Major Trends of Korean Historiography in the US

War II spurred the establishment of area studies programs in the US. In the case of Asia, these programs produced an Orientalist scholarship that was grounded in modernization theory. This article examines the major streams of Orientalist and anti-Orientalist scholarship in Korean historiography in the US. Orientalist historiography has tended to critique “internal development” theory, amounting to a revival of stagnation theory that had been propounded by Japanese scholars support by the government during the occupation period. Anti-Orientalist scholarship has used a variety of critical theories to overcome the limitations of modernization theory and to situate the I n t r o d u c t i o n By now, it should be no surprise to say that Korean Studies in the US is primarily a form of Orientalism. To the US, Korea has been a mysterious Other, marked by its diff e rence with the West. Such Orientalist views were apparent in missionary works and travelogues in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the very first book on K o rea was published in the US. They saw Korea as a strange barbarian land, as a “Hermit Kingdom” outside of history and cut off fro m the rest of the world, and it produced reactions ranging from fear to w o n d e r. In the Orientalist worldview, the mission of the West was to civilize and modernize Korea. Korean Studies in the US has changed much during the past one h u n d red years, but its underpinnings remain Orientalist (corresponding to Edward Said’s distinction between “manifest” and “latent” Orientalism). As Said noted, Orientalism is not just a system of re p re s e n t a t i o n existing within Western “consciousness;” it is also an institutional academic discipline that is designed to serve American national i n t e rest. Area studies programs in US universities emerged aro u n d the time of World War II because of the need of intelligence agencies for information on enemy powers. After the war, the focus of these p rograms shifted to communism. Intelligence agencies or other state o rgans funded and, in some cases, set the re s e a rch agenda and supervised the hiring of faculty members in these programs. The 1 5 2 Major Trends of Korean Historiography in the US 1 . Edward W. Said, O r i e n t a l i s m (New York: Vintage Books, 1978), p. 206. 2 . Bruce Cumings, “Boundary Displacement: The State, the Foundations, and International and Area Studies during and after the Cold War,” P a r a l l a x Visions: Making Sense of American-East Asian Relations at the End of the Century. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1999. dynamism of modern Korean history within the context of developments in the capitalist world system. objective was to create think tanks that would help to produce more e ffective foreign policy and business strategies. That is, area studies was supposed to contribute to maintaining and expanding American hegemony. In the 1950s and 60s, the importance of Korea paled in comparison to that of China and Japan. Nonetheless, the framework for area studies programs was well established before the g rowth of Korean Studies programs in the 1980s. A c c o rd i n g l y, Korean Studies in the US can be seen as an academic discipline for the production of knowledge on Korea in support of American national interest. While the demands of a gro w i n g K o rean American population in American colleges have also played an important role, the main impetus for Korean Studies has come f rom the needs of the state and the economy, both requiring certain kinds of knowledge about Korea. At any given time, the state of K o rean Studies in the US is a reflection of Korea’s position within the world capitalist economy and of the strategic importance of K o rea in US foreign policy. Scholars in the US can be distinguished by their position toward this system, and Korean Studies in the US can be seen as a stru g g l e between those who support it and those who oppose it. Both sides contain diverse groups of scholars, but this division is a fundamental one. With the end of the cold war, conservative scholarship became more entrenched and strengthened within the US. But, at the same time, the problems and weaknesses of the area studies paradigm became more apparent, making it possible to critique it. Korean Studies in the US is going through a transitional phase as it experiences another period of growth. The next few years may be decisive to its future as the aftermath of 9-11 may close the critical space that opened up after the end of the cold war. To map out the possible futures for Korean Studies as a critically relevant discipline, it is important to begin with a reflection on its origins, as they are beginning to grow murky in myth as the pioneering generation of scholars in the US is retiring. Korean Studies in the US has become wide enough that it is impossible to cover, Michael D. Shin 1 5 3