One of the most relevant research topics of modern South Korean historians is the country's colonial period (1910-1945). The interest in it is due to both purely academic and political factors. If we talk about the academic side of the issue, it should be borne in mind that the relevance of research in the Korean colonial era (iljae kangjomgi)1, is largely determined by the historical features of the period under study. The colonial period is a transitional stage in the development of Korean society-the movement from an agrarian type of society to an industrial one. Being a transitional stage associated with numerous changes in the socio-economic structure, culture, and language, the colonial period contains a huge range of topics that are important not only for knowledge of the country's past, but also for understanding the present. Many problems of modern South Korean society have their origins in the colonial past, thus supporting the constant interest of academic circles and politicians in the history of Korea during the colonial period.

To date, South Korean researchers have managed to do a lot of work on studying the socio-economic and socio-political situation in colonial Korea. Within the framework of this direction, works have been written on agricultural transformations, industrial development, features of the state-bureaucratic structure and management system, education and health policy, forms of socio-political control, etc. There are many comparative studies that analyze the features of the colonial policy of the Japanese Empire and European states. Among them are works by Ahn Byungjik (2001), Jung Giho (2003), Shin Yeonha (2006), and Hong Gensung (2006).; "Hanguge gyeongjae sungjang (1910-1945)" (2006); "Ilbonkwa sogue sinminthonchhi pigye" (2004); Kim Yong-hee (2004); "Ilje sinminzhi chibee kuchjowa sung-gyok" (2005); Ho Suyol (2011); Shin Gyuk (2006); Pan Gijun (2010); and others.

For many years, researchers of the Korean colonial period have focused on the so-called theory of colonial modernization (shinminji geundahwaron), the attitude to which is a kind of indicator of the political affiliation of an author today. The theory of colonial modernization, or the theory of colonial development and exploitation (kabalkwa suthallon), was actively developed by Japanese and some Korean historians at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s in order to rethink the prevailing view of Japanese colonialism as a purely exploitative regime in nationalist Korean historiography. Historians of this field, mainly researchers of the Korean economy, have challenged the unambiguously negative assessments of the colonial industrialization of Korea (Ahn Benjik, 2001). They did not hide the fact that the Korean economy was exploited by the Japanese metropolis, but they believed that at the same time it was actively developing. That is why their approach to the colonial past has been referred to in South Korean historiography as the "theory of development through exploitation" (Pak Changseung, 2005, p. 41).

According to the South Korean historian Kang Mangil, the concept of "colony" used in the theory of colonial modernization has acquired a new meaning, different from how it was understood.

Iljae kangjomgi-1 in Korean means the period of forced occupation of Korea by the Japanese Empire. The term is widely used in modern South Korean historiography to refer to the colonial period of Korean history.

page 177
Korean nationalist historians after liberation [Kan Mangil, 2004, p. 14]. If nationalist historians understood a " colony "as a state deprived of its statehood by a major power, in particular the Japanese Empire, and subjected to severe exploitation, then historians who support the theory of colonial modernization have softened the negative meaning of"colonization". Although they, as Kang Mangil writes, recognized the exploitation of the Korean colony by Japan, they emphasized the diverse nature of colonization, which does not have exclusively negative meaning and consequences for the further development of Korea.

According to Kang Mangil, Korean nationalist historians who talk about the colonial era from the point of view of the theory of colonial exploitation (sinminzhi suthallon) did not pay attention to the dynamics of Korea's structural development during the period under study. It was at this point that the proponents of the theory of colonial modernization attacked their opponents. In studies of the colonial era, they tried to prove that during the years of the colony there was an increase in production, industry developed, although slowly, but there were structural changes in the traditionally agrarian structure of the Korean economy. All this, in their opinion, created the prerequisites for the rapid economic growth of Korea after the liberation [Kang Mangil, 2004, p. 20].

