The search for alternative models to “internal development theory” (naejae chŏk palchŏnnon 內在的 發展論)—the South Korean derivative of modernization theory—will be one of the most essential tasks on the agenda for the forthcoming segment of Korean literature. In the past fifteen years, some of the younger members in South Korean academia have laid fertile groundwork for this prospective paradigm shift. The present reviewer selected, among them, two recent works of Kang Myŏnggwan to illustrate this radical and promising change.
Kang wrote a dissertation in 1991 on the literature of the chungin 中人—members of the nonelite, professional status group who occupied the void between the literati and the commoners in the late Chosŏn social hierarchy. The aim of his doctoral research was to unearth the seeds of Korean modernity in chungin literature. As Kang prepared his dissertation for publication, however, he felt disenchanted with the rhetoric of national literature and had a change of heart (Kungmunhak, pp. 3–4). In 1996, he composed a manifesto in which he outlined the problems and weaknesses of internal development readings of Korean literature and declared his devotion to “search for new horizons” (this manifesto was published as “Chosŏn hugi hanmunhak yŏn'gu ŭi saeroun chip'yŏng mosaek” [The Search for New Horizons in Approaching Sino-Korean Literature of the Late Chosŏn Period], Han'guk hanmunhak yŏn'gu 19 [1996]: 187–202).
In 2007, Kang simultaneously published four books embodying the culmination of more than sixteen years of research. This review will omit Antchok kwa pakkatchok (The Interior and the Exterior [Seoul: Somyŏng]) and Nongam chapchi p'yŏngsŏk (A Commentated Translation of Sundry Records of Kim Ch'anghyŏp [Seoul: Somyŏng]), as these monographs deal with highly specialized issues in late Chosŏn literature.
Kungmunhak kwa minjok kŭrigo kŭndae (National Literature and the Nation—and Modernity) targets both academic and popular audiences. Chapter 1, which occupies the bulk of this book, offers a concise intellectual history of South Korea's “national literature” (kungmunhak 國文學) project, from its initial emphasis on literary purity and expulsion of Sino-Korean literature from the mainstream canon, to the reappropriation of Sino-Korean genres following the advent of internal development theory, and the ensuing uneasy relationship between the agenda of national literature and the intrinsically transnational nature of Sino-Korean texts. The subject matter sounds very familiar, but has not hitherto received this level of systematic examination. Kang brilliantly explores a highly controversial topic in lucid, thought-provoking, and generally collegiate prose, although at times he inevitably subjects some prominent scholars in the national literature paradigm to acrimonious scrutiny in order to illustrate his case.
The subsequent chapters ponder the fate of Korean literature after the postnational turn. Without nationalism, Korean literature loses its legitimacy and purpose. In present-day South Korea, where consumerism, materialism, and technology trump humanism, what should be the place of Korean literature? (pp. 194–95). As one possible effort to make literature relevant, Kang proposes the confluence of literature and history as an alternative to internal development theory. This “social history of literature,” which focuses on textual renditions of everyday practices, should address both academic and popular audiences alike. Subjective engagement with the text will be absolutely crucial in this approach. If an academic who studies the writings of, for example, Pak Chiwŏn 朴趾源 (1737–1805), blindly praises him because of the canonical position this figure occupies, but fails to elucidate the significance of his deliberately playful and experimental style, that sort of inane wandering offers no rationale for the Korean public to seriously read the literature of this purportedly “great” late Chosŏn writer (pp. 212–13).
As such, Kang censures “the meaningless and dry studies” (p. 211) of his colleagues for contributing to the growing public disinterest in Korean literature. His criticism of what seems to be a description of positivism, however, dismisses some of the concealed merits of it. Positivism has been the double-edged sword of internal development theory. The belief and promise of objective, unmediated reading of truths inherent in the sources provided the impetus for this movement that set out to rectify the legacy of colonialism in the 1960s. This orientation of South Korean academia, however, placed great emphasis on unearthing previously undiscovered or unexplored sources as the ideal form of scholarly contribution. When “meaningless and dry studies” of this sort reached a critical mass, in the opinion of the present reviewer, the feasibility of conventional Marxian structuralism and internal development master narratives came into question.
Konganp'a wa Chosŏn hugi hanmunhak (The Gong'an School and Late Chosŏn Literature) delineates the critical reception and gradual appropriation of the literary anthologies, criticism, and theories associated with the late Ming Gong'an school in Korea between approximately 1600 and 1800. This book represents the fruit of the initial burning question that drove the author's ambitious meta-project (p. 3). The discussion opens with a background history of Ming literature, most of which reiterates the standard narrative derived from the dynastic history. The formalism of the Former and Later Seven Masters, Tang-Song revivalism, and Gong'an expressionism are presented as reactionary movements to the preceding one. The subsequent chapters narrate the gradual spread of antiformalism, historical relativism, and Taizhou subjectivism (the author prefers “left-wing Wang Yangmingism”) in the writings of the Chosŏn literati, which the author attributes to the mounting influence of the Gong'an school.
This monograph, which exemplifies the advancement and maturity of the Korean literature field in South Korea, puts forward the most comprehensive and meticulously researched study on the complex relationship between late Ming and Chosŏn literary movements to date. The generous supply of lucidly translated primary texts in particular makes this book a pleasure to read. Another remarkable strength is the interdisciplinarity of the author. Kang takes full advantage of his expertise in analytical bibliography and makes skillful use of private catalogs of literati book collections. He guides the reader into dimensions of Chosŏn intellectual world that would have been inaccessible otherwise.
One noteworthy weakness is the overall argumentative structure. This problem stems from his excessive desire to negate the validity of internal development theory. Kim Ch'anghyŏp 金昌協 (1651–1708), who in internal development narratives epitomizes the early modernity of Korean literary criticism, is a good case in point. Kang presents Kim Ch'anghyŏp as a covert follower of the Gong'an school in spite of his open criticism of Yuan Hongdao 袁宏道 (1598–1610) and his appraisal of other Ming critics such as Tang Shunzhi 唐順之 (1507–60) and Qian Qianyi 錢謙益 (1582–1664) (p. 146). The quibble here pertains not to the impossibility of Kim Ch'anghyŏp's dissimulation but to the manner in which the author poses his question. Given the diversity of literary positions in both China and Korea during this period, why should one necessarily frame his study as a contest between foreign influence and domestic development? Had Kang not set his mind on the deconstruction of internal development theory, this would have been a far more seminal work.
This minor quirk, however, should not diminish the value of this commendable piece of scholarship. Every serious scholar and graduate student in Korean literature should read both books carefully and thoroughly. If the quality of Kang's work is a testament to the state of Korean literature today, the future of the field looks promising—and very exciting.
