Globalization, we have come to realize, is never just an economic, political, and technological phenomenon. It is also a process by which the dynamics in these material dimensions are inevitably embedded in the discursive arena, the field where multiple narratives, aspirations, and cultural practices intersect and compete with one another. It then is not surprising that there have always existed the perspectives of “the Other” that refuse to remain marginalized by the more hegemonic forces. Kang Jung In’s two works represent just that recalcitrant voice, but they do so by utilizing materials in Korean political thought. This makes them rare and valuable for a non-Western and Western readership alike, but especially for those who might have been more familiar with the image of South Korea primarily as a rather successful “case” of economic growth and democratization.
The first is Kang’s monograph, Western-Centrism and Contemporary Korean Political Thought, which vividly displays how that modernization and democratization of the Korean society has taken place under the “shadow” of exogenous forces—political, economic, and cultural. The book begins with a careful theoretical discussion of the central concept of “Western-centrism,” a term Kang prefers to the more commonly used “Eurocentrism” (Part I), and closes with a critical reflection on the strategies, discursive or otherwise, to “go beyond” it (Part IV). The six chapters in the middle are dedicated to some of the central themes and thinkers in the development of Western (Part II) and Korean (Part III) political thought, respectively, with a view to drawing out the (mostly negative) influences that Western-centrism has exercised in shaping the political and intellectual history of the modern Korean society.
Kang does a skillful job in weaving together various strands of historical and theoretical analyses, from a thoughtful discussion of Locke’s theory of property to an engaging redescription of the tumultuous modern Korean history. But more impressive than the range of topics it discusses is the book’s success in conveying a vivid sense of historicity in the construction of the Western hegemony and its influence in Korea. His chapters on the development of modern Western political thought, for example, nicely illustrate how the “synthesis of Christianity, capitalism, and liberal democracy” (p. 125) was something “historically contingent” (p. 142), rather than a logical or philosophical necessity. If this is the case, Kang argues, the different ways in which non-Western societies have muddled through their modernization process should not be seen as an “absence” of, or “deviance” from, what is “Western,” that is, what is normal, objective, and universal (p. 165). This sense of historicity and contingency also suggests that the current configuration is not something inevitable or insurmountable, a consideration that motivates the author to passionately explore theoretical strategies to “go beyond” it.
The arguments advanced in this book may not be entirely novel; Kang tends to draw heavily on a few prominent scholars (such as Bhikhu Parekh and James Tully) to make crucial theoretical moves, and the sources and interlocutors he engages with are not always up to date. (The previous version of the book appeared in Korean in 2004.) But the author should be praised for his success in synthesizing an impressive array of theoretical and historical resources and presenting a compelling diagnosis of the intellectual predicament that the Korean society currently faces under the strong influence of Western-centrism.
Selections in Contemporary Korean Political Thought in Search of a Post-Eurocentric Approach are even wider in scope. Many of the essays in this edited volume follow up on, and thematically expand, Kang’s monograph in various ways. The volume starts with a series of chapters that aim to theorize aspects of modern Korean political history (Part I), followed by essays that examine the different ways in which some of the salient themes and thinkers in Western political thought (such as multiculturalism, feminism, and the political theories of Rousseau and Rawls) have been taken up and developed in Korea (Part II). The last five essays of the volume attempt, in their own ways, to explore the topics in traditional East Asian political thought, especially in its Confucian form, in dialogue with various political challenges and issues within and beyond Korea (Part III).
The contributors certainly provide a wealth of observations and insights upon which to reflect. But what I find critically missing in this volume is a debate on Kang’s arguments in his monograph (also recapitulated in the first chapter of the volume) on the historical evolution of Western-centrism and the strategies to undermine it. An engagement at this general level would have made the two works genuinely complementary. Many of the essays in the volume seem to have been written for different occasions with perhaps varied purposes and groups of audience in mind, and, as they stand, are not very explicit about the extent to which their analysis contributes to the “post-Eurocentric approach” strongly advocated by Kang. For example, some essays in Parts II and III read more like standard Western or East Asian political theory written by Korean political theorists—this, of course, is not a criticism of their quality and value—and do not really display a keen sense of historicity and contingency that one can observe in Kang’s monograph.
