독서/Cold War2019. 3. 4. 19:26

Repatriation ship prepares to depart Niigata Port. (Source: https://apjjf.org/2011/9/22/Tessa-Morris-Suzuki/3541/article.html)

In mid-December 1959, a group of Korean residents in Japan gathered in the port city Niigata from every corner of the Japanese Archipelago, with the uncertain hope of returning to the Socialist Fatherland and cherishing the better life, both of which were not easily imagined. Although 976 in number, the group was nor homogenous, neither easy to understand; in addition to Korean adults who could not speak Korean very well, there were Japanese, especially mothers and wives, students, and infants inside the crowd (12). Before getting aboard a ship, they were bureaucratically asked “[d]o you really wish to leave Japan and live the rest of your life in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea?”

Meanwhile, their imminent journey, or ‘exodus,’ to North Korea had to be processed in the humanitarian framework, mostly engineered by complicated interactions of different actors: not only Japanese entities such as the Japanese government, the Japanese Red Cross Society (est. 1877), and the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chongryun), but also Cold War superpowers like the U.S. and the Soviet Union altogether participated in and conspired with this massive project (199-200). A number of questions could be raised against the background of this untold exodus of Korean residents in Japan: Who were those who chose an exodus from Japan to North Korea? What were the origins of the Korean residents in Japan? Why did they want to return to their political homeland? Why did this kind of exodus have to happen in the late 1950s? Why were such powerful actors as the U.S. and the Soviet Union involved in the event? How did returnees continue living on North Korean soil? After all, what was it about (12-3)?

Exodus to North Korea: Shadows from Japan's Cold War (2007) is a pioneering work which exclusively deals with the aforementioned repatriation of Koreans in the late 1950s, based on multinational materials well as oral testimonies. As a renowned scholar of Japan and Asia, Tessa Morris-Suzuki, armed with expertise on the region, polyglotism in utilizing archival sources, and passion to visit relevant places including the North Korean capital, attempts to question the fates of “not only the lives of the 93,340 returnees,” but also those of “the hundreds of thousands of relatives and friends whom they left behind,” weaving representative cases of those accounts into a compelling as well as intriguing book. It is largely known that the author is one of the most critical and prolific scholars in the field, attempting to criticize as well as transcend what is known as ‘modern’ and an ‘modern’ view of the past. In this regard, the same author’s 2000 Henkyo kara nagameru [A View from the Frontier] lucidly reveals her academic interests on reconstructing the lively and vibrant exchanges among borderlines and peripheries where non-mainstream and tribal people such as Ainu, Nivkh, Uilta, and Manchu interacted and intermingled across the Sea of Okhotsk.

In terms of structure, Exodus to North Korea comprises twenty chapters unevenly allotted in five parts; each part covers the corresponding and related contents under umbrella terms such as Departures (Part I), Borderlines (II), Stratagems (III), Accord (IV), Arrivals (V). Characterizing the repatriation of Koreans from Japan to North Korea as exodus, the author walks the reader into invisible nodal points, where “the small stories of personal lives and the grand stories of global politics intersect.” In other words, Morris-Suzuki reconstructs one of the most complicated and multifaceted events during the Cold War period, which cut through the legacies of colonialism, desires of decolonization, and overwhelming forces of the Cold War polarity. Meanwhile, the subtitle of the book may give an impression to the reader that the story narrated in the book would be mostly about Japan and its postwar history. However, it would be fruitful to take well into consideration the authorial intention of blurring the strict demarcations between nations, states, and borders, all of which have been articulated and constructed as ‘modern’ projects. Then we can take a step forward towards the rigorous understanding of the past, the ‘exodus’ of Koreans from Japan in the periods 1959-1984 in this case, the shadow of which still affects the lives of a number of people.

The main thread that largely constitutes Exodus to North Korea is a series of repatriations of Koreans from Japan to the DPRK from 1959 to 1984, in accordance with the Calcutta Accord, signed on 13 August 1959 between the Japan Red Cross Society and the same society of North Korea (196). Be that as it may, the origin of this story goes back even to the colonial period. In other words, Exodus to North Korea needs to be understood in relation to colonialism. As the first few chapters show, during and after the Japanese colonial period of Korea, a significant number of Koreans, especially those from the southern part of the Peninsula and Jeju Island moved to “expanding Japanese cities,” seeking for a better life (48). Around liberation, some of them chose to go to Busan instead of Japanese cities in a bid to evade “the fighting on the Korean mainland” (55). In addition to the forcibly relocated subjects before 1945, these Koreans began to be regarded as ‘aliens’ by not only the Japanese authorities including the GHQ-SCAP (60-1), but also the South Korean government (66). Rika Hiroshi’s question to Yi Yang-Soo (himself) captures the desperate situation in which Korean residents in Japan had to face (63): “If I’m not Japanese, then what on earth am I?” To make matter worse, these ‘alien’ residents in Japan lost “the right to public housing and a range of other welfare benefits” as of 28 April 1952 (67). Up until the 1980s, this visible, social discrimination had lingered to the fullest, promoting the idea of returning to the Socialist Fatherland among the Zainichi Korean.

The Cold War divide would of no less importance in understanding this exodus to North Korea in contexts; rather, this issue not only set the tone of numerous affairs and exchanged including negotiations over the repatriation, but also offered different actors a varying degree of discretion. While it would be the latter point on which the author must have focused in narrating the story of the repatriation (13), Exodus to North Korea does seem to be aware of the limits and restrictions that the Cold War order imposed on people (14). In this vein, Morris-Suzuki spilt a considerable amount of ink through chapters seven to seventeen (Parts III and IV) in order to trace what had been going on at the highest and mid-high levels. While Part III presents individual histories as well as convoluted exchanges of significant figures such as Inoue Masutarō, Eugène de Weck, and Han Deok-Su, who played important roles in negotiating about the repatriation, Part IV registers the highest-level developments among the U.S., the Soviet Union, India, Japan, and both Koreas in the fateful years of 1958 and 1959. From my perspective, interested parties’ motives are succinctly summarized in chapter sixteen: Japan regarded the Zainichi Korean as “burden”; the ICRC outsourced the dealings of the issue to its branches in both Japan and North Korea; the North Korean state relied upon Chongryun in receiving labor force as well as legitimacy over South Korea, under the auspices of the Soviet Union; the Soviet Union supported North Korea in opposition to China; last but not least, the U.S. remained silent about the repatriation as long as it did not undermine its security interest on Japan (199-200). As Morris-Suzuki poignantly points out, “that silence [of the U.S.] was perhaps the final decisive factor that enabled the plans of all the others to become reality.”

The authorial focus has something to do with historical materials this book draws heavily upon: accounts and narratives from the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross archives, diplomats’ diaries [logs] of JoongAng Russian archives, and partially declassified information of Foreign Relations of the United States only reveal “the tip of the iceberg” of historical truth produced by those who had the power to leave official records and personal observations. Nonetheless, the author tries to complement this lopsidedness of historical representation with a substantial amount of oral interviews. Recognizing the impossibility of fully reconstructing the past (249), Morris-Suzuki actively utilizes verbal accounts of those returnees in the first and last chapters of the book. For illustration, the reader would easily be able to imagine the degree of desperation as well as frustration of returnees when Oh Su-Ryong first saw “the scene” in Cheongjin on the morning of 25 February 1962 (231): “oh no!” Considering that the memory not only has a kernel of truth, but also could be serving as the only channel to the past like any historical research of the Japanese military “comfort women” issue, reproducing as well as interpreting those volatile accounts in a book is one of many academic virtues that Exodus to North Korea presents to the reader.

Last but not least, this book could have been substantially elaborated if the author had referred to existing scholarship of North Korean history in either Korean or English. This kind of criticism would not be doing justice given that the marginalized position of the North Korean history studies in both English- and Japanese-languages academia. However, Morris-Suzuki must have been careful in explaining specificities of not only North Korea, but also Korea in general. For example, I wonder what the author would mean by when she renders North Korea “Stalinist” (15). Another representative error the author makes could be located in chapter two where she mentions that “an even greater number had migrated to China, Manchuria, and the Soviet Union” (22). The number of Koreans who had migrated to the Soviet Union before “the Return of the Light” in 1945 could at best be less than 180,000 (around 170,000 Koreans were deported to Central Asia in 1937), being less than a tenth to “more than two million Koreans” the author cites. Unfounded assumption that “[m]any were arrested and disappeared in the DPRK’s expanding labor camps” could be problematic (175). There is no known place as “Yeodok” in North Korea (239); it must be Yodŏk. Notwithstanding the aforementioned issues, Exodus to North Korea will remain as a milestone regarding the 1959 repatriation of Koreans from Japan to North Korea in times to come, specifically for those interested in Japan-North Korea relations, the intersection of “small stories” and “grand stories” during the Cold War, and how to write a fascinating transnational history from diverse as well as decentered perspectives.

Posted by 사용자 Л

댓글을 달아 주세요

독서/USSR2018. 11. 10. 18:06
애플봄의 Red Famine을 훑고 북한사학도로서의 감상

1. '역사'는 서사narrative로 구성되고, 서사를 생산하는 데 가장 핵심은 역시 돈이다. 책에 잘 나와 있지만, 소련에서 미주로 건너간 이산diasporic 우인들이 캐나다 토론토와 미국 하버드를 중심으로 우크라이나 (기근)연구를 수십 년째 수행하고 있다. 대충 스탈린 개객기, 소련 개객기, 나치 개객기 (나치는 정말 죽여 마땅한 놈들이다) 하면 그랜트 따는 거야 어렵지 않겠지... 이 넓은 미주에 '북한 연구소' 하나 없는 사실은 무척이나 웅변적이다.

2. 자료에도 다양한 층위가 있고, 이러한 자료가 증거성을 가지려면 논리적이고 정황적으로도 맞는 해석이 이뤄져야 한다. 스탈린이 기근을 이용해 "우인들을 혼내줘야겠다"는 생각을 품었다는 직접적이고 핵심적인 증거는 아직 발견되지 않았다. 애플봄이 내놓은 서사가 치밀한 역사적 논증이라기보다는 헛소리 또는 정파적 이데올로기에 가깝다는 점에 대해서는 J. Getty의 2018 논문 (
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777318000322)을 참조하라. 이는 자료 없이 역사적인 주장을 하기가 얼마나 어려운지를 보여주는 대목이기도 하다. 함부로 말하지 말고, 겸손해야 한다. 물론 미국의 북한사학계에서는...

3. 애플봄의 영어는 무척 뛰어나고 고급지며 가독성이 좋다. 하지만 이 서사에서 볼셰비키는 초지일관 두드러진 폭력성과 우크라이나에 대한 개무시 및 민족주의 압살 기획, 곡물 징발 외에는 아무 것도 고려하지 않는 잔학성만을 보이는 존재로만 그려진다. 레닌에게는 "피해망상적paranoid이고, 음모적conspiratorial이며, 근본적으로 비민주적인 자"라는 설명이 붙는데, 이 지점에서 책을 덮고 싶었으나 더 붙잡고 있었던 게 실수였다. 책의 중후반부는 우인들에 대한 소비에트의 가혹한 조치들과 이에서 비롯된 가공할 모습들로 빼곡하다. 식인食人에 관한 정밀한 묘사는 스탈린/볼셰비키/소비에트에 대한 특정한 판단을 독자들에게 요구하는 것처럼 보인다. 이어 우인들의 질곡은 나치 치하에서도, 다시 소련 치하에서도, 탈사회주의 시대에서도 계속 된다.

4. 이 책은 연구서가 아닌 실화nonfiction이고 따라서 (굳이 읽겠다면) 역사적 주장과 논증, 이를 위해 필요한 자료 구사와 서사 구성에 집중하기보다는, 위에서 언급한 요인들을 고려하며 읽는 게 유익하다. 우크라이나 민족이 겪어야 했던 끝없는 질곡이 너무 빼곡하게 나와 있고, 기근을 학살로 둔갑하여 이를 소비에트에 전가하겠다는 작가의 의도가 너무 명명백백해서 꼼꼼하게 읽을 필요는 없다. 다만 15장 '역사와 기억에서 홀로도모르Holodomor'는 이산 우인들이 어떻게 미주에서 우크라이나 (기근)연구를 수행했고, 로버트 컨퀘스트 등 전체주의 학파의 연구가 어떻게 이와 공명했는지 등 기근에 대한 지성사적이고 연구사적인 궤적이 잘 서술되어 있어서 그나마 이번 독서에서 내게 유익한 지점이었다.

