Tyler Bar-Ness

JAPN 407

​Korean Paper: State and Nationalism

Throughout Korea’s History, we can see that many different leaders and writers
have tried to capture the ephemeral strands of Korean nationalism, the body politic and the
energy of self-determination to classify and reinforce the idea of the Korean State. I will be
looking at three articles, in chronological order, in which all three seem to share common
themes of the dynamism of the people in determining the state of the nation and
encouraging feelings of nationalism among the people.
To begin, we shall look at “The Tonghak Peasant Army Manifesto at Mujang”, circa
1894. Citing class notes, the Tonghak Uprising was an uprising of the impoverished
peasantry in Korea who, in response to an overburdening of taxes and corruption of
government officials, rose up to cast down the Yangban class and destroy the class
system itself, with one particular exception: the royal family. In the world view of the
Tonghak Peasants, the stability of the nation seemed to flow from an understanding of
Confucian thinking, where the sovereign managed his subjects, and his subjects both
served him to the best of their abilities and lived in a virtuous manner. If the officials who
assisted the reigning king in ruling the country were wise and virtuous, the country would
be blessed with harmony, rather than plagued with famine, sickness and unrest. According
to the Tonghak Peasants, the sovereign himself was still virtuous, but the bureaucracy of
officials who had been calcified around him were draining the people of the resources they
needed to survive and were more concerned with their own advancement rather than the
good of the state (Chon, p. 264). In their eyes, the nation and it’s well-being was directly
correlated to the behavior and propriety of the royal family and his officials in tandem, and
as the latter was flaunting their duty, it was indeed the duty of the lower classes to remove
them, to resist the bureaucrats in hope that the sovereign could solve this crisis. Their
understanding of the state almost seemed to rest firmly in an idea of an enlightened
monarchy, with less of an emphasis placed on the state or government itself.
In Vipan Chandra's "Sentiment and Ideology in the Nationalism of the
Independence Club (1896-1898), we can see a fiercely nationalistic flag being flown by So
Chae-pil and Yun Ch'i-ho in the activities for the Independence Club. Fundamentally, we
can see that the two men were in a variety of ways, both subtle and striking, to drum up a
feeling of nationalism and love for Korea from Koreans. As Chandra illustrates in So's
words, "The Koreans... are truly loyal to his Majesty and patriotic... but they have never
been taught to show their feelings" (p. 17). Between sourcing patriotic songs from Koreans
(p. 20), organizing debate societies (p. 16) and organizing public events, the Club was
deliberately attempting to create a new kind of society within Korea, a society of thinkers
and activists with their eyes on a culturally and diplomatically independent Korea. To this
extent, and to the extent that they understood nationalism and it's role in Korea's
state-building, Chandra points to two key aspects of Korean nationalism both on the badge
issued by the Club in March of 1898, "Loyalty to the Ruler", or in their case the recently
promoted Emperor, and the "Love for the Country". In the case of the first, after Korea's
 Tyler Bar-Ness
JAPN 407

emancipation from Chinese dominion, the Club spent much time and energy on urging
Korea's then-king, Kojong, to elevate his stature to that of Emperor, abandoning the title of
"king" and the cultural implications that made the title subservient to that of China's
Emperor (Chandra, p. 18). Although the king himself resisted this, we can see through
several statements that this elevation was necessary for the state to achieve
independence from China, as stated in The Korean Repository, "No emperor, no
independence" (Chandra, p. 18.) Appropriately, in Yun’s words he elaborates with “Nation
signifies the King, the Government, the people and the territory. Koreans must understand
that His Majesty … is their own King and ruler” (Chandra, p. 17). In the case of the second
slogan, “Love for the Country”, So states that “[Students] must have respect for the country
before they can love her … they must love her before they will be willing to make sacrifices
for her” (Chandra, p. 20). Later in Chandra’s paper, this kind of sentiment is repeated by
Yun who claims that “instead of studying … their own famous persons and the condition
and situation of their own country, we[Koreans] merely learn about things Chinese …. We
are totally unaware of the things in our country that evoke honor and pride …” (Chandra, p.
22). From these two statements, we can get a grasp of the core aspect that
self-importance, and essentially a national sense of self-esteem played in the rebuilding of
the state to the Independence Club and So Chae-pil and Yun Ch’i-ho.
To continue from a theme of self-esteem, self-importance and self-determination,
we can move to examine Kim Il Sung’s “Answers to the Questions Raised by the Iraqi
Journalists’ Delegation” from 1971. According to Kim Il Sung’s commentary, “Our people
owe all their victories and achievements ... to the wise leadership of the Workers' Party of
Korea. The most important thing in the guidance by the Workers' Party of Korea ... is that it
has thoroughly established Juche.” (Sung, p. 2). Sung places an emphasis on the masses
of Koreans who were relied on by the Party to solve the problems of revolution themselves
(Sung, p. 4). This, in part of it’s essence, can be understood as “Juche.” Drawing from
class notes, Juche can be defined as “Self Determination and Self Reliance”, a kind of
intense focus on the “Korean-ness” with attention taken to avoid “flunkyism”, in other
words avoiding being beholden to other, larger or more influential powers. It is, as Sung
elaborates, a step beyond adhering to what he calls “Marxism-Leninism” and attempting to
copy the national experiences of other countries and revolutions; instead the Party has
used “it’s brains and formulated … policies conforming to our specific conditions” (Sung, p.
3). To further link Sung’s dialogue to that of Yun Ch’i-ho’s, he claims that by embracing and
championing this sense of self-determination, The Party has instead thrown out “foreign
things” in favor of “relying on their own efforts” (Sung, p. 2). This concept of Juche is
further defined, in the context of establishing Socialism on the world stage, as a state
policy where states cooperate to supply one another, to expand and develop socialism. In
particular, this ideology of self-reliance “should be conducted on the basis of the building of
an independent national economy in each country” (Sung, p. 3). Despite being what
seems to be a fundamentally self-absorbed and isolationist policy, Sung argues that by
exercising Juche, other nations can also rise to the lofty heights of the Democratic
 Tyler Bar-Ness
JAPN 407

People’s Republic of Korea, both unbeholden to foreign nations or “flunkyism”, and able to
sustain it’s own wants and needs.
In the beginning, I said that all three of the following examples would place an
emphasis on the energy and self-actualization of the Korean people to define the nation’s
statehood and it’s national character. I believe that all three of these examples can
demonstrate this claim; in the Tonghak Peasants’ case, it is the peasantry rising up against
a vampiric class of officials who, in their avarice seek to drain the country dry. In the
Independence Club’s case, it is the energies of the Club to invent a sense of national pride
and love for their sovereign, much like the Tonghak Peasants, in order to rouse the
masses into realizing a sense of national unity under the elevated Korean Emperor.
Finally, in Kim Il-Sung’s case, “the masses” were drawn forward with the principles of
Juche, self-reliance and self-determination, to solve the issues of the nascent state and
supply the Worker’s Party of Korea with solutions and the energy to persist in the face of
“imperialist aggression”. Although these groups and their commentaries on Korean
nationalism are very different, they all hold to a key theme of self-reliance in the people of
Korea, a rejection of foreign or unnecessary influence, and the self-determination of the
state itself.