South Korea's Minjung Movement: The Culture and Politics of Dissidence

Introduction

1 Introduction Kenneth M. Wells The five years since the conference on the minjung movement at Indiana University has been a period of considerable historical “density.” The import of the concatenated events following the June 1987 uprising—the longawaited “triumph” of the minjung—and troubling questions over the precise direction upon which the subsequent South Korean government and, indeed, the majority of the populace have embarked, have necessitated considerable revision of the chapters dealing with the contemporary manifestations of the movement. This introduction sets out the issues addressed in this volume in light of recent developments. Much of the conference discussion itself centered on the question “Who have been and who now are the minjung?” The conference began with a very makeshift definition of the minjung movement as a form of populist nationalism. Because the movement has historically been concerned with nationalistic projects—redefining social relations during the 1860–1895 Tonghak movement, liberating the nation from the Japanese in the period from 1905 through 1945, eliminating military rule in South Korea, and reunifying the country—the nationalist element in this rough definition evoked little unease. “Populism,” however, proved contentious and catalyzed the earnest and highly spirited debates that characterized the conference throughout, for it was here that the question of the identity of the “people,” and those who could be called the minjung, arose. It proved far easier to use the term “minjung” as an adjective—minjung theology, literature , historiography, and so on—than as a noun referring to any specific group of Koreans. As an adjective, the term could refer to the qualities and objectives of various endeavors. But insofar as delineation of these qualities and objectives presupposed an identifiable element among the Korean people that embodies them and indeed has initiated, sustained, and will 2 Kenneth M. Wells continue to support the movement, discussion had constantly to return to the question “Who were/are the minjung?” One conference participant queried whether it really mattered who the minjung are, whether indeed it mattered if they existed concretely at all. In the main, it was thought that it did matter, first because the term ought not to become an academic interest with no real accountability, and second because large numbers of real people have been involved in a movement which has had indisputably significant effects. One of the most recent of these effects, however, the June 10 uprising of 1987, has covered the issue with confusion. Through this uprising, in which a large spectrum of Korean society was represented, the then president, General Chôn Tuhwan (Chun Doo-Hwan), was forced to abandon thoughts of a second term and concede to the people the right to elect their president directly. A promising opportunity was given the opposition to field a winning presidential candidate the following December. But the opposition split and defaulted the elections to the ruling party, and subsequent events have doused the euphoria and muddied the picture. It is difficult, for example, to see how the 1988 Seoul Olympic torch burned for the minjung or precisely how their interests have been served by Kim Yôngsam’s (Kim Young Sam) merger with the governing party and subsequent election as president, erstwhile dissident though he is. Thus, events since the June uprising have raised the question of minjung character and identity in an urgent way. The conference, which in any case preceded such developments as Kim Yôngsam’s election, did not of course resolve the issue. A very general understanding emerged that the minjung are Koreans, predominantly workers in agriculture and urban industries, who retained the values and sentiments of the Korean masses in the face of militaristic rule and cultural and economic systems imposed directly or otherwise by foreign governments or interests, along with those among intellectuals, writers, politicians, and professionals who have supported their aspirations. Beyond this, it was recognized that the movement has deeply penetrated large numbers of Koreans’ consciousness of themselves and their nation and has permeated almost every area of life and mode of expression on the southern half of the peninsula. A nation or class or individual has not just one but many histories, and one should assume the existence of as many histories as possible. “How many historical paths are there?” is a salutary question to ask oneself when looking at “national” experience, especially where there is a tendency to restrict significance to select types of phenomena. This book cannot, of course, explore all paths, but it does strive to present...