South Korea’s collective memory of past human rights abuses

Abstract

Embedded in transitional justice processes is an implicit reference to the production of collective memory and history. This article aims to study how memory initiatives become a crucial component of truth-seeking and reparations processes. The article examines South Korea’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the creation of collective memory through symbolic reparations of history revision in education. The South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended a set of symbolic reparations to the state, including history rectification reflective of the truth on human rights violations. Using political discourse analysis, this study compares the South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report to the 2016 national history textbook. The article finds that the language of human rights in state sponsored history revisions contests the findings of the truth commission. And in doing so, this analysis argues for the need to reevaluate the government-initiated memory politics even in a democratic state that instituted numerous truth commissions and prosecuted former heads of state.

Challenges and Possibilities of Memory and Reconciliation: Empirical Evidence for Colombia

“…Following this line, we propose that the reconstruction of memory is a collective and plural process that evokes facts from group life, which are raised at the moment in which they are remembered, from a particular point of view (Halbwachs 1950). For this reason, the reconstruction of memory is shown as a development of knowledge about past events that depends on "the interpretations from the present and discussions of the cultural and political contexts of memory" (Schwartz 2000, 15-17 cited by Carranza 2018) and makes it possible to cope with and make sense of the events that occurred; in other words, memory as a practice of re-existence (Parrado and Jaramillo 2020).…”

“Let me be dust”: Memory beyond testimony in Gwangju, South Korea

“…Furthermore, the turn to juridical recourse for 5•18 has limited the way in which even the TRC can make claims about responsibility and violence. A now-scrapped 2016 textbook proposal did not refer to the events in Gwangju as human rights abuses; though there is much public acknowledgment of such abuses in spaces like the Gwangju memorials, omitting such a charge is in line with the language of convictions against Chun and Roh, which regarded treason, corruption, and mutiny only (Carranza Ko, 2020Ko, : 1123. Although investigations into specific abuses during 5•18 such as sexual assaults by soldiers on civilian women were reopened as recently as 2018 under the Moon Jae-In administration, this renewed political interest can be read as certainly concomitant to the ways those battles remain unresolved in sociocultural spaces.…”

“…It is no wonder that 5·18 remains in public focus considering its sustained attention across such media. Although TRC efforts, state-sponsored textbook initiatives, and top-down memory projects continue to unfold in South Korean public policy, these proposals often come under fire for prioritizing current political expediencies over victims (see Carranza Ko, 2020). Furthermore, the turn to juridical recourse for 5·18 has limited the way in which even the TRC can make claims about responsibility and violence.…”

“…Although 5•18 remains a controversial topic, especially in conservative circles that tend to emphasize the victories of economic modernization during the 1960s-1980s over the accompanying authoritarian policies (see Carranza Ko, 2020), 5•18 remains a part of the South Korean collective consciousness of trauma and struggle in the twentieth century, even if questions of fault and motive remain political. There has been much progress in the juridical realm since the 1997 convictions of Chun and his successor Roh Tae-woo.…”