Chuil taesa Edwin Raishawŏ ŭi ‘Kŭndaehwa ron’ kwa Han’guksa insik”[US Ambassador to Japan, Edwin O. Reischauer’s ‘Modernization theory’ and his perception of Korean history]

Edwin O. Reischauer’s “Modernization Theory” and Recognition of Korean History An, Jong Chol This paper attempts to explain Edwin O. Reischauer’s “Modernization Theory” in relation to Korea. As is well known, the theory has diverse meanings such as industrialization and democracy. However, Reischauer rather focused on industrialization. To Reischauer sometimes industrialization and modernization is interchangeable. In his idea, Japanese society had prepared well for modernization before Meiji Restoration (1868) because it had feudal society with commercialization. Japanese Modernization is a role model to East Asia so that he supported Korean-Japanese Normalization Treaty (1965) as US Ambassador to Japan. In his chapters related to Korea writing in East Asia: Tradition and Transformation, he and his disciple and professor, Edward W. Wagner argued that Korea was more sinicized than even China. Wagner studied in Japan under Takahashi Tooru who was colonial expert on Korea before 1945. In the book, traditional Korea was full of stagnation and political strife. Just after World War II, there was so few Korean history textbook in English so that they relied upon English translation of the Chosenshi [Korean History] written by Hatata Takashi, a Japanese historian who focused on China before World War II and changed his interest into Korean history after Japanese 322 역사문제연구 제29호 surrender. In Chosenshi, Hatada might resurrect Koreans in traditional society with a dynamic relation between the oppressed people (minjung) and ruling class. However, most Korean people is depicted as only oppressed by the ruling class so that the society was still stagnant and oppressing. It assumed that Korea was only modernized by outer forces. The thesis is typical impact and response model. In terms of the fact that Korean traditional society was not prepared for modernization, Hatada and Reischauer has a common ground. Through Reischauer and his influence, it is explained how Korean Studies was set up not only as institutions but also with unique contents. In forming the Korean Studies in the US, there were complex nexus among colonial Japanese intellectuals, progressive postwar historians, and US modernization theorist.