5. 나의 관심사는 390만에 달하는 우크라이나 기근 피해자라는 참담한 사실을 두고 스탈린이나 당대 볼셰비키를 옹호하는 데 있지 않다. 다만 우리가 역사를 이해할 때 어느 서사의 결을 따르고, 그 서사는 어떠한 자료에 대한 어떠한 해석에 입각해 있는지 비판적으로 보는 게 정말 중요하다는 역사학의 기본 중 기본을 철저히 따르고자 할 뿐이다. 그렇다면 볼셰비키 지도부는 '고의적'으로 우인들을 공격하고 그 과정에서 기근을 '이용'했나? 아쉽게도 애플봄의 저서만으로는 증거가 무척 불충분해 보인다. 물론 그렇게 보고 싶은 사람이 더 많겠다. 그러나 역사학적으로 이는 근거가 빈약하다. 아울러 저자가 인정하듯, 앞의 진술을 지지해 줄 자료는 여태껏 발견되거나 남아있지 않다. 물론 우인뿐만 아니라 연맹 차원에서 기근으로 숨진 억울한 사람들에게 애도를 보낸다.

6. 논의를 갑자기 다른 쪽으로 옮기는 것이긴 한데, 애플봄 식의 논리를 따르자면, 북한에 대놓고, '고의적'으로 제재를 가하는 국련과 미국은 스탈린이나 볼셰비키 같은 존재가 아닌가? 물론 나는 북한을 좋게 보지도 않고, 지지할 마음이 추호도 없다. 하지만 스탈린이 강력한 중공업화를 목표로 농촌을 수탈하는 과정, 그리고 우인들을 '기근으로 혼내주겠다'는 가설적 주장을 미국의 대북관계에 적용해 보는 일은 흥미로운 사고실험이 될 수 있다. 아주 간략하게, 삼각동맹 유지와 중국의 발흥 억제을 골자로 동북아 현상유지라는 목표를 지닌 미국의 국정운영에서, 과거 우인들처럼 '민족성'을 지키기 위해 애쓰고 생존을 위해 핵실험도 서슴치 않았던 북한에 대한 미국의 '체벌'이 내게는 위의 진술과 크게 달라 보이지 않는다. 볼셰비키 지도부(=미국)는 우크라이나(=북한)를 단 한 번이라도 진지하게 이해하려고 한 적이 있을까? 감상끗.

Posted by 사용자 Л

댓글을 달아 주세요

  1. Tretyakov

    1. 글쎄요. 미국-북한과 러시아-우크라이나의 관계를 동렬에 놓을 수는 없다고 생각합니다. 전자는 주권 국가간의 대립이고, 후자는 소연방 내에서의(그리고 사실상 러시아민족 우위 체제에서, 개별 국가의 주권을 인정하지 않는 민족간) 대립이니까요. 북한의 핵실험은 북한의 내적인 이유야 어떻든 다른 국가들의 핵무장을 불러오고 동북아 정세의 불안을 강화(예를 들면 적화통일)시키니 미국이 난리를 치는 것인 반면, 후자의 우크라이나 민족은 러시아 민족이나 국가를 위협하지는 않죠. 러시아 민족이 나머지 민족을 억압하는 러시아 제국 체제(나, 사실상 그것을 이어받은 레닌 체제)를 위협한다는 전제가 있다면 모를까.

    2. 사실 저도 소련이 우크라이나 민족을 말살한다는 식의 민족주의에 의거한 증오심을 바탕으로 기근을 이용하고 공격했다고 보지는 않습니다. 다만, 사회주의 체제가 그러한 기근에 대처하는 방식이 자본주의나 제국주의의 그것보다도 나을 것이 없었고, 게다가 사실상 러시아민족 우위의 체제에서 다른 민족이 간접적 차별대우를 받았음은 분명합니다. 이를 고려하면, 속칭 말하는 포스트모던주의적이나 광의의 권력관계에 의거할 때 소련 지도자들은 우크라이나의 기근 문제에 대해 관심을 덜 가졌고, 대처도 러시아민족의 처우개선보다는 덜하였다. 그러한 의미에서 기존 역사학자들이 우크라이나 기근을 통해 소련을 성토하는 것은 충분히 타당하지 않나 생각합니다.

    2018.11.12 00:10 [ ADDR : EDIT/ DEL : REPLY ]
    • 흥미로운 답변 감사합니다. 1번의 지적에 동의하며 (저도 지적하신 바를 충분히 이해한 채로 쓴 것입니다), 2번의 판단에도 일정하게 동의합니다. 그러나 쉴라 피츠패트릭이 지적한대로, 역사가의 임무는 옹호나 비난(성토도 포함이 되겠지요) 이전에 이해에 있다고 봅니다. 소비에트기근에 관한 이해가 충분하다고 할 수 있을까요? 저는 이 지점에서는 부정적입니다.

      2018.11.12 00:15 신고 [ ADDR : EDIT/ DEL ]

독서/STS2018. 6. 4. 20:29

 History of science and technology is an ever-growing, vibrant field of historical inquiries that asks historical meanings, usages, contexts, interactions, and effects of a wide range as well as variety of hitherto untouched, or taken-for-granted, concepts and topics which have been understood in scientific and technical terms such as objectivity, chemistry, and soundscape.[1] It should be noted that this discipline, forming a part of the broad science, technology, and society studies (STS), shares a number of epistemological (asking modes of knowing entities) and ontological (studying the being of entities) assumptions and perspectives with environmental and medical histories due to certain overlapping features such as a varying degree of focusing on agency of nonhuman things and decentering endeavors that unmask the hegemonic mode of understanding.[2] Reflecting the growing social necessity of historically asking certain phenomena, colleges in the US have offered different graduate programs for those interested in history of science, technology, environment, and medicine (STEM hereafter).[3] Especially, environmental history has recently drawn a lot of attention from various fields and disciplines, for it succeeds in shifting researchers’ focuses of question to unconventional, nonhuman subjects that were crucial in shaping as well as understanding historical actualities.[4]

 Eight articles of this week clearly show the nascent status,[5] (un)popularity as well as achievements of studying history of STEM in the Korean history field. Understanding the genealogy as well as context of Korean research on STEM history seems to be necessary. However, it should be more important, I believe, to critically appreciate those articles in order to get insight, inspiration, and imagination that could altogether benefit our works.

 Dongwon Kim’s two articles with Taeho Kim’s book chapter, albeit with certain limitations in interpretations as well as narratives, hint at how history of science is done in a Korean historical context: history of modern, or Western, science has been a constant source for this endeavor and how Koreans historically tinkered with physical, chemical (agricultural), and atomic phenomena (B. Whisoh Lee, 1935-1977) should be powerful sites to be investigated. Additionally, as seen in the aforementioned texts, there are at least more than three actors that creates history together: scientists who conduct, define, and reproduce ‘science’; those (e.g. state, government, private companies) who want to put their own bridle on ‘doing science,’ by controlling the flow of funds towards scientific projects; and participants (e.g. citizens, workers, end-users) which engages with certain schemes with a varying degree of initiative, intention, and impact.

 Choi’s works in history of technology have certain dimensions in common, such as different actors and their transnational interactions with international entities (Japan and America in most cases), with history of science articles. In addition to grasping these points, closely looking at keywords of his works could be useful in appreciating the history of technology field. From my perspective, proper attention should be paid on the following terms: “a process of co-evolution” (2007, 55) and “a nuanced story” (2017, 917). It is widely recognized that both Koreas have been in rivalry during and after the Cold War period and that they have staunchly pursued economic development at the expense of their citizens and the principle of democracy. In different phases of this process, both Koreas tried to import technologies from outside, intentionally selecting and transforming them to fit in their specific systemic and technological environments. However, as every historical actor, facing an array of circumscribed options, has to change, improvise, and abandon previous technologies and relevant ideas. Choi aptly points out this by historicizing the rise of the TMS as “a process of co-evolution of political ideology and management technology” and by arguing for telling “a nuanced story” of modern Korean technology, where imported knowledge (which equals to “no innovators”) have prevented researchers from grasping the richness and diverse dynamics embedded in it.[6]

 Informed by Micah Muscolino’s concept of “the energetics of militarized landscapes,”[7] Fedman probes “the exigencies of war reconfigure the energy flows that sustain both military operations and civilian life” (Fedman, 2) by looking into how the Japanese Empire attempted to reserve, mobilize, and exploit Korean sylvan resources and to regulate the everyday lives of the Korean people via caloric control. Having a great resonance with the crafting of environmental history in the English-speaking academia, Fedman’s work provides historians with a number of possible topics such as forestry (natural resources and state power), ondol (residential environments and architectural technologies), and fuel consumption (consumption behavior, state propaganda, and conduct of war) that could be historically examined in the near future.[8]

 History of medicine is another promising field which has constantly attracted an army of researchers. Interest on history of biopolitics as well as researchers’ attention to an innumerable number of medical records as primary sources seem to partly constitute the reasons.[9] Both John and Suh, although with strikingly different timeframes, deal with Korean history of medicine through the lens of medical technology and change of the meaning of the term. As in history of science and technology, both national and transnational actors come on the stage, creatively making different moves that either crack or cement the realities they encounter. In addition, these two clearly reveal that not only the physical projection of power from the state but also variegated representations from non-state actors jointly form the changing definition of things, which urgently calls for resolutely historical investigation to be conducted.


Works Cited


David Fedman, “Wartime Forestry and the “Low Temperature Lifestyle” in Late Colonial Korea, 1937–1945,” The Journal of Asian Studies 77:2 (2018), 333-350.

Dong-Won Kim, “Imaginary Savior: The Image of the Nuclear Bomb in Korea, 1945‑1960.” Historia scientiarum: international journal of the History of Science Society of Japan 19:2 (2008), 105‑118.

Dong-Won Kim, “The Conflict between the Image and Role of Physics in South Korea,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 33:1 (2002), 107-129.

Hyungsub Choi, “Rationalizing the Guerilla State: North Korean Factory Management Reform, 1953–61,” History and Technology 20:1 (2007), 53-74.

Hyungsub Choi, “The Social Construction of Imported Technologies: Reflections on the Social History of Technology in Modern Korea,” Technology and Culture 58:4 (2017), 905-920.

John DiMoia, Reconstructing Bodies: Biomedicine, Health, and Nation-Building in South Korea Since 1945 (Stanford University Press, 2013). Intro+Ch 4.

Soyoung Suh, Naming the Local: Medicine, Language, and Identity in Korea since the Fifteenth Century (Harvard University Press, 2017). Intro+Ch 5.

Tae-Ho Kim, Social History of Rice in Modern Korea (Tŭllyŏk, 2017). Intro+Ch 4.

[1] Lorraine J. Daston and Peter Galisonks, Objectivity (Zone Books, 2007); Michael D. Gordin, Scientific Babel: How Science Was Done Before and After Global English (The University of Chicago Press, 2015); Emily Thompson, The Soundscape of Modernity: Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of Listening in America, 1900-1933 (MIT Press, 2002).

[2] I refer to the usage of one promising STS scholar in defining epistemology and ontology. Tiago Saraiva, Fascist Pigs: Technoscientific Organisms and the History of Fascism (The MIT Press, 2016).

[3] For instance, UCLA History department provides the “Graduate Program in History of Science, Medicine, and Technology” and one of the authors of this week, Soyoung Suh, received her doctorate from this program.

[4] Though not regarded as an environmental ‘history’ book, Timothy Mitchell’s book on oil and democracy is widely known. Timothy Mitchell, Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil (Verso, 2011). Victor Seow’s PhD dissertation is written in a similar vein with Timothy’s, but his articles deals with modern Asian history of energy and political imagination. Victor Seow, “Carbon Technocracy: East Asian Energy Regimes and the Industrial Modern, 1900-1957” (Harvard University PhD dissertation, 2014).

[5] There are only a few universities in South Korea, where researchers study history of STEM at graduate level. For example, though the “Program in History and Philosophy of Science” was established in Seoul National University in 1984, it is not unsafe to say that only a handful of STEM history students were trained so far and that the international collaboration among STEM history researchers has just begun.

