Critical Joseon Studies and Dasan Research among Socialist Intellectuals

In the 1930s, research on Joseon history was actively conducted not only by uncompromising nationalist scholars but also by those aligned with socialist ideologies. Socialist scholars criticized nationalist approaches to Joseon Studies, challenging not only the term “Joseonhak” (Joseon Studies) itself but also its particularist and unscientific methodologies. Although the nationalist and socialist camps differed in their perspectives on Joseon scholarship, they shared a common goal of academic independence and resistance against Japanese imperialism, with particular emphasis on the study of Dasan Jeong Yakyong. Despite his socialist orientation, Choi Ik-han accepted Jeong In-bo’s advocacy of Silhak (Practical Learning), a central theme of the nationalist Joseon Studies movement, viewing it in a positive light. He critically analyzed both the social relevance of Silhak and the tendency to idealize tradition. While he highly regarded Dasan’s reformist theories, he also pointed out their limitations―particularly their monarch-centered thinking and adherence to ritual-centered Confucianism. After Korea’s liberation, Choi re-evaluated Dasan in an even more revolutionary light. Paik Nam-un highlighted Dasan’s critique of the contradictions in feudal society and his proposals for economic policy. However, he regarded Dasan as a transitional figure who failed to completely overcome feudal ideology. Kim Tae-jun criticized the Joseon Studies movement as an imitation of Japanese kokugaku (national studies) and as a form of totalitarianism. He strongly denounced Jeong In-bo as a feudal conservative and argued that the study of Dasan only held significance when applied to real-world problems. Although the concept of Silhak that emerged during the 1930s Joseon Studies movement was rooted in Yangming philosophical thought, it was variably interpreted depending on each scholar’s historical aspirations. Choi Ik-han, Paik Nam-un, and Kim Tae-jun were no exceptions. While they criticized the nationalist camp for its arbitrary interpretations of Dasan, they too studied Dasan through the lens of their own socialist ideals rather than engaging in objective scholarship. In this sense, the critical Joseon Studies developed by socialist thinkers were also based on subjective readings of Dasan, albeit in pursuit of different goals: the reform of contemporary society and the welfare of the people. For this reason, critiques that dismiss Joseon Studies as merely a byproduct of imperialist discourse, or as a doomed project seeking alterity from a fractured self, should be reconsidered. As Paik Nam-un once said, history is about understanding the “present of the past.” Joseon Studies should be understood as a product of efforts to find practical alternatives in the tension between self and other, reality and ideal.