By Mark Peterson
There are still people who refer to Korean history in terms of "feudalism." The evidence is quite to the contrary ― there was no real feudalistic stage in Korean history. The problem is two-fold: (1) that there was no feudalism, and (2) that there was no "stage" of history to be labeled as feudalism. If there was no feudalism in Korea, why then do we find people repeatedly referring to feudalism and a feudalistic stage in Korea?
First, let me backtrack just a little by saying there was a time in the late Silla and early Goryeo period where the socio-political structure had some decentralized elements that people like to call feudalism, but I have problems with that. I'll explain.
With the beginning of the modern era, with the end of the Joseon period and the onset of the 20th century, Korea saw itself in a new world ― a world beset at the time with imperialism. Japan could see that it had better become an imperial power, one of maybe four or five imperial powers in the world, or it might become colonized like China which was already being carved up by European powers.
Intellectually, the force behind imperialism, on the one hand, and colonization, on the other, was the idea of social evolution, and with it a perception that there were superior and inferior societies ― some more evolved than others. Europeans saw themselves on the top of an evolutionary scale, built on racist ideas, that put non-Europeans lower on the scale. The proof was obvious, to them ― they had superior machines and war capabilities so that they could conquer nations that were lower on the evolutionary scale.
One of those who wrote this down was none other than our old friend Karl Marx. Marxian views of history came to dominate. And in true 19th-century European fashion, the evolutionary scale was spelled out. Marxian history has its stages. 1. Primal communal living, 2. Slave societies and private ownership of land, 3. Feudalism, 4. Capitalism and then 5. Communism.
There are lots of problems with Marxian ideas, not the least of which is the culmination in communism. But along the way there are problems, among which is the idea of feudalism.
Marx was ethnocentric. He held his society in Europe as the pinnacle of the evolutionary hierarchy and he assumed European society was the standard, and since there was feudalism in Europe, feudalism was incorporated into his stages of history.
Meanwhile in Asia, the Japanese opened themselves, with the aid of Commodore Perry, to the Western world, and saw that there was an intellectual approach to the development of societies, and "bingo" there's feudalism. Now, Japan had a true feudalistic society that developed around the 12th century, and this concept allowed them to fit into the European model of social, political and economic development. Japan could put itself on equal footing with the imperialistic powers of Europe.
So, this newfound imperial power looked to conquer lesser states, and who do they see? None other than Korea, next door ― and later China, next door to Korea. And according to the handbook on social and political development dominating European thinking at the time, Japan was higher on the hierarchy than lowly Korea that had not yet developed even a very good feudal system yet. And Japan had an intellectual basis for imperialism as well as a military one.
Of course, the Marxian approach to history was bogus. Ethnocentric from the beginning, it only reinforced the military might on the ground, for European powers and for Japan. In reality Korea had a more advanced form of political development ― the centralized state. After the semi-centralized Silla period and a minimally decentralized stage in early Goryeo, Korea developed a strong central state authority that lasted close to 1,000 years. On an evolutionary scale that prefers centralized states as "more advanced," and one that had sped past the developmental stage of decentralized feudalism already years ago, Korea could easily claim to be more advanced than Japan. Whose evolutionary scale do you prefer?
But Korea had to suffer through the subjugation of not only its state, but its intellectual underpinning because Japan was claiming superiority by military might, industrial might and intellectual might. Why, Japan was more like Europe, after all, and look at how high they are on the evolutionary scale!
Long after the end of the Japanese occupation, when I was a young grad student in Korea, students asked me where I saw Korea on the evolutionary stages of history. They assumed at that point that the stages outlined by Marx were correct, and they were dismayed to have found themselves below Japan on that scale ― and it was assumed to be correct because of the relative military might of Japan and the economic weakness of Korea.
Things have changed. And Korea is close to equal on a scale with Japan now. But we still have people who talk about the "feudalistic past" and "feudalistic history." It's not only mistaken, but it is a sellout to Japan, and it ought to be thrown onto the dustbin of history with the rest of Marxian ideas.
Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is professor emeritus of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
 |
First, let me backtrack just a little by saying there was a time in the late Silla and early Goryeo period where the socio-political structure had some decentralized elements that people like to call feudalism, but I have problems with that. I'll explain.
With the beginning of the modern era, with the end of the Joseon period and the onset of the 20th century, Korea saw itself in a new world ― a world beset at the time with imperialism. Japan could see that it had better become an imperial power, one of maybe four or five imperial powers in the world, or it might become colonized like China which was already being carved up by European powers.
Intellectually, the force behind imperialism, on the one hand, and colonization, on the other, was the idea of social evolution, and with it a perception that there were superior and inferior societies ― some more evolved than others. Europeans saw themselves on the top of an evolutionary scale, built on racist ideas, that put non-Europeans lower on the scale. The proof was obvious, to them ― they had superior machines and war capabilities so that they could conquer nations that were lower on the evolutionary scale.
One of those who wrote this down was none other than our old friend Karl Marx. Marxian views of history came to dominate. And in true 19th-century European fashion, the evolutionary scale was spelled out. Marxian history has its stages. 1. Primal communal living, 2. Slave societies and private ownership of land, 3. Feudalism, 4. Capitalism and then 5. Communism.
There are lots of problems with Marxian ideas, not the least of which is the culmination in communism. But along the way there are problems, among which is the idea of feudalism.
Marx was ethnocentric. He held his society in Europe as the pinnacle of the evolutionary hierarchy and he assumed European society was the standard, and since there was feudalism in Europe, feudalism was incorporated into his stages of history.
Meanwhile in Asia, the Japanese opened themselves, with the aid of Commodore Perry, to the Western world, and saw that there was an intellectual approach to the development of societies, and "bingo" there's feudalism. Now, Japan had a true feudalistic society that developed around the 12th century, and this concept allowed them to fit into the European model of social, political and economic development. Japan could put itself on equal footing with the imperialistic powers of Europe.
So, this newfound imperial power looked to conquer lesser states, and who do they see? None other than Korea, next door ― and later China, next door to Korea. And according to the handbook on social and political development dominating European thinking at the time, Japan was higher on the hierarchy than lowly Korea that had not yet developed even a very good feudal system yet. And Japan had an intellectual basis for imperialism as well as a military one.
Of course, the Marxian approach to history was bogus. Ethnocentric from the beginning, it only reinforced the military might on the ground, for European powers and for Japan. In reality Korea had a more advanced form of political development ― the centralized state. After the semi-centralized Silla period and a minimally decentralized stage in early Goryeo, Korea developed a strong central state authority that lasted close to 1,000 years. On an evolutionary scale that prefers centralized states as "more advanced," and one that had sped past the developmental stage of decentralized feudalism already years ago, Korea could easily claim to be more advanced than Japan. Whose evolutionary scale do you prefer?
But Korea had to suffer through the subjugation of not only its state, but its intellectual underpinning because Japan was claiming superiority by military might, industrial might and intellectual might. Why, Japan was more like Europe, after all, and look at how high they are on the evolutionary scale!
Long after the end of the Japanese occupation, when I was a young grad student in Korea, students asked me where I saw Korea on the evolutionary stages of history. They assumed at that point that the stages outlined by Marx were correct, and they were dismayed to have found themselves below Japan on that scale ― and it was assumed to be correct because of the relative military might of Japan and the economic weakness of Korea.
Things have changed. And Korea is close to equal on a scale with Japan now. But we still have people who talk about the "feudalistic past" and "feudalistic history." It's not only mistaken, but it is a sellout to Japan, and it ought to be thrown onto the dustbin of history with the rest of Marxian ideas.
Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is professor emeritus of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.
