 Okay, it's now five past so let's get started so good afternoon everyone and welcome to today's the center of Korean studies seminar, the second seminar for this week, my name is Anders calls and I'm in the chair of the center of Korean studies today we are very pleased to have with us. It was Kim from Songyeon one university and so was a chemist is currently visiting scholars scholar with us here at the at the center is been that's his last autumn. He's done all of his studies at Songyeon one university is BA and then there is a man is currently working on his PhD dissertation. And he's working on this specialist on the social history of the career period. And yes, published on that in various renowned journals that today is going to talk about the topic that is not only relevant for the history of Korea period but actually for our understanding of the broader and the longer developments of Korean history. And this is how to understand the character of the social elite in the Korean period as many of you will know that is a very important part of understanding the transition between Korea and choice and is also set within the kind of context of. The national list of historiography arguing against the colonial historiography. So I'm sure this will be a very enlightening and very important discussion. So, before he also came starts I would just also let you know that Dr. Owen Miller is co chairing the seminar today, and it might be that the Miller who is in charge of the Q&A session afterwards. I'm surprised there's another phase. So, no further ado. So here's Kim, please. We will be looking forward to your talk. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for giving me this very, very chance to make a presentation at CKS before starting this talk. Yeah, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Joseph Kim. I'm a business scholar at the center of Korean studies so as a PhD candidate in my home university, Sungkyung University. And I'm currently preparing my dissertation about the distinguished families pedigrees of the Goryeo society in the 10th to 13th centuries. I want to figure out whether we can regard the ruling class of Goryeo society as an aristocracy. If not, how can we understand the ruling class of the Goryeo society. I will show my PPD. Yeah, the title of my talk is the making of Goryeo aristocracy in Korean historiography. Especially in Korea historiography, the ruling class has been identified as an aristocracy or Goryeo in Korean. Two cultural assets put on the screen are understood as the representative cultural assets showing the aristocratic culture of Goryeo society. This term aristocracy or Goryeo in Korean doesn't originate from historical materials. This term rarely appears in historical materials. This term has been introduced to demonstrate that Korean history has been a process of development, especially following the proper path of historical development. This means that the term aristocracy reflects the specific perspective in terms of wanting to understand the Goryeo dynasty in the course of Korean history. This term is recognized as a term expressing the ruling class in the Goryeo dynasty after academic discussion. In this regard, it is important to figure out how the term aristocracy was formed and established as a term to define the ruling class of Korea to understand Korean historiography. I'm going to divide this talk into two parts. For example, I will explain the theory of internal development called Dedejeokpal Jeollun in Korean, because this term aristocracy was adopted within the context of this theory. And then I will go on to identify where the research of Goryeo historiography is located in the theory of internal development. Through this, we will find out where the discussions regarding the ruling class in Goryeo society as an aristocracy have had a place in this historiography. Next, based on this discussion, I will dive into the debate of the aristocracy. In this part, I will examine the theory of aristocracy and the debate related to this theory in Goryeo's corridor. I'd like to begin this talk by explaining the theory of internal development, Dedejeokpal Jeollun. This theory was a new methodology and historical perspective of Korean historiography. Having developed in South Korea, North Korea, and Japan in the 60s to 70s, this theory had argued Korean history had kept being developed and Korean society had had the inner power to follow the proper historical root of development from ancient society to modern society. Many researchers have discussed this theory, but for the convenience of the talk, I will mainly focus on the discussion in South Korea. It is necessary to examine the origin of this theory at first. This was originated from the colonial view of Korean history, presented by Japanese historians. Korea was colonized by the Japanese for a period of 36 years from 1910 to 1945, as you know. It was widely believed by Japanese historians that Korean society had fallen behind in terms of development, compared to Japan and the West. They had tried to prove that Korean society didn't reach the stage to achieve modern society on its own. It had been linked to the justification for the colonization. The Japanese Empire had emphasized that they modernized Korean society based on this supposed historical underdevelopment. Their argument was as follows. Korean history hadn't gone through the universal development of society and was stagnant. As a result, this society could not accumulate its inner power to accomplish modern society. Korean society had no choice but to wait for an external force to modernize. This colonial view of Korean history was synthesized in the book, Gyo-seon-sa, put on the right side of screen, published by Gyo-seon-sa-pyeon-su-hye. This argument can be divided into two parts. First, Korean history had failed to follow the universal historical path unlike Japan. It is called the theory of stagnation, called Jung-chae-sung-roon in Korean. This theory insisted on the absence of medieval feudal society or the immature medieval society in Korean history in terms of economic development. It means that the Korean society failed to reach the previous stage of modern society, so its society didn't have any chance to achieve modern society. Second, the Korean society didn't have the inner power to modernize, so it needed an external force. We called it the theory of heteronomy. Yeah, Tire Song-roon in Korean. This argument was deeply related to the first point, the theory of stagnation, because Korean history failed to comply with the universal law of historical development. They couldn't have factors like private land ownership, capital accumulation, wage labor, etc., to accomplish the transformation into a modern society. Consequently, Korean society being stagnant should rely on an external force to modernize. Several Korean historians have refuted this perspective of Japanese historians and tried to prove the development of Korean history. This movement could be separated into two streams. First, nationalistic history led by Shin Chae-ho, who had been active in the colonial period. The nationalistic historians had criticized the colonial view of Korean history and stressed the independent historical development of Korean nationality, concentrating on national spirit and national culture and so on. They wanted their view to lead to an independence movement. However, this perspective was lacking systematic and scientific methodology to prove their argument. Another stream was the Marxist historian history led by Peng Nam-un, shown on the right side of the picture screen. These historians insisted Korean history was a part of world history and the universal law of historical development had applied to Korean history. To prove this, they demonstrated that Korean history had stepped through the stages of an ancient slavery society