Book Review

Asia

The contest for legitimacy between socialist and capitalist regimes on the Korean peninsula has left a legacy of discrepant nationalist histories north and south. Compounding the politicized local accounts is a further "master narrative" of the Cold War era in Korea legitimating the U.S. struggle against communism. What is termed "the unitary focus, artificial unity, and tendency to dichotomize in nationalist historiography" provides the foil for this set of essays on the structures and ideologies of the Korean colonial experience. An "interactive approach" to colonial history provides a frame or "historical field" looking to the interplay of colonialism, nationalism, and modernity. The goal is to move beyond nationalist interpretations and their dichotomies of Asia and the West, Japan and Korea, rich but tainted collaborators versus pure, impoverished masses. Thus the volume opens with an ambitious agenda to reorient historiography on colonial Korea to new developments in the study of nationalism, modernity, and colonialism that emphasize interactions, dynamism, and multiple causality rather than a single, correct interpretation.	1
An initial set of six essays looks mainly to structures of peasant and labor, radio and telephone, law and development programs. Michael Schneider analyzes internationalism and identity in the Rice Production Promotion Campaign, outlining the opposition of a Japanese colonial scholar, Yanaihara Tadao. Chulwoo Lee probes the relation between legislation and legal rights in the early colonial years with concepts drawn from Michel Foucault. Daqing Yang limits his contribution mainly to a case study of the development of a telecommunications network, opening a new area in colonial studies. Michael Robinson, Gi-Wook Shin, and Do-Hyun Han, and Soon-Won Park return to their earlier scholarship to review and focus research. Robinson offers a synopsis of the effects of radio on Korean identity, and a brief review of the effect of pop music. Shin and Han extend Shin's earlier work on peasant organization, interpreting the Rural Revitalization Campaign from a corporatist perspective. Park provides a substantive overview of scholarship on colonial labor to extend her own recent volume on the subject.	2
Although the editors suggest the "ambiguous qualities" of modernity might provide a focus for this initial section, the reader will find considerable variety in concepts and indeed theoretical attention. The ambitious introductory essay raises the reader's expectations with attention to colonialism, modernity, and nationalism, but eschews definitions or even highlighting of significant dimensions to such an extent that the contributors have no common theoretical ground. The initial six essays provide interesting individual insights and often excellent reviews of existing scholarship but appear only weakly linked to the new methodology of the introduction. Some may be disappointed in the lack of much new evidence or data, or with the often discursive treatment of theoretical issues rather than efforts to develop concepts in light of the Korean experience. But others may find the variety appealing, with some essays more historical, others historiographical, and the Shin and Han essay more social scientific. Although a politicized, nationalist historiography provides a common foil, the dichotomizing of nationalist and postnationalist history appears somewhat artificial. The volume would benefit from engagement with the work of "nationalist historians." Who are these historians, what are their insights, what evidence have they provided? Far more appealing than criticism of nationalist historiography is the volume's concern with the positive content of diverse images of a national identity.	. . .