The Controversy on Dichotomous ‘Exploitation Theory vs Colonial Modernization’ and the Idea of ‘Modernity’ Reconsidered: Varieties of ‘Modernity’ in Interdisciplinary Context (2019.12)

• Authors : Doo-Jin Kim
• Journal : The Journal of Asiatic Studies
• Publisher : Asiatic Research Center
• Volume : 62(4)
• Publication Date : December, 2019
• Abstract :Discussing the question of whether Japanese rule contributed to the modernization of Korea is much likely to be problematic. Should the idea of modernization continue to possess heavy political implications ? In comparison with the concept of modernity as fixed, unified or universal progress, it is often suggested that we posit amultiplicity of kinds and fields of modernity, and attempt to discern features of modernization rather than defining the nature of progress on the basis of one or two criteria. The notion of ‘multiple modernities’ may denote a certain view of colonial modernization in Korean society similar to the actual developments in modernizing non-Western societies. In Korean humanities circle, particular attention has been paid to the discourse on ‘colonial modernity’ vs ‘exploitation theory’, thus leading to the accumulation of the scholarly reinterpretations related to colonial modernity in the fields of Korean history. Korean nationalist historians presuppose an archetype of “Western modernity” on which colonial domination was based. The nationalist narratives remain prevalent in the colonial intellectual fashions they contest. By contrast, we argue that the varieties of modernity needs to be recognized in the context of interdisciplinary research, including transnational history perspective. The notion of ‘global modernity’ or ‘multiple modernities’ should be addressed to move away from the excessively value-laden use of the modernity. It is not sufficient to trace modernity as a linear movement of modern developments. Rather, recognition of modernities as the interplay of diachronic, synchronic and desynchronic actions should be carefully incorporated. We assume that the recognition of plural modernities allows us to better understand the controversy on colonial modernization. The idea of global modernity enables both Korean historiography circles to redefine varieties of modernites that go beyond their conventional perception on colonial modernization