Grietas y fisuras

The term “Cultural Movement” reflects certain changes in the 1920s’ terminology of modernization. At the time, “culture” (munhwa, 文化) came to be used more frequently than

20 _{In 1921, Sin Sik (申湜) defined the Cultural Movement as follows:}

[. . .] What is the Cultural Movement? Broadly speaking, it is the cry of demanding the establishment of a new civilization. Narrowly speaking, it means organizing institutions for cultivating society. Of course, it includes not only improving school education but also social enlightenment in general, or improvement of urban and rural life. (my translation) Pak Ch’an-sŭng, 211.

21 _{Japan was aware of the Cultural Movement’s nationalistic goal. Maruyama Tsurukichi, the head} of the colonial police during the early part of the 1920s, interpreted the reason for spreading the Cultural Movement as follows:

In short, Koreans began to realize that an independence movement leaning on others’ power is a mere dream. Therefore, the realization that the only way to independence is to achieve it only by their own power has spread to all Koreans. That is the dominant idea of both the upper class and lower class of the Koreans, I think. However, when they reflect on themselves with the idea that they can only rely on their own ability [. . .] they came to realize that the average of the ability of 17,000,000 Koreans, considering the level of their culture, their economic power, or each individual’s ability, is not enough to keep the independence even if they restored independence right away. [. . .] If they are not good enough to be independent right away, by what means can they accomplish their absolute goal? After all, the Koreans must try to develop their culture with great efforts. Promoting industry to increase Koreans’ wealth is a natural step [to approach independence].

Developing industry and developing culture have recently become the idea that dominates Koreans’ thoughts. (my translation)

Recognizing the Cultural Movement’s dual purposes, Maruyama thought that the Cultural Movement’s legal self-strengthening programs were hiding a long-range program that was a threat to the foundations of Japanese rule. He warned that the Cultural Movement’s long-term effects could be disastrous to Japanese colonial rule. See Pak Ch’an-sŭng, 291; Robinson, 76-77.

“civilization” (munmyŏng, 文明), which had formerly been the popular term signifying

modernization.22 _{Although the notion of modernization still embraced both material and mental}

aspects as it had before, it now stressed “cultural” aspects such as art, religion, academism, and morals.23

This change in the meaning of modernization was influenced by a new trend of the time, one emphasizing “reconstruction” (kaejo, 改造) and “culture.” In the early part of the 1920s, “reconstruction” and “culture” became popular as fashionable terms in the newspapers and magazines. “Reconstruction” originated from the idea of “the reconstruction of the world” and “the reconstruction of society” which was prevalent in the late 1910s and the early 1920s. The world, immediately after the World War I, saw various events that shook the old world order. Revolutions in Russia in 1917 and in Germany in 1918 ended traditional monarchies and established new polities. The rising up of labor movements in many European countries was remarkable. Meanwhile, the voices that reproached international aggression and militarism were increasing, and nationalistic movements by small nations were active. Under these circumstances, the idea of “the reconstruction of the world” spread internationally.24 _{In Japan, “reconstruction”}

was so popular that a magazine titled Reconstruction (Kaizō, 改造) was launched in April 1919.25

Facing this international trend, the Koreans also began to see the necessity of

reconstructing old customs and updating the backward economy. An article titled “Hope and

22 _{Pak Sŏng-jin, Hanmal~Ilcheha Sahoejinhwaron’gwa Singminji Sahoesasang [Social Darwinism} and the Ideologies in the Society during the Late Part of the 19th Century and the Colonial Period] (Seoul: Tosŏch’ulp’an Sŏnin, 2003), 51-52.

23 _{Ibid., 52.}

24 _{Pak Ch’an-sŭng, 177.} 25 _{Ibid., 178.}

Criticism” (Hŭimanggwa Pip’yŏng, 希望과 批評) written by Chang To-bin (張道斌) in April, 1920 emphasized the necessity of reconstruction:

Today’s world is the world of reconstruction. [. . .] The whole humanity in the world began the great reconstruction. The world necessarily comes to meet changes and reconstruct itself after it maintained its stable state for a while. Therefore, a society which well applies itself to the opportunity to reconstruct itself survives and grows, and a society which cannot apply itself to such a period and reconstruct itself unfortunately becomes the inferior, the lost, the weak, and the dead. […] As our Korea failed to reconstruct itself many times becoming narrow and slow in the past, we are undergoing today’s situation. In this period of reconstruction, if we fortunately join reconstruction, we can expect Western help (桑楡의 補). However, if we cannot join reconstruction, there will be only misery in our future.26 _{(my translation)}

Still influenced by Social Darwinism, the Koreans considered the realization of reconstruction critical to the survival of their nation.

The move toward “reconstruction” in Korea bifurcated into “socialist reconstruction” (社會主義的 改造論) and “idealist reconstruction” (觀念論的 改造論 ). Socialist reconstruction was influenced by the revolutionary ideas of the Russian revolution of 1917; idealist reconstruction was influenced by the ideas of Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and Edward Carpenter (1844-1929), and the Culturalism (Bunkashugi, 文化主義) from Japan. The Cultural Movement in Korea was dominated by the influence of the “idealist reconstruction.”27

The ideas of Russell and Carpenter were primarily introduced by the magazine Kaebyŏk (開闢, Creation), which appeared under the changed colonial policies after the March First Movement. Kaebyŏk introduced the articles that explained Russell’s and Carpenter’s ideas of reconstruction, notions derived from Russell’s Principles of Social Reconstruction and Carpenter’s

Civilization and Towards Industrial Freedom. According to the articles in Kaebyŏk, Russell