and medieval feudal society. Joseon Sawei 경제사 shown on the screen. Joseon Bong-gun Sawei 경제사 written by Peng Nam-un were representative studies. Although their analysis admitting the necessity of external force didn't entirely overcome the theory of stagnation, their argument could be evaluated as a full-scale computation against the view of Japanese historians. In 1945, Korea gained independence from the Japanese Empire. In this political situation, an animated discussion took place to understand the development of Korean history. Marxist historians tried to eliminate that Korean history had followed the universal law of historical development by emphasizing the mode of production and relations of production. On the other hand, neo-nationalist historians stressed the activities of a unified, integrated Korean society while demonstrating the development of Korean history. However, they could not overcome the colonial view of Korean history entirely, accommodating external factors and the lack of inner power to achieve modern society. In 1950, the Korean War had broken out, this war had caused anti-communist feeling to be strengthened, and then the dictatorial government led by Isengman seized power until 1960, based on this anti-communism ideology. Many Marxist historians had gone to North Korea and the neo-nationalist historians had been kidnapped and taken to North Korea in the middle of the Korean War. There was no place to argue Marxist history and nationalist history in South Korea. Marxism was seen as the same as communism in the circumstance, so it was impossible to put forward research based on Marxist history. Moreover, Korean nationality included not only South Korea but also North Korea, so it was not easy to highlight Korean nationality under the anti-communism government. As a result, positivist historians, Chilchung Juizha in Korea, who had studied Korean history under the Japanese scholars at the university established by the Japanese Empire, took a mainstream position in history academia. They criticized the application of huge theory like historical materialism into the historical study. They struggled to substantiate Korean history under the theory of stagnation and autonomy. Through their studies, they tried to diagnose the vagueness of Korean history. They hoped for their study to help Korean society achieve modern development, so they didn't try to overcome the colonial view of Korean history. However, in the late 50s, several researchers like Cheon Kwan-woo, Kim Yong-sup, tried to rebuild the developmental aspects of Korean society. They were taught under the neo-nationalist historians before the Korean War. They mainly focused on showing that late Joseon society had had the potential to progress to a modern society. As we have seen so far, the understanding of Korean history had been influenced by the colonial view of Korean history called the theory of stagnation and autonomy until the 1950s. Even though Marxist historians and nationalist historians tried to compute the arguments of Japanese historians, they conceded that the progress of Korean history hasn't been as best as the West and Japan, and Korean society had needed the external power for modernization. The circumstance changed along with the political situation. In 1960, the April 19th revolution, called Sae-il-gu Hyuk-myung in Korea, occurred to resist the dictatorship government of Lee Seung-man. Lee Seung-man stepped down and his government, which had stressed anti-communism, collapsed due to this revolution. In 1965, Korean-Japan talks for the normalization of diplomatic relations commenced. This talk evoked in Korean people the feeling of danger about the revival of the Japanese Empire. In this political situation, nationalism forbidden under the previous regime reappeared in South Korea society. The methodology of Marxist history was able to be used for historical study under the name of socioeconomic history. This situation allowed historians to inherit the tradition of Marxist history and nationalist history and overcome the colonial view of Korean history. This feedback unfolded the first-scale criticism towards the colonial view of Korean history. In the introduction of Guk-sa-sil-lun, this book is shown on the screen. This book compiled in 1961. It categorized the colonial view of Korean history into four kinds of theories. The theory of peninsula characteristics, called Bandujok-seong-kyung-lun in Korea, the theory of Taoism, called Sa-dae-jui-lun in Korea, and the theory of partiality, called Dangpa-seong-lun in Korea, and the theory of stagnation, called Jeong-che-seong-lun in Korea. It criticized these theories and suggested that historians should reveal the developmental process of Korean history in the light of the universal law of world history. Kim Yong-seop was the first historian who has started empirical research to substantiate the development of Korean history, especially the transition toward modern society. He focused on agriculture in the late Joseon period to uncover the potential of capitalism. Through his research, he desired to prove that Korean society had the inner power to develop into a capitalistic society without any external influence. Many Korean historians agree with their perspective. Their developmental view of understanding Korean history gradually had been held mainstream in South Korea academia. In this atmosphere of academia, the Association for Korean Historical Studies, and Hanguk-sa-yong-gu-ae, was established in 1967. The historians involved in this academic society emphasized the necessity for investigating Korean history with the developmental view. They tried to figure out the original progress of Korean society, considering Korean history was also part of global history, complying with the universal law of world history. This stream is named the theory of internal development. The theory of internal development could be divided into two streams. One stream was a periodization in Korean history, the other was the theory of capitalism, called taboongi bengarun in Korean. The periodization in Korean history aimed to prove that Korean history kept progressing. Through this, historians intended to refute the theory of stagnation in the colonial view of Korean history. Basically, Korean history was divided into three parts following the Marxist view of historical development, ancient society, medieval society, and modern society. For the periodization, many historians suggested standards to divide Korean history. Also, several conferences were held. Hanguk-sa-yong-gu-ae shown on the screen was the fruition of this effort. However, historians failed to draw consensus with regards to standards for the organization of Korean history. The theory of capitalism sprouted taboongi bengarun set its sights on verifying that Korean society in the late Joseon period had the potential to reach capitalist society without external force, especially the Japanese colonial life, colonization. It was for disproving the theory of heteronomy, which insisted that Korean society needed to wait for the external effect for modernization. Historians made an effort to search for evidence for the sprout of capitalism from diverse aspects of late Joseon society. Historians mainly took note of large-scale farming, shilha, wage labor, change of status system, etc., in the late Joseon era as a sprout of capitalism or modern society. Lots of research had been conducted based on the theory of internal development to overcome the colonial view of Korean history. However, the focus of this theory was to find the capitalism sprout in the late Joseon period. Historians had organized Korean history and substantiated the indigenous process toward modern society in the 60s to 70s, following the theory of internal development. The political situation during the 70s to 80s had influenced the academic field of