(Re)producing the ‘history problem’: memory, identity and the Japan-South Korea trade dispute

Abstract

Japan-South Korea relations have consistently been presented by International Relations scholars as a puzzle that confounds mainstream rationalist theories, which struggle to explain the consistent acrimony associated with the so-called 'history problem'. While many scholars have, therefore, adopted conventional constructivist approaches to incorporate history into their analyses, such literature often neglects the processes of (re)construction of this social reality, thereby implicitly treating these negative sentiments as essentialised elements of Korean and Japanese culture/identity which cause certain foreign policies. Using the recent Japan-South Korea trade dispute as a case study, this article instead draws on critical constructivist/poststructuralist theory and discourse analytical methods to examine how the 'history problem' is produced and reproduced. It argues that dominant discourses of remembering in South Korea, which represent Japan as an unrepentant colonial aggressor, and of forgetting in Japan, which represent South Korea as emotional and irrational for dwelling on the past, act to (re)produce identities that clash in their attitudes to difficult history. While such foreign policy practices (re)produce dominant national identities, these identities also shape the bounds of which foreign policies are legitimate or imaginable. This mutually constitutive relationship between identity and foreign policy continually reproduces the 'history problem' in Japan-South Korea relations.

Reciprocