[Global NK Interview] Professor Kim Sung-kyung (University of North Korean Studies)

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p60dd3UdPXM

[Editor's Note]

Global NK <Interview> meets with various South Korean researchers specializing in North Korea to understand the current state of North Korean studies through their voices. In our first installment, we met with Professor Kim Sung-kyung of the University of North Korean Studies, who studies North Korea through the lens of the mind, to learn about what this still unfamiliar concept of studying North Korea through the mind entails and what it means for inter-Korean relations today.

Video Transcript

I came to the University of North Korean Studies, which specializes in North Korean research, in September 2014 and have been continuing my research and educational activities here. However, as I began to seriously engage in North Korean studies, one thing I strongly felt was that the perspective from which North Korean issues are viewed, both in South Korean academia and, I suspect, in foreign academia as well, is not optimally set. Of course, there is the major issue of nuclear weapons, which has led many people to focus their research on discussing nuclear issues and seeking practical solutions.

As a scholar, I believe that if South and North Korea are to build a future in any way and contemplate peace and unification, we must understand what North Koreans think, how they live, what brings them joy in their daily lives, and what causes them hardship or sorrow. This thought occurred to me. Therefore, I became very interested in what North Koreans are thinking. In that context, I have made attempts to research North Korean society and culture broadly.

The reality of the mind is a very fluid concept; it can be very profound at times, and at other times, it can be very superficial. Therefore, I have faced many difficulties in terms of research methodology. Of course, I have utilized a lot of empirical data that has been accumulated over a long period through ongoing surveys. From another perspective, I have consistently engaged in cultural studies. In the tradition of cultural studies, the renowned British cultural theorist Raymond Williams discussed the concept of the 'structure of feeling,' stating that this structure of feeling is not discovered at a particular moment but is accumulated over time within cultural products. I have also utilized cultural media extensively. Of course, people might say, 'How reliable are North Korean cultural media? Aren't they propaganda?'

However, in my opinion, a significant portion of North Korean media can be interpreted as a source for understanding the changes in the people's minds or their expressions of emotion. I also utilize media such as novels and films, as I have a background in film studies. As I mentioned earlier, the limitation of North Korean studies is that we can only use available resources. As a sociologist, if I could visit, many problems could be resolved, perhaps within a year of staying there, but since that is not feasible, I approach it with great caution.

This aligns with the broader trend of critiquing or deconstructing the modern paradigm, which is often seen as rational and utilitarian. What this ultimately means is that in discussions at the international or national level, there exists a certain shared system of minds, whether it be of people or societies, that predates division. I wanted to argue that this system of minds plays a crucial role in perpetuating division. Currently, many sociologists are discussing emotions and affect, and this discussion is continuously evolving, even extending to the topic of non-human agency.

The mind is, in fact, a very everyday concept. However, using such an everyday concept in sociology is an extremely difficult task, and I often receive many questions regarding the precision of the concept. Yet, when we use the word 'mind,' people tend to understand a certain powerful entity that is not expressed in language. What I want to focus on is precisely that: the power that binds a society together, or the power that divides it, remains a vague area. However, my belief is that this vague area inevitably plays a critical role at decisive moments or at key junctures where history is made. I wanted to explain this through various examples.

Currently, inter-Korean relations are in a state of deadlock. From a realist perspective, if there are benefits, North Korea will inevitably return, and South Korea can also engage with the US if it benefits. Such interpretations are possible. However, if we consider why these relations are not progressing, despite the extensive use of emotional language, it might be due to the excessive communication that occurred in 2018. When that communication was frustrated, the resulting frustration might have been amplified negatively, or it may have remained as excessive negative emotions, directly influencing policy and acting as a limitation in the process of making history. This is my current thinking.

I am continuously interested in how these emotions are actually reflected in policy. The consciousness of unification is also part of this. One of the reasons why the momentum for advancing inter-Korean relations is weak is that most people in South Korean society are not interested in unification or peace. Lack of interest implies a lack of will. Will is a crucial weapon of the mind, but the absence of will means that the momentum to create dialogue cannot be generated at all. Therefore, continuously problematizing the mind is essential. The peace process on the Korean Peninsula must not only occur at the level of state-to-state discussions but must also continuously unfold within the mindset of South Korean society and the minds of North Koreans to achieve tangible results and success.