[6] Gabrielle Hecht ed., Entangled Geographies: Empire and Technopolitics in the Global Cold War ((The MIT Press, 2011); Eden Medina, Ivan da Costa Marques and Christina Holmes eds., Beyond Imported Magic: Essays on Science, Technology, and Society in Latin America (The MIT Press, 2014).

[7] For a detailed explanation of the concept, see Micah S. Muscolino, The Ecology of War in China: Henan Province, the Yellow River, and Beyond, 1938–1950 (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 4-9.

[8] Certain works could be useful for this endeavor. Seonmin Kim, Ginseng and Borderland: Territorial Boundaries and Political Relations Between Qing China and Choson Korea, 1636-1912 (University of California Press, 2017); Judd C. Kinzley, Natural Resources and the New Frontier: Constructing Modern China's Borderlands (University of Chicago Press, forthcoming).

[9] Theodore Porter, Genetics in the Madhouse: The Unknown History of Human Heredity (Princeton University Press, forthcoming).

'독서 > STS' 카테고리의 다른 글

UCLA_18S_K296A_W8  (0) 2018.06.04
Tiago Saraiva, Fascist Pigs (2016)  (0) 2018.01.26
Posted by 사용자 Л

댓글을 달아 주세요

독서2018. 5. 12. 22:55


恁 (임): 이같이; 이같은

卻 (각): 도리어; 반대로

主 (주): 주로 하다

如 (여): 예컨대

倪 (예): 나; 저

須 (수): 반드시

假 (가): 주다 - 天子假嵩一職 (https://ctext.org/zhuzi-yulei/107)

耳 (이); 爾 (이): 뿐

如何 (여하): 어떠한가

箴 (잠): 간언하다 - 잠언

既 (기): 이미

直 (직): 곧장

毋 (무): 말다; 없다; 아니다

階梯 (계제): 사다리

逐 (축): 하나하나, 차례대로; ~ㄹ 따라서

大率 (대솔): 대강, 대략

便 (편): 더욱; 곧바로

商量 (상량): 헤아려 잘 생각하다; 의논하다

猝乍 (졸사): 힐끗; 아주 짧은 동안

地 (지): 곳, 장소

陌 (맥): 길, 거리

推 (추): 헤아리다; 추측하다; 미루어 ...

豈 (기): 어떻게; 어찌

因 (인): 이어서; 이어 받아

更 (경): 도리어; 오히려

掉 (도): 흔들다; 버리다

透 (투): 궤뚫다

鶻突 (골돌): 모호하게; 혼란스럽게

庶幾 (서기): 바라건대; 거의

若 (약): 그런데

肚 (두): 배stomach

寬 (관): 너그럽다; 넉넉하다

然 (연): 그러나

舍 (사): 버리다

索 (색): 찾다

偏 (편): 부분적으로 

專 (전): 전체적으로

併 (병): 물리치다

齋 (재): 재계하다

旋 (선): 돌다

矩 (구): 곱자

馳驟 (치취): 썩 빠름; 말을 모는 절도

俟 (사): 기다리다

忒 (특): 매우, 몹시

餘 (여): 끄트머리

寇 (구): 도적

冠履 (관리): 머리와 발

緣 (연): 까닭, 이유

逮 (체): 미치다 - 但恐精力不逮,未必能成耳 (https://ctext.org/zhuzi-yulei/107)

並 (병): 나란히

擅 (천): 멋대로 하다 - 擅用其家業,恣意破蕩 (https://ctext.org/zhuzi-yulei/108)

宜 (의): 마땅히

恃 (시): 믿다

僉 (첨): 다

押 (압): 도장 찍다

懵 (몽): 부끄러워하다

怕 (파): 두려워하다; 부끄러워하다

簡 (간): 소홀히 하다


素 (소): 평소

謝 (사): 잘못을 빌다

罷 (파): 마치다

將 (장): 거의, 대부분

況 (황): 하물며

餞 (전): 보내다; 송별연

損 (손): 상하게 하다

遮瞞 (차만): 감추고 속이다

拗 (욱): 억누르다

粗 (조): 거친; 거칠다

捉 (착): 잡다

儲蓄 (저축)

賑濟 (진제): 구휼

甚 (심): 무엇, 어느, 어떤 - 到賑濟時成甚事 (https://ctext.org/zhuzi-yulei/108)

刷 (쇄): 씻다, 없애버리다

差 (차): 보내다

抄 (초): 기록하다

糶 (조): 쌀팔다

尤 (우): 더욱

紿 (태): 속이다

權 (권): 임시로

贍 (섬): 구제하다; 먹여 살리다

拘 (구): 구애받다; 얽매이다

趕 (간): 쫓다

遂 (수): 드디어, 마침내

輒 (첩): 쉽게

銜 (함): 원망하다

赴 (부): 나아가다

稍 (초): 다소나마

醇 (순): 순수하다

蹙頞 (축알): 눈쌀을 찌푸림

畀 (비): 주다

祛 (거): 물리치다

戢 (집): 그치다, 정지하다

挽 (만): 당기다

翕 (흡): 일다 - 兩月之間,翕然都會射 (https://ctext.org/zhuzi-yulei/108)

差 (차): 어긋나다

喎 (괘): 비뚤어지다

壅 (옹): 막다; 막히다

效 (효): 힘쓰다

廚 (주): 궤; 상자

滯 (체): 막히다

沈滯 (침체) - 若是做守令,有可以白干沈滯底事,便是無頭腦 (https://ctext.org/zhuzi-yulei/108)

固 (고): 진실로, 참으로

邀 (요): 구하다

叢 (총): 번거롭다, 번거롭다 - 大抵做官,須是令自家常閑,吏胥常忙,方得 若自家被文字來叢了,討頭不見,吏胥便來作弊 (https://ctext.org/zhuzi-yulei/108)

儘 (진): 모든, 전부의

饋 (궤): 보내다

弛 (이): 느슨하다

收殺 (수쇄): 거두어 마침

叵 (파): 자못, 매우 - 這是叵耐不叵耐 (https://ctext.org/zhuzi-yulei/108)

Posted by 사용자 Л

댓글을 달아 주세요

독서/Cold War2018. 4. 1. 17:44

 What knowledge did the U.S. state/empire utilize in attempting to win hearts and minds of the people in the third world, thereby containing the expanding communist threat? Who were the experts producing such knowledge, and why did they do so in what contexts? Joy Rhode’s Armed with Expertise (2013) is a timely, welcome addition to the body of scholarship that deals with not only the aforementioned questions but also the development and transformation of the American social science in the Cold War period.

Centering on the rise, fall and rebirth of the Special Operations Research Office (SORO) since 1956, Rhode’s book illuminates the fraught relationship between social science and the national security state, democracy and militarization in the Cold War U.S. by tracing the development of “the gray area” and its dismantlement along with SORO’s absorption by the private American Institutes for Research in the early 1970s. Drawing upon primary sources from a presidential library, university archives and national archives, Rhode succeeds in reconstructing the militarization, privatization and undemocratization of the U.S. social science and presenting its historical legacy that lasted up to the present.

 The book consists of seven chapters including introduction and epilogue, opening and closing the story with American social scientists’ direct involvement in the War on Terror. How and why did these contract researchers come to the battlefield? Answering this question, the author offers the genealogy of U.S. social science’s militarization by historicizing the gray area, the “hazy” place between academia and the national security state,[1] where “not-elite intellectuals” tried to solve the entangled problem of democracy, expertise, and state security.

Chapters 1 and 2 respectively examine how the gray area was formed in the mid-1950s and how social scientists conducted research in that area in order to protect and promote democracy home and abroad. As seen in chapter 2, those researchers, Sorons, coming from “a surprising spectrum of epistemological and ethical positions” sought for their niche in the growing military-industrial-academic complex, becoming “engineers” to provide social theories to the American management efforts toward the third world. Project Camelot epitomized this imperial effort and the translation of the project’s unexpected termination into “more clandestine and more militarized” research as well as policymaking constitute chapter 3. Two ensuing chapters chronicle the increasing turf between the State and Defense departments, “two masters,” where it was the Defense department which heavily contracted Soron’s ilk and how “the gray area faded to black” as the Vietnam War ended and public attention to the threat of militarization disappeared.

 The militarizing fate of SORO and Sorons, as Rhode convincingly puts, embodied the inescapable influence of the Cold War. Born out of an American faith that “research could benefit academic social science, the military, and the free world,” they began to support U.S. projects since the mid-1950s. Sorons were by no means monolithic, but they shared certain assumptions that they should produce knowledge in order to protect democracy and that the antithesis to what they saw democracy was communism. These assumptions were ready to be practiced in the name of patriotism. In “third culture,” where was “not quite academic, not quite governmental,” such concerns as the militarization of social science, U.S. interventions on sovereign states and domestic social and political activism against the government were easily overshadowed by demands from the security state. Although its name was changed in 1966 and its institutional relation was severed from the host American University in 1969, knowledge produced by SORO became more militarized and privatized. In contrast to the previous era, since the early 1970s, contract scholars who had inhabited the gray area generating expertise on foreign lands “truly became servants of power” and “unquestioningly affirmed the Cold War status quo.”

 In Rhode’s intriguing account on the gray area, certain points seem to stand out for further discussions. As for “Cold War social scientists” in chapter 2, it would have been more plural if the author had added more researchers who confronted the same issue—“the expert’s proper role in democracy.” This suggestion might expand to the collective biography of “Cold War social scientists” whose narratives and practices virtually shaped the U.S. understanding of the second and third worlds. In this regard, comparison of the SORO works with the contemporaneous self-understanding produced by third world countries themselves would be no less interesting. Speaking of U.S. defense spending and contracting, which Rhode critically engages in, it would have been more helpful if she had suggested some insights that could inform the reader how to approach the situation democratically. Last but not least, it does not seem to be clear to appreciate the book’s main argument.[2] Notwithstanding these issues, Armed with Experts would undoubtedly serve the reader interested in the Cold War, U.S. social science and previously overlooked agencies who really influenced the U.S. understanding of the Other.

[1] In her doctoral dissertation, Rhode used the term “the boundary zone” instead of “the gray area.” Joy Elizabeth Rhode, "'The social scientists' war': Expertise in a Cold War nation" (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2007). Dissertations available from ProQuest. AAI3271806.

[2] Her recent article seems to be written in the same line with Armed with Expertise. Joy Rhode, “From Expert Democracy to Beltway Banditry: How the Antiwar Movement Expanded the Military-Academic-Industrial Complex,” in Cold War Social Science: Knowledge Production, Liberal Democracy, and Human Nature, ed. Mark Solovey and Hamilton Cravens (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 137-153.

Posted by 사용자 Л

댓글을 달아 주세요

독서/DPRK2018. 3. 10. 00:01


북미 역사가 가운데 1950년대 북한을 다루는 손에 꼽히는 학자인 앙드레 슈미드 선생님(토론토)의 오늘자 논문. 일반 연구논문은 아니고 리뷰 에세이 형식이어서 새로운 자료나 독창적인 주장이 나오진 않았지만, 그간의 서구 북한사 연구뿐만 아니라 비교 사회주의사 분야인 동독사/소련사/중국사를 충실히 정리하고 있는 글이다. 앞으로 영어로 북한사 논문을 쓸 때 이 글을 참고하지 않고서는 유의미한 이야기를 하기 힘들 듯 하다. 연구사적으로 무척 값진 글이라고 할 수 있다. 

일제강점기 조선인의 강제적 해외 이동과 귀환, 해방과 전쟁을 거치며 어떻게 조선인이 38도선을 오갔는지부터 시작해 1950년대 중후반 북한 사회 내에서 조선인의 이동 문제를 다루는 후반부에 이르기까지 이 글을 꿰는 주제는 이동성mobility이다. 본문은 크게 네 부분으로 나뉘는데, 각각 a) 북한 내 이동성의 문제가 어떻게 자료 접근의 절대적 제약 및 반공 국가의 비판 없는 자료 이용과 결합돼 미국 내에서 "전체주의" 북한의 이미지가 끊임 없이 재생산되었는지, b) 사회주의권이 무너지고 자료 접근이 완화됨에 따라 (또는 그 이전부터) 사회주의국가의 특정한 상, 즉 '사회에 대한 국가의 완전한 통제'라는 냉전 인상을 불식시키고 인민의 주체성agency을 복원한 소련사/동독사/중국사의 연구 성과 소개, c) 이러한 성과에도 불구하고, 끊임없이 냉전적 연구가 지속(마이어스와 숙영킴)되고 있는 서구 북한사 연구 비판, d) 1950년대 북한 자료(로동자, 경제건설, 조선녀성 등)에 대한 슈미드 나름의 독법을 제공하고 이를 통해 냉전적 접근을 탈피할 수 있고 속히 탈피해야 한다는 부분이다. 