The theory of colonial modernization has become the main subject of criticism of South Korean nationalist historians, who believe that the term "modernization", which has a generally positive meaning from the point of view of the progressive development of the state, cannot be applied to the Korean reality of the colonial period, since it completely does not correspond to the socio-economic and cultural policy of Japan in Korea. Historians who today criticize the theory of colonial modernization for its historical bias adhere mainly to the nationalist view of Korean history (geundae minjokjae sagwan), the founder of which is considered to be the historian Shin Chae-ho (1880-1936). Adherents of the nationalist approach to history, as well as the socialist approach (sahwechjue sagwan, or kegyp sagwan), identified in the first half of the twentieth century, primarily with the ideas of Baek Namun (1894-1979), despite their theoretical differences, generally criticized the arguments of supporters of the colonial approach (hsinmingjue sagwan) developed by Japanese scientists the era of Japanese imperialism. The ideas of the colonial approach became the foundation of the theory of colonial modernization.

In Park Changseung's historiographical review of the history of studying the colonial administration policy of the Japanese Empire in Korea, South Korean researchers who criticize the theory of colonial modernization are divided into two groups. The first category includes historians who criticize opponents from the point of view of methodological approaches, demanding to think again about the methodology they use: Kwon Tae-seok (1997); Jung Jae-jeong (1996); Lee Man-yel (1997); Lee Yung-gap (1997). The second group includes historians who call the theory of exploitation and development a theory that embellishes colonial governance, or a theory that promotes imperialism, and bring down comprehensive criticism on it: Joo Chong-hwan (1994); Chong Taehon (1996); Shin Yong-ha (1997); Kim Do-hyun (1997) [Park Changseung, 2005, p. 44].

If we turn to the research of recent years, it should be noted that the problem of assessing the colonial past is still relevant. Even today, South Korean historians are divided into several groups that have a different understanding of the significance of the era of Japanese colonialism in modern Korean history. Researchers who interpret twentieth-century Korean history within the framework of the theory of colonial modernization tend to focus on elements of the development of the Korean economy during the colonial period. They carefully treat all historical facts that would indicate the slightest increase in production in Korea, the improvement of the transport system, education, and health care.

One of the most prominent works of modern South Korean historiography devoted to the dynamics of Korean economic growth in the era of Japanese imperialism is the collective work "Hanguge gyeongjae Sungjang (1910-1945)"edited by Kim Naknen. The work is distinguished by the use of mathematical analysis to calculate the main economic indicators. At the beginning of each chapter, the authors provide detailed calculation schemes so that the reader does not get the impression that the conclusions made about the growth of the Korean economy are arbitrary. In general, this work is devoted to the analysis of the economic development of Korea during the colonial period in various industries (coal mining, gas, electric power, woodworking, fishing, transport) and in the field of agriculture, finance, consumption, foreign and domestic trade.

page 178
In the introduction to the paper, Kim Naknyong writes that the average annual growth rate of the Korean economy in 1910-1945 was 3.7%, the population - 1.3, in the coal mining industry and the electric power industry-9 (the largest increase of all industries), in the service sector-5%. As a result of these changes, the share of agriculture in the structure of production decreased from 68% to 41%, while the share of coal mining increased from 5% to 14%. "On average, private spending grew by 3.3% per year, taking into account the growth of the population, the growth of per capita spending was 1.9%. Although the consumption of cereals decreased slightly, the consumption of other food products and industrial goods increased" (Kim Naknyong, 2006, p. VI).

According to Kim Naknen, "such growth and changes in the structure of production, although they were slow compared to the period of intensive growth of the Korean economy (1960-1980s-N. K.), but when compared with other regions of that time, it should be recognized that the growth of the economy was quite rapid" [tam same]. Very important from the point of view of the ideas of the theory of colonial modernization is Kim Naknen's thesis that the modern economic development of Korea started approximately from the time of Japanese colonialism. At the same time, the criterion of development for it is the consistent growth of income per capita. The progressive growth of the economy was halted by the events that followed the liberation of Korea: the division of the country into two independent states, the Korean War (1950-1953). It wasn't until the 1960s that the Korean economy began to grow rapidly again. Kim Naknyong writes that not only did the Japanese, as representatives of the metropolitan country, benefit from economic growth, but it was also beneficial for Koreans. The legacy of Japanese colonialism was the very foundation on which the Korean economy developed after liberation (Kim Naknyong, 2006, p.VII).

