Socialism, the National Question, and East Asia in Colonial Korea: 1937-1945
Socialism, the National Question, and East Asia in Colonial Korea: 1937-1945
Kim Keongil
This article examines how the national question and the issue of East Asia were dealt with in two prominent proposals concerning the East Asian community that were presented as part of the Japanese government's 1938 declaration. Not only Japanese intellectuals but also colonial socialists joined in the debates following the announcement of the New Order of East Asia. Colonial advocates of each approach (that of the East Asian Community and that of the East Asian League) suggested different understandings of "the nation" and "East Asia," which were intermingled and cannot be assigned uniquely to the proponents of one group. Even though the relationship between these two conceptions was not always aligned, it is interesting to find a correlation between the support for a definite national identity and the universalistic presentation of East Asia. The debates between colonial socialists on the New Order of East Asia illustrates how ideas of nationhood lead to the understanding of East Asia and how such an approach extended beyond East Asia to the global arena.
Keywords: East Asian Community, East Asian League, Socialism, thought conversion, national identity
Korean intellectuals, especially socialists, were first to respond to the new paradigm shift in China-Japan relations. As Ozaki (1997 [1939], 51) pointed out, they thought that if Japan's proposal of a New Order for China had any seriousness and humility, then it could surely be applied to Korea, one of the members of East Asia. So˘ Insik argued that the plan for the East Asian Community must suggest a kind of new social order in which not only Chinese, but also Koreans, would be considered members of the community. Furthermore, the political sovereignty and cultural independence of each East Asian nation should forever be protected and respected (So˘ Insik 1939, 7; Hong Chonguk 2000, 193).
Colonial socialists—including recanted Leftists—quickly jumped on the bandwagon of the New Order. Previous literature on recanted Leftists highlighted their conversion as an individual's falling away or betrayal due to strong pressure from imperial Japan and identified them as anti-national or pro- Japanese. Recently, however, various studies that attempt to re-interpret the act of conversion in historical context have emerged in South Korea as well as in Japan.2 These studies on recanted Leftists shed light on the arguments of this paper.
Issues and Manifestations of the New Order of East Asia
（思想倾向图示）
As shown in this constellation, the y-axis between Japan and Korea indicates positions on the national question. The higher the intellectual is along the vertical axis the more distant he is from his own nation. As will be discussed below, Kim Tujo˘ ng and Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘ p totally negated their commitment to Korea whereas So˘ Insik and Kim Myo˘ ngsik went much further in privileging their own national identity. The x-axis with the East and West at the opposite extremes indicates each individual's approach to the universality of Western values and the particularity of Eastern values. So˘ Insik and Kim Myo˘ ngsik on the right side of the diagram were known to pursue Western values such as rationality and universality whereas Kim Tujo˘ ng, Kang Yo˘ ngso˘ k, and Cho Yo˘ ngju on the left paid attention to the particular identity and entity of the East as expressed through race, culture, or a system of thought. Although skepticism about the universality of Western values has increased in recent times, the former group clearly demonstrated their commitment to universalism whereas the latter group was more concerned with the exploration of Eastern particularities.
One can argue that the different positions found among colonial socialists form their own constellations in the two currents of thought within the discussions on the New Order. Taking a closer look, with the exception of Kim Tujo˘ ng and Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘ p, who completely rejected the thought of a nation, the proponents of the East Asian Community, Kim Hangyo˘ ng, In Cho˘ ngsik, Ch'a Chaejo˘ ng, and So˘ Insik on the right, are located in sections I and II. In contrast, the supporters of the East Asian League, Cho Yo˘ ngju, Kang Yo˘ ngso˘ k, and Yang Inhyo˘ n on the left, are situated in sections III and IV. Such a categorization is based on the dichotomy of the East and West. But if the national question is added to the equation as a variable, then the East Asian Community group would be closer to section I than section II (i.e., closer to Japan), whereas the East Asian League group would be relatively closer to section III than section IV (i.e., closer to Korea).
This demonstrates that these two currents of thought had their own understanding of "nation" and "East Asia," which led them to have different proposals for the New Order. Such differences of opinion did not end with the New Order. A certain distance and tension between the original plans of the East Asian Community and the East Asian League formulated in Japan proper and the interpretations and appropriations of them by socialists in a colony
were bound to emerge. The content of the East Asian Community and that of the East Asian League, as discussed in Japan, is not identical to colonial socialists' understanding of these concepts. In other words, it is important to remember the fact that incongruity, tension, and mutual contradiction existed between the two sides of the Korea Strait.
