[EAI Working Paper] Koreans' Historical Perceptions and Political Identity

Editor's Note

Over the past 15 years (2005-2020), the East Asia Institute (EAI) has examined the changing values and identities of Koreans through its surveys on "Korean Identity." As the first working paper in the 2020 survey results series, titled "History, Nation, State, and the World as Seen by Koreans," this paper, primarily authored by Professor Lee Na-young of Korea University, has been published. This working paper examines the content and trends of Koreans' perceptions of major historical events since liberation and the achievements of successive governments. Koreans generally hold a high sense of pride in the history of the Korean nation and the Republic of Korea, a trend that has been steadily increasing since 2005. Furthermore, an analysis of the influence of major leaders and governments during the post-liberation period revealed that conservative respondents, aged 60 and above, evaluated the roles of Syngman Rhee and the U.S. government positively, while progressive respondents and younger individuals tended to evaluate the U.S. government negatively. Regarding responsibility for the outbreak of the Korean War, the response that North Korea was responsible was overwhelmingly high, although there were significant differences in perceptions of responsibility based on ideological orientation and party affiliation. However, unlike the sharp confrontation between progressive and conservative historical perspectives often seen in academia and politics, the public can be assessed as holding relatively balanced historical perceptions. The author argues that the politicization of historical interpretation, where political circles exploit historical issues for political gain or where historical interpretations become contentious political issues, is regressive as it revives past conflicts and divides the populace.

※ The following is the introduction to this working paper. Please refer to the attached file above for the full text.

I. Introduction

The identity held by a nation is formed and changes based on collective historical experiences and memories. A higher sense of pride in one's own history leads to a stronger sense of belonging and identity with the nation, and historical memories also influence the values and goals pursued by the national community. For Koreans, who have undergone dynamic historical changes such as 36 years of Japanese colonial rule, the division of the Korean peninsula and the Korean War, prolonged authoritarian rule and democratization, and compressed industrialization and economic leapfrogging, historical memory has significantly influenced the formation of political identity. For example, the experience of the Korean War has served as a collective memory that sustains support for conservative ideology and conservative parties emphasizing anti-communism and national security (Kim Dong-choon 2011).

However, memories and perceptions of historical events can differ among individuals and social groups, leading to conflicts in perspectives on history. For political forces that pursued the construction of a ethnically homogeneous nation during the post-liberation period, the three years following liberation are remembered as a history of frustration and failure, but from the perspective of Syngman Rhee's supporters, it is a history of success in building a nation based on a market economy and liberal democracy. Furthermore, while the Korean War may be a proud memory of defending the homeland for its veterans, it is a memory of pain and betrayal for the families of civilian massacre victims.

Because memories and perceptions of the same historical events differ among individuals and groups, conflicts in opposing historical perspectives frequently become linked to ideological conflicts and political disputes in Korean society. The recent controversy over the burial of General Paik Sun-yup in the National Cemetery and the Korean Liberation Association president's criticism during the Liberation Day ceremony that President Syngman Rhee colluded with pro-Japanese collaborators illustrate how historical issues are emerging as current political disputes.

In fact, the confrontation of differing historical interpretations is a product of democratization. During the period of authoritarian rule, from the Syngman Rhee administration onwards, conservative perceptions of modern history were dominant due to the strong constraints of anti-communist ideology and the Cold War order. Particularly during the Yushin regime, the state's control over historical education was exercised through the nationalization of history textbooks. Therefore, the phenomenon of conflicting interpretations and perspectives on past historical experiences can be viewed as a positive change, as it indicates the progress of democratization in Korean society and the acceptance of ideological diversity.