Kim Naknyong does not claim to be a proponent of the theory of colonial modernization, noting that the main goal of the book "Economic Growth of Korea" is to show the quantitative side of changes in the Korean economy during the era of Japanese imperialism and not to get involved in a dispute between representatives of two opposing historical approaches. But if you look at the individual chapters of the book written by different authors, it becomes quite obvious that they have a positive attitude towards the era of Japanese colonialism in Korea as a kind of locomotive for the development of the modern Korean economy. I think that the authors of the book" Economic Growth of Korea", although they tried to distance themselves from the dispute between representatives of the colonial approach and the nationalist view of history, are quite firmly on the side of the theory of colonial modernization in presenting factual material and assessments. Most revealing in this regard is the 13th chapter, "Economic Growth, Income Distribution, Changing the structure of Production", written by Cha Myungsoo.

Cha Myung-soo writes that the idea of the era of Japanese colonialism in Korea as a period of exploitation and suppression is widespread in history textbooks in both South and North Korea, as it is officially supported by the governments of both states. But, according to researchers at the Nakseongdae Institute of Economics (at Seoul University), of which he is an employee, such an idea has no basis. Scientists of the Institute have shown that from 1911 to the 1940s. production per capita increased. At the same time, an increase in the income of Japanese citizens themselves and a decrease in the income of Koreans did not mean an unequal distribution of income between the two groups of the population in Korea. Although Koreans ' income growth was slower than that of Japanese people, Cha Myungsoo writes, there was a trend towards equalizing the average standard of living of Koreans and Japanese. According to Cha Myungsu, the fact that Japanese capital grew much faster than that of Koreans during the years of the colony is not at all connected with the fact that the Japanese authorities allegedly expropriated Korean property, distributed it among Japanese citizens, thereby making them rich. The South Korean researcher explained the growth of capital of Japanese owners by the fact that the Japanese imported capital into Korea, on the basis of which new enterprises were built, securities exchanges were created, and, as a result, capital was increased. According to Cha Myeongsu, "these facts should be properly reflected in textbooks, and any baseless claims should be excluded" (Cha Myeongsu, 2006, p. 337).

Cha Myun-soo, like Kim Naknyeon, writes that Japanese colonialism had a huge impact on the further economic development of Korea after liberation. In his opinion, the modern market economy in Korea was formed during the period of Japanese colonialism. Officials, judges, police officers, directors of firms that make up a kind of managerial structure

page 179
the Korean elite during the years of the colony, remained in their places after liberation, ensuring the continuity of Korea's economic development. The formation of a modern society in Korea also symbolized the reduction of illiteracy, the increase in the number of schools, the introduction of a modern system of private land rights, the development of finance, etc. But, Cha Myungsoo concludes, all the data showing the growth of basic economic indicators during the years of the colony cannot justify the very fact of colonization.

When evaluating the work "Economic Growth of Korea", it is important to keep in mind that even minor changes in the quality of life of the average Korean were perceived by the authors of this book as a kind of socio-economic achievement of the policy of the Japanese General government. For example, Cha Myungsoo writes that if the wages of unskilled labor did not fall or rise, then there was an increase in the wages of skilled workers. Together, the wages of both categories of workers show an increase in the real wages of the working class during the years of the colony by 0.30% per year [ibid., p. 323]. Joo Ikjong, in chapter 9 of "Korea's Economic Growth", which deals with the calculation of individual food consumption expenditures, writes that the level of food consumption per capita in colonial Korea increased by 1.3% per year: "Although the level of rice consumption has fallen, the consumption of other crops has increased, so it is difficult to judge the level of food consumption in the country. reducing the level of food calorie intake in general " [Chu Ikjong, 2006, p. 212]. It may be difficult to judge this, but the question arises: are the growth figures of 1-2% per year indicative in terms of significant changes in the standard of living of Koreans during the Japanese colonial era? I don't think so.

