Korea and Its Futures : Unification and the Unfinished War

Rating:
Summary: Excellent, Unique book
Review: I'm not aware that there is an comparable book on Korea. Some may find it too "academic" (I don't) but the prose is still lucid and it is a unique book. Anyone interested in north-south Korea relations should read this. The material on defectors is especially good.

Rating:
Summary: Valuable Addition to the Discussion on Korean Unification
Review: In this exceptional book, Roy Richard Grinker argues that South Korean discourses on division and unification actually work against reconciliation between the two Koreas and stand as a barrier to future unification. He claims that South Korean discourses on division and unification presume that the nation's division in 1945 unnaturally split a historically homogeneous people (minjung) and that unification would mean the recovery of this temporarily lost Korean homogeneity. Where Grinker finds fault with these assumptions is that South Korean discourses on division and unification do not consider the "constructed" nature of modern notions of Korean homogeneity and that there is also no consideration of how North Koreans may have become significantly different culturally, socially and linguistically since division. Grinker's aim is not to prove the fact that North and South Koreans are different, but that the avoidance of even considering heterogeneity in Korea could lead to great disappointment and social upheaval when unification finally occurs.

Based on these main ideas, Grinker explores the construction and presentation of south Korean discourses on division and unification by focusing on such topic areas as the state/people dichotomy, South Korean thoughts on north Koreans, han and the "inability to mourn" division and loss of homogeneity, depiction of north Korea in school textbooks, the "ritual" of student demonstrations, the stories of south Korean idealists who illegally traveled to north Korea, and the problems of north Korean defectors in adjusting to life in South Korea. By exploring these various aspects of the division/unification discourse in south Korea, Grinker paints a portrait of a South Korean state that has defined its national identity solely in contrast and opposition to North Korea - and could thus lose this national identity if unification actually happened. Additionally, viewed from this perspective, Korean division was and remains the responsibility of Kim Il Sung and external powers - not of South Korea or the Korean minjok - and unification means nothing less than the absorption and assimilation of the North Korean people into the South Korean state. Grinker criticizes this perspective as being the main factor aborting any notion of a practical and realistic unification policy that recognizes and respects the actual heterogeneity of the North and South Korean people.

Grinker's approach to the issue of national division and unification discourses in South Korea is a refreshing break from the volumes of studies on the political and economic discourses on this issue available in the field of Korean Studies. As a solution to the issue he highlights, Grinker advocates a mourning process for the Korean nation and people whereby the heterogeneity of the Korean people is accepted as an immutable reality. With this idea in mind, then, one could deduce from Grinker's argument that a mutually-respectful, but permanently divided Korean peninsula could just as well be a result of the mourning process as a unified, but socially diverse, Korea. Although Grinker does not state this, it would appear that even a permanently divided (but non-hostile) peninsula would be preferable to a Korea unified by the South under the principle of assumed and uniform ethnic homogeneity.

While I feel that Grinker makes a strong case for his argument, his study is not without question or fault. For instance, if Grinker is so strongly striving for readers to view the Korean peninsula as a "heterogenous" grouping of people, then why did he chose to use the narrative convention of naming the two Koreas "south Korea" and "north Korea" in his book using small letters? This only seems to underscore that there is really only "one" Korea that is, in fact, one homogenous nation.

Another weakness, that Grinker himself admits, is his use of psychanalytical concepts such as "the inability to mourn" and han (resentment) to describe South Korean societal issues. The problem is whether concepts more useful for describing an individual's personal mental problems are really appropriate to describe to issues of a collective society. Granted, these concepts can be enlightening as analogies - but risk being to essentialistic or simplistic when applied as descriptions for an entire society of people.

All in all, though, this book is a worthy addition to the field of Korean Studies and deserves the careful reading of anyone with a serious interest in Korea. Even though I wonder how differently Grinker would have presented his argument if this book were written after the July 2000 summit meeting between Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-Il, Grinker does illuminate a topic of discussion generally ignored by the political and economic writers on Korean division and unification issues. With that said, I believe that Grinker succeeds in convincingly showing how South Korean discourses on national division and unification have actually served to block serious contemplation on how to effectively achieve national unification. I highly recommend Korea and Its Futures and can only hope that South Korean policy makers give Grinker's argument serious consideration when formulating their unification policy.

Rating:
Summary: A "thicker" description of Korea if you will
Review: You don't necessarily need to have an anthropology degree to read this "psychocultural analysis" of Korea--the author is an excellent writer and I found his approach, style and analysis to be very intriguing, provocative and powerful. At any rate, a work like this is precisely (desparately) what is needed. There is such a dearth of material that examines how north and south Korea think about each other as similar/different in terms of unification. Most people just assume it is a given without looking at it more closely. I found it fascinating and informative to catch a glimpse of how post-war south Korea problematically depicted the north through school books, student demonstrations, and museum exhibits. And yes, I agree with the other reviewer: The chapter on the thoughts of north Korean defectors was something I was hungry to learn about it and it didn't let me down.

It is so hard to think about the two Koreas--they are placed in such a reductionist, bi-polar context that any nuanced or multifacted view or outlook is hard to discuss. The author demonstrates how complicated, contradictory and ultimately unprepared Koreans are for this "sacred goal" of unification. I was struck by how limited and "stuck" Koreans have been in their assumptions about national identity, defining themselves in opposition to each other all the while pushing for unification. A great virtue of this book is that it avoids the typical approach of other scholars, pundits and news commentators who take a dry, "political science" approach to north Korea, limiting their analysis to geopolitics, regional power dynamics, diplomatic strategies, nuclear prolliferation issues, blah blah blah. The author uses museums displays, children's textbooks and TV shows, as well as real life interviews with defectors. Quite a good book with excellent analysis that will leave you feeling that you learned to realize something oh-so-human and fascinating about a deadlocked political situation in an illuminating way.