Korean history as well. The military dictatorship government had established the Yushin system called Yushincheje in Korea and created a repressing political situation. The democratization movement had been carried out fiercely. In this situation, a criticism toward the theory started being raised. It said that the theory of internal development had merely concentrated on organizing the progress of Korean history and hadn't focused enough on the transforming agents. Although this criticism insisted that we should highlight the people called Minjong in Korean, who had been the transforming agents of historical development. Based on this criticism, many historians had conducted extensive research to investigate the role of the people, Minjong, and build up Korean history led by the people. The new trend of historical research was named the People's History called Minjong-sa in Korean. Although the People's History criticized the theory of internal development and emphasized the people who had been in charge of transforming Korean history, it consented to the basic concepts of the internal development of Korean history. To briefly review the theory of internal development so far, let's turn now to identify where the position of research for Korea, especially the ruling class in Korea society, was in the context of this theory of internal development. Studies on Korea were deeply related to the periodization of Korean history. The Goryeo dynasty generally had been acknowledged as the turning point between ancient society and medieval society. Several researchers had indicated tenders to determine the exact moment of transition between ancient society and medieval society. For example, Igibek pointed out the period of Shilla Goryeo transition in the 9 to 10 centuries based on the evolution of the ruling class. Kim Cheol-joon proposed the period of the Shilla Goryeo transition as well. However, he stressed the importance of the change of tinship structure as a standard of periodization in Korean history. On the other hand, Kang Jin-cheol asserted the period of the military regime in the 12th to 13th centuries had been a turning point. He thought the shift of the exploitation relationship between the government and the governed class should be understood as a criterion to modernize Korean history. Detailed kinds of research had been conducted based on respective perspectives. Thanks to these studies, many aspects of Goryeo society were revealed, but the consensus had been established. Taking this diverse perspective of periodization into account, we can know that studies on the ruling class in Goryeo society was associated with Igibek's viewpoint. Igibek had regarded the transition of the ruling class from ancient to modern times as an indicator of historical development in Korean history. He especially emphasized an aspect that the ruling class could participate in politics had been expanded. He insisted that this transition indicated historical development in Korean history. Also, he thought we could find out features of each society by examining the ruling class. Based on his perspective, he had examined the ruling class in Goryeo society, and he had defined this ruling class as aristocrats, called gui juk in Korean. After Igibek's perspective was proposed, lots of research on the ruling class in Goryeo society was done. They tried to verify whether his argument was correct or not. This research was based on his perspective, underlining the change of ruling class in Korean history. However, the ruling class of Goryeo society conventionally had been named aristocrats, gui juk, before his perspective, Igibek's perspective, was suggested. Looking into research on the Goryeo dynasty written before the theory of internal development in the 1960s, the ruling class in Goryeo society was called aristocrats, gui juk. An example is shown on the screen. But as we have seen, an implication of this term, aristocrats, was different from the aristocrats, which Igibek used. At that time, aristocrats was used as a collective term to indicate all the ruling classes of pre-modern dynasties in Korean history, not considering the difference between each dynasty. That is, aristocrats had been utilized to refer to not only the ruling class of Goryeo society, but also other dynasties ruling classes like Shilla and Joseon ruling class. So this term used before the 1960s to show the characteristic of each dynasty's ruling class and to present the future of Goryeo society in the course of Korean history. It was because academia of Korean history didn't concentrate on revealing the development aspect of Korean history under the influence of the colonial perspective. The concept of aristocrats as the ruling class in Goryeo society started becoming specific in the circumstance of suggesting the theory of internal development in the 1960s. Several researchers like Igibek and Pyeongtaesup had researched the ruling class in Goryeo. They had revealed distinctive characteristics of the ruling class called aristocrats in Goryeo society, distinguished from other ruling classes. Due to their research, a foundation of understanding for the ruling class in Goryeo society was constructed. This understanding of aristocrats of Goryeo was recognized that showing the characteristic of Goryeo society in the perspective of internal development. We have called this perspective as the theory of aristocracy. Yeah, Kyujoksaweron or Kyujokjaeron in Korea. Although there were several differences between researchers in some points, the consensus contents about aristocrats are as follows. Goryeo society emphasized family and blood rather than personal ability. Based on their blood, aristocrats in Goryeo society could enjoy immense political, economic and social benefits. Furthermore, the aristocrats' political power overwhelmed the power of the kings and led the affairs of the state. They formed the higher ruling class by having overlapped marriage with each other exclusively. This exclusive marriage prevented the lower ruling class members from entering their group. Eumseoje Gong Eumjeon were the main systems to support the aristocrats' class. First of all, the Eumseoje was an employment system helping them hand their political and social status down to their descendants. The Eumseoje was a system that gave a public position to descendants whose ancestors had performed distinguished contributions to their dynasty or had been promoted to high-ranking government positions. The ruling class in Goryeo society, including the aristocrats, existed as bureaucrats. They should become bureaucrats to be the ruling class in this society. Their status rested on how high a public post was, how high a public position was. It means that the aristocrats needed to get high-ranking positions to keep their status. In this situation, the Eumseoje ensured that they took the high-ranking positions needed to maintain their power and status. Gong Eumjeon helped them to keep their economic foundation for their descendants. Gong Eumjeon was a system that gave land to people with public offices above a certain level. A certain level means public positions above the fifth-ranking or higher-ranking positions. The receiver's descendants could inherit this land. The aristocrats could get huge land due to their high-ranking public post and hand this down to their offspring. In addition, the land I referred to above means the right to collect taxes from the ground they had received. Although the basic understanding of the aristocrats in Korean society was established in the 1960s, there were not enough studies demonstrating the characteristics of the aristocrats suggested by several scholars. Since the 1970s, the debate concerning the theory of aristocracy has broken out and it has been continued for about 35 years. I will organize this debate in chronological order and then I will evaluate