In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

11 1 The Cultural Construction of Korean History Kenneth M. Wells In what sense does a cultural idea exist in history? If an idea has a history, then we may say it exists as a subject of historical inquiry, that is, it exists in terms of historical method. But the question of how a notion such as minjung exists in history—or, who the minjung are—presents the historian with a peculiar species of problem, as the idea of minjung is not simply a subject of history but a theory of history. It is, further, a judgment on the present and a prescription for the future. In this sense it belongs to that class of historical approaches exemplified by class analysis, where the subject—class— is also the interpretation. But minjung presents an even more complex problem. As we shall see, minjung historians in South Korea claim that their notion of the nature and role of the minjung arises out of empirical investigation of minjung activity in Korean history. The problem here is that the minjung are not normally defined as a class or any specific social group, which means one needs to establish an idea of what constitutes the minjung in the first place. Admittedly , one requires an idea of class also when one identifies classes in society, but this is not quite the same problem. One may take a group—say, those who do manual labor in cities—whose existence affords little argument and give them a term like “urban proletariat” by which to make other claims which may or may not be useful. “Minjung,” however, refers less to such a group than to a quality which, it is claimed, can be found in the past, is active in the present, and will determine Korea’s future. In the final analysis, minjung is applied, not to people who form a group within a structure of social relations by virtue of their doing something, but to “the people” who form the dynamic of history by virtue of their being something—the bearers of certain values and qualities. The term belongs to populist idealism, culturally defined. 12 Kenneth M. Wells What we are dealing with here, evidently, is the impact on the course of history of shared cultural ideas, as distinct from (but not as opposed to) social, economic, and political structures. Examination of culture as a historical agency involves two main levels of analysis. On one level, it involves examination of how people form and relate to understandings of the world and themselves, to values, to ideas of the “good,” and so on. On another, it concerns investigation of the relation between these understandings and ideas, and the things that “happen” in history. Although South Korean minjung historians pursue both these levels in order to support their claim that the minjung are the dynamic force of Korean history, it is their activity in the latter area which is the primary concern of this chapter. It must be stated at the outset that there is no single minjung theory of Korean history. Who qualify for the term “minjung” and why are extremely vexed questions that are almost irremediably confounded by the intense nationalist feelings and political stakes entangled in them. A conclusion drawn from one source of minjung history may be refuted by another, and many an observation will be weakened by numerous qualifications. This problem is compounded by the fact that many minjung theorists have hardly clarified their positions, which often appear to involve confusing inconsistencies . However, it is not my purpose to mount a critique of the minjung movement, still less to satisfy or side with any of its competing versions, but rather to try to understand it in terms of a cultural construction of Korean history. In this respect, I believe it is possible to preface the discussion with some generally valid observations. First, South Korean minjung historiography is interventionist. It challenges histories that assume the Korean story can be told adequately by raising questions only about institutions of power—who mismanaged Korea in the nineteenth century, how Japan seized Korea, what policies and what organs directed economic development, and so on—by asking other questions , such as who have ensured the continuity of the majority Korean culture and how they have developed it in face of attempts to thwart or distort it. It questions why historical inquiry has been limited to certain subjects and restricted to certain sources. Minjung historians have broadened the sources of Korean...

Share