주체성을 강조한 슈미드의 이야기는 사회주의권 다른 최신 연구와 비교했을 때 결코 새롭거나 독창적인 이야기는 아니다. 하지만 아직도 영어권 학계에서 북한에 대한 비역사적 또는 몰역사적인 냉전적 시각이 지배적이고 이러한 모습이 당분간 쉽게 바뀌지 않으리라는 점을 고려할 때, 권위 있는 The American Historical Review에 실린 이 글은 서구 북한사 연구자들에게는 충분히 고무적인 일이고 냉전적 시각을 고수하는 연구자들에게는 경종을 울리는 일일 것이다. 

사소하지만 안타까운 점이 없진 않다. 개인적으로 슈미드의 입론에 전부 동의하지만, 엄청난 제약에도 불구하고 북한사 연구가 가장 활발하게 진행되고 있는 한국의 최신 성과들을 각주로나마 소개하는 데 할애했더라면 더욱 좋았을 것 같다. 김동춘, 김연철, 서동만, 이주철 등 국내 연구자가 각주로 나오긴 하지만, 글의 핵심 주장(=인민의 주체성)은 김재웅의 박사논문(2014)이나, 김선호의 박사논문(2016) 등 국내 북한사 연구로 뒷받침했을 때 더욱 탄탄해질 수 있다고 본다. 물론 슈미드가 이러한 논문을 몰랐다기보다는, 잡지의 성격과 본인의 현재 연구 시기인 1950년대(앞 논문들은 1945-50)를 더욱 잘 설명하기 위한 전략이었으리라고 생각한다.

Posted by 사용자 Л

댓글을 달아 주세요

독서/STS2018. 1. 26. 22:30

Tiago Saraiva, Fascist Pigs: Technoscientific Organisms and the History of Fascism (The MIT Press, 2016)




I Nation


1. Wheat

2. Wheat

3. Potatoes

4. Pigs

II Empire


5. Coffee, Rubber, and Cotton

6. Sheep






Fascism as biopolitics. The making and growing of animals and plants embodying fascism. The point is to extend the notion of biopolitics. Fascist collectives included organisms that breeders of plants and animals produced through new practices of the sciences of heredity—life forms as important as human bodies in making fascism. This book builds on Canguilhem’s attention to specific technoscientific organisms to explore the historical dynamics of fascism.


Fascism as Alternative Modernity

Roger Griffin, fascism as a modernist political ideology (a coherent political project of national rebirth promising a sense of transcendence and purpose to societies allegedly under the modern menaces of individualism, social anomy, alienation, and instability). Fascism, much more than a radicalized version of old-fashioned conservatism; it is an all-encompassing modernist social experiment with the purpose of inventing a new national community.

Food and the Fascist Organic Nation

In fascist studies food is a lumper whereas race is a splitter. Food was central to translating the fascist ideology of the organic nation into concrete policies. The Battaglia del Grano (Battle of Wheat, 1925), soon to be reproduced in Portugal (Wheat Campaign, 1929) and later in Germany (Erzeugunsschlacht; Battle for Production, 1934). All mobilized to protect the national community.

Model Organisms, Industrialized Organisms, and Fascism

It emphasized the fact that such organisms were technoscientific organisms—modern products of scientific breeding operations. Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, “epistemology of the concrete.” The particular forms modernity assumed in different historical contexts. The author points at the need to complicate the notions of modernity. The increasing ability to tinker with plant and animal life—my extended version of biopolitics—enabled the materialization of different political projects, alternative modernities, good and bad, fascism being clearly among the bad ones.

Fascist Ontology and the Structure of the Book

Fascism is taken as a historical context to which scientists’ practices and objects contributed; the argument is less about fascist epistemology than about fascist ontology. Such a formulation is a direct reference to the alleged recent ontological turn in STS and the increased interest in studying the being of entities (ontology) at the expense of inquiring about modes of knowing entities (epistemology).

Annemarie Mol, The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice (Duke University Press, 2003)

John Law, Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience (Duke University Press, 2002)

Diana Coole and Samantha Frost, New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics (Duke University Press, 2010)

Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning (Duke University Press, 2007)

Steve Woolgar and Javier Lezaun, “The wrong bin bag”

The very same notion of technoscience, pointing at knowledge production more as a mode of intervention than as revelation or discovery, leads to a conflation of epistemology and ontology.

Bruno Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Harvard University Press, 1993)

Peter Galison, Einstein's Clocks and Poincare's Maps: Empires of Time (Norton, 2003)




“Think things”: “a phrase meant to invoke the multiple meanings ascribed to particular material artifacts, even those apparently subject to the thinning regime of modern science.” Scientific things, it is argued, encapsulate a much richer world than the one associated with the thin scientific objects of traditional historical narratives characterized by their detachment from culture. To achieve a better understanding of how fascist societies came into being and how they expanded. I have insisted on using the explanatory power of historical narratives of technoscientific things to explore the nature of concrete political regimes. M. Norton Wise urged historians to embrace their typical methodology of talking “the individual case as representative of larger developments, even though it can never be abstracted from its specific circumstances.” As model organisms are not abstract entities and their actual existence in the real world often leads scientists into unforeseen phenomena, so the intense tinkering with concrete historical technoscientific things led the historical research into unexpected paths. The weaving of Things histories seems, in fact, an adequate narrative technique with which to make sense of practices aimed at producing fascist collectives through the scientific production of things.


I Nation


The author argues that pigs and potatoes were at the core of a major effort by the Nazi regime to root Germans in the national soil—an effort that was aimed at transforming German society into a national community, a Gesellschaft into a Gemeinschaft. A crude notion of culture: In too many narratives we are left with no more than a set of values and beliefs that are supposed to characterize fascism movements and regimes. Beliefs entail those actions. (My comment: would it be more appropriate to use ‘practices’ than ‘actions’? The author would agree that still we need to analyze those beliefs and its meanings embodied on ‘expressed beliefs’ and those of others’.) The main question here is how the making and growing of new strains of plants and animals could embody a new political regime. Performativity. Wheat, potatoes, and pigs performed fascism and thus are properly considered fascist wheat, fascist potatoes, and fascist pigs.


1 Wheat: Food Battles, Elite Breeds, and Mussolini’s Fascist Regime


The Italian War for Bread Independence

Fascist envisaged Italy as an autarkic economy, able to release itself from dependency on the “plutocratic states” that dominated the world economy: the British Empire and the US

Producing and Circulating Purity

The Seeds of Victory

The targeting of small landholders didn’t change the fact that large farmers were the main beneficiaries of the system. In order for Ardito to circulate from the geneticist’s experimental plot to the farmers’ fields, the fields had to be converted into spaces reproducing the laboratory conditions of the experiment station. The lodging-resistant Ardito delivered on the fascists’ promise of stronger nationalism but not on the promise of egalitarianism.

Human and Non-Human Arditi

The human Arditi were a recurrent symbol of fascist iconography. The naming of the strain leaves few doubts about the political allegiances of Strampelli, who would join the National Fascist Party in 1925. It suggested that the new wheat strain could materialize the constant mobilization demanded by fascist ideology, making indistinguishable war in the trenches and cultivation of the national soil.

The combination of mass mobilization, charismatic leadership, state power, and ideology of the land was characteristically fascist. In Italy, before the Battle of Wheat launched in 1925, there had been no comparable initiative able to bring all these features together.


2 Wheat: The Integral Nation, Genetics, and Salazar’s Corporatist Fascist State


Integral Wheat Fields

Jose Pequito Rebelo (1892-1983), a large landowner who developed Integral Method. Strong ideas about the national soil were central to Integralists’ visions of the organic nation. Ruralization was to become one of the main features of the recently inaugurated dictatorial regime.

The Portuguese Wheat Campaign: Chemical Fertilizers and Large Estates

In 1929, the dictatorship launched a national mobilization for bread self-sufficiency.

Ardito in Portugal: Plant Breeding and the Fascist Corporatist State

The circulation of geneticists’ artifacts was not an automatic procedure. Locality was still crucial in genetic flows. António de Sousa da Câmara (1901-1971), the executive organizer of the Wheat Campaign. Scientists and their technoscientific organisms—high-yielding seeds—participating directly in the building of a corporatist state that removed all mechanisms of liberal representation and replaced them with an allegedly organic structure based on “economic solidarities.”

Modernism, Genetics, and the New State

In Portugal, as in Italy, there was no contradiction between ruralization and modernization. It was through agriculture that the new alternative modernity of Salazar’s fascist corporatist state came into being. Câmara’s echoing the organic corporatist state (p. 65). Propaganda Secretariat campaign: Everything was rural, but a streamlined rural as if seen through futurist lenses.


3 Potatoes: Pests, Plant Breeding, and the Growth of the Nazi State


World War I Famines and Potatoes

Because potatoes were among the few staples that the German soil produced in sufficient quantities, they became important to the rootedness of the national community envisaged by the Nazis. In the 1930s the vast majority of German adults had had acute personal experiences of hunger. The starvation events of World War I were repeatedly used in subsequent years to justify increasing support for the plant pathology research.


Wart disease was first detected in Germany in 1908 in Westphalia. By 1927 it was present in every region of the country. The research on wart disease had also led to an important development in the methodology for classifying potato varieties.

The BRA and the RNS: The Streamlined Estate and the 1934 Seed Decree

The Seed Decree issued by Darre’s Ministry in March 1934, established a compulsory registering system in which only the best varieties of each crop were allowed into the list, these being the only ones that could be sold in the market. In subsequent years, the exclusion of some varieties would extend to cultivation itself. Potatoes that after having been tested at the BRA (Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft) were considered as not contributing to the nutritional independence of the Volk didn’t have a place in Nazi Germany. Reichsnährstand (RNS—Reich Food Estate) exercised more or less direct control over more than 25 percent of Germany’s GDP and constituted the largest economic unit in the world. After the Nazis seized power, the seed market, like everything else related to agriculture, would be centrally regulated. Eduard Riehm, the director of the BRA from Otto Appel’s retirement in 1933 till 1945. The Seed Decree of March 1934 confirms the importance of seed circulation for the streamlined RNS. The fact that a seed decree was issued no more than a year into Nazi rule merits reflection. It was not for the market to decide the value of a variety; such value was defined at the BRA in accordance with the general food policy of the regime as established by the RNS.

The Colorado Potato Beetle

The effort to eradicate beetle became an effective way of getting rural people, children, and women included, to participate in the defense of the fatherland. The training courses, the images on children’s calendars, and the demonstration kits all contributed to making the Colorado Beetle into an enemy menacing the survival of the national community. Every finding and subsequent elimination of a beetle was transformed into a significant contribution to the food battle keeping the German race alive. A kind of participatory science.

Late Blight


The different combinations of potato varieties, pathogen strains, and inoculation methods constituted generative experimental systems that led to new epistemic objects and the possibility of incorporating new techniques. The different experimental systems that structured the organizational chart of the BRA were built on resources previously developed by other sections of the BRA.

Experimental Systems and the Expansion of the Nazi Regime

To tinker with combinations of potatoes, pathogens, and inoculation tests, to tinker with experimental systems, led to new epistemic things such as Muller’s phytoalexin. The RNS based its control of the seed circuit on the tests developed at the BRA. In the opposite direction, the BRA used the RNS’s regional structure to guarantee that its standards would reach the entire country. It probably is better to speak of co-production of science and the state than to speak of resources as if science and politics were two different spheres. The particular politics associated with Nazism that phytopathology work contributed to. Potatoes proved to be significant historical subjects to understand the Nazi regime at work.