this debate. In the early 1970s, historian Park Chang-hee criticized the theory of aristocracy in the Goryeo dynasty and argued that Goryeo society needed to be categorized as a bureaucratic society because the ruling class of this society were bureaucrats, not aristocrats. This argument caused a heated debate about how to appreciate the character of the ruling class in Goryeo society. After Park Chang-hee's disengaged from the debate, the theory of aristocracy was concretized and maintained its place as conventional wisdom in the field of Goryeo history. This book on the screen organized this debate by gathering several articles related to this debate. This debate unfolded along two axes. The first axis was the concept of aristocratic society and bureaucratic society. The second thing was which employment system of the bureaucrats had been more important in this society. Let's look at them in turn. Park Chang-hee who suggested the theory of bureaucracy criticized the concept of aristocratic society that underpinned the theory of aristocracy. He said that the concept had no differences from a general caste society and that its explanation were not sufficient to rebuild distinctive characteristics of Goryeo society. Furthermore, he explained that his concept of the bureaucratic society was based on the ideas of patrimonial bureaucracy proposed by Max Weber. One advocate for the theory of aristocracy, Park Yong-hoon, refuted Park Chang-hee's critique. First, he pointed out that Park Chang-hee's concept did not match Max Weber's. He said that in a patrimonial bureaucracy, kings would be able to operate this bureaucracy arbitrarily regardless of the caste system, the social status system. However, Goryeo's kings could not make arbitrarily decisions in the bureaucracy at all and the kings had to operate their bureaucracy under the limitation of caste system already in place. Furthermore, Park Yong-hoon proposed his own notion of Goryeo aristocrats and aristocratic society. He defined aristocrats as the people of privileged blood who inherited their caste from their ancestors and who enjoyed various privileges because of this. He also explained that an aristocratic society was a society in which the aristocrats exclusively had the important post and operated the political, social and economic levels of power. He highlighted that Goryeo society had placed emphasis on blood rather than on personal ability. He said that Goryeo's aristocrats had unique characteristics that distinguished from them from the ruling classes of other societies in that they were bureaucratic aristocrats. Their status was deeply connected to whether they had public office and whether their rank was high. So there was a tendency for public positions to be inherited in Goryeo's aristocratic society. Now let me assess the other side of this debate about what had been more important between Eun Seo-jae and Gua Geo-jae as an employment system. Gua Geo-jae is the civil examinations. Park Chang-hee argued that the civil examination was more important than Eun Seo-jae when Goryeo's government hired bureaucrats. The civil examinations was based on personal ability, especially literature ability, writing skill, and knowledge of Confucian classics, not blood or blood family status. The bureaucrats who were employed by the civil examinations led affairs of state. Based on this reasoning, he insisted that Goryeo society had been a bureaucratic society. Furthermore, he said that Eun Seo-jae should have been interpreted differently. The Eun Seo-jae was merely a hiring system that gave bureaucrats descendants the first appointments to compensate bureaucrats' contribution. The Eun Seo-jae didn't assure them of being promoted to high-ranking positions. So by this reasoning, it is difficult to interpret Eun Seo-jae as an institutional foundation for an aristocratic society. Several researchers who supported the theory of aristocracy refuted Park Chang-hee's argument. They tried to show that the civil examinations had also been used by aristocrats to inherit influence in Goryeo society. They admitted that personal ability had been essential to be civil examinations and these examinations had played a significant role in the employment of bureaucrats. However, they did not accept that the civil examinations had been operated only based on personal capacity. They emphasized that family status and blood influenced the civil examinations itself. In addition, they reasserted that Eun Seo-jae had been an institutional strategy to assure Goryeo aristocrats that they would keep their social status by inheriting public offices. Park Chang-hee declined to continue debating with the researchers who had supported the theory of aristocracy after they had attempted to refute the bureaucracy theory. Thus, the theory of aristocracy was able to maintain the status of conventional wisdom. We have so far reviewed the 70s debate over how to discern the ruling class in Goryeo society. Although researchers' opinions were divided into two parts regarding the nature of the ruling class, they all agreed with the theory of internal development. Park Chang-hee refuted the theory of aristocracy in his research on the developmental stage where Goryeo society had been situated in Korean history. The point of this debate was to figure out when the ruling class had been transformed from aristocrats based on blood to bureaucrats based on personality, not to confirm whether Korean history had been developed or not. During this dispute, the theory of aristocracy was concretized. Many studies were published to deepen this theory even after this dispute had finished. Specifically, some points of this theory, such as the institutional and social foundations of the aristocrats, the relationship between kings and aristocrats, and the time of the first appearance of aristocratic society were clarified. However, there was one point on which researchers who supported the theory of aristocracy failed to build a consensus. It was the category of Goryeo's aristocrats. It was essential to verify the boundary distinguished aristocrats from other class members in order to understand this society as an aristocratic one. But ascertaining where this line was drawn was not trivial as there were no laws regulations formally separating aristocrats from other groups in Goryeo society. Thus, although several researchers suggested various criteria based on historical materials, they could not reach an agreement. Before we move on to the next part, it is necessary to point out that a number of factors were being seriously considered when researchers tried to establish their criteria for the aristocrats. These factors were the continuity of family, producing high ranking officials, producing meritorious subject, marriage into the royal family, etc. This debate resumed in the late 1990s. The theory of aristocracy encountered criticism once again. Yusun-won published an article shown on the left side of the screen questioning the theory of aristocracy in 1997. These two articles are main articles related to the 90s debate. The right article is the Bagumon's article. Yusun-won criticized this theory along three lines. First, whether the concept of aristocrats and aristocratic society was double. Second, whether the aristocrats' privileges, especially their inheriting of high-ranking positions, were legally guaranteed. Third, what characteristics of the aristocratic class in this society had. The first two aspects had already been addressed in the 1970s debate, and the last point was newly suggested in this debate. Let's look into the issues of this debate in turn. The first issue is the concept of aristocrats and aristocratic society. Yusun-won defined aristocrats as those whose privileges were legally recognized by their innate status or blood, and who could inherit their privileges from their ancestors. Yusun-won