The category of religion is a human construct, shaped by human ideas and by politics and discourse. Consequently, so too is the concept of religious freedom, and likewise are notions of liberation and oppression in the context of religion. This paper argues that discourses on liberation and oppression of religion in modern Korea have been contested and shaped by actors representing diverse religious traditions and national and imperial interests, making our understandings of these concepts subjective and in need of critical re-evaluation.
Religious freedom talk frequently presents religious freedom as a universal norm and ideal, something to be respected and upheld globally. Indeed, many of the world’s nations have included guarantees of religious freedom in their constitutions and laws, even those with opposing political ideologies and those in active conflict with another. This suggests that idea has general universal appeal, but that its specifics are not agreed upon. The differences in practice are not the result of some nations performing mere lip service, but rather of the subjectivity of the concept. Different religious and political interests motivate and inform different understandings of freedom of religion and, conversely, oppression of religion.
The history of religion in modern Korea exemplifies this phenomenon and calls for critical re-evaluation of how liberation and oppression of religion and other spheres of society are understood in the historiography of Korea, and perhaps in the study of religion globally. The pressures and influences of multiple empires, and Korean responses to them, were instrumental in shaping modern ideas of religion and religious freedom in Korea. Likewise, the perspectives of various religious traditions have played an active role in conceptualizing religion and religious freedom. Religious freedom talk in Korea has developed and changed depending on the national and religious affiliations of who is talking. What was considered normal for Korea once became abnormal later, and what was acceptable for some was unacceptable for others. Divergent interests made liberation and freedom in Korean religion debatable concepts, and so we must question and critique narratives of these phenomena in Korean history.
Korea’s Chosŏn dynasty (1392–1897) embraced Neo-Confucianism as the governing ideology of its state and the orthodox ritual tradition of Korean society. This was before the modern vocabulary for “religion” (chonggyo) and “freedom” (chayu) were coined, and such discourse on the matter did not exist then in these terms. When Chosŏn was confronted with the religious ideas of Catholics beginning in the late eighteenth century, however, it faced a challenge to its orthodoxy, to which it responded with violent oppression for nearly a century. This policy was remarkably consistent with aspects of later Japanese colonial policy on religion in Korea, a continuity which is rarely acknowledged. Chosŏn and its immediate successor state, the Korean Empire (1897–1910), faced further challenges related to the idea of religion when it began to sign a series of unequal treaties which allowed greater foreign influence and settlement in Korea. In these treaties and other agreements, religious freedom and its limits became a subject of negotiation. In these negotiations, objectives and concepts of religion and religious freedom were determined by religious and national interests and varied accordingly. Japan forced Korea into protectorate status in 1905 and annexed the country in 1910, ruling it directly under a colonial administration until 1945. During that time, Japanese authorities implemented their own notions of religion which determined what was covered by religious freedom and what was not. This entailed debates over the political nature of some Korean religious movements with goals including Korean liberation, and over whether mandatory Shinto shrine rituals violated religious freedom. Such debates revolved around differing conceptions of what is counted as religion and as religious, rooted in different religious and national perspectives, not in a universal norm. And though Korea is traditionally said to have been liberated from colonial rule in 1945, Japan’s defeat in World War II led to three years of military occupation for Korea by the Allied powers: the United States in South Korea, and the Soviet Union in North Korea. Consequently, religion in Korea was not liberated from imperialism. The conflicting political interests and ideologies of the Cold War superpowers upended the realities of religion in Korea and put into place religions policies that were both presented as modern but diverged considerably in form.
This paper is based on research into a combination of primary and secondary sources materials in Korean, Japanese, English, and other languages. The primary sources elucidate the discursive process of debating and forming religions, along with the religious and political perspectives of the actors which informed their views and policy decisions. These include writings of Korean intellectuals and Korean newspapers in the late nineteenth century, treaties and other diplomatic agreements of Chosŏn and the Korean Empire, laws and regulations of the Korean Empire, laws and regulations and supporting explanatory documents from the Japanese Residency-General and Government-General of Chōsen, and documents of the United States Army Military Government in Korea and other US government documents. The secondary sources provide further insight into the history of religion and politics in modern Korea and inspire critical theoretical approaches to interpreting religion and religious freedom. These include the work of Jonathan Z. Smith and Talal Asad, as well as that of Tisa Wenger, Hwansoo Kim, Jolyon Thomas, Jason Josephson-Storm, Winnifred Sullivan, and others.
This paper has two main objectives. One is to present the Korean case as a representative one for Religious Studies with regard to the political subjectivity of liberation and oppress in connection with the politics of diverse national and religious interests. Few places in the world allow for a study which encompasses such a diversity of religions and national influences all involved in such a short time span. The other is to apply critical theory of religion and secularism to reconsider framing and discourses on liberation and oppression in Korean history, for religion and more broadly, moving from postcolonial narratives toward critical decolonial assessments.
This paper argues that discourses on liberation and oppression of religion in Korea have been contested and shaped by actors representing diverse religious traditions and national and imperial interests, making our understandings of these concepts subjective and in need of critical re-evaluation. The pressures and influences of multiple empires, and Korean responses to them, were instrumental in shaping modern ideas of religion and religious freedom in Korea. Likewise, the perspectives of various religious traditions have played an active role in conceptualizing religion and religious freedom. Religious freedom talk in Korea has developed and changed depending on the national and religious affiliations of who is talking. What was considered normal for Korea once became abnormal later, and what was acceptable for some was unacceptable for others. Divergent interests made liberation and freedom in Korean religion debatable concepts, and so we must question and critique narratives of these phenomena in Korean history.