Nevertheless, it would be worthwhile to compare the two currents to find significant differences and similarities. First of all, while the proponents of the East Asian Community mainly consisted of westernized intellectuals such as politicians, scholars, and journalists, advocacy of the East Asian League was first and foremost supported by the military (the Army), bureaucrats of Manchuria or ardent believers in traditional Asianism. Second, the supporters of the East Asian Community were mostly educated in the West, and thus espoused universalism whereas the followers of the East Asian League strongly pursued Eastern and Japanese culture and tradition.12 Furthermore, the composition of the East Asian Community group was complex with diverse
whereas the proponents of the East Asian League formed a relatively homogeneous group under the strong leadership of Ishiwara Kanji. From a temporal point of view, both the East Asian Community and the East Asian League were absorbed into the wave of the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere in the 1940s. However, in contrast to the short lived East Asian Community,13 defenders of the East Asian League remained active even after the end of the war. Lastly, from a spatial point of view, the main stage of activity for the champions of the East Asian Community was the center of imperial Japan, Tokyo and Kyoto, whereas for the proponents of the East Asian League, it was on the margin of the empire, mainly Manchuria.
Japanese Empire and Korean Nation
Since the basic units to construct the East Asian order were individual nations and states, the question of what position and status the Korean nation would have in the newly emerging community was, without a doubt, of great concern to the Korean people. From the perspective of individual socialists, if the community of East Asia can be reconstructed through a reform of Japanese capitalism then Korea should be willing to give up its effort to achieve sovereignty as a state and become part of the new unified East Asia. Japan's proposal for the New Order became the rationale for colonial socialists to give up what they believed in and, as a result, many socialists converted.14
However, it is important to note that even if converted socialists shared the same opinion that Korea was no longer a colony of Japan, or that it should not be, their approaches to the national question reveal how they differed on how this would come about. For instance, Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘ p discussed two contrasting views on the idea of Naisen ittai. One group insisted that the two nations cooperate together as separate entities. This view, he adds, was supported by most colonial intellectuals and followers of the East Asian Community and the East Asian League. Another group insisted that Naisen ittai implied becoming completely one in blood, body, and soul, as emphasized by Governor-General Minami. Hyo˘ n himself supported this view. He dubbed the former hyo˘ phwajo˘k (harmonious) Naisen ittai whereas the latter was a spontaneous and radical version of the Naisen ittai policy or ch'o˘ lcho˘ ilch'eron, an exhaustive Naisen ittai policy (Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘ p 1940b, 35).
Similarly, Kim Hangyo˘ ng also mentioned two opposing approaches, the minjok tonghwaron (National Assimilation) and the minjok hyo˘ ptongnon (National Cooperation), the latter also known as minjok hyo˘phwaron (National Harmony). The former, he mentioned, emphasized that the language, customs, and tradition of Korean people should be assimilated into that of Japan whereas the latter leaves the language, customs, and tradition of Korean people as they are and allows the full realization of the Korean nation's unique abilities; only then would Japan inject the spirit of Kokutai (National Essence of Japan) as the ultimate guiding principle. Kim added that the implication of the disputes between them were not only limited to the Naisen ittai policy itself, but extended to all aspects of issues the Japanese government faced (Kim Hangyo˘ ng 1940, 49).
These two groups obstinately asserted their own opinions and oftentimes they criticized and even showed contempt and hostility toward each other. Criticisms were usually led by the majority group supporting the East Asian Community. In Cho˘ ngsik lashed out at Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘ p who argued for complete and voluntary assimilation of Koreans saying it was far from being an idealist and infantile argument. Kim Myo˘ ngsik (1940b, 40-1) also criticized the defenders of ku˘pchin ilch'eron (radical assimilationism) as being made up of
foolish thinkers who liked to jump on a bandwagon, indiscriminately believing whatever the "vulgar media" said.
These criticisms were never unidirectional. The radical assimilationists like Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘ p also poured scorn on the opposite front. Criticized as engaging in "an onanism of insignificant romanticism" by In Cho˘ ngsik, Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘p called In Cho˘ ngsik's proposal "a masturbation of utopic romanticism." He accused In Cho˘ ngsik and the followers of the East Asian Community of being materialists and economists (Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘ p 1940a, 34-5). Similar criticisms were directed at the East Asian League group. He mentioned that although he supported the formation of the East Asian League of Japan, Manchuria, and China, he opposed the idea of applying it to Colonial Korea. He added that establishing a league would be nothing more than a reactionary act (Amano 1940, 215).
Despite apparently heated debates between the two, the opinion of a third group should be considered to complete the picture of the contested terrain. As shown in Figure 1, if Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘ p and Kim Tujo˘ ng, who are closest to Japan on the y-axis for the national question, can be labeled as radical assimila- tionists, then the supporters of the East Asian League and the East Asian Community would be located in the middle. The heated debates discussed above were carried out by these two groups. However, So˘ Insik and Kim Myo˘ ngsik, at the bottom in the constellation, had different opinions on the national question. Regarding the authenticity of the national question, the distinction between assimilation and cooperation became less important than the distinction between people like So˘ Insik and Kim Myo˘ ngsik and the above- mentioned two groups.