4 Pigs: The Bodenständig Scientific Community in Nazi Germany


Breeding and Feeding Pigs and Germans

Richard Walther Darré—the main agrarian ideologue of Nazi Germany, “Blut und Boden” and Minister of Food and Agriculture from 1933 to 1942. His essay “The pig as a distinguishing feature for northern peoples and semites” (Das Schwein als Kriterium für nordische Völker und Semiten). The life trajectories of himself and his high esteem for the place of pigs in the German national community provide a vantage point from which to explore the entanglements between science and Nazism. There is no doubt his own account of the profound effects of those three scientists (Theodor Roemer, Gustav Frolich and Johannes Walther). As suggestive as these analogies between humans and pigs may be, we now know how little practical effect they had in cultivating an SS aristocracy. The very concrete experience of hunger familiar to the German population during World War I (My comment: Very much interesting. Reducing the size of the German pig herd as a plot by Jewish academics to eliminate the German race. Shows how historical narratives, whether be real or mythical, works in embodying fascist policies). Darré always combined the themes of peasant revival with those of mobilization for food production, equating the Volk with an organism dependent on nutrition for survival.

German Academia and Pig Modernization in the Interwar Years: The Emergence of Performance Records

Performance Tests and the Nazi Bureaucracy

The fattening performance tests developed at academic institutes offered standards with which to evaluate animals’ potential contribution to the building of the Nazi regime. But performance tests could have such large effects only if connected with an extended bureaucracy reaching the entire territory. An important part of academic research in animal breeding in the Nazi years was to explore the relations between form and performance, promising to overcome the differences between commercial breeders’ visual evaluations and academic breeder’s tests.

Nutritional Freedom and Fats

Jonas Schmidt. The idea was not to produce hybrid breeding animals; it was to have the first generation of hybrid swine used exclusively for fattening, not for reproduction.

Bodenständigkeit (Rootedness in the soil)

The challenge was to increase fat and protein production through animals avoiding fodder imports from abroad. Swine were evolving in the desired direction. The changing geography of pig production also reflected the changing nature of pigs during the Nazi years. All those animals not complying with the standard of rootedness in the soil established by academic animal breeders were to be slaughtered. Only the new fat pigs, making efficient use of national fodders, sustained the community of Blut und Boden announced by Darre and guaranteed the nutritional freedom of the German Volk as articulated by Backe.

Fascist Pigs

The political Nazi imagination was already being molded by Frolich and by other scientists who were tinkering with the possibilities of producing animals less dependent on foreign imports. The combination of performance tests, fats, and rootedness in the soil may guide us in systematizing the connections between pigs and the fascist nature of Nazism. Closely associate with fascist militarism was exacerbated nationalism, nurtured by the feeding of the people through produce from the national soil. Pigs served first and foremost to nurture the national community, not to thrive in capitalist markets. This transcendent nature of peg rearing and feeding was also made present by RNS leaflets urging German women to feed animals on leftovers from their households. The mammoth state structure of the RNS was built on the implementation of such standards as the animal performance tests developed at Gottingen and Halle. Performance tests ensured that pigs were fat and rooted in the soil, making pigs contributing to the Nazi regime through militarism, nationalism, transcendentalism, and statism. Performance tests were designed to produce fascist pigs. Nazism, Heidegger asserted, became part of the “machinations” and “Total Mobilization” characteristic of Modernity, with science enlisted in the “domination and regulation of all objects for the sake of their usefulness and breeding.” Breeding, for Heidegger, made life useful, objectified it, forming part of the overarching modern process of uprooting humans from the soil through the forgetting of Being. The paradox lies in the fact that animal breeders used rootedness in the soil (Bodenständigkeit) as the guiding principle of their activities. Heidegger could have claimed that German breeders such as Frolich and Schmidt didn’t understand that their hogs were indistinguishable from American or British ones: they were just all modern. The animals scientists designed were intended to perform the transition of German society into a national community, embodying Nazi alternative modernity.


II Empire


In all three cases, strong claims about the importance of the national soil for the survival of the organic nation translated into imperial expansionism. The author contends that organisms were central in materializing dangerously murderous imperial visions into concrete projects in the European possessions (Poland and Ukraine) and the African possession (Libya, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola) of the three fascist regimes. The author uses the concrete cases of the raising of Karakul sheep and the cultivation of the rubber substitute kok-sagyz to explore Nazi Germany’s occupation of eastern Europe through the lenses of colonial history. In crude terms, the Third Reich points to fascism while the Third Portuguese Empire and Mussolini’s Great Italy point to colonialism. Fascist states were colonial latecomers. Bouda Etemad’s estimation: whereas about 130 colonial wars from 1871 to 1914 implied between 280,000 and 300,000 dead soldiers among European powers, they were responsible for 50 million to 60 m deaths among the colonized populations, 90 percent of the victims civilians.

Bouda Etemad, POSSESSING THE WORLD: Taking the Measurements of Colonisation from the 18th to the 20th Century (Berghahn Books, 2007)

Western nations would have been less appalled by the violence of Italy’s occupation of Ethiopia in 1935 if the undertaking had occurred about 40 years earlier. It is telling that at the moment Europeans powers were undertaking reforms of their colonial labor systems, Portugal was starting a gigantic cotton production scheme based on the violent labor practices of the Belgian Congo being subject of reform. Fascist empires were built on, and in reaction to, other European imperial experiences. Fascist regimes allowed less space, if any, for reform or for accommodation of claims made by indigenous populations. Also, their wars of occupation came late, in the German and Italian cases facing well-developed state structures and thus resulting in more brutal conflicts. The breeding of animals and of plants is particularly relevant for such an exercise since, as I argue throughout this book, the fascists’ imperial ambitions were materialized largely through agriculture undertakings. The different breeds organizing the narrative reveal intentions, challenges, realities, and failures of the fascist imperial new order.


5 Coffee, Rubber, and Cotton: Cash Crops, Forces Labor, and Fascist Imperialism in Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Eastern Europe


Coffee promised to turn Mussolini’s takeover in eastern Africa into a profitable operation, Hitler dreamed that the eastern European steppes would produce rubber for the Nazi war machine, and Salazar envisioned masses of Mozambique native cultivators sustaining Portugal’s textile industry. The mobilization of indigenous people’s work for commodities production, emphasizing the continuity of fascist colonialism with other European post-slavery imperial experiences.


Coffee and the Colonization of Italian East Africa

1936. Armando Maugini, director of the Colonial Agricultural Institute in Florence and chief technical advisor to the Ministry of Colonies during the occupation of Ethiopia. The Experimental Agricultural and Zootechnic Center for Italian Oriental Africa (CSAZAOI) began to operate in 1938. To test these varieties under Ethiopian conditions and to hybridize them with local landraces. Coffee arabica also migrated originally from the Ethiopian plateau to the mountains of Yemen and from there into all the other important coffee production areas of the world. If wheat proved essential to feed the colonial army and the builders of the colonial infrastructure, coffee was the main commodity that enabled Italians to dream of Ethiopia as an important source of revenue. Coffee embodied for the white settler the promise of a way out of the miserable peasant life of metropolitan Italy. Coffee production condensed all different forms of colonial practices in the territory. Italian breeders couldn’t have been more enthusiastic about the opportunity of tinkering with coffee diversity at tis center of origin where variability was the highest.

European Heart of Darkness: Rubber and the Role of Auschwitz as a Colonial Agricultural Experiment Station

Heinrich Himmler’s grandiloquent titles, his nomination in Feb 1943 as Plenipotentiary for All Issues Related to Plant Rubber (Reichsführer-SS als Sonderbeauftragter für Pflanzenkautschuk). The push toward rubber autarky explains much of the investment in the expensive production of synthetic rubber—Buna—by IG Farben and its gigantic facility in Auschwitz. The immediate needs to carry on the war effort were covered by the taking over of rubber stocks from conquered territories, but a more sustainable source was needed. Susanne Heim’s archival sources. As Mark Mazower has suggested, and as Nazi rubber confirms, the history of the twentieth century fully justifies the description of Europe as a “Dark Continent.” Taraxacum kok-sagyz, a dandelion-like plant that Soviet plant breeders had been working with since the early 1930s (Nikolai Vavilov’s expeditions to Central Asia in the Tien Shan Mountains). If Ukrainian peasants were resentful of Bolshevik previous imposition of kok-sagyz cultivation, they demonstrated the same unwillingness to plant it under the new German imperial rule. Partisan presence in the occupied regions significantly hindered cultivation activities. Auschwitz had thus the double nature of labor and death camp, setting it apart from most other camps that were either dedicated to one or the other. The agricultural dimension is a crucial one to understand the nature of the place and its role in the Nazi empire. It embodied the Nazi empire, built on mass killing and over exploitation of “inferior races.” While men were used as forced labor in the industrial IG Farben chemical complex, women were the gardeners and computers of the plant-breeding operations. Auschwitz reproduced the gendered colonial labor division at work of the Third Reich beyond the area delimited by barbed wire. Kok-sagyz shows the scandalous continuities of Nazi colonial Europe with colonial situations in Africa. Himmler’s monstrous dreams originated from his irrational racist ideology, but they were converted into alleged feasible projects by the making and growing of technoscientific organisms, in this case, high-latex kok-sagyz.

Cotton Breeding and Portugal’s Colonial Regime in Mozambique

Aurelio Quintanilha (1892-1987) had very different political allegiances from those of Armando Maugini, the main colonial agricultural expert of fascist Italy, or Joachim Caesar, the head of the Auschwitz plant-breeding research. By denying Quintanilha access to his laboratory, the results of seven years of research on cytology and genetics of fungi were totally lost. The individual political preferences of a scientist, totally contrary to fascism, prove to be irrelevant when inquiring the role of his research for the expansion of the regime. It was in the brutal context of the cotton regime that the anarcho-syndicalist Aurelio Quintanilha was supposed to lead the Center for Cotton Scientific Research (CICA). More important than inquiring about the attitude of Portugal’s fascist regime in favor or against science, is to understand how scientific artifacts contributed to maintain its imperial dreams. The materialization of fascist imperial undertakings through the cultivation of breeders’ artifacts was built on a colonial repertoire developed previously by other European powers.


It was in the colonies that fascism showed its most brutal face. Unfortunately, this death toll is of the same order of magnitude of the wars of colonial expansion of the last third of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. The most violent dimension of fascism was colonial expansion. The main difference of fascist colonial experiences was timing and lack of routes for reform, leading to characteristically more violent practices. Fascist empires would still belong to the family of European colonial empires, just as Portugal’s Third Empire did. It was the breeding work on coffee at Malco experiment fields, on kok-sagyz at Auschwitz, and on cotton at CICA laboratories in Lourenco Marques (today Maputo) that made plausible the vision of imperial territories supplying the autarkic economies of fascist regimes. The technoscientific organisms coming out of the breeders’ plots were the ones materializing on the ground the grand rhetoric of Lebensraum, Grande Italia, and “Portugal is not a small country.” Breeders’ artifacts integrated fascist nations in the larger dark colonial history of grabbing land for the production of cash crops grown by natives through violent forced-labor regimes. The new organisms enlarged the organic nation through Empire.


6 Sheep: Fascist Settlers and the Colonization of Africa and Europe


Karakul and the Nazi Eastern Empire

Instead of getting lost in the Nazi bureaucratic maze, the author would like to follow the sheep and see what they may reveal about Germany’s eastward expansion and about the fascist imperial ventures of Italy and Portugal. Karakul sheep are highly valued animals, originating from Bukhara in Uzbekistan, whose pelts are used to produce the famous Persian fur coast also known as Astrakhan. Sheep raising had been identified as part of the economic activities sustaining the settlers of the General Plan East, the Nazi blueprint for the future of eastern Europe. Considering the highly developed exploration of Karakul sheep by Soviet animal breeders, it seems reasonable to suppose that the Germans’ Kriwoj Rog Experiment Station in southeast Ukraine was also based on preexistent Soviet research efforts.

Karakul as Model Organism and Industrialized Organism: Curl Formation and Fur Markets

Karakul’s double status of experimental and research object. The recording practices that standardized the Karakul as a scientific model organism thus led as well to its standardization as an industrialized organism ready to be marketable.