With the advancement of democratization in the 1980s and the reduction of ideological constraints, challenges to the conservative mainstream historical interpretation began to be seriously raised by the progressive camp. In the words of Park Tae-gyun, the 1980s were a period when the progressive forces acquired academic citizenship. As the constraints of the Cold War and conservative ideology diminished, the ideology of the democratization movement began to be influenced by dependency theory and leftist theories (Kim Ho-ki & Park Tae-gyun 2019). In particular, the six volumes of the "Perceptions of the Period Before and After Liberation" series saw the participation of many progressive scholars, such as Park Hyun-chae and Kang Man-gil, who presented new perspectives on modern Korean history. These books presented the socio-political changes before and after liberation as the process of forming the divided regime, comprehensively analyzing the international situation of Cold War structuration and the domestic changes in left-right cooperation, and peasant and labor movements from a "people-centered, national perspective," thereby dramatically expanding the horizon of understanding of the period before and after liberation (Song Geon-ho et al. 2004; Kang Man-gil et al. 1985; Park Hyun-chae 1987). Furthermore, progressive academia challenged the mainstream view that glorified Syngman Rhee as the father of the nation and Park Chung-hee as a leader who brought modernization, by re-examining the responsibility for the outbreak of the Korean War and civilian massacres, and critically evaluating the oppressive nature of the Park Chung-hee regime and its labor control (Park Myung-lim et al. 2006; Son Ho-chul 2011).

In the 2000s, counterarguments to the progressive camp's historical interpretations were raised by the New Right, representing a new right-wing movement. A representative New Right civic movement organization was the Liberalism Solidarity, launched in 2004 and expanded into the National Alliance for New Right in 2007. Many of the leaders of the New Right were individuals who had defected from the progressive camp and activist circles, including pro-North Korean elements, rather than from the existing right-wing. The New Right criticized the regressive behavior of the existing conservatives while simultaneously advocating for overcoming the outdated ideologies and extreme confrontations of the progressive camp. The New Right camp criticized the progressive camp's historical perspective, which leaned towards national supremacy and populism, its negative historical interpretation of modern history as a history of frustration and foul play, and the Roh Moo-hyun administration's efforts for transitional justice. The New Right camp presented a historical perspective that positively evaluated the establishment of the Republic of Korea, which aimed for a market economy and liberal democratic system, and its subsequent rapid economic growth and democratization achievements (Lee In-ho et al. 2009).

Following democratization, an ideological confrontation in historical interpretations, i.e., the ideologization of historical interpretation, emerged, primarily in academia. This academic confrontation has led to the politicization of historical interpretation, involving the government and political circles. The controversy over the nationalized history textbook was the catalyst for the politicization of historical interpretation, drawing in academia, civil society, and the government into a conflict over historical interpretation. Since 2003, when accredited and certified textbooks began to be used in education, conservative media and civic groups started criticizing the ideological bias of these textbooks. The scholars leading these criticisms were from the New Right movement, who established the "Textbook Forum" in 2005 and attempted to publish works and alternative textbooks that countered the historical interpretations of progressive academia. The Lee Myung-bak administration intervened in the historical interpretation debate within academia and civil society, attempting to revise the content of accredited and certified textbooks for modern and contemporary history, but achieved no success due to opposition from the academic community. In this context, the Park Geun-hye administration abruptly pushed for the nationalization of history textbooks in 2015, an attempt to monopolize and control historical interpretation by the government, similar to the Yushin regime. However, it faced strong opposition and criticism from academia, civic groups, and the opposition party, and after the impeachment of former President Park Geun-hye and the change of government in 2017, the nationalization of history textbooks was halted (Im Byung-cheol 2016; Shim Yong-hwan 2015).

Despite the risk of oversimplification due to the ideological confrontation and debates surrounding modern Korean history, it can be broadly summarized into two opposing perspectives. The conservative camp tends to perceive modern history as an unprecedented success story, achieving both economic development and democratization. This positive historical view has the advantage of enhancing national pride and identity. However, it has the limitation of overlooking human rights violations and state violence under authoritarian regimes or justifying the privileges and injustices of the incumbent power.

Conversely, the progressive camp perceives modern Korean history as a history of frustration, characterized by the solidification of a regime with weak legitimacy and the prevalence of injustice and foul play. This historical view suggests the need for continuous reform to eradicate structural injustices and deep-rooted evils. However, it tends to deny the achievements of economic growth and democratization made by the Republic of Korea and can weaken national pride and identity. Furthermore, an excessive emphasis on eradicating past evils and pursuing reform may lead to a relative neglect of future-oriented national visions and policies.

Along with the opposing perspectives on modern Korean history, evaluations of past presidents have also been contentious, varying by age group, region of origin, ideological orientation, and party affiliation. Regarding President Syngman Rhee, a positive evaluation viewing him as the founding father who led the establishment of the Republic of Korea clashes with a negative view of him as an autocratic ruler who caused the division of the peninsula. The view of President Syngman Rhee as the father of the nation positively assesses his leadership in establishing the Republic of Korea based on a realistic understanding of the international political situation at the time and a firm belief in liberal democracy (Yoo Young-ik 2013). It is argued that the establishment of a separate government was an unavoidable choice, considering the international political situation where competition between the U.S. and the Soviet Union for dominance was intensifying, and the progress of North Korea and the Soviet Union in establishing a socialist state (Han Bae-ho 2008).