further described an aristocratic society as one in which the aristocrats had achieved a dominant position in the society's ruling class. Based on these concepts, he criticized that aristocracy and aristocratic society used in the theory of aristocracy could not be understood as an aristocracy and aristocratic society and were not distinguished from other societies' ruling class. Park Yong-won criticized Yusun-won's stressed legal aspects so much that his concept was established narrowly. Park Yong-won insisted that the customary and social aspects should be considered also when coming up with the concept of aristocrats, not just the legal aspects. The second issue was whether there had been legal privileges ensuring aristocrats had produced high-ranking officials. This issue deeply related to Kwa Geo-jae, the civil examination, and Eun Seo-jae. Yusun-won insisted that there had been no institutional measures to ensure that aristocracy had hand their political, social, and economic power down to their descendants. According to Yusun-won in Kwa Geo-jae, the civil examinations and Eun Seo-jae were not operated only for the upper ruling class aristocracy. This employment system were operated based on personal ability and contribution or loyalty to Goryeo's king, not blood. However, Park Yong-won criticized Yusun-won's view that highlighted the legal aspects so rigidly and stressed that the actual operation of this system should be the focus. According to Park Yong-won, there was in practice no difficulty faced by the aristocrats in inheriting their high-ranking positions to maintain their social status by utilizing the Eun Seo-jae and the civil examinations. The last part of this debate was how the aristocratic class had existed in Goryeo society. In this aspect was the point that was newly brought up in the 1990s debate. Yusun-won criticized the previous point of view saying that it failed to determine the original characteristics related to how the ruling class had existed in Goryeo society. It claimed several distinctive characteristics of the upper ruling class in Goryeo society. At first, he pointed out this period had not been that wrong compared to the maintenance period of the ruling classes of other societies. The evaluation was based on how many generations in a row the upper ruling class had produced high-ranking officials. The high-ranking positions used by Yusun-won, meaning second-rank or higher position called Jeju in Korea. By extensions, he argued that consciousness of the pedigree in the society had not been formed. He identified it through the phenomenon that intermarriage between prominent families and emerging families had not been excluded. This phenomenon reflected the fact that maintenance of aristocratic status was unstable due to the social circumstance in which new families could become prominent families in a short period. Park Yong-won criticized that the criterion used by Yusun-won was too strict, and he suggested a family which had produced officials who had had a fifth-rank or higher position over three generations was considered an aristocratic family. Based on his criteria, Park Yong-won argued that the maintenance of the status of an aristocratic family had been stable and consciousness of kind shared between the aristocratic class had been strong. Furthermore, he stressed that the network of intermarriage constructed among the aristocratic class had been exclusive and that this network had shown the intensity of their consciousness of kind had been formed. Thus far, we have covered some of the particulars of the 90s debate. This debate has similar points of discussion to the 1970s debate. However, a new point was raised in the more recent dispute. It concerned the social custom of the upper ruling class in Gora society. This point was related to how the upper ruling class had existed in Gora society. This new point could have offered the chance to broaden the discussion about the ruling class in Gora society. However, like in the 70s debate, this 90s debate between the two researchers did not continue. Yusun-won did not release further articles in order to strengthen and demonstrate his argument. In addition, his argument failed to produce a supporting consensus among researchers, although Yusun-won proposed a lineage of society called Boombul society in Korea in place of an aristocratic society. The term lineage society means a society in which hereditary privileges based on specific blood were ensured socio-customary but not legally. As a result, Yusun-won's argument did not lead to a heated discussion on the characteristics of Gora society. In the late 2000s, the theory of aristocratic society encountered criticism again in terms of the structure of the political institutions. In the theory of aristocracy, Gora's political system was understood as follows. The aristocratic political power overwhelmed the power of kings. Aristocrats led the affairs of the state in place of kings and the political institutions had been built reflecting this political relationship between king and the aristocracy. The aforementioned criticism of that idea was proposed by Park Jae-hoon. His book was shown on the right side of screen. He had criticized the argument that the power of Goryeo King had been restricted by the aristocracy. He stressed that the Goryeo King had been the key figure in the structure of the political institutions. To prove his argument, he revealed that the Goryeo King had been the final decision maker in the political system and that the king had wielded that right without particular difficulty. Furthermore, he also found that high ranking officials from the aristocratic families had not exclusively dominated the official gathering that determined the important affairs of the state. In the late 2010s, Park Jae-hoon criticized the aristocratic society theory directly. He also emphasized that the ruling class in Goryeo society had had the characteristic of bureaucrats. First of all, he defined aristocrats as those who had had an independent foundation inherited as a result of their blood regardless of the king. This notion was based on western medieval aristocrats. He further pointed out that the ruling class in Goryeo society could not be comprehended as aristocrats because they had not exclusively inherited their privileges based on their blood or family status. Next, he insisted that Eum Seo-jae, Kwa Geo-jae, Gong Eum-jeon, which had been indicated as the institutional foundations or privileges underpinning Goryeo's aristocratic society, should be understood as systems operating for all bureaucrats, not for aristocrats. Finally, he stressed that although there were several pedigrees who had produced high-ranking officials over several generations and had married other pedigrees, including the royal family, had existed in this society, and their status had been built on the bureaucracy in which the king had taken the central position. He also stressed they had maintained an identity as bureaucrats, not aristocrats. Additionally, he pointed out that the Goryeo dynasty had taken an important position in Korean history as the turning point when the ruling class had transitioned from aristocrats to bureaucrats. His argument was similar to Park Chang-hee's, who had raised the theory of bureaucratic society in the 70s. We have so far looked into the debate regarding what the character of Goryeo society has been. This debate has mainly proceeded to prove whether the theory of aristocratic society was the proper perspective by which to understand Goryeo society. The theory started to be established in the 1960s. Its content had been concretized amidst the debate in the 70s and again later in the 90s, concerning the character of Goryeo society. The theory has enjoyed the position of conventional wisdom since its inception. However, nowadays the theory of aristocratic society