The opposite view of the colonial period is shown by Shin Yong-ha, a proponent of the nationalist approach. His work Ilje sinminzhi jeongchaekkwa sinminzhi geundaehwaron biphan presents the most detailed critical analysis of the theory of colonial modernization (Shin Yeonha, 2006). Shin Yong-ha begins his critique of colonial modernization theory with a simple question :" What is modernization?" In his opinion, modernization implies transformations in all spheres of human life: political, social, cultural and economic. From a political point of view, modernization means moving from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one. Japan, having concluded a merger agreement with Korea in 1910, effectively deprived it of its independent statehood. Such a change in the system of political governance, according to Shin Yong-ha, can in no way be interpreted as"modernization". The establishment of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in Shanghai in 1919 was the first attempt to truly politically modernize Korea, which had been an absolute monarchy before its annexation by Japan. However, Japan did not recognize the Provisional Government, moreover, it tried to eliminate it in various ways [Shin Yeonha, 2006, p. 17].

The lack of political modernization during the years of the colony is also indicated by the fact that the Constitution of the Empire of Japan did not apply in Korea, and the administration was carried out on the basis of decrees and resolutions issued by the Japanese General Government. "The tyranny of decrees," as Shin Yong-ha described the system of government during the colony years, is nothing more than a feudal form of government and cannot be called "modern"in any way. According to the South Korean historian, the elimination of civil rights and freedoms of the Korean population, strict control over political movements within Korea all this, according to the South Korean historian, indicates the reluctance of the Japanese government to politically modernize Korea.

From a social point of view, modernization means, according to Shin Yong-ha, the formation of a qualitatively new structure of society, wordless, based on civil rights and freedoms. The class system in Korea was formally abolished as a result of the Tonghak peasant revolt and the Cape Year reforms of 1894.2 After these events, the number of laws establishing the civil rights of the Korean population began to grow in Korean legislation. This expansion of civil liberties was halted by the establishment of the colonial regime in Korea in 1910. The Japanese Government eliminated the basic civil rights of the Korean population: freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and association.

The lack of basic civil rights and freedoms for the Korean population was a consequence of the colonial regime's discrimination on the basis of nationality. As a

2 In 1894 (the year of Kabo, according to the cyclical name), one of the largest peasant uprisings took place in Korea, led by Tonhaks, followers of the Tonhak religious teaching ("Eastern teaching"). In 1894-1895, a number of bourgeois reforms were carried out, in particular, the Inbans (privileged class) were equalized in rights with the common people, and the Novi (personally dependent population) were abolished.

page 180
Shin Yong-ha's example points to the fact that even with the same work and number of working hours, Koreans received only 50% of the pay of Japanese workers. The principle of "separation of nations" (minjok chhabeol) was fundamental in the organization of governance in various spheres of Korean public life during the years of the colony-education, economic activity, etc. The only social group of the Korean population that had rights during the study period consisted, according to Shin Yong-ha, exclusively of "Korean collaborators" (cheenilpha), who were given high positions and status due to their close ties with the Japanese authorities. In contrast to the "Japanese collaborators", the rest of Korean society was in the position of the lowest disenfranchised class (cheongmin) [Shin Yeonha, 2006, p.18-19]. Given all this, Shin Yong-ha concludes, there is no way to say that the Japanese colonial regime pursued a policy of "social modernization" of Korea.

