Search

In the context of the legitimacy battle between the two Koreas, a tension exists between utilising cultural heritage to serve the interests of the two respective national-identity projects, and, at times, negotiating it to express the single Korean nation. The theoretical framework we adopt to explore this condition relies on two ideas: heritage as a building block of national identity and 'heritage diplomacy'. By analysing the interplay between the place of martial arts in constructing identities and their 'heritage as diplomacy' practice, we make three contributions: we offer a hitherto unexplored angle on Korean identity-formation processes and inter-Korean relations; we introduce a unique case study pertaining to the involvement of non-Western states in heritage diplomacy; and, we contribute to the scant literature on intangible heritage in heritage diplomacy. More than a sports-diplomacy tool, the case of martial arts reveals the seemingly paradoxical nature of inter-Korean cultural heritage politics: the struggle to reinforce separate Korean national identities by resorting to the same heritage concomitantly contributes, in several ways, to the idea and sense of Korean 'oneness'. The paper also maintains that such inter-Korean collaborations are advantageous in the growing competition among Asian nations for UNESCO's recognition of cultural heritage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

President Park Chung-hee played a predominant role in shaping South Korean history, yet he remains a controversial figure. This paper explores the way this controversy has manifested itself in the memorial landscape and its significance within the context of national identity politics. It is argued that the debate between conservatives and progressives over the memory of Park has complicated the discourse beyond the prevalent focus on ethnic nationalism. The increasing place allocated for Park in the memorial landscape since 2008 is a tangible manifestation of a memory boom that appeared a decade earlier. Thus, the creation of an encouraging atmosphere in this regard can explain the correlation between the establishment of consecutive conservative governments and said trend. The way the memorial landscape has changed has offered an opportunity to think about a form of national identity which is more intricate. However, with the socio-political camps entrenched in their respective positions, the high-profile controversy has reflected the competing agendas and the degree to which the two sides differ on the fundamental components of national identity. The controversy over the memory of Park has thus both reinforced the divide between the political camps and demonstrated the extent to which it is deep. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the relationship between South Korean national identity and the country's patriotic landscape. It attempts to decipher the images and the codes that museums, memorial halls, and monuments transmit to the local audience in order to establish a sense of spatial and temporal sameness and unity among the members of the nation. The analytic tool which is employed for that purpose is the distinction between "mythology" and "memory," which makes it possible to avoid the commonly metaphorical use of the latter term. The framework of the analysis is presented in the form of a historical survey of the interaction between governing mythology, i.e. the dominant narrative preferred and advanced by the state, and collective and personal memories in South Korea. This underscores the fact that the present day natural image of a landscape, which is dominated by images of the colonial past, is actually a late development. Only in the 1980s, when new socio-political conditions allowed for governing mythology and memory to converge and place the colonial past at the forefront of national identity, was this demonstrated by a wave of constructing memorial sites for the colonial past. In this context, it is possible to analyze which images are transmitted and how, and why specifically those images are important. Both external and internal challenges have influenced the decision to base governing colonial mythology on the role of South Korea as the legitimate son, who is responsible for the commemoration of deceased patriots, by relying on a set of familiar cultural and religious images. A highly passionate patriotic language that echoes early twentieth century rhetoric, not only assists in strengthening the connection between the post-colonial South and pre-divided Korea, but it also mirrors the ongoing concern for the stability of the country. Also, the patriotic landscape sanctifies the death of the patriots, though death as a value is not sanctified. This demonstrates the way through which the concept of patriotism, which forms the emotional linchpin of nationalism, is tied to the idea of civic consciousness and the fulfillment of daily national obligations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]