is losing that position. Several scholars have continued to criticize this theory on several fronts. Some of the key grounds that have supported this theory have lost their validity as a result of this criticism. As a result, the argument that Goryeo society should not be understood as an aristocratic society has received a wider consensus. Almost historians. Apart from this factor, I think there is another reason why the theory of the aristocratic society has lost its influence. It is relevant to the theory of internal development in Korean history. Until the 1990s, the theory of internal development had an important place in investigating the progress of Korean history. However, after this, this theory encountered criticism of its own. Some researchers stated this theory could not properly explain the development of Korean history. Since it had been based on the Western historical theory, historical model, they stressed that Korean history had taken a different path than Western history and insisted that it was necessary to have an alternative perspective to comprehend Korean history. These circumstances undermined the influence of the theory of internal development in the field of Korean history. This in turn weakened the theory of aristocracy. It was because aristocracy theory had been established and discussed in the context of the theory of internal development. The researchers had not gradually agreed with the basic perspective of the theory of aristocratic society and they hadn't studied Korean history grounded on its perspective. Although the theory of aristocratic society is gradually losing its influence, the reasoning still provides some interesting discussion points necessary to understand Korean society in terms of how the ruling class existed. The criticisms of the theory have focused on certain aspects like the concept and the institutional foundation such as the civil examinations and political power. They asked which social privileges the ruling class had, which social privileges the ruling class had enjoyed and how they had existed socially were not at the center of this debate. Although the researcher had raised issues regarding this element. These issues have been interpreted based on this theory and these points remain the core grounds supporting aristocracy theory. I think these points are important to figure out how the ruling class operated and existed in reality. At this point, irrespective of whether one advocates the arguments of the theory of the aristocratic society or not, the theory provides key context and points for discussion, such as the intermarriage cases, the consciousness of kind between the ruling class and family influence in the promotion process. These issues are significant to understanding Korean ruling class and Korean society. So it is necessary to discuss the issues produced by this theory, regardless of its stability. In this sense, the theory of aristocratic society has still an effect on the study of Korean history. Thank you for listening to my talk. Thank you very much, Yozo. So, yes, thanks to Yozo Kim for a very, very, very interesting talk and very clear and concise explanation of complex series of historiographical debates stretching all the way from the 1930s up to the 2000s. To summarize all that in a one hour talk is a really an achievement. So I think people have learnt a lot here. So, yeah, as you can see, Dr. Carlson had to leave a bit early so I'm going to take over chairing. We have already a couple of questions in the Q&A, but basically if people want to ask a question, you can put those into the Q&A. I will also have a look at the chat that gets a bit complicated. I think if I can just check with Charles, people can also ask questions directly. People can also raise their hand and we can give them permission to talk so they can ask their question. Okay, okay, that's fine. So, yeah, we can just take the first couple of questions from Michelle Crocker in the Q&A. I will just read these out. So, you mentioned early in the presentation that Japanese opinion that Korea was backward, and that was an excuse for the occupation. Was there any major or significant event that triggered this or were they looking for a reason to invade? Also what, so I guess, is that a, I guess that's a question about the origins of Japanese colonial rule, which maybe is a bit outside of the scope of this talk. Also, what if any attempts were made as a result of the Japanese occupation to spin Korean history in schools and justify their presence in Korea. I think that's an interesting question, certainly. I think maybe you could address that. What kind of, what kind of Korean history education existed during the colonial period in occupied Korea. The second question from Michelle is, was there, was any literate male committed to attempt the exams? I assume the civil service exams, or was there social restrictions? And I guess this means in the colonial period. So, perhaps, Hoseop, could you answer those questions about the history education in the colonial period and about the exams eligibility for examinations. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for your comment question. Yeah, the first question is tricky, I haven't think about these questions. So I, I want to answer the second question at first. So in Korea, yeah, the literature may permit basically permitted to attempt to the exam, the civil exams, except for the slaves. But in Korea, there are several subjects in civil examinations. So, only one, the highest value subject is was restricted. Only for only, yeah, the central, central class and local ruling class could only, yeah, permitted to attempt this subject. This subject name is, yeah, Jesu Qua, this Jesu Qua exam, the literature ability, rather than the knowledge of Confucian knowledge of Confucian classics, except for this Jesu Qua, basically the literature mayor can, yeah, attempt exams. Yeah. And, yeah, but yeah, in practice, it is hard to, yeah, attempt the exam, except for the ruling class. And in connection with that, there's a there's another question from Michelle in the chat, which is about sumptuary laws. So I guess this is another, I think this is an important question because it's another way of distinguishing a social layer that you might identify as key job or aristocracy. And by that, I mean, if people don't understand what they mean, sumptuary laws means laws, which would, which would restrict the kinds of consumption which different social classes can can engage in so for example in I think various periods of Korean or Chinese history, the type of cloth, which could be used by commoner people was restricted they could not use silk, for example. In the other quarter period, maybe you could say more was was there such sumptuary laws during the quarter period. Oh, yeah, these are all existed in current society for dynasty. The government wanted to restrict the consumption consumption. So they are state social status. So, if, if, if, yeah, so, yeah, yeah, government, yeah, the government regulated the slaves put on the ruling class class clothes. Yeah, so, for example, yeah, so they, the government don't want to, they don't want to, yeah, mix the people status they want to, yeah, clarify their social status by restricting the consuming consumption. Yeah. Yeah, so this kind of sumptuary law system did exist in in quarter period just as it existed in medieval Europe and many, many other places. Okay, there's another question. I noticed, oh, there's a question in the Q&A here from John Grisafi. I will, I'll read out your question, John. In the beginning of your talk, you alluded to Buddhist materials with the specific example of the Huayong, Huayong Yong, or of Atomsaka Sutra as one of the defining characteristics of Gordio aristocracy. Could you speak more to the role of Buddhism and Buddhist materials here, and your view on