About history textbooks

By Mark Peterson

I don’t know quite what is wrong with Korea’s teaching of history, but from my perspective, there is something wrong. I am not referring to the recent controversy about producing government-written, single textbook. I am not referring to the way Japan treats Korea in their textbooks. But the issue that I know most about ― my own research ― might be a way of looking into the whole history textbook controversy and the issue of teaching history to see what is wrong with it all.

The issue that I am most acquainted with is that which I wrote my dissertation about: the changes in the social order and family structure in the late 17th century.

The 17th century might sound like a long time ago and might be seen as irrelevant in today’s world, but I think it teaches us a lot about Korea, both then and now. And in the process, it teaches us about the Korean historiographic process in Korea today. What I mean by the historiographic process is the process by which original research is conducted, published, then incorporated into the curriculum and textbooks in the primary and secondary schools.

At the college level, students can read a wide range of books including original research. In the primary and secondary schools, however, the textbooks – or if the government gets its way – the single textbook, is written by a committee of teachers who determine what students will study, and – more importantly – what will be on the all-important college entrance exam.

My dissertation was completed 30 years ago, and it revealed important changes in society in the 1670s to 1690s and in some cases in the years before and after those dates. Before this timeframe society was more egalitarian in many ways; after the 17th century, through a process that we might call “Confucianization,” society shifted to one where property ownership, ritual duties, and inheritance rights were in the hands of the eldest son.

Before the 1660’s timeframe, daughters had equal inheritance rights with sons. The eldest son was not primary ― rather, he had the same claims to the father and mother’s property as did the last-born son or daughter. Ritual was not the responsibility of the eldest son until after the 17th century, rather, the ancestor ceremonies ― which were the most important holidays ― were hosted on a rotational basis between all of the children in the family.

In the minds of most Koreans today, the ceremonial duties are held at different levels, but mostly hosted by the “keunjip” ― the big house, meaning the house of the eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son, etc. But before the late 17th century, ceremonies were held on a rotational basis, meaning that in a way similar to the way holidays are celebrated in the U.S. and the West, that is, for Thanksgiving we might meet at an aunt’s house, for Christmas eve at an uncle’s house, for Christmas day at our house, and for New Year’s Day at another aunt’s house, for Easter at another uncle’s house, and for the Fourth of July at the first aunt’s house again, and for Labor day and for Memorial day, etc etc. On a rotational basis.

There were other changes that came with the loss of inheritance for daughters, but in this short article, let us leave it at that, and say that much of this change was because of an increased interest in Confucianism, indeed, we can call this Confucianization.

I wanted my work to get into the Korean educational system, so I saw to the translation of my book into Korean – “Yugyo sahoe ui changchul” (Emergence of Confucian Society, published by Ilcho-gak, Seoul, 2000).

This material has not made it into the Korean textbooks.

Which leads me back to the original issue ― the controversies that has lead the government to declare that it will take over the textbooks publishing and make only one textbook. It seems to me that the historiography of Korean history is broken. But I would argue that what is needed is not more controls on the textbooks, but an opening of the system to include more scholars and more teachers in looking for new solutions to these problems.

I do not know who writes the textbooks, but if they are being criticized for not writing history well, I agree. But the solution does not seem to me to be found in having fewer viewpoints, fewer authors who represent one point of view – the government’s.

The solution, in my view, would be to have a wider spectrum of scholars and teachers involved who would look at recent scholarship on many levels, in many sub-fields, and re-write the textbooks, based on the best scholarship and not political points. I realize that this kind of idealism will never be found, and that true objectivism is impossible, but still, an attempt to avoidance political bias must be the goal. And that cannot be achieved with one textbook. The more textbooks, the better, and let the schools and the teachers choose the one that appeals to them as being the most honest attempt at accuracy in scholarship. In other words, the answer to the question of finding the best textbook, is not in politics, but is in scholarship – open, honest, up-to-date scholarship.

Mark Peterson works as professor at the Korean department at Brigham Young University and can be reached at markpeterson@byu.edu.