor a (in Korean). Seoul: Centre for Area Studies, Seoul National University.