![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
Colonialism affects post-colonial social formations in a variety of ways. Japanese colonial rule had a far-reaching influence on South Korean post-colonial social formation. Most legacies of colonialism diminished as time went by, but one legacy of colonialism continued or even increased its effects on the South Korean political economy from the 1960s – namely, the division of Korea. This article provides an alternative Gramscian approach to the analysis of the social formation of South Korea, with due consideration of the division of the peninsula. For that purpose, it introduces the concept of a division bloc, adapting Gramsci’s concept of a historical bloc to develop an analysis of a social formation that is unique to South Korea. Then, I explicate the two events that have been most damaging for the division bloc – the 1997 economic crisis and the 1998–2007 inter-Korean reconciliation – describing them as an organic crisis and a hegemonic project, respectively. Following this, I present reasons why the counter-hegemonic efforts of liberal nationalists to overcome the division bloc failed.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 Kohli, “Where do High Growth Political Economies Come from?”
2 Haggard, Kang, and Moon, “Japanese Colonialism and Korean Development,” 868.
3 Ibid., 872–9.
4 Kang, Historical Awareness in the Division Era.
5 Paik, “Coloniality in Korea,” 73.
6 Paik, “Understand the Division System”; Paik, Studying to Change the Division System; Paik, Division System in Crisis.
7 Debate continues over the best way to characterize the form of the South Korean state, especially following the 1997 economic crisis. See, for example, Minns, “Of Miracles and Models”; Gray, “Social and Geopolitical Origins”; Pirie, “Korea and Taiwan.”
8 Marx, Karl Marx: Selected Writings, 145.
9 Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 238–9.
10 Ibid., 365–77.
11 Ibid., 366.
12 Hall and Soskice, Varieties of Capitalism, 1.
13 Poulantzas, “On Social Classes,” 38.
14 At certain junctures, factions within the capitalist class may clash with each other. For instance, to oppose neoliberal globalisation pursued by transnational capitalism, it would be possible for an alliance to form between the working class and the national capitalist class. Ibid., 38–9.
15 J.-J. Choi, Democracy after Democratisation; Cho, Mobilised Modernisation.
16 B.-L. Kim, Two Koreas in Development, 67.
17 Lipietz, Mirages and Miracles.
18 Jessop and Sum, Beyond the Regulation Approach, 159.
19 Woo, Race to the Swift.
20 J.-J. Choi, Democracy after Democratisation, 130–1.
21 Alavi, “State in Post-Colonial Societies,” 61.
22 Woo, Race to the Swift.
23 D.-C. Kim et al., Era of Anti-Communism.
24 Hwang et al., Rural Saemaul Undong.
25 Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 182.
26 J.-J. Choi, Democracy after Democratisation, 247–50.
27 South Korean Protestant churches in general were active supporters of anti-communist conservative politicians. During the colonial period, Pyongyang was the center of Protestantism in Korea. Because the communist regime persecuted religious expression after 1945, many Protestants came south seeking freedom of religion, and they became staunch advocates of anti-communism. Yu, Korea and the Korean War, 239–52.
28 Park, Democracy and Social Change, 106–8.
29 Y. S. Choi, Fifteen Things You Sacrificed for Chaebols, 4–8.
30 Shin, Ethnic Nationalism in Korea, 15.
31 Tamir, Liberal Nationalism, 35–56; Heywood, Political Ideologies: An Introduction, 183–7.
32 Y. S. Choi, “Kim Dae-jung and Anti-Communist Hegemony,” 303–5.
33 Y. T. Kim, “Neoliberalism and the Decline of the Developmental State,” 446.
34 Jessop and Sum, Beyond the Regulation Approach, 59–60.
35 Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 178.
36 Jessop, State Theory, 208.
37 Gramsci, Gramsci Reader, 364–70, 426–7.
38 Gramsci, Quadernidal Carcere, 1084, quoted in Mouffe, “Hegemony and Ideology in Gramsci,” 232.
39 Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 131.
40 Gramsci, Gramsci Reader, 198–200.
41 Kihl, Transforming Korean Politics, 248–9.
42 Lim, “No Change in the North Korean Policy.”
43 H.-M. Kim, Korean Democracy in Transition, 87–100.
44 Y.-G. Kim, “None of the Early Cabinet Members Survived.”
45 Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 276.
46 CCDM, “First CCDM Monitor Report.”
47 J.-J. Choi, Democracy after Democratisation, 141.
48 D.-J. Kim, 21st Century People's Economy, 271–81.
49 S.-G. Kim, Analysis of the Effectiveness of the Sanctions, 75.
50 Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 161.
51 Ibid., 276; Stahl, “Ruling the Interregnum,” 334–5.
52 Cho, “Coercion and Consent during the Park Chung-hee Era,” 161.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Yong Sub Choi
Yong Sub Choi teaches at the Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University. He earned his PhD in Politics and International Studies from the University of Warwick. His research interests include Antonio Gramsci, state–society relations, inter-Korean relations and international relations in East Asia. His recent works have been published in international journals such as The Pacific Review and Contemporary Security Policy.