Circulating Karakul I: Uzbekistan, Germany, and South West Africa

As in eastern European under Nazi rule, the metaphors of the American frontier helped make sense of German colonizers’ actions in South West Africa. Civilization was to be advanced by converting open pastureland into farms demarcated by barbed wire and settled by German colonizers. Paradoxically, settlers performed a mimicry of indigenous practices. Even in such extreme cases as imperial genocide as in South West Africa or in Nazi-controlled eastern Europe, settler life is always built on indigenous resources. Hitler’s 1941 European New Order: To invoke the historical importance of research done at Halle for the thriving of German communities in South West Africa was to assert he importance of esoteric concerns with the genetics of hair development for the expansion of the Reich into eastern Europe.

Circulating Karakul II: Germany, Italy, Libya, and Ethiopia

The raising of Karakul offered a hope of reproducing the German miracle in South West Africa by producing wealth, in the form of furs, out of the desert while sustaining a proud settler community. The myth of a benign form of Italian colonialism tolerant of local costumes has proved hard to debunk. Punishment, execution, and death by starvation were daily occurrences. In both Germany and the Soviet Union, Karakul had been used already as a model organism in artificial-insemination experiments. Double status of Karakul experiments: it was an organism whose reproduction was being industrialized to increase profits from its production; but it was also a model organism standing for other organisms in exploring the general usefulness of artificial insemination. Determining which animals would be allowed to reproduce and which would be eliminated from a herd meant intervening at the core of indigenous life. Control of animal reproduction constituted an obligatory passage point (Michel Callon) translating questions of colonial power and political independence.

J. Law ed., Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (1986)

Circulating Karakul III: South West Africa and Angola

From the very early stages of the dictatorial regime that came out of the military coup of 1926, the empire had been one of its central features, as was confirmed by the appointment of Salazar as Minister of the Colonies in 1930 and the issuing of the Colonial Act that same year. Only by ignoring the existence of semi-nomadic people such as the Bedouins in Libya or the Herero in South West Africa, and by denying their entitlement to the land, was it possible to dream of gigantic estates marked by barbed wire fences holding millions of Karakul sheep. The presence of Karakul is a good marker of colonial genocides. Experiment stations were the first materialization in the landscape of the fascist colonial project, of the alternative modernity of settlers attached to the land through the reproduction of technoscientific organisms. Any Karakul project begins with the importing of pure-blood Karakul to be crossed with local sheep. Purity was a central principle of Karakul husbandry. Pureblood males were separated from the herd, contracting females only for reproduction; hybrid males were slaughtered or castrated. The strict surveillance over purity and controlled hybridization of nonhuman animals had direct consequences for colonial relations.


By exploring the historical trajectories of these organisms, one is able to understand how the expansionist ambitions of fascist regimes were to be materialized in frontier landscapes. Colonialism is a crucial feature of fascist regimes performing the tasks of national destiny, racial superiority, and economic independence. Karakul is a good point of entry to the larger history of fascist frontier genocide. The claim for integrating nonhuman animals in the narrative is well in tune with suggestions by environmental historians to build historical accounts by paying attention to bison, dogs, or mosquitoes. Had we ignored the work undertaken by animal geneticists at the University of Halle, we would not have been able to understand how Karakul traveled from Uzbekistan to South West Africa, or from Germany to Italy and from there to North Africa. Experiment stations as exemplary settlements were experimenting with colonialism at large, materializing fascism dreams of Lebensraum and Grande Italia, and “Portugal is not a small country.” 

'독서 > STS' 카테고리의 다른 글

UCLA_18S_K296A_W8  (0) 2018.06.04
Tiago Saraiva, Fascist Pigs (2016)  (0) 2018.01.26
Posted by 사용자 Л

댓글을 달아 주세요

Mark Bevir, “Political Studies as Narrative and Science, 1880-2000,” Political Studies Vol 54 (2006), 583-606.


We have become skeptical because of the spread among us of a radical historicism that challenges scientism while also decentering the grand narratives of old. … Although we might be skeptical of grand narratives with their big aggregate concepts, we should recognize that narratives must deploy aggregate concepts if they are to be more than chronicles of one damn thing after another. What matter is that our aggregate concepts are suitably contingent, historicist and pragmatic.


Developmental Historicism, cc. 1880-1920


Owed much to an organic or romantic outlook that emphasized the ability of living beings to make and remake social life through their activity, where activity expressed purpose, thought and imagination. … Progress was built into the order of things. … Developmental historicists made sense of their world by means of narratives of continuity and progress. William Dunning.


Modernist Empiricism, cc. 1920-1960


The senselessness of the conflict eroded widespread assumptions of continuity, progress and reason. In Britain and the US, moreover, the Teutonic principle was discredited as a result of its association with the enemy; it became tarred as Germanic absolutism. … Modernist empiricism was atomistic and analytic. … Modernist empiricists brought atomistic and analytic modes of inquiry to bear on the study of government. … Introduced analytic and atomistic modes of inquiry, and new focuses on behavior and process. … Social scientists used history more as a source of data than as grounds for explaining that data.


Varieties of Social Science, cc. 1960-2000


Most modernist empiricists still equated science with the rigorous and impartial collection and shifting of facts. They just detached such rigor from narrative. … The behavioral revolution was the most notable expression of the turn toward positivism. … The neo-statists were seduced by lopsided views of their intellectual history and their preferred methods. … Rational choice theory replicated many of the features of behavioralism that had challenged modernist empiricism. … Neo-statists and other modernist empiricists responded to the challenge of rational choice theory by rearticulating their approach as the ‘new institutionalism.’ … They almost never decenter institutions in terms of a micro theory of contingent and competing beliefs and actions, for, if they did so, they would undermine the possibility of treating institutions as stable objects that can be known through correlations and classifications. … Today social scientists have two dominant ways of studying politics. First, rational choice theorists, like the behavioralists, explain the character and policies of nation states by reference to universal theories and hypotheses deduced from them. … Second, new institutionalists, like earlier modernist empiricists, explain the character and policies of nation states in terms of correlations and typologies that provide macro-historical, comparative contexts for diverse cases.


A Return to Narrative?


The radical historicists implied that beliefs, actions and events are profoundly contingent in that the moment of choice is open and indeterminate. … Croce. … R.G. Collingwood. … Charles Taylor. … Quentin Skinner and Clifford Geertz. … They renounced the possibility of either a universal theory or ahistorical correlations and typologies. … They emphasized contextualization in contrast to both deduction and atomization and analysis. … E.P. Thompson and Raymond Williams. … Stuart Hall. … Because the members of the New Left allowed autonomy to culture, they focused on the beliefs and meanings that infuse actions and practices. … The structuralists studied language, mind and society as objects that were determined by the internal relations among the units within them. … Deconstruction in particular takes from structuralism a view of culture as constructed in accord with categories of frameworks; it just unpacks these categories in terms of a logic of otherness rather than one of presence. … Deconstruction exhibits the limitations of a mode of knowing by referring to a quasi-structure that is meant to govern all thought, rather than by appealing to the historical specificity of that particular mode of knowing. … Whereas radical historicists typically portray people as active agents in the making of their own history, the post-structuralists often portray them as bearers of the discourses or quasi-structuralists that speak and persist through them. … Radical historicists and post-structuralists offer new narratives of nation states using the same themes of dispersal, difference and discontinuity with which they challenge principles of reason, character and progress. Dispersal implies a concern to explore scattered regions and domains within a nation state. … Difference implies a concern to explore how dominant identities elide, or even define themselves against, competing ones of, say, religion, gender and race. ... Discontinuity implies a concern with the ways in which all these varied identities are created and transformed over time.




Its leading motifs are dispersal, difference and discontinuity, all of which appear in the prominence given to transnationalism, pluralism and contingency. … Our challenge is to clear up an ambiguity about the dispersals, differences and discontinuities they invoke. … Post-structuralists are inclined to identify the content of particular instances of dispersal, difference and discontinuity as themselves consequences of the internal relations of a discourse or language or even as built into the nature of representation itself: the east is defined structurally against the west, or male against female. In sharp contrast, radical historicists typically ascribe such content to the activity of agents who use and deploy language to express ideas and beliefs, albeit that they reach these beliefs only under the influence of an inherited tradition or discourse. … Another challenge is effectively to engage social scientists, most of whom still favor typologies, correlations and models, rather than skeptical narratives. …


Mark Bevir, “What is Genealogy?” Journal of the Philosophy of History 2 (3) (2008), 263-275.




The crux of the theory is recognition of genealogy as an expression of a radical historicism, rejecting both appeals to transcendental truths and principles of unity or progress in history, and embracing nominalism, contingency, and contestability. In this view, genealogies are committed to the truth of radical historicism and, perhaps more provisionally, the truth of their own empirical content. Similarly, genealogies operate as denaturalizing critiques of ideas and practices that hide the contingency of human life behind formal ahistorical or developmental perspectives.


Genealogy: A historical narrative that explains an aspect of human life by showing how it came into being. Always historical whether be grounded in facts or speculative. No clear origin, but associated primarily with Friedrich Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals and Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish. For them, genealogy serves a critical purpose, exposing the contingent and “shameful” origins of cherished ideas and entrenched practices.


Radical Historicism


Genealogy arose in the context of nineteenth century historicism. Historicist modes of reasoning were commonplace throughout the nineteenth century; almost always developmental. Principles such as liberty, reason, nation and statehood give a progressive direction to history. Nietzsche searches for the contingent, accidental sources of a belief in any such principles. Radical historicism does away with appeals to principles that lend necessity and unity to history. Resulting powerful emphasis on: nominalism, contingency, and contestability.


I. Nominalism


As Foucault argued, “anthropological universals” appear as historical constructs with no fixed content. Radical historicists eschew analyses of a structural concept—such as state, society, economy, nation, and class—that points to an essence or set of principles as defining its boundaries or development. Yet they can deploy aggregate concepts—including developmental historicism, Christian morality, or disciplinary power—provided that these concepts are conceived pragmatically in relation to what is being explained.


II. Contingency


Cannot explain the change in actions, practices, and traditions by appealing to fixed principles or essences. Reject the teleological narratives of developmental historicism. Portray history as discontinuous and contingent. History is a series of contingent even accidental appropriations, modifications, and transformations from the old to the new. Change occurs contingently as, for example, people reinterpret, modify, or transform an inherited tradition in response to novel circumstances or other dilemmas.


III. Contestability


An emphasis on contingency implies that history is radically open in that what happens is always contestable. Be suspicious of attempts to portray a thing as unified and its transformation as peaceful. Highlight the diverse meanings. Often adopt a decentered approach, where to decenter is to show how apparently uniform concepts, traditions, or practices are in fact social constructs that cover and even arise from individuals acting on divers and changing meanings. Power concept to simply signal the presence of multiplicity and struggle.




Clearly opposed to truth claims that do not recognize their own historicity, including all those that masquerade as utter certainties based on a pure reason or pure experience. Beliefs and truth-claims are always saturated by the particular tradition against the background of which they are made. Even simple experiences depend in part on the prior webs of beliefs one brings to bear. Can make truth claims provided that they conceive of “truth” as something more like “objectively valid for us” or “the best account of the world currently on offer”. A good account of the world should be able to provide an account of how and why it arose as well as an account of how and why its rival rose. Typically incorporate a self-reflexivity in their beliefs such that they situate them by reference to a particular tradition or narrative.




As an expression of radical historicism genealogy operates primarily as a type of denaturalizing critique. It denaturalizes beliefs, actions, and practices by suggesting that they arose out of contingent historical contests. Genealogy reveals the contingency and contestability of ideas and practices that hide these aspects of their origins. Radical historicists reject utter certainties: they denaturalize purportedly transcendent or universal perspective that elide their own dependence on a particular tradition. Trying to develop compelling narratives supported by evidence derived from empirical research, and in that respect, their research is, as Foucault noted, “gray, meticulous, and patiently documentary.” Genealogists may deploy a concept of power in order to suggest that the present arose not as a necessary unity but rather out of struggles among diverse possibilities. Genealogy opens novel spaces for personal and social transformation precisely because it loosens the hold on us of entrenched ideas and institutions; it frees us to imagine other possibilities.


