본문 바로가기
  • Home

Nationalistic Power and ‘Cooperative Nation’- The Case of Rural Saemaulundong in The Park Chung-hee Administration Period

  • The Review of Korean History
  • 2014, (116), pp.543-578
  • Publisher : The Historical Society Of Korea
  • Research Area : Humanities > History

Kim Bo Hyeon 1

1명지대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

This paper reveals more concretely the complex meaning that the nationalistic power, the state / people relations, and the modernization have carried, by approaching norms and practices of the ‘cooperation’ conduct-regime of Saemaulundong in the Park Chung-hee administration period. Its objective is realized through the method describing jointly in two directions, referring to discourses, stories of personal experiences, reportages, written records, field investigations, etc. relating to Saemaulundong. One is the stream of description about the logics and the normalities that the cooperation regime of Saemaulundong had kept, in other words the original intentions that members of the state and the ruling classes including Park Chung-hee had conceived. The other is the stream of description about the effects that some techniques of power employed by the Park Chung-hee administration had been producing, accompanied by dysfunctions for those norms. Main arguments of this paper are as in the following. First, the ‘cooperation’ of Saemaulundong in the 1970s was not a foundation neither a form of any democracy. It was the statist norm and the regime inculcated or developed according to rationalities of discipline and government. Second, the ‘cooperation’ of Saemaulundong in the 1970s had been greatly defined by expectations for ‘individual interests’ and those realizations. This result was associated with statist actions that had actively instilled a desire for increasing higher income to people, emphasizing the importance ‘money’ and ‘living well’ closely related. Third, the ‘cooperation’ of Saemaulundong in the 1970s could have been invigorated by ‘competition’, still encouraged by the state. ‘Competition’ had been a crucial propellant of ‘cooperation’ and also its outcome. Paradoxically, ‘cooperation’ had showed its effects contrary to ‘cooperation’. To sum up, in ‘the age of the state’, the state herself had performed actions helping forward significant changes in her status.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.