I also hold this view. Fundamentally, I am very interested in people. You can think of my research topics and existing concerns as being heavily focused on people. Especially when looking at inter-Korean relations and the situation on the Korean Peninsula, the state-centric perspective is prevalent, isn't it? Our unit of discussion is the state: the US, North Korea, South Korea, and so on. What is omitted from this discussion are the people. As I observed these people,

I discovered that a great many actors are actually engaged in activities that transcend national borders. For many North Korean defectors I have met, the concept of the state and the reality of the state do not significantly function in their daily lives. While entities like China or North Korea exist as forces that restrict their movement during the process of coming here, in their way of life, they constantly evade state control, create loopholes, and pursue other desires or dreams. I have observed these aspects extensively. Therefore, I believe that the work of revealing these aspects is very important. Through the process of meeting people from North Korea, I have also met individuals active in the border regions between North Korea and China, such as ethnic Koreans from China (Joseonjok), Korean businessmen, and activists.

I believe that focusing on the various dynamics and subjectivities they create can be a strategy to move even slightly away from state-centric thinking. I believe it is very difficult to resolve the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula or to bring about truly transformative change at the state level. This is because the US and China are rising powers, and even if the North and South do their best, it will not be easily resolved. Therefore, the new vision of peace that we can create must have diverse forms. While state-centric future visions such as a single state, federation, or confederation are important for developing more sophisticated and numerous approaches, I believe that by imbuing the various practices created in people's daily lives and individual lives with meaning, we can create new visions of peace. These resources, I believe, can ultimately have a significant impact even at the national level.

In recent societal discourse, many people have come to understand the power of emotions to some extent, as the social effects of emotions are becoming increasingly visible. In particular, there is growing concern about how negative emotions like hatred spread throughout society via various media and fake news, ultimately becoming a societal problem. I agree with this. However, I also agree that this level of awareness has not yet significantly expanded to North Korea. But I also feel this way:

In a situation where there was a US-ROK summit and we are urgently considering North Korea's response and whether another round of talks is possible, I am concerned about how seriously my argument that division operates within the mind and that the division is perpetuated by the divided mind will be taken as a priority discussion. However, what I want to emphasize is this: for over 30 years, why has the North Korean issue, particularly after the nuclear issue emerged, not been resolved despite decades of effort?

It is time for us to reflect on ourselves and ask new questions. Instead of the existing approaches, it is time to ask more fundamental questions that are linked to everyday life and people's lives. As I briefly mentioned, one of the roles of researchers and scholars in Korea, in addition to meticulously analyzing the unseen, is to continuously engage in discourse about the values we need to create, which is linked to imagination. However, in North Korean studies so far, such discourse on future values has been significantly lacking, leading to the pervasive indifference that South Korean society currently exhibits.

Therefore, can we no longer overlook this issue? I intend to continue researching the emotions, minds, sorrows, joys, anger, and hatred of North and South Koreans and to pose questions about them. My current research is not a major area within North Korean studies. When I present abroad, people often say it's very new, partly because I discuss topics that differ from existing discourse. What I am most interested in is a question linked to post-colonialism: I want to expand the scope of feminist inquiry. From a feminist perspective, what is the issue of division on the Korean Peninsula? What is North Korea? What kind of space, country, and society is it? I want to research this.

While there has been extensive research on North Korean women, I want to attempt to examine this from a broader feminist perspective. If I have been engaging with post-colonial questions through the concept of the mind, I now want to attempt to re-examine these issues through another critical lens: feminism. The projects I am currently undertaking and preparing for are of this nature.

Certainly, women constitute 50% of the population in terms of gender, but their lives are often interpreted in a marginalized way. They are sometimes seen merely as a wheel of revolution or as mothers. However, if we examine the lives of North Korean women more closely, I believe we can imagine other possibilities.