So˘ Insik and Kim Myo˘ ngsik were known as the patrons of the East Asian Community, just like In Cho˘ ngsik and Ch'a Chaejo˘ ng. Although both of these groups supported the plan, they showed significantly different approaches on the issue of the national question. The former, So˘ Insik and Kim Myo˘ ngsik, insisted on respecting and preserving one's own national identity, whereas the latter, In Cho˘ ngsik and Ch'a Chaejo˘ ng, showed eclectic and flexible positions in the name of harmony within the empire. In short, So˘ Insik and Kim Myo˘ ngsik did not want to receive Japanese ideas verbatim. They tried to apply them within the context of the colonial reality.
So˘ Insik attempted to re-interpret the destined regional community proposed by the advocates of East Asian Community from the perspective of a colonial intellectual (So˘ Insik 1939, 7). So˘ argued that, although the New Order is a statement of the Japanese government on China, it must be applied consistently to all East Asian nations including Korea if it is to gain the full trust of East
Asian nations. If So˘ emphasized the political and cultural aspects of the community, Kim Myo˘ ngsik focused on industry and economy, calling for Colonial Korea's autonomy (Kim Myo˘ ngsik 1939b, 28, 1940a, 200). While emphasizing the active roles of Korea and Manchuria in the plan for the East Asian Community, Kim Myo˘ ngsik also tried to present a new interpretation of Naisen ittai in relation to the national question.
The differences in theoretical approaches are reflected in the actions of the advocates of each position. Kim Tujo˘ ng and Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘ p totally negated their own nation and voluntarily collaborated with the Japanese regime; In Cho˘ ngsik and Ch'a Chaejo˘ ng colluded with the regime in one way or another and went along with imperial Japan. In contrast, after the mid 1940s, when it was clear that the ideal of the East Asian Community would be impossible to realize, So˘ Insik withdrew from the official arena of colonial society as did Kim Myo˘ ngsik who retreated from public life and died alone.22
East and West, Particularism and Universalism
（可重新讨论）
Conclusion
As discussed so far, this article examined how the national question and the issue of East Asia were dealt with in the two prominent proposals, i.e. the East Asian Community and the East Asian League, that were presented as part of the New Order of East Asia. On the national question, socialists like Kim Tujo˘ ng and Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘ p rejected the inherent identity of the Korean nation and argued for voluntary and complete assimilation into the Japanese nation. In contrast, and at the other extreme, So˘ Insik and Kim Myo˘ ngsik sought to appropriate the Japanese proposals of the New Order into the context of Colonial Korea. Arguing that the system of the New Order would fit as well in Korea as it would in China, they underscored the independent identity of each East Asian nation and openness and trust between East Asian nations.
Such a dualism is also found in the presentation of East Asia itself. Kim Tujo˘ ng or Kang Yo˘ ngso˘ k considered East Asia as having a substantive status and attempted to interpret it within a particularistic context. Recognizing that the East and West formed a dichotomy, they understood the two as mutually opposing entities within which race played a major role and where the West stood for the negative while the East was positive. Furthermore, they called for the unity and revival of East Asia with imperial Japan playing the leading role.
At the opposite pole, So˘ Insik and Kim Myo˘ ngsik presented a totally different vision of East Asia. They neither considered the East and West to be isolated and mutually opposed categories nor depicted the East as an entity with its own intrinsic values. They neither fell into the trap of Asianism nor the temptation of Orientalism that essentialized the East, separating it from its historical context. As such, while being critical of a particularism or essentialism of the East they asserted global perspectives and sought to understand East Asia in the context of universalism.
The aim of this article was to draw attention to the fact that various contradicting views on nation and East Asia interact with a certain degree of coherence. In other words, the universalist understanding of East Asia, which can be found in the suggestions of So˘ Insik and Kim Myo˘ ngsik, was related to the stress on the importance of nation, while particularistic presentation of East Asia, for which Kim Tusik, Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘ p, and Kang Yo˘ ngso˘ k ardently searched, tended to be affiliated with their own conceptualization of the nation. As with many things, the relationship between the two elements was not always aligned. In reality, there were gray areas where two opposing views overlapped or were juxtaposed such as the positions asserted by Kim
Hangyo˘ ng, In Cho˘ ngsik or Ch'a Chaejo˘ ng.
Despite such a complex reality, it is interesting to find a certain correlation between the awareness of one's own nation and the universalistic understanding of East Asia. In contrast, the relation between the negation of a national identity and the particularistic approaches to East Asia was complex and sometimes contradictory. This is because people like Hyo˘n Yo˘ ngso˘ p held a universalist understanding of East Asia but completely rejected a unique national identity. Or in an opposite case, people like Yang Inhyo˘ n who held a particularistic view of the East searched for a unique national identity.
If one accepts the relationship between the support for a definite national identity and the universalistic picture of East Asia, would there be a kind of causal relationship between these two factors? To put it differently, one can ask which would be the determining factor between the issue of East Asia and the national question. Although it would be difficult to come to a definite conclusion, one may suggest that the firm stand on the national question reflects the universalistic understanding of East Asia. In conclusion, the debates between colonial socialists on the New Order illustrate how ideas of nation lead to an understanding of East Asia and how such an approach extends beyond East Asia to the global sphere.