Nietzsche and Foucault


Foucault’s use of genealogy is complicated by his clear debt to a modernist structuralism. Apparently self-regulating epistemes acted as quasi-structures explaining their own content and, in the absence of historicism, there was no way to explain the change from one quasi-structure to another. The distinguishing feature of his genealogies is their introduction of temporal complexity and contingency. Where his archaeologies presented a series of discrete synchronic moments, his genealogies introduced history as a diachronic process, enabling him to write histories that were useful as critiques of the present. The result was Discipline and Punish and History of Sexuality. Governmentality studies often lapse back into an approach that owes more to modernist sociology with its ideal types than to genealogy. Even critical theorists often find it easier to conceive of discourses and practices as quasi-structures marked by differences and exclusions than to engage in the meticulous, patient research necessary to trace the contingent, accidental shifts and contests from which such discourses and practices emerged historically.




A genealogy is a critique of ideas and practices that hide the contingency of human life behind formal ahistorical or developmental perspectives. As critical narratives, genealogies are committed to the truth of radical historicism and, perhaps more provisionally, the truth of their own empirical content. No reason why the genealogist should not believe both that radical historicism arose contingently, perhaps even accidentally, and that it is true. Genealogists and other critical historians should not remain content simply to replicate genealogy as a technique of inquiry and narration.


Mark Bevir, “Rethinking Governmentality: Towards Genealogies of Governance,” European Journal of Social Theory 13 (2010), 423-441.




Foucault introduced the concept ‘governmentality’ to refer to the conduct of conduct, and especially the technologies that govern individuals. Genealogical theory of governmentality emphasized nominalism, contingency, situated agency, and historicist explanations referring to traditions and dilemmas. It decenters governance by highlighting diverse elite narratives, technologies of power, and traditions of popular resistance.


Governmentality captures the way governments and other actors draw on knowledge to make policies that regulate and create subjectivities. This article is about governmentality conceived as a genealogical approach to the study of the state, public policy, and its effects.


Structural problems


Post-structuralists retain structuralist themes such as a differential theory of meaning. Hostility to ideas of human agency, and preference for synchronic explanations. The consecutive epistemes structure intentionality and agency, defining what people can say and how they can do so. These structuralist themes come from the linguistic formalism of Ferdinand de Saussure (1966). According to him, signs combine signifiers (or sounds) with signifieds (or concepts), where signifiers and signifieds alike have the content they do only by virtue of their difference from other units in a system of signs. Poststructualists use Saussurean linguistics to argue that meanings arise negatively from relations of difference in a system of sign. They argue that meanings are purely differential; meanings arise from relations of difference in a language. But it is a mistake to treat his method as a philosophy of language. Many philosophers accept contextual theories of meaning: they argue that meanings arise only in the context of, for example, webs of belief or language games. An example of ‘malaria’: did their meaning derive from their difference from other concepts? We can bind a concept to its referent in the context of background theories. Foucault typically concentrates on how power constructs individuals, saying little about the ways individuals act creatively for reasons of their own to create new forms of power. A diachronic or historicist approach presumably would include an account of power in terms of the contingent ruptures and displacements that arise from struggles among agents. Synchronic focus often leads to somewhat reified and homogenous accounts of modern power, with little sensitivity to diversity, heterogeneity, and resistance within and over time.


Genealogical solutions


Genealogy is a mode of inquiry based on a form of historicism that highlights nominalism, contingency, and contestability.




Nominalism. Radical historicists lean toward a nominalist conception of actions and practices and the traditions informing them.






No belief is certain on its own; no belief is verified or refuted by given experiences or given reasons. Historicism thus explains how genealogies can challenge truth claims without collapsing into the kind of totalizing critique that challenges all truth claims in a way that entails a performative contradiction.




Historicism: forms of critical unmasking or vindicatory genealogies. Genealogy operates as a form of critique because it applies the denaturalizing tendency of historicism to unsettle those who ascribe a spurious naturalness to their particular beliefs and actions. Historicists are not necessarily anti-realists: they try to trace the actual history and effects of various beliefs and practices, including purportedly transcendental or universal ones.


Governmentality as genealogy


What difference would it make if we thought of governmentality as a genealogical mode of inquiry? To begin, I want to suggest that a historicist approach to governmentality may stop its theoretical drift toward reification and determinism.


A new theory


Linguistic formalism can appear to treat language as a reified object. Work on governmentality can lose sight of the fact that people create meanings and practices. This poststructuralist argument simply elides the question: are these instabilities necessary qualities of a disembodied quasi-structure that thus defines its own development or are they products of people’s contingent activity? The First World War undermined faith in the principles of reason and progress that had governed so much developmental historicism. A historicist, genealogical approach decenters concepts such as institution, norm, power, and language. To decenter is here to focus on the social construction of a practice through the ability of individuals to create and act on meanings. Decentered theory implies that the political life is constructed differently by many actors inspired by historically specific ideas and values.


Aggregate concepts


A genealogical approach to governmentality decenters institutions, networks, and discourses by appealing to historical accounts of beliefs and actions. Ontological nature of political life: situated agency, practice, and power.


Situated agency. All experiences and reasoning occur in webs of beliefs. Even if people are necessarily influenced by their particular historical context, they may still be agents who can adopt beliefs and perform actions for reasons of their own and in ways that transform the historical context that influences them. So agency is possible, but it is always situated in a particular context. Reasoning is always local in that it occurs in the context of agents’ existing webs of belief. ‘Local’ refers to the fact that reasoning always takes place against the background of a particular subjective or intersubjective web of beliefs. Local reasoning recognizes agents can use only the information they possess, and they do so even when the relevant information is false. Local reasoning, being not a territorial area, differs from the cognate idea of local knowledge (Geertz, 1983).


Practice. Once genealogists leave the micro-level for the mid-level and macro-level, they conceive of social objects as practices rather than institutions, structures, or systems. A practice is a set of actions, perhaps a set of actions that exhibit a pattern, even a pattern that remains relatively stable across time. Actions and practices are the main grounds on which we ascribe beliefs to people: we ascribe beliefs to them in order to make sense of their actions. Nonetheless, practices cannot explain actions since people act for reasons of their own. By definition, practice constitutes the consequences of the act. It is these actions in their diversity and contingency that constitute the consequences of the action. And we explain these actions by reference to the beliefs and desires of the relevant actors, not the practice itself. It is unclear how practices can constrain the actions that people might attempt to perform.


Power. Genealogists reject as reifications those concepts of power that refer to social relations based on the allegedly given interests of classes or other social groups. People necessarily construct their understanding of their interests through particular and contingent discourses. Power can refer to the way in which contingent historical backgrounds impact on individuals, influencing their subjectivity and their actions. Genealogy is all about power so conceived, since it explains actions and practices by reference to contestable beliefs that emerge out of contingent historical contexts. Genealogies may show how various actors restrict what other actors can do in ways that thwart intentions of policy actors (restrictive power).


Historicist explanations. Historicist explanations work by describing contingent patterns of meaningful actions in their specific contexts.


Narrative. Genealogists usually believe their narratives explain beliefs and actions by pointing to their historical causes. Narratives work by relating actions to the beliefs and desires that produce them and by situating these beliefs and desires in particular historical contexts. They embody contingency. Genealogists strive, to the best of their ability, to capture the way events happened in the past or are today.


Tradition. A tradition is the ideational background against which individuals come to adopt an initial web of beliefs. It influences (without determining or—in a strict philosophical sense—limiting) the beliefs they later go on to adopt. Positivist political scientists typically reify meanings, treating them either as norms that govern behavior or as one among the several variables that explain outcomes.


Dilemma. A dilemma is any experience or idea that conflicts with someone’s beliefs and so forces them to alter the beliefs they inherit as a tradition. Although dilemmas sometimes arise from experiences of the world, we cannot equate them with the world as it is since experiences are always theory-laden.


Rethinking the state


From government to governance


A genealogical approach to the state refuses to treat it as defined by principles such as the nation, liberty, or even sovereignty. Genealogists deny that the state or particular states are natural entities with core features waiting to be discovered. In their view, the state consists of a plethora of contingent, possibly conflicting, and often transnational, practices. Thus they trace historical lines back from the practices that interest them to the often surprising and hidden ancestors of that feature of governance. This approach to the state echoes the pluralists of early in the twentieth century. Today the idea of disaggregating the state appears primarily in the literature on governance. Governance evokes a world in which state power is dispersed among a vast array of spatially and functionally distinct networks compose of all kinds of public, voluntary, and private organization.


Decentering governance


A genealogical approach also decenters governance, paying particular attention to the diverse meanings within it and the contingent historical roots of these meanings, focusing on disaggregated patterns of meaning in action. A decentered view implies that different people draw on different traditions to reach different beliefs about any pattern of governance. Governance thus consists of a complex and continuous process of interpretation, conflict, and activity that produces ever-changing patterns of rule.


Empirical topics


Elite narratives. Political scientists should examine how different sections of the elite draw on different traditions to construct different narratives about the world, their place in it, and their interests and values. The dominant narratives and a managerial narrative.


Technologies of power. The technologies of power that inform policies across different territories and different sectors. Governmentality refers here to the scientific beliefs and associated technologies that govern conduct. It concerns the ways governments and other social actors draw on knowledge to construct policies and practices, especially those that create and regulate subjectivities.


Popular resistance. Other actors can resist, transform, and thwart elite agendas. Policy cultures are sites of struggles not just between strategic elites, but between all kinds of actors with different views and ideals reached against the background of different traditions. Subaltern actors can resist the intentions and policies of elites by consuming them in ways that draw on local traditions and their local reasoning.




Important concepts from Foucault’s later work, including genealogy, power/knowledge, and technologies of power, inspire the study of the mentalities of rule in which power is rationalized, the policies and technologies through which these mentalities get translated into organized practices, and so the production of the subjectivities associated with these technologies. Genealogies embody a historicism that can defend its own validity even while it denaturalized those beliefs and practices that fail to recognize their historical contingency. Governmentality as the genealogy of political practice explores the historical roots of the contingent and conflicting meanings that inform political action. These meanings include not only technologies based on scientific knowledge but also the more general narratives that inspire elite and subaltern actors in the struggle to formulate, implement, and enact policy.


Mark Bevir, “The Logic of the History of Ideas—Then and Now,” Intellectual History Review 21 (1) (2011), 105-119.


Intellectual history is the basis of all the human science. All the human sciences do necessarily involve the study of people’s beliefs (intentionality) in their historical contexts.


Logic and Disciplinarity


The Logic rests on the grammar of everyday concepts, and because historians share these concepts, they should recognize the force of the Logic as a guide to appropriate reasoning in their discipline. The force of the Logic for historians derives from the pressure to ensure that their scholarly and everyday beliefs are consistent. The pressure for consistency is not just a totalitarian desire to impose order. It is a lived experience. People cannot act unless their beliefs have at least some coherence. The only norm that necessarily governs webs of belief is ‘be consistent.’ Logic contains a philosophical perspective from which historians can better think about the types of historical narratives they want to tell. One of the philosophical arguments of the Logic is that no method is necessary or sufficient for historical objectivity. Historical methods are matters of the heuristic craft of the discipline, not of philosophy. Historians learn their craft as they pick up hints on how to locate sources, on how to deal with different types of source, and on what types of source are most likely to provide evidence relevant to certain questions.


Meaning and Subjectivity


In epistemology, the author adopted anti-foundationalism, rejecting Truth as absolute certainty, and rejecting the idea of objectivity as the confirmation or refutation of propositions by appeals to independent facts. Anthropological epistemology—Objective knowledge arises from comparing rival accounts in terms of criteria such as accuracy, comprehensiveness, consistency and fruitfulness. In ontology, the author argued that intellectual history took as its object of study hermeneutic meanings, where un utterance’s semantic meaning is its truth-conditions, its linguistic meaning is its conventional or dictionary definition, and its hermeneutic meanings is what is meant in a given historical context. A principle of procedural individualism—according to which hermeneutic meanings are always meanings for specific individuals. A kind of category mistake is to talk about the meaning of a text; texts do not have intrinsic meanings. Historians should talk instead about the meaning of a text for a person or a group of people. When historians try to make sense of any action, including speech-acts, they have to ascribe both desires and beliefs to the actor. The meanings of utterances and other actions consist entirely of beliefs (‘it is raining’). The meaning of the utterance does not depend on whether that desire was to inform people of his desires. Desires do not enter into meanings. In contrast to Skinner, the author argues that intended illocutionary force dissolves into desires and beliefs and makes the key task of the intellectual historian the recovery of the relevant beliefs. The author’s ontological commitment is only that people possess capacities for sincerity, rationality, and consciousness. Appeal more to traditions, practices, beliefs, and less to languages, discourses, and forces. Concepts such as language and discourse evoke quasi-structural entities defined less by the ways in which people use words than by the formal relations between semantic units. Similarly, concepts such as force evoke quasi-physicalist entities defined less by local reasoning and intentionality than by categories from the natural sciences such as mass and velocity.