whether or not this was indeed a defining factor at the time, or one that has been emphasized more in historiography? Yeah, thank you for your question. Yeah. Yeah, the Buddhists take an important role, play the important role in the Gora society. Yeah, the Gora people, Gora's ruling class basically think that the Confucianism is the method of governing ruling the dynasty. And Buddhism is the method of controlling themselves, the kind of meditation. They think that Confucianism and Buddhism had a different role in the society. So, yeah, so the Buddhism is the defining factor in Gora society. So I think we, for understanding Gora society fully, we should understand not only Confucianism and also Buddhism. So, yeah, so if we look into the historical materials, we can easily find that Gora's ruling class go to temples and read the Buddhist classics and transcript the Buddhist classics. Yeah, so it's a very important factor in Gora society. So it was, it was a characteristic of the aristocracy that they were, they were Buddhists, they saw themselves as Buddhists, and they identified themselves. Because that's a big contrast with the, with the virtual some period, right. Because it's a big, it's a big, if we say that the, the cordial aristocracy identified themselves as Buddhists, then it's a very big contrast to the following dynasty, Tosan dynasty. Yeah, it's, it's a, yeah, it's very different between the two dynasty, yeah. Okay, there is another question here, if anyone else wants to talk, please indicate, please indicate in the chat and I can, or I think yeah you can raise your hand as well if you want to talk. And if you want to just ask a question in the Q&A please type it there. So the question I noticed here from Lena Mozina saying, what does pedigree mean in the context of inheritance? I don't know whether you can answer that. To me, I guess pedigree is more or less the same meaning as lineage, I suppose. Yeah, thank you for your question. Yeah. It's a really important point of my talk. Yeah, pedigree, yeah. Yeah, basically the Buddhist ruling class, especially upper ruling class, existed as bureaucrats, so they should inherit their high ranking positions to maintain their social or political power. So they, they, yeah, try to, yeah, easily try to get a high ranking positions to maintain their power. So the means of inheritance is the, is the inheritance of the high ranking positions basically. Because in society, every power, kind of political power, sort of status, economic power was originated from the, whether they had, they had a public office or how high they have a public office. So, yeah, inheritance, I think inheritance is the focus of the inheritance is the inheritance of the high ranking positions in Korea, in Korea society. Yeah, thank you. Okay. I have a couple of comments and questions myself but I'm just been, I've just been waiting to see if we have more questions coming in from the audience. Okay. All right, well, I guess, if people are still thinking about the questions I will. I'll ask something myself. Actually, first I had, I had a couple of comments. I guess one is that I find the whole debate quite, it's quite limited in a way. It's a fascinating debate but it's quite limited in the sense that it's limited to this binary between bureaucracy and aristocracy, right. And, you know, as you know that's, I don't think that's the only way to deal deal with this issue right and I think perhaps some, you know, scholars working in the English language like James Palais, and then his, well, one of his students as well John Duncan I'm sure you know his work they, I guess they approached it from a somewhat different angle and James Palais was quite famous for sort of devising the idea of an aristocratic bureaucratic balance, not necessarily one or the other but it's a kind of shifting moving balance between these different kinds of tendencies. And I think I would generally agree with that trying to identify exactly whether this society can be defined as bureaucratic or can be defined as aristocratic is like an impossible task ultimately you could keep trying forever and you're never going to find the answer. And it's not just true for Korea I think you could look back at multiple societies in the last few thousand years all over in the Middle East or in Europe or in Asia. And you would find the same kind of problems of how to define whether it's bureaucratic or not. So I feel like the debate, well the way you debate that you've described here it feels a little bit limited it didn't quite break out of this binary concept. And also it didn't break out of the problem of internal development theory of whether you know it's really about, you know, aristocracy somehow aristocracy was identified with with with progress. You know, which is to me is is a is kind of weird and problematic. Question I had for you is about land holding, because it's not something that seemed to come up in these debates very much the debate seems to be centered around the exam system and certain kinds of privileges for inheriting official posts. But in most societies I guess we would often one of the probably maybe number one or one of the first features we would identify with aristocracy is extensive land holding. And, and also what goes with that which would be, you know, surfs or attached peasants and so on. Manor is basically the manner, manual system kind of thing so I wonder whether that you know what what role that plays in the debate about about warrior. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, it's a really important part of this debate. In your opinion. We, it is hard to. Define the, we, whether the society is aristocratic or bureaucratic society. So, yeah, I think it's the previous history and specificity is have some problems. Yeah, I agree with that. Tonight, talk about the landowner ownership. Yeah, it is very important issues in the debate of this debate about theory of aristocracy. Basically the historians at the book at the book this theory of aristocracy insisted that the aristocracy basically had huge, huge land and it is that they are significant ground to maintain their power. At the same time that this landowner ship is the indicator of a significant indicator of whether the Korean history was developed or not, because. Historians think though thought that history history wants to prove that quarter society and have the private landowner ship. Yeah, establish the system of pre private landowner. Because it, it is the evidence of the evidence that quarter societies was a medieval society. Yeah. Yeah, so it is very important issue and Yeah, but basically, history has been thought that the quarter society, good as ruling class aristocracy was existed as a bureaucracy basically, they think that the landowner ship was deeply deeply related to the public offices. So, Yeah, so they insisted that the only high ranking positions about the ruling class who had high take a high ranking positions only can could only have take a huge, huge amount of land so yeah I think the landowner was deeply related to the public office, I think, yeah. Okay, I'm really sorry, can you hear me. Yeah, I can really sorry I might make computer crash to this moment. I'm really sorry everyone. I managed to fortunately just have my iPad here so I could switch to my iPad but yeah. Now I just now have to find the chat because I think there were some more questions in the chat or the Q&A. Okay, there's one in the Q&A here from Emma is scratching. Thank you very much for your talk. You mentioned that the political power of the aristocracy overwhelmed the king's authority. I was wondering how great was the power that the aristocracy had. Could you could they make decisions instead of the king. Moreover, if this is the case, what were the king's attributions. So, whether you could say that about the relative power of the