Korean Studies, 27. 1

Terminology and Concepts
Central to my argument is the notion of pluralism. Ironically perhaps, the
term pluralism has many usages and concepts associated with it. In this article,
I will use pluralism in the sense of an ideology that allows the existence of
contradictions and inconsistencies between its constituent parts. Pluralism in
this sense accepts the alternative or simultaneous use of contradictory and in-
commensurable approaches, but “unifies” these in one—aggregative instead of
synthesized—worldview. It is important not to confuse pluralism with rela-
tivism. Pluralism acknowledges and allows contradictions to exist, but it does
not relativize their fundamental differences; it utilizes them.
5
In connection with
the notion of pluralism, I further employ Fredrik Barth’s idea of boundary mech-
anisms.
6
Barth argued that one has to look at the boundaries of an identity to
understand its formative processes and that the essential elements of an iden-
tity reside, not in the center, but in the boundaries that guard group identity. The
notion of boundaries that are, according to the pressure that is exercised upon
them, “hard” or “soft,” “impermeable” or “porous,” reveals the fluidity of cul-
tures that through continuous interaction are not self-contained, nor neatly
bounded or homogeneous. Both the notion of pluralism and that of the bound-
ary mechanism draw our attention to these borderlands of identity formation,
where “nothing is thrust out, the good the bad and the ugly, nothing rejected,
nothing abandoned.”
7
Closely related to the issue of pluralism, though in important senses con-
trary to it, is the notion of monism. I shall use monism in the sense of a theory
or system based on the assumption of a single ultimate principle or kind of be-
ing instead of two or more. Whereas pluralism assumes the possible existence
of more than one ultimate principle, monism categorically denies this. In this
article, I shall use it mainly with reference to the historiography on Kory0. In a
monist worldview, contradictions need to be solved; the presence of a contra-
diction implies that one part of it is wrong and the other right. Despite its seem-
ing contradictoriness, monism often betrays its presence through the use of crude
dichotomies and convenient abstractions.
The concept of nativism in Kory0 is problematic, but I understand it here
as a broad complex of beliefs and ideas in which the idea of Kory0 takes prece-
dence over any other value. It was held by various Kory0 literati, monks, and
other persons and demanded the unconditional privileging of Kory0 to any-
thing else. Nativism contains metaphysical, political, and religious ideas and
beliefs.
The designations for the different types of persons who exercised authority
50
k o r e a n s t u d i e s , v o l . 2 7
Korean Studies, 27.1 11/15/04 1:36 PM Page 50

---

of a supreme kind must also be defined in order to avoid misunderstandings.
Contrary to its idiomatic usage, I shall employ a strict separation between the
designations “emperor” and “Son of Heaven.” I understand emperor according
to its dictionary definition, “as a title of sovereignty considered superior in dig-
nity to that of ‘king.’”
8
Accordingly, king in this article will refer to the sover-
eign ruler of an independent state, but inferior in dignity to that of “emperor.”
The designation “Son of Heaven” I shall reserve for those rulers who were con-
sidered to be “sons of heaven,” as ontologically unique links between Heaven
and the people. It should be remembered that despite the omnipresent inclina-
tion to conflate the concepts of emperor and Son of Heaven with regard to China,
Chinese political philosophy makes a fundamental distinction between “em-
peror” and “Son of Heaven.” The fact that the Chinese Son of Heaven happened
to be emperor as well should not obscure this. Early Chinese Sons of Heaven,
for instance, were referred to as king (wang) and not as emperor. 
Finally, some remarks remain about the ideological interpretation of Kory0
politics. One of the aims of this article is to criticize the overly ideological in-
terpretations of Kory0 politics that have resulted in stark dichotomies of op-
posing ideologies.
9
Although I take issue with this kind of interpretation, I cer-
tainly do not propose a non-ideological approach to Kory0 politics if that
means—as it often does—a reduction of decision-making processes to prag-
matism and opportunism.
10
Such an approach shifts the emphasis to focus ex-
clusively on “down-to-earth” motivations and “pragmatic” Realpolitik. It fun-
damentally relies on the doubtful assertion that a useful distinction can be made
between those facts that “matter”—that are pragmatic and justified by political
circumstances—and those that do not “matter”—whose direct relationship with
politically relevant questions is less visible.
11
This distinction is based upon the
perceived relationship between fact and political outcome that privileges polit-
ically connected facts. It hardly needs to be said that this is in itself an ideo-
logical statement that is accepted on faith and through habituation, rather than
reasoning. Ideological factors are thus regarded in an instrumentalist manner.
Ideologies only justify; they do not instigate or define. Recent research has con-
vincingly shown otherwise.
12
It has become clear that ideologies function as the
means by which man meets his world. Neutral in origin, the world is digested,
as it were, through ideology that makes it comprehensible and manageable.
Every ideology obviously has parameters outside of which it ceases to function
and comes in need to be replaced, but human creativity and ingenuity have al-
ways guaranteed that ideology is stretched to the limit when circumstances de-
mand so. Ideology functions in a dynamical discourse in which action and re-
action are hard if not impossible to separate. Boundaries overlap and are
blurred. Ideologies both prohibit and enable, depending on the circumstances;
the boundaries are never absolute. Nonetheless, man’s perception of the world
is shaped by his ideologies and as such a non-ideological interpretation of pol-
r e m c o e . b r e u k e r :
Kory0 as an Independent Realm 
51
Korean Studies, 27.1 11/15/04 1:36 PM Page 51

---

itics is itself an expression of a specific kind of ideology that has objectivity as
its core value shaping its Weltanschauung.
Another relevant objection against the separation of ideology and poli-
tics is the fact that it is ahistorical. As is well known, no society lives up to its
own ideals. Rulers who flouted the contemporary norms articulated, or at least
indicated, by contemporary ideology knew that they had done so. Breaking
norms or disregarding culturally conditioned ideals does not mean that these do
not exist, nor that they do not exert influence.
13
Detaching the ideological back-
ground from historical actions and utterances is a form of retrospective projec-
tion of contemporary concepts on past situations. Daily reality is in large part
formed by the mainly culturally determined ideas, concepts, preconceptions,
prejudices, norms, dreams, and fears that man carries around with him. Deny-
ing these in favor of political realities means depriving historical realities of their
contemporary ideological contents with the arbitrary assertion that only prac-
tical motivations “matter.” An exclusive emphasis on the political power rela-
tions between states also inescapably favors the more powerful states: it is from
their perspective that history is written and historical events are analyzed, even
when this is unintentional.
14
Moreover, conceptually, contemporary notions like
“non-ideology” and “political pragmatism” are solidly moored to their own ide-
ological tenets. Removing historically determined ideological conditions and
replacing them with these concepts creates a chimera. Admittedly, it cleans up
the picture, but it does so at the cost of important constituent elements. In this
article, therefore, ideology is seen as an important and flexible element of the
historical landscape, not to be easily dismissed as mere legitimation, supersti-
tion, or an assortment of historically irrelevant ideas. It should be noted, more-
over, that an ideology does not necessarily correspond to such neatly defined
notions as “Confucianism,” “Buddhism,” or “Daoism” but may well be a much
less well-articulated set of related ideas and notions that guide behavior and fa-
cilitate understanding of one’s environment.