From the point of view of cultural development, modernization, Shin Yong-ha writes, means a transition from an aristocratic culture to a civil one, which involves various segments of the population. The Japanese, guided by the same principle of "separation of nations", tried to completely eradicate the Korean national culture. After the March Day protests of 1919, despite the increased control of the colonial regime, Korean literature and art developed actively and fruitfully for 15 years. According to Shin Yong-ha, the flourishing of Korean national prose and art during the colonial years should be regarded not as a result of the Japanese policy of "cultural modernization", but as a consequence of resistance and struggle against the Japanese regime. Resisting the pressure of the authorities, Korean artists and literary figures tried to express the strength and power of the Korean spirit in their works, symbolizing the ineradicability of the national culture. What is important here is that resistance, even in the field of art, was accompanied by numerous victims and losses. Shin Yong-ha mentions Korean nationalist poets Lee San-hwa (1901-1943), Lee Yuxa (1904-1941), and Yoon Dong-joo (1917-1945) as some of the many representatives of national culture who were persecuted by the Japanese authorities.

The elimination of the Korean language, in particular the prohibition of speaking it in official institutions, shops, theaters, stadiums and other public places, is a blatant fact of social injustice and national discrimination for critics of the theory of colonial modernization. Shin Yong-ha writes that the address in Japanese was mandatory at the post office, in transport. Those who did not speak Japanese could not purchase a ticket on their own, for example. But despite the existence of such a ban, only 22% of the Korean population in 1943 understood Japanese. Thus, Shin Yeonha concludes, "Koreans, even if they were able to speak, were forced to behave like mutes in life" (Shin Yeonha, 2006, p. 20).

From an economic point of view, modernization, according to Shin Yong-ha, means the transition from feudal economic organization and mode of production to industrial capitalism. To what extent did the Japanese economic policy in Korea really correspond to the urgent tasks of "economic modernization" of the colony?

According to Shin Yong-ha, Japan used Korea, firstly, as a base for supplying food and raw materials, secondly, as a market for selling monopoly products, thirdly, as a source of cheap labor and making super-profits, and, fourthly, as a staging base for invading the continent. The policy of expropriating material and human resources reached its peak during the Second World War. It was at this time that the system of requisitioning food and raw materials, compulsory military service, was introduced. Korean youth were used as a human barrier on the Japanese fronts, and Korean women aged 12-40 years were formed into detachments of" comfort women " in the Japanese army.

In 1910-1918, the Japanese General Government conducted a so-called land census, as a result of which, according to Shin Yong-ha, the Japanese authorities managed to transfer 50.4% of all Korean land to their property free of charge. During the survey, the Japanese General Government "nationalized" former public lands, lands belonging to the royal family, and private properties. Some of the land was leased to Korean farmers, while others were sold at a low price to the Eastern Colonization Society, various land companies, and Japanese private owners.

Shin Yong-ha writes that the agricultural policy pursued by the Japanese General Government contributed to the consolidation of semi-feudal relations in the countryside. This was reflected in the strict conditions of rent. If at the end of the Joseon dynasty, the rent of farmers-arenas-

page 181
if it was about 50% of the crop, then in the years of the colony it increased to 55-60%. Land lease terms, which were previously almost untimely, were limited to one to five years [Shin Yeonha, 2006, p. 23]. By the end of the colonial period, the number of households owned by peasant owners had sharply decreased: from 22.8% in 1913 to 13.9% in 1944. The number of tenant farmers increased from 41.7% in 1913 to 49.2% in 1944.

According to Shin Yong-ha, the introduction of the Companies Act in December 1910 significantly limited the growth of Korean national industry and helped establish a monopoly of Japanese goods on the Korean market. Soviet Korean historians once wrote that in 1919 Japan's share in Korea's exports was 90%, while its share in imports was 65.3% [Istoriya Korei, 1974, vol. 2, p. 27]. Despite some efforts by the Japanese to develop industry in Korea, the share of industry in the total structure of production in 1931 was 23%, while agriculture - 63%. It turns out that Korea still retained the appearance of an agrarian country with little industrial potential.