Conversely, progressive academia evaluates President Syngman Rhee's independence movement path and actions negatively. Furthermore, it holds him responsible for the division of the Korean peninsula by relying on the U.S. military government and pro-Japanese collaborators after liberation, and criticizes his pursuit of prolonged rule due to excessive ambition for power, which ultimately led to his resignation due to popular resistance (Kang Man-gil et al. 1985; The Institute for Research in Collaborationist Activities 2012).

Regarding President Park Chung-hee, a positive view of him as the architect of industrialization sharply contrasts with the perspective that evaluates him as a dictator who pursued prolonged rule (Kim Il-young 1995). The view that sees him as the architect of industrialization praises Park Chung-hee's leadership in driving industrialization with a vision for modernization as the key factor in economic growth (Song Bok et al. 2017). Conversely, the progressive camp evaluates that he destroyed the democratic system through the three-term constitutional amendment and the Yushin regime, pursued prolonged dictatorship, and systematically suppressed and excluded democratization forces, workers, and farmers in the process (Cho Hee-yeon 2010). Furthermore, they argue that the key factor in Korea's economic growth was not Park Chung-hee's leadership but rather the high level of education and diligence, the oppression and sacrifice of workers and farmers, and a favorable international economic environment (Seo Jung-seok 2017; Son Ho-chul 2011).

As such, perceptions of major historical events in modern Korean history show significant variations depending on ideological orientation and party affiliation. Perceptions of major events in modern history influence citizens' political identity, and conversely, views of the same historical events can show stark differences based on citizens' political identity.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine Koreans' historical perceptions as revealed in the 2020 Korean Identity Survey and to analyze the trends in historical perceptions by comparing the results of the four surveys conducted from the first survey in 2005 to the current fourth survey. In particular, it will examine how Koreans' perceptions of modern Korean history differ according to political identity, such as party support and ideological orientation, and analyze the impact of Koreans' historical perceptions on their political identity. The main contents of this chapter are as follows.

First, the content and trends of Koreans' perceptions of major historical events since liberation will be analyzed. Pride in the history of the Korean nation and the Republic of Korea, evaluations of the roles of major leaders and governments during the post-liberation period, and perceptions of responsibility for the outbreak of the Korean War will be examined by age group, educational level, party support, and ideological orientation. Furthermore, the trends from the first survey in 2005 to the fourth survey in 2020 will be analyzed.

Second, the public's evaluation of the achievements of successive governments, from the first Syngman Rhee administration to the current Moon Jae-in administration, will be examined by dividing them into the political and economic spheres. In addition, the analysis will examine the variations in the public's evaluation of the achievements of successive governments according to age group, region of origin, party support, and ideological orientation.

Finally, the impact of perceptions of modern history on citizens' political identity will be analyzed. To this end, political identity will be analyzed in two dimensions: ideological orientation and party identification.

■ Author: Lee Na-young Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Korea University. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He has served as Director of the Legislative Research Service of the National Assembly, Director of the Institute for East Asian Studies at Korea University, Director of the Institute for Peace and Democracy at Korea University, and Director of the EAI Center for Political and Social Surveys. His main research areas include comparative politics, electoral politics, and parliamentary politics. His recent publications include "Who is Pessimistic or Optimistic about Intergenerational Social Mobility?" (2019), "Politics of Party Polarization in East Asia: A Comparison of South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan" (2018, co-authored), and "How Does Economic Inequality Lead to Individual Welfare Preferences? A Typology of the Detailed Stages of Formation of Korean Welfare Preferences" (2018).

■ Management and Editing: Kim Se-young EAI Researcher

Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 208) sykim@eai.or.kr

EAI Working Papers provide in-depth analyses that pinpoint the core issues of major domestic and international affairs. Please cite the source when quoting. EAI is an independent research institute independent of any partisan interests. The claims and opinions expressed in reports, journals, and books published by EAI are not attributable to EAI and are solely the views of the respective authors.