Another worrisome tendency, now in both works, is the generality of the claims made in quite a few places without sufficient theoretical or historical rigor. For instance, readers might be troubled by the way Kang rounds up figures like Aristotle, Locke, Hegel, Mill, and Huntington in order to make his point about the emergence and development of Western-centrism. Kang’s treatment here is quite cursory, albeit stimulating. Some essays in Parts II and III of the edited volume also contain a number of sweeping generalizations and stylized accounts, especially about the Confucian tradition in East Asia and the republican tradition in the West. At times, these generalizations come very close to essentialist claims about “the West,” “the East Asian civilization,” Korea’s “indigenous culture,” and so on, leaving one to wonder whether these broad strokes do not end up reinforcing the sort of “binary concepts” (p. 267 in Western-Centrism) and infelicitous distinctions that the authors purport to leave behind. Which part of Asia, and what about its “legacy,” do authors have in mind when, for instance, they talk about “the rise of East Asia” or the “East Asian civilization”? Confucianism? Buddhism? What about them? Can one treat them as if they somehow constitute a coherent whole? Operating with this sort of appellation might just be unavoidable, but one would have to be more careful so as not to feel too comfortable with them.
That said, both works certainly offer a wealth of provocative ideas and arguments well worth exploring. By the end of both, the reader is greatly informed about and intrigued by the intellectual, political, and economic influences from the outside and how they have played out and been refracted and appropriated by Koreans as they struggled to define their political and cultural identity. For this reason alone, these two works should be considered primary sources for those who are interested in, but not necessarily conversant with, the political and intellectual development of the Korean society. In the monograph, a comparison between “Western-centrism” and “Sinocentrism” (Chap. 3) and the analysis on the features of Korean conservatism (Chap. 8) and the democratization of Korea (Chap. 9) should be of particular interest. Among chapters in the edited volume, essays by Kim Dong-Choon (Chap. 2), Moon Jiyoung (Chap. 3), and Kim Sungmoon (Chap. 7) stand out in their rigor and freshness as they offer a synoptic view of the development of modern Korean political history and political ideologies.
The deep, multilayered transformation of Korean society over the last several decades and centuries defies easy generalization. And this will be the case with any other societies that have experienced such rapid social, economic, and cultural changes in a relatively short period of time. This, of course, presents formidable challenges to researchers. And the paucity of attempts at reconstructing the intellectual and theoretical landscape of the Korean experience becomes quite salient when compared with the amount of attention that the economic development and democratization process of the Korean society has thus far garnered from social scientists around the world. But works like these are important not just because they begin to fill such a thematic void but because they show how the discursive frameworks originally developed in the West have interacted and competed with local practices in shaping the complex political experiences on the ground, and how these concepts and ideologies themselves have undergone significant changes and redactions during the same process.
The dynamics of these interactions and competitions, which are still unfolding to a great extent, cannot be explained away by simply “applying” the conceptual tools originated from outside. For example, Kim Sungmoon explains how the liberal and democratic ideals brought in from the West have themselves been reformulated by the strong tradition of “civil passion” in Korean culture to create what the author calls “civil patriotism” and “liberal collectivism.” To take another example, readers realize from the interesting essay by Lee Seung-Hwan (Chap. 11) that the concepts of “the public” and “the private” in a Korean context do not necessarily mirror the public/private distinction that has been much talked about in recent years. Obviously, Koreans will benefit from their critical self-reflection of these attempts at theorizing Korean political life from a comparative perspective. Equally important, however, is the initiation of an enlightening dialogue among the wider circle of readers in the East and West alike as they struggle to enrich and further sensitize their conceptual tools in order to better understand and theorize the multifaceted political and social experiences in this globalized world.