Shin Yong-ha writes that the objective reasons for the development of heavy industry in Korea lie not in the desire of the mother country to "civilize" its colony, but in the role that it was assigned to implement the aggressive foreign policy strategy of the Japanese Empire. With the outbreak of the Manchurian War in September 1931, Korea was used as a staging base for the invasion of the continent. For this purpose, the Japanese began to actively build enterprises of the military-industrial complex in the northern provinces of Korea (the Hynnam explosives factory, the Changzhingan hydroelectric power station, steel and metallurgical plants, etc.). The factories built belonged to large Japanese corporations - Noguchi, Mitsubishi, Mitsui, and Simitomo. Due to its strategic importance, the territory of the factories was fenced off from the surrounding areas by a fence, put under round-the-clock protection of Japanese military personnel. Koreans who were forcibly conscripted there for labor work were used as labor at the factories. They were different from the ordinary working class, Shin Yeonha writes. In fact, they were convicts who, if they escaped, were treated as military deserters: they could be shot or severely punished.

Shin Yong-ha points out that the Korean military factories built in the 1930s and 1940s were classified in the Japanese General Government yearbooks as ordinary (non-military) industries, while these were enterprises that worked exclusively for the front and the Japanese army. When the Soviets occupied North Korea in 1945, the military factories located there began to be regarded as a trophy of war. On this basis, they dismantled them and sent them piece by piece to the Soviet Union. Shin Yong-ha asks: wouldn't it be wrong to judge the industrialization of the Korean economy or the industrial revolution based on the statistical reports of the General government, when the military industry was deliberately presented as peaceful by the Japanese? To answer this question, it is important to pay attention, according to the historian, to the distribution of capital in colonial industry on a national basis: in 1941, 94% of Korean industrial capital belonged to the Japanese, while Koreans - only 6%.

"Even looking at the statistics of the period of the Japanese colony, in which the military industry of the Japanese army was thoughtlessly included, it is clear that the self-sufficiency of the economy in terms of the structure of industrial sectors was very low. Korea, as before, was in the pre-industrial stage of capitalism. Moreover, if we analyze the state of industry by branch, with the exception of the military, it becomes clear that the Korean industry during the years of the colony was insignificant, weak, and did not reach the level of industrialization, the "industrial revolution"" [Shin Yeonha, 2006, p.26].

Shin Yong-ha criticizes the view popularized today by Japanese neo-militarists, as he calls them, neo-expansionists, and some "Korean collaborators" in Korea, according to which the rapid economic growth of South Korea since 1960 is due to Japanese colonial policies. In order to prove that Korea's economic development since the 1960s owes nothing to Japanese colonialism, Shin Yong-ha suggests paying attention to the following facts.

First, industrial enterprises in Korea were located in districts. By the end of 1940, north of the 38th parallel, there were 82% chemical industries, 90% metallurgical, 79% ceramic, and 64% electric and gas industries%,

page 182
while in the south of Korea there were mainly light industry enterprises: printing - 89%, textile - 85%, food - 65%, woodworking - 65%, etc. [Shin Yeonha, 2006, p. 28]. After the liberation of Korea, the population of the South had to build heavy industry enterprises almost from scratch.

Secondly, Japanese colonial policy was based on the principle of direct administration of the colony. Because of this, only the Japanese became technical specialists, received the necessary skills, abilities and education, while the Koreans were not trained accordingly. After the liberation of Korea, the situation with specialists was catastrophic: for example, there were locomotives, but there were no drivers who could operate them. For this reason, after 1945, Koreans in both the South and the North had to independently train and train new technical specialists.

Third, the capital equipment left over from the Japanese was completely destroyed during the Korean War (1950-1953). After the end of the war, North and South Korea were forced to build new factories.

Fourth, the factories that contributed to the rapid growth of the South Korean economy in the 1960s were built after liberation from the colonial regime. Shin Yong-ha writes: if you select a thousand enterprises from the total number of such factories, you can see that 99% of them were new, built after the liberation.