26 _{Ibid., 198.} 27 _{Ibid., 375.}

understood “impulses” as that which controlled man’s life, and he divided the “impulses” according to the Possessive Impulse and the Creative Impulse. Holding that the Possessive Impulse was dominant while the Creative Impulse was suppressed, Russell saw this as modern civilization’s problem, one that needed to be reconstructed. Disavowing any ideal of humanity, Carpenter understood modern civilization as a disease that man had to pass through, like children’s measles. Therefore, in order to treat this unhealthy stage of history, he argued that man needed to vitalize the social and industrial life with a new spirit, one that demonstrated the liberated Creative Impulse of Russell. The “reconstruction” argued by Russell and Carpenter was a very idealistic concept, emphasizing mental aspects rather than practical policies for the reconstruct of social institutions. The influence of these figures resulted in the Koreans focusing on the abstract aspects of reconstruction in their society.28

Culturalism or Bunkashugi, which is pronounced “Munhwa chuŭi” in Korean, was very popular in Japan during the 1920s,29 _{and it also greatly influenced the Koreans. “Culture” (Bunka)}

in the term of “Culturalism” (Bunkashugi) was the Japanese translation of the German word “Kultur,” which was developed by the Germans as the counterpart of the French and English concept of “civilization.”30 _{While “civilization” signifies human achievements, including “political}

or economic, religious or technical, moral or social facts,” German “Kultur” essentially refers to the more heightened or spiritual aspects of human life such as “intellectual, artistic and religious

28 _{Ibid., 179-180.}

29 _{Miyakawa Toru and Arakawa Ikuo call the 1920s in Japan “the period of Culturalism.”} Miyakawa Toru and Arakawa Ikuo, ed., Ilbon Kŭndae ch’ŏlhaksa [The History of Japanese Modern Philosophy], trans. Yi Su-jŏng (Seoul: Saenggagŭi Namu, 2001), 156.

facts,” and excludes “political, economic and social facts.”31 _{Unlike the bourgeoisie in France and}

England, the pride or self-image of the German middle-class intelligentsia in the 18th century could only come from inner enrichment of the personality through intellectual, scientific or artistic accomplishments, as they were removed from political activity and the commercial middle class remained undeveloped. Therefore, Kultur, which referred to the purely spiritual sphere, came to function as the watchword of the German intelligentsia.32 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), in the 18th

century, understood Kultur as the process of the intellectual formation—Bildung—of the human as a rational being33 and argued that its absolute goal was to realize morality and a cosmopolitan

society as an ethical community.34 _{Kant’s philosophy regained influence during the late 19th}

century, helping to form neo-Kantianism in Germany.35 _{Among the neo-Kantianist philosophers,}

Baden or the Southwest German school drew a line between natural sciences and cultural sciences,36 _{identifying universal values that make culture.}37 _{For example, Wilhelm Windelband}

(1848-1915) argued that all logical thought was guided by a value; he linked the classical divisions of philosophy such as logic, ethics, and aesthetics to the values of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty.38

Heinrich Rickert (1868-1936), further developing Windelband’s philosophy, argued that values

31 _{Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process. trans. Edmund Jephcott. rev. ed. (Maldan, MA: Blackwell} Publishing Ltd., 2004), 6.

32 _{Ibid., 24.}

33 _{Han’guk Kant hakhoe, ed., Kant and Cultural Philosophy (Seoul: Ch’olhakkwa hyŏnsilsa, 2003),} 188.

34 _{Ibid., 34-36.}

35 _{Frederic Copleston, A History of Philosophy VII (New York: Doubleday, 1963), 361.} 36 _{Ibid., 364.}

37 _{The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed., s.vv. “neo-Kantianism,” “Baden School.”} 38 _{Copleston, 364.}

possessed reality and that the subject connected the realm of values and the sensible world.39 _This

concept of Kultur in Germany and the neo-Kantianists’ “the philosophy of values” (價値哲學), or “the philosophy of culture” (文化哲學), greatly influenced two Japanese philosophers, Kuwaki Gen’yoku (桑木嚴翼, 1874-1946) and Sōda Kiichirō (左右田喜一郞, 1881-1927). Kuwaki and Sōda introduced “Culturalism” in Japan in 1919, and the Culturalism began to be popular in Japan.40

Culturalism in Japan emphasized the realization of values and realization of personality based on cultural values. Kuwaki Gen’yoku argued that “culture” was opposed to nature and possessed the absolute values of truth (眞), goodness (善), and beauty (美). According to him, truth, goodness, and beauty are combined with consciousness (자아), and this combination forms “personality” (인격).41 He also maintained that every individual was equal only when he or she

possessed such a personality; he applied that same principle to countries and nations, that is, Kuwaki maintained that every country or nation could not have equal rights. Only the countries or nations that had achieved “personality” could join the reconstruction of the world and engage in international democracy with the realization of “self-determination.”42 _{Sōda Kiichirō also}

understood that culture was opposed to nature. Culture, to him, was the whole in which human efforts such as arts, knowledge, religion, moral, technology, and law were organically combined. He argued that culture had meaning only when it was in the process of realizing “cultural values”

39 _{Ibid., 365.}

40 _{Miyakawa Toru and Arakawa Ikuo, 293.} 41 _{Pak Ch’an-sŭng, 182.}

as absolute values. Also, he maintained that personality existed only in the man who had realized “culture” (文化人).43

Since only the realization of culture could give proper position to an individual or a nation, both in the local society and in the international order, according to Culturalism, no individual or nation without culture could join the world with status and pride equal to that of other individuals or nations. Therefore, under the influence of Culturalism, “building new culture” would be an urgent assignment for the Koreans in order to give themselves a proper position in international society.44 _{At the same time, Culturalism’s emphasis on the realization of personality meant that the}

reconstruction of mental or abstract traits was also important in the Koreans’ efforts toward modernization.45