aristocracy versus the versus the king in order here. Oh yeah, thank you for your comment. It's a very important issue of that. Basically, I don't, I disagree with the argument that Goryeo aristocracy overwhelmed Goryeo King's power. Yeah, basically I, I agreed with Park Jae-woo's opinion. He said that the Goryeo King was the final decision maker. And he can, he could exert that right without any difficulty. So, yeah, so, and the political institution was constructed by supporting this, the king's right to decide the final, to decide finally the affair of state. So, yeah, before the Park Jae-woo's argument, argument, the basically historian thought that the aristocracy, the aristocracy political power overwhelmed King's power. Yeah, based on, so they, yeah. They indicate that the institution of Daegan Jedo and kind of lots of institutions, yeah, organized based on the aristocracy's power. But yeah, Park Jae-woo is recruited there, this argument and he stressed the, the, yeah, he, he investigated the process of the decision, the decision and the, yeah, the process of the affair decision. So he, yeah, identified that Korea, Korea King, yeah, have a right to decide finally the affair of state. So, yeah, basically I agree with Park Jae-woo's argument. So, yeah, nowadays, lots of historians are agreed with Park Jae-woo's argument, not the theory of aristocracy. So, yeah, if you want to know more, I will introduce this book. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. That's very interesting. I think we have John, John Grisafi, did you want to say something? Did you want to ask a question? Yes, thank you. I'm John Grisafi, PhD student in Yale Religious Studies, working on Korea. So I wanted to just follow up about the Buddhism question. Like you said that yes, Buddhism was big among the aristocrats in Korea and especially relative to Joseon and that I'm familiar with. But what I'm really curious is in what way though did that define the aristocracy in some way apart from either some other social group, either a lower status or a non-aristocratic social group in Korea or relative analogous groups in say Japan or China? Like in what way does Buddhism distinguish the Korean aristocracy and the Godeo aristocracy in particular not so much from what succeeds them in Joseon because we know that there's a major drop in the popularity and the institutional support from the government anyway of Buddhism from Godeo to Joseon. But what precisely made it more of a thing that the aristocracy would use to define themselves? Did they see themselves as somehow more Buddhist than the commoners or was it a matter of like financial or official patronage and support of the monastics and the temples or the commissioning of like works like sutras to produce karmic merit or something. What was it in particular that sets the aristocracy apart from anyone else with regard to Buddhism? Oh, thank you. But the story, can you say it again? Yeah. Please. Yeah. Oh, it's just what I'm asking what what it is? What is it? Was it in particular that made Buddhism distinguish the aristocrats, the Godeos from anybody else in Godeo, not distinguishing them from Joseon aristocrats, but from anyone else in Godeo or their their contemporaries in other countries like my understanding is that Buddhism was just popular in general in Godeo. So and I think the might that the maybe other people wouldn't have done it the same way. But I don't get the impression that, you know, the aristocracy that the royalty, the higher elites, the elites in society would feel that Buddhism was their exclusive domain, but I could be wrong about that. So was what about their relationship to Buddhism is different from the relationship of non aristocrats or other countries aristocrats in the case of Godeo. Thank you for your comments. Yeah, oh, yeah, the, yeah, the relationship between the aristocracy and Buddhism is, yeah, it is, yeah, important, but basically I Yeah, but yeah, basically I don't, I don't agree with Gorya's ruling class is aristocracy. So, yeah, except for this problem, yeah, I want, I will tell about the relationship between ruling class and Buddhism and non ruling class and Buddhism. Yeah, I think every, yeah, or Gorya people. Yeah, Buddhism was popular with all Gorya society or the people, basically, but the, some, some historian insisted that the Buddhist temple or monks is deeply related to the ruling class is power in terms of the land and the labor. Because the some, yeah, some, yeah, the bureaucrats, the members of the pedigree family, distinguished families, control the specific temples to support his or his family's power. And, yeah, so, yeah, so, and some family made, no, managed some specific temple on their own. Yeah, so it's very, yeah. The relationship is really, yeah. There are the deep relationship between the ruling class and, yeah, how Buddhism, but yeah, it's not my major so I don't know. Yeah, if you want to more of the relationship, the Gorya society, if you know more about the Buddhism's role in Gorya society, I can, yeah, recommend the book related to this subject. Sorry, I can, yeah, I can, yeah, answer, yeah, enough, sorry. Thanks for your answer. Yeah, so we have one more question in the Q&A I think we're probably going to wrap up at that point because we're sort of running a little bit over our usual time but we have one more question which I think you can, which I think you can tackle. This is from Isabel Sancho, and the question is, are there any non-professional historians, so non-academic historians proposing other types of historical narratives about Gorya society in South Korea? What is Gorya perceived by the general audience? So I guess it's a question about, you know, more like sort of what we might call like lay history or sort of mainstream popular conceptions of Gorya. So conceptions are probably coloured by things like popular dramas or manhwa or things like that, but anyway, it would be interesting if you have any knowledge about how do people, how do Koreans generally not academic, but how do they perceive Gorya? Yeah, thank you for your comments. Yeah, it's a, yeah, I think it's really an important subject. Yeah, basically, to be honest, the Gorya period isn't popular in South Korea, basically. But people basically think that Gorya society was aristocratic society, basically, because the textbook in school described the Gorya society as aristocratic society. Yeah, but yeah, so the people consume the Gorya history like this, but yeah, but nowadays some scholars try to explain their argument in the YouTube kind of entertainment show. Yeah, maybe this, yeah, the most significant problem is that the audience don't pay attention to Gorya history, it is the fundamental problem, but yeah. Yeah, that's interesting. That's interesting in itself that Gorya history is not a kind of popular period of Korean history at the moment. But I would be interested as well, you mentioned, you know, people on YouTube, I would be fascinated to know more sometime about, you know, what is being said by popular historians when they make kind of YouTube videos about Gorya and so on. Okay, I think we have to end here. Thank you very much for a really interesting talk, very, very, very informative talk and also for patiently answering various questions from the audience. So yeah, thanks. Let's give our thanks once again to Joseph Kim for a great talk. And as I said, I think in the comments earlier, this talk will be made, the recording of this talk will be made available on the SOAS YouTube. So if you have a CKS center of Korean studies playlist on the SOAS YouTube so I'll put links up in various places but if you if you go and search for it on there you should be able to find it so thanks once again to Joseph Kim. And yeah, thanks for taking. Sorry for the small technical problems but anyway we've managed to overcome it. Okay. Thank you.