Shin Yong-ha concludes that there is no consistent link between Korea's rapid economic growth since the 1960s and its colonial legacy. Moreover, after the liberation of Korea, for the free development of Korean society and its modernization, it was necessary to get rid of the colonial legacy. "This applies not only to the time immediately after release, but also to the present. Today, when trying to find out the true state of affairs of the past, the problems of eliminating the remnants of the colonial heritage, Japanese collaborators, are raised, which clearly indicates the existence of this "negative burden of the past" to this day" [Shin Yeonha, 2006, p.29].

Along with the two opposing views on the history of Korea during the colonial period, the nationalist approach and the theory of colonial modernization, there is a third point of view, whose supporters try to smooth out the extremes of the two approaches described above. According to Kang Mangil, " in order to get rid of the extremes of the theory of colonial exploitation and the theory of colonial modernization, you need to look at modernity, capitalism, colonialism, and the nation globally. Until now, discussions about the colonial nature of society or colonial modernization have been conducted from the point of view of one particular nation, at best considering the relations of Japan and Korea, the mother country and the colony. It is precisely this relationship that needs to be critically rethought." As a way to achieve this goal, Kang Mangil suggests using comparative analysis: "if we, for example, find out how much American colonial policy contributed to the modernization of the Philippines, then we may be able to determine in general terms the semantic boundaries and categories of the theory of colonial modernization" [Kang Mangil, 2004, p. 23].

Park Changseung's historiographic review mentions the point of view of the contemporary researcher Kim Dongno, who also tried to take a fresh look at the problem of assessing the colonial past [Kim Donno, 2004]. Kim Donno criticized both approaches, both the theory of colonial exploitation and the theory of colonial modernization, for a certain semantic dogmatism in the understanding of "modernization". He writes that both the theory of colonial modernization and the theory of colonial exploitation interpreted modernization, carried out in one case by external forces, in the other by internal forces, as a uniquely progressive historical process. According to Kim Dongno, the transition from the Joseon era to the present should not be interpreted as a historical development that has an exceptionally positive meaning. The transition to modernity means not so much a progressive or better state of society, but the appearance of such changes in society that did not exist before (cit. by: [Pak Changseung, 2005, p. 50]). Thus, Kim Donno tried to show that modernity is simply a qualitatively new time, which has neither negative nor positive meaning for the historian. With this approach, the question of who carried out the modernization and how, is not of key importance for the study.

A new approach to the era of Japanese colonialism in Korea was demonstrated by the authors of the collective work " Hanguge sinminzhi geundesong. Nejaejok paljollongkwa sinminzhi geundahwaronul nomoso " (Modernity of the Korean Colony: in Search of Overcoming Theory

page 183
internal development and theories of colonial modernization) edited by Shin Giuk, Michael Robinson [Shin Giuk, Robinson, 2006]. Shin Giuk and M. Robinson emphasized that the main goal of the book is to formulate a new approach to the history of the colonial past from a pluralistic perspective and politically unbiased. As an alternative to the theories of colonial modernization and colonial exploitation, each of which, in their opinion, is flawed and biased in its own way in reflecting the historical past, Shin Giuk and M. Robinson proposed their own concept. They depicted the historical space of the Japanese colonial era as the sphere of three interacting concepts: nationalism, colonialism, and modernity (geundesong). They considered it possible to overcome a number of oppositions postulated by proponents of the theory of colonial exploitation: in particular, the oppositions Japanese imperialism national resistance, colonial exploitation national development, Japanese culture - Korean culture [ibid., pp. 41-43].

Shin Giuk and M. Robinson believe that the nature of Japanese colonialism is much more complex than it seems to supporters of the theory of colonial exploitation. While representatives of the latter theory explain the nature of colonialism through exploitation, Shin Giuk and M. Robinson use the concept of cultural hegemony. It involves the use by the authorities of the institutions of education, religion, and the family as a means of instilling new values in the minds of the subordinate population. Such a system of control and management is much more flexible than the system of direct operation, since it is designed to achieve the voluntary consent of the population with the policy pursued by the authorities. The question is, how can one understand the nature of Japanese collaborationism or national reformism that dominated the minds of the Korean intellectual elite in the 1920s and 1930s? It is not by chance that the authors of the work turn to the analysis of Korean everyday life of the colonial era. Changes in the lifestyle of ordinary Koreans are for them indicators of changes in mass culture, the formation and development of Korean modernity.

Shin Giuk and M. Robinson write that in the nationalist approach to history, modernity is not associated with colonialism, since modernity is understood as a state of progress, while colonialism is a period of exploitation and a kind of regression in national development. Moreover, in the nationalist approach, colonialism hinders the advance of modernity. In fact, Shin Giuk and M. Robinson believe that modernity originates precisely in the depths of the colonial regime in Korea, and its nature is complex and confusing. A feature of colonial modernity is the diverse nature of changes. Through education and the media, a new type of person was emerging who did not necessarily hold the Japanese Empire in high regard, but the opposite effect was also possible. That is why, Shin Giuk notes, the relationship between modernity and the cultural hegemony of Japanese colonialism was confusing and ambiguous.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that in modern South Korean historiography, there is no single opinion and view on the colonial modernization of Korea. In addition to the two opposing approaches of the theory of colonial exploitation and the theory of colonial modernization, which have completely different understanding of the nature of Japanese colonialism and the processes of the emergence of Korean modernity, a new trend has emerged in historical research based on a pluralistic view of problems and thus devoid of a certain semantic dogmatism and one-sided assessments in the analysis of the colonial past.

list of literature

History of Korea from ancient Times to the present day, vol. 12, Moscow, 1974.

Ahn Byeongjik. Hanguk gyeongjae seongjangyea-yebijeok kochal (History of the Korean Economy: a preliminary study). Seoul, 2001.

Ilsunkwa sogue sinminthonchhi pigye (Comparative analysis of the policy of colonial administration in Japan and the West) / Ed. Kan Mangil. Seoul, 2004.

Kang Mangil. Ilbonkwa sogue sinminthonchi pigyo (Comparative analysis of the policy of colonial administration in Japan and the West). Seoul, 2004.

Kim Donno. Sin'minzhi shigi ilsanyeenkhvars kundesongkwa sin'minzhisong (Modernity of everyday life of the colonial period and the nature of colonialism) / / Il'zhee sin'min chibeva ilsan senkhval (Everyday life and colonial administration of the Japanese Empire). Seoul, 2004.

page 184
Kim Naknsn. Mori mal (Introduction) / / Hanguge gyeongjae seongjang (1910-1945) (Economic Growth of Korea. 1910-1945). Seoul, 2006.

Park Changseung. Ilzhee sinminzhi chibee kuchzhova songek (Character and Structure of the colonial administration of the Japanese Empire) Ilzhee sinminzhi chibe chonchek yongusa (History of studying the policy of colonial administration of the Japanese Empire). Seoul, 2005.

Shin Yeonha. Ilje sinminzhi jeongchaekkwa sinminzhi geundaehwaron biplane (Colonial policy of the Japanese Empire and criticism of the theory of colonial modernization). Seoul, 2006.

Shin Giuk, M. Robinson. Hanguge xinminzhi geundaesong. Nejaejok paljollongkwa sinminzhi geundahvaronyl nomoso (Modernity of the Korean Colony: in search of overcoming the theory of internal development and the theory of colonial modernization). Seoul, 2006.

Joo Ikjung. Mingan sobichzhichhure chhugs (Calculations of consumption expenditures for private individuals) / / Hanguge gyeongjae songjang (1910-1945). (Korea's economic growth. 1910-1945). Seoul, 2006.

Cha Msnsu. Gyeongjae seongjang, sodeek poonbae, kuchjobenghwa (Economic growth, income distribution, changes in the structure of production) / / Hanguge gyeongjae seongjang (1910-1945). (Korea's economic growth. 1910-1945). Seoul, 2006.

Hanguge gyeongjae sungjang (1910-1945). (Korea's economic growth. 1910-1945)/ Ed. Kim Naknsna. Seoul, 2006

page 185

Permanent link to this publication: