Routledge Advances in Korean Studies, 26. London; New York: Routledge, 2013. xiii, 226 pp. (Figures, tables.) US$135.00, cloth. ISBN 978-0-415-69139-0.
This recently edited book is a rare product in the sense that it is the collaboration of 16 scholars working on diverse issues concerning South Korea, but coming from what the editors prefer to call a “critical” perspective. Critical in this particular context signifies more than merely intellectual; it carries a political significance denoting what in other countries might be termed progressive or leftist. In the 1980s, a group of South Korean scholars, who were at the same time practically activists devoted to the democratization movement, came to form a study group under the flag of “industrial sociology.” They later rededicated themselves to the notion of “critical sociology,” which is now one of the largest academic groups within or around the Korean Sociological Association. Some authors included in this volume appear to have inherited the scholar-activist tradition. Information on its authors’ institutional affiliations shows that some belong to the same institution while others are conducting their research outside of South Korea.
This collaboration, as a product of such a critical orientation, covers quite diverse subject matters: state intervention, authoritarianism, economic development, regionalism, democratization, human rights, gender, civil society, social movement, culture, religion, working class, labour immigrants, welfare, etc. The breadth of topics makes this volume quite an attractive addition to the must-read list of works for Korean studies students and researchers, as most books on a given country these days tend to deal with a smaller number of issues, and not necessarily from critical perspectives.
Most readers will not find it too difficult to understand the importance of critical perspectives in discussing the South Korean case, which the editors repeatedly emphasize in the introduction. As the last year happened to mark the beginning of another conservative regime in South Korea, understanding these critical perspectives would certainly help every reader balance her/his view on what the country has gone through during the last half-century or so. South Korea escaped extreme poverty, is achieving rapid economic change and now exporting quality automobiles, cutting-edge mobile phones, entertainment products, etc. to the global market. However, many hard-working South Koreans feel greatly deprived. Such changes have brought about diverse side effects: very slow democratization and political liberalization accompanied by countless sacrifices, a variety of inequalities and divides, increasing immigration, etc. Contemporary South Korea seems to contain all existing and imaginable modern social problems.
In my view, the publication of this book is very timely. Politically, the last decade has witnessed the gradual weakening of progressives in South Korea, to the point that they have unequivocally lost both local and presidential elections since April 2012. During the same period, the conservatives have more effectively realigned their battle lines, benefitting from the so-called new right movement and other emerging neocon phenomena. A striking difference between the two sides is that the intergenerational transfer of ideology is happening with conservatives only, as seen in the recent Ilbe phenomenon. In the 1980s, when South Korea was under military dictatorship, most people in their twenties and thirties were politically sensitive and even ideologically progressive, unlike those same age groups today. Although it may seem simplistic to divide the process of South Korean politics into just conservative and progressive, it helps to highlight the critically-based value of this book. For many readers of this work, this kind of intellectual effort may help rekindle academic and praxis-centred interest in the realities of South Korea, which may in turn lead to educated activism. These days, the number of Korean studies students and researchers worldwide is increasing more rapidly than ever. Considering the fact that not all of them are fluent in the Korean language, the fact that this book is written in English is significant.
The current edition, however, leaves a few things to be desired. Some chapters would benefit if they elaborated on issue-specific comparisons between critical and non-critical perspectives for those who are unfamiliar with the peculiarities of South Korea. For instance, readers expecting to learn some critical perspectives on class structure may find the book’s introduction of South Korea as having the lowest level of economic inequality (51) somewhat confusing and inconsistent with the overall tone of the volume. This, in my view, seems to exemplify that defining critical is much more thought-demanding than declaring to be so. Critical is relatively easy to define in contrast to conservative, but not so by itself or with diversely interpretable realities. Another question to further think about is: how critical is adequately critical in discussing South Korea when its history has been a complex mixture of quick success and dishonorable events?
Additionally, some chapters that deal with similar or closely related issues, such as the ones concerning gender and social movement, do not seem to organically connect with one another in terms of cross-referencing. The emphasis on critical perspectives from the very beginning would make readers assume that the authors are united in some ways, but their writings turn out not to be so. This probably reflects the reality of academia, where collaboration in the true sense of the word is often hard to realize. Also, use of the term “contemporary” in the title would be more appropriate if some of the statistics and other evidence presented had been more up-to-date. Lastly, unification is an extremely critical issue for the present and the future of South Korea and is directly and indirectly connected to many topics presented in the book. This edited volume, however, does not discuss it in any way.
Gihong Yi
Hallym University, Chuncheon, South Korea
pp. 353-355