Abstract
I provide a genealogy and critique of the Korean theological concept of suffering, han. I critique how the concept has been a formative part of the cultural-postcolonial nationalist narrative of Korean spirituality. I look at the historiography of the politicization of han and locate its current theological understanding within the colonial period of Korea (1910–1945). To argue that han forms the core of Korean spirituality is to internalize the beliefs of the colonizers that Koreans suffer from: “the beauty of sorrow” due to the unfortunate geopolitical situation of their country. This idea of sorrow as an aesthetic guiding principle for Koreans was part of the justification for colonizing Korea. This acceptance of han reinforces colonialist opinions about colonized subjects. I problematize the paradigm of han as a theological concept that is unique to Korean culture and argue for a more complex Korean theological discourse.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This article is a revised version of a chapter in my dissertation (Moon 2012).
Spirituality is aptly described as “the totality of a being that expresses itself in ways of life, modes of thinking, patterns of behavior and conduct, and attitudes toward the mystery that surrounds our immediate world and to the depth below depths, and to the light beyond lights” (Song 1979, p. 295).
“Wo/man,” a neologism of feminist liberation theologian Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (1999, p. 186), signifies the limits of focusing solely on a sex/gender identity because we are not a unified social group. Wo/men are a heterogeneous category, fragmented by our multiple subject positions due to race, class, religion, ethnicity, colonial historiography, family roles, and so on. In using the neologism, I recognize and underscore the constantly shifting positions of subjectivity, agency, and vulnerability in a wo/man’s life.
The Chinese character for han— 恨—is the word hen (in Mandarin Chinese), which means hatred. In Japanese, it is enkon or urami, both meaning to “bear a grudge” and “show resentment.” Enkon and urami characterize the unplacated spirit of the deceased.
Harvard theologian Harvey Cox notes that he has asked Koreans to “help me understand this han and they simply smile and tell me it is untranslatable. But they also say it is the indispensable key to understanding not only minjung (Korean liberation) theology, but also the Korean soul itself” (1995, p. 238).
The so-called conservative nationalists have focused on nation-building and the anti-government movements that have opposed foreign influence have focused on resistance strategies, anti-Japanese colonialism, and U.S. imperialism.
1876 is seen as a turning point in Korean history. Crucial events, such as the Treaty of Kanghwa with Japan, led to Korea’s eventual annexation by the Japanese in 1910. This period is an important period for Korea’s transition from the traditional to the modern period of history.
A note on transliteration: I use the McCune-Reischauer system for the Romanization of Korean in this article, except when it comes to proper nouns and names that are traditionally written otherwise (or when the individuals themselves have not chosen to write their names in accordance with the McCune-Reischauer system). The Revised Romanization of Korean has replaced the older McCune-Reischauer system of Romanization of Korean (han’gul) as the official Korean language Romanization. Nevertheless, scholars of Korean studies in the United States have criticized the revised system and have chosen to continue transliteration using the McCune-Reischauer system, so I have followed suit. In places where I have used Japanese words, I follow the Hepburn system for transliteration. Chŏng is written as jeong by many Korean theologians, using the newer Revised Romanization of Korean. I have consulted several scholars in the field prior to the publication of this article to confirm that the McCune-Reischauer system is still the preferred system among scholars of Korean Studies in the United States.
What is important to note in his diary entries is the repetition of his thoughts, feelings, and opinions on topics such as his disappointment in and lack of confidence in Koreans and Korean society, the superiority of Western society, and Christianity as a tool for Korea’s economic prosperity.
In 1883, Yu became the first Korean to study in the United States (Eckert et al. 1990, p. 204). Fukuzawa is considered to be one of the founders of modern Japan.
Again, this is just one example of many such sentiments regarding patriotism.
Such experiences and observations of racism are peppered throughout the volumes of his diaries. I am simply providing a few examples.
Again, I provide just a few examples of his disappointment in Korea. For instance, in volume 2, p. 158, he describes similar feelings about Korea in 1891.
I discuss the colonial origins of the concept of chŏng in my dissertation (Moon 2012).
The word chŏng expresses the idea of a kind of passive beauty and bond that is created over time between people.
In Korean, the museum’s name was Chosŏn Minjok Bang-mul gwan.
In Korean, it is piae-ui mi.
Postcolonial scholar Ranjanna Khanna (2004) argues that almost all colonized nations experienced such colonial melancholia.
The Chosŏn Dynasty period began with the end of the Koryŏ Dynasty in 1392 and lasted until 1910, when the Japanese colonized Korea.
Even as early as the fourth century B.C.E., Aristotle made observations about Asians who apparently lacked spirit (Okihiro 1994, p. 8).
For a more thorough account of the socio-political origins of the minjung movement in South Korea, see the work of sociologist Paul Chang (2008).
David Morris (1993) explicates the various social and cultural meanings of pain and human suffering. He points out the variegated ways in which we as humans attempt to articulate suffering through religion, novels, and other forms of art. As I have argued, Morris also sees pain and suffering as culturally, historically, and psychosocially constructed.
References
Bammer, A. (2012, February). Vulnerable writing and writing about vulnerability. Vulnerabilities and identities: An uncomfortable conversation. Unpublished paper presented at a workshop on Vulnerability at Emory University School of Law, Atlanta, GA.
Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.
Brandt, K. (2000). Objects of desire: Japanese collectors and colonial Korea. Positions, 8(3), 711–746.
Brandt, K. (2007). Kingdom of beauty: Mingei and the politics of folk art in imperial Japan. Durham: Duke University Press.
Chang, P. Y. (2008). Protest and repression in South Korea (1970–1979): The dialectics of movement emergence and evolution (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Cox, H. (1995). Fire from heaven: The rise of Pentecostal spirituality and the reshaping of religion in the 21st century. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Eckert, C. (1999). Exorcising Hegel’s ghosts: Toward a postnationalist historiography of Korea. In G. W. Shin & M. Robinson (Eds.), Colonial modernity in Korea (pp. 363–378). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Eckert, C., Lee, K. B., Lew, Y. I., Robinson, M., & Wagner, E. W. (1990). Korea old and new: A history. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Em, H. (1999). Minjok as a modern and democratic construct: Sin Ch’aeho’s historiography. In G. W. Shin & M. Robinson (Eds.), Colonial modernity in Korea (pp. 336–362). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gilmore, L. (2005). Autobiography’s wounds. In W. S. Hesford & W. Kozol (Eds.), Just advocacy? Women’s human rights, transnational feminisms, and the politics of representation (pp. 99–119). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Ham, S. H. (1985). Queen of suffering: A spiritual history of Korea. London: Friends World Committee for Consultation.
Hobsbawm, E. (1983). Introduction: Inventing traditions. In E. Hobsbawm & T. Ranger (Eds.), The invention of tradition (pp. 1–14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobsbawm, E. (1990). Nations and nationalism since 1780: Program, myth and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Joh, W. H. A. (2004). The transgressive power of jeong: A postcolonial hybridization of Christology. In C. Keller, M. Nausner, & M. Rivera (Eds.), Postcolonial theologies: Divinity and empire (pp. 149–163). St. Louis: Chalice Press.
Khanna, R. (2004). Dark continents: Psychoanalysis and colonialism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Kim, K. H. (2004). Reflections on the problems of colonial modernity and “collaboration” in modern Korean history. Journal of International and Area Studies, 11(3), 95–111.
Lee, N. H. (2011). From minjung to shimin: The discursive shift in Korean social movements. In P. Y. Chang & G. W. Shin (Eds.), South Korean social movements: From democracy to civil society (pp. 41–57). New York: Routledge Publishing.
Lee, R. G. (1999). Orientals: Asian Americans in popular culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Moon, H. (2012). Transforming the paradigm of wo/men’s human rights through intercultural pastoral care: Narratives of vulnerability & contradiction in Korean wo/men’s lives in the colonial and postcolonial period (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Morris, D. B. (1993). The culture of pain. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nakami, M. (2011). In pursuit of composite beauty: Yanagi Soetsu, his aesthetics and aspiration for peace. Victoria: Trans Pacific Press.
Narayan, U. (2000). Undoing the “package picture” of cultures. Signs, 25(4), 1083–1086.
Okihiro, G. (1994). Margins and mainstreams: Asians in American history and culture. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Pai, H. I. (2000). Constructing “Korean” origins: A critical review of archaeology, historiography, and racial myth in Korean state-formation theories. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Park, A. S. (1993). The wounded heart of god: The Asian concept of han and the Christian doctrine of sin. Nashville: Abingdon.
Pratt, M. L. (2008). Imperial eyes: Travel writing and transculturation (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Robinson, M. E. (1988). Cultural nationalism in Korea, 1920–1925. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Robinson, M. E. (2007). Korea’s twentieth-century odyssey: A short history. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Said, E. (1983). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Said, E. (2005). Invention, memory, and place. In P. Leistyna (Ed.), Cultural studies: From theory to action (pp. 256–269). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Schmid, A. (2002). Korea between empires. New York: Columbia University Press.
Schüssler Fiorenza, E. (1999). Sharing her word: Feminist biblical interpretation in context. Boston: Beacon.
Shin, G. W., & Robinson, M. (1999). Introduction: Rethinking colonial Korea. In G. W. Shin & M. Robinson (Eds.), Colonial modernity in Korea (pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Soetsu, Y. (1972). The unknown craftsman: A Japanese insight into beauty. Translated by M. Okamura. New York: Kodansha International.
Song, C. S. (1979). Third-eye theology: Theology in formation in Asian settings. New York: Orbis Books.
Spivak, G. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Thornber, K. (2009). Empire of texts in motion: Chinese, Korean, and Taiwanese transculturation of Japanese literature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wells, K. M. (1995). South Korea’s minjung movement: The culture and politics of dissidence. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Yoo, T. J. (2008). The politics of gender in colonial Korea: Education, labor and health, 1910–1945. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Yun, C. H. (1974). Yun Ch’i-ho’s diary: 1883–1906 (Vols. 2–5). Seoul: National History Compilation Committee.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moon, H. Genealogy of the Modern Theological Understanding of Han 恨. Pastoral Psychol 63, 419–435 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-013-0574-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-013-0574-0