The Human Science


The author argued that the forms of explanation appropriate to intellectual history differ from those appropriate to the natural science and that it clearly applied to all human action. He has to challenge reifications (reified systems and institutions) and formal explanations (correlations and appeals to systems and institutions). The social world consists of contingent and meaningful actions. Propositions about norms and languages are reducible to ones about intersubjective beliefs. Institutions and structures are better conceived as the practices that emerge out of subjective actions and beliefs and desires that inform those actions. People act on their beliefs, so the social world they create is a product of the beliefs informing their actions. Beliefs are themselves socially constructed as part of wider webs of belief. Social concepts and the social world to which they give rise are products of particular traditions or discourses. The author believes that the social world is constructed in a ways that precludes our reifying chunks of it and ascribing essential properties to the chunks. Human scientists should replace apparently reified terms—such as language and institution—with more obviously constructed and pragmatic ones—such as tradition and practice. Conventions, far from constituting social facts, are observer-defined practices. Practices are constituted by the meaningful activity of the participants, not by conventions. Regularities nor codes can fix the beliefs and actions of all the participants. Practices (instead of institutions) and beliefs (discourses); actions to beliefs and desires; beliefs to webs of belief; webs of belief to traditions and dilemmas. Human scientists cannot treat beliefs as epiphenomena explicable in terms of objective facts about the world, social formations or a purportedly universal rationality. Echoing R.G. Collingwood, the author asserts that the human sciences are almost entirely about ideas—meaning, intentionality, beliefs—and that ideas have to be explained historically. History is necessarily about intentionality. Human scientists should allow that ‘an event’ is a phrase that refers to a chunk of intentional activity. Its nature and consequences were contestable and contingent.


Modernism and Historicism


Historicists believe that explanations of social life are inherently historical. Fully to explain intentionality, activity and practices is to locate them in a particular historical context. Nineteenth century developmental narratives drew on both the Whig conjectural histories derived from the Scottish Enlightenment, and a broader organicist emphasis on the ability of living beings to make social institutions by acting in accord with purpose, thought and imagination. The new human science relied on modernist empiricism rejected historicist explanations, relying instead on ahistorical models, structures and correlations to make sense of these atomized units. Throughout the twentieth century, the human sciences turned from historicism towards neoclassical economics and structural sociology. Anti-foundationalism. Deconstruction implied that structures could not fix the content of the units within them. Post-analytic philosophy implied that facts could never be secured.




Radical historicism. It holds, first, that objective knowledge is never fixed by pure reason or pure facts. Objectivity is always a historical assessment of what counts as the best view of the world currently available to us. Second, that meanings are not intrinsic properties of external objects. Meanings can exist only as the historical intentionality of particular individuals. Third, that the subject is not autonomous, existing outside of historical settings. Individuals are always situated agents influenced by the social life into which they are born, and radical historicism hold, finally that we cannot explain why people believe what they do and act as they do by appealing to ahistorical models or correlations. Explanations of beliefs and actions depend on our situating them in webs of belief and then situating these webs of belief against the background of contingent traditions and dilemmas. Radical historicism does not tell historians how to practice their craft. The author hopes to encourage intellectual historians to reconstruct the complex arguments and web of beliefs of a thinker, to craft new concepts, defining traditions and dilemmas pragmatically so as to explain that which interests them.

'독서 > Intellectual History' 카테고리의 다른 글

방법론 - Mark Bevir  (0) 2018.01.03
Posted by 사용자 Л

댓글을 달아 주세요

독서/Cold War2017. 11. 28. 14:02

Book info

Imposing, Maintaining, and Tearing Open the Iron Curtain 

The Cold War and East-Central Europe, 1945–1989 


Table of Contents

Introduction  By Mark Kramer and Vít Smetana

Part 1. Central Europe and the Onset of the Iron Curtain

Chapter 1. Stalin, Soviet Policy, and the Establishment of a Communist Bloc in Eastern Europe, 1941–1949  By Mark Kramer
Chapter 2. The United States and Eastern Europe, 1943–1948  By Michael F. Hopkins
Chapter 3. Concessions or Conviction? Czechoslovakia's Road to the Cold War and the Soviet Bloc  By Vít Smetana
Chapter 4. Hungary's Role in the Soviet Bloc, 1945–1956  By László Borhi
Chapter 5. Stalin, the Split with Yugoslavia, and Soviet-East European Efforts to Reassert Control, 1948–1953  By Mark Kramer
Chapter 6. Austria, Germany, and the Cold War, 1945–1955  By Rolf Steininger
Chapter 7. Neutrality for Germany or Stabilizing the Eastern Bloc? New Evidence on the Decision-Making Process of the Stalin Note  By Peter Ruggenthaler

Part 2. The German Question and Intra-Bloc Politics in the Post-Stalin Era

Chapter 8. The Berlin Wall: Looking Back on the History of the Wall Twenty Years after Its Fall  By Hope M. Harrison
Chapter 9. The German Problem and Security in Europe: Hindrance or Catalyst on the Path to 1989–1990?  By Oliver Bange
Chapter 10. Germany and East-Central Europe, 1945–1990: The View from London  By Anne Deighton
Chapter 11. The German Question as Seen from Paris  By Georges-Henri Soutou
Chapter 12. Cold War, Détente and the Soviet Bloc: The Evolution of Intra-bloc Foreign Policy Coordination, 1953–1975  By Csaba Békés

Part 3. The Role of East-Central Europe in Ending the Cold War

Chapter 13. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and the Revolutions of 1989: U.S. Myths versus the Primary Sources  By Thomas Blanton
Chapter 14. Moscow and Eastern Europe 1988–1989: A Policy of Optimism and Caution  By Alex Pravda
Chapter 15. The Opening of the Wall, Eastern Europe, and Gorbachev's Vision of Europe after the Cold War  By Svetlana Savranskaya
Chapter 16. Pulling the Rug: East-Central Europe and the Implosion of East Germany  By Bernd Schaefer
Chapter 17. The Demise of the Soviet Bloc  By Mark Kramer

Part 4. Long-Term Perspectives on the Cold War and Its End

Chapter 18. Nuclear Weapons and the Cold War in Europe  By David Holloway
Chapter 19. Why Did the Cold War Last So Long?  By Mark Kramer
Chapter 20. The End of the Cold War as a Non-Linear Confluence  By Richard Ned Lebow
Chapter 21. Conspicuous Connections: 1968 and 1989  By Oldrich Tuma
Chapter 22. 1989 in Historical Perspectives: The Problem of Legitimation  By Silvio Pons
Chapter 23. The End of the Cold War and the Transformation of Cold War History: A Tale of Two Conferences, 1988–1989  By James G. Hershberg



1부. 중앙유럽과 철의 장막의 개시

1장. 스탈린, 소련의 정책, 동유럽에서 공산주의진영 세우기, 1941-1949

2장. 미국과 동유럽, 1943-1948

3장. 양보 또는 신념? 체코슬로바키아의 냉전 및 소비에트진영으로의 여정

4장. 소비에트진영 안에서 헝가리의 역할, 1945-1956

5장. 스탈린, 유고슬라비아와의 분열, 주도권을 다시 잡기 위한 소비에트-동유럽의 노력, 1948-1953

6장. 오스트리아, 독일, 냉전, 1945-1955

7장. 독일 중립화 또는 동유럽 안정화? 스탈린 언급(Stalin Note)의 정책결정 과정에 대한 새로운 증거

2부. 스탈린 사후 시기의 독일 문제와 진영내 정치

8장. 베를린 장벽: 장벽 붕괴 20년 후에 돌아보는 장벽의 역사

9장. 독일 문제와 유럽의 안보: 1989-1990년으로 향하는 도정으로의 방해였나, 촉매였나

10장. 독일과 중동부 유럽, 1945-1990: 런던의 시각

11장. 파리의 시각에서 본 독일 문제

12장. 냉전, 긴장완화와 소비에트진영: 진영내 외교정책 조율의 전개, 1953-1975

3부. 냉전을 종식시킨 중동부 유럽의 역할

13장. 로널드 레이건, 조지 H.W. 부시, 1989년의 혁명들: 미국 신화 대(對) 1차 자료

14장. 모스크바와 동유럽 1988-1989: 낙관주의와 신중의 정책

15장. 장막의 개막, 동유럽, 냉전 이후 고르바초프의 유럽 전망

16장. 뒤통수 치기: 중동부 유럽과 동독의 내파

17장. 소비에트진영의 붕괴

4부. 장기적 관점에서 본 냉전과 냉전의 종식

18장. 유럽에서의 핵무기와 냉전

19장. 왜 그리 냉전은 오래 지속되었나?

20장. 비선형적 결론으로서의 냉전 종식

21장. 눈에 띠는 연계들: 1968년과 1989년

22장. 역사적 관점에서 본 1989년: 정당화의 문제

23장. 냉전의 종식과 냉전사의 전환: 두 회담 이야기, 1988-1989

Posted by 사용자 Л

댓글을 달아 주세요

독서2017. 10. 10. 21:02

Ching Young Choe, The Rule of the Taewŏn'gun, 1864-1873 Restoration in Yi Korea (Mass: HUP, 1972)

“Taewŏn'gun now takes his place as one of those bitter-end supporters of a great tradition who in their own minds defy the trends of modern history while actually making history anew.” 

Ching Young Choe was born in a small village in the district of Yŏngch'ŏn (North Kyŏngsang province) on Dec 27, 1927. ... at the age of four Ching Young began to study Chinese and the Chinese classics. From 1940 to 1945 he attended the Middle School in Yamaguchi, Japan. After receiving the diploma of a high-school teacher in 1946, he taught English and mathematics in Kyŏngju until 1948, when he entered Chungang University in Seoul. His studies of English literature were interrupted by the Korean War, during which he served as an interpreter to the UN Forces.

In January 1952 he was admitted to the Univ. of Denver, where he received a B.A. in international relations in the summer of 1954. ... he held various jobs outside the university. In the fall of the same year he was admitted to Harvard. Scholarships from the Harvard-Yenching Institute facilitated his studies, which reflected the wide scope of his interests: Chinese and Japanese history, Russian studies, economics and anthropology. In June 1956 he received the M.A. degree in Regional Studies-East Asia. Always deeply concerned with the fate of his country, he then turned to Korean history and finished his Ph.D. in June 1960. From 1956 to 1958 he taught Korean at Harvard. In the academic year of 1960-1961 he was engaged in compiling a Korean history syllabus for the American Council of Learned Societies. The following year he was a research fellow of the East Asian Research Center.

In October 1962 he received a fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung and went to Bonn, Germany, where he continued his studies of Korea's social and economic history. At the same time he taught Korean language and history at the University of Bonn. ... In the fall of 1965 he was called to Marburg/Lahn where he was responsible for the Korean section of the Staatsbibliothek, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Serious illness was destroying his health, however, and after many months of suffering Ching Young Choe died in Zurich on July 8, 1966. The present volume is thus not only a study of value in itself but also a memorial to a gifted and promising young scholar. It has been made possible by the devoted and scholarly care with which Dr. Martina Deuchler, herself a specialist in the history of traditional Korea and a Harvard Ph.D. of 1967, has aided the editorial process. Dr. Deuchler has also contributed a brief Epilogue such as Dr. Choe himself might have added in summing up his work."  -  from Foreword

"The unexpected field of Korean history is awaiting more research from which more trustworthy conclusions can be ventured, not only to give us a deepened knowledge of Korean history, but also to help us draw fruitful comparisions [sic] with developments in China and Japan. This book is but a small beginning. If it stimulates research, its purpose will have been fulfilled. 

Zurich, January 1971

Martina Deuchler"  -  from Epilogue

Posted by 사용자 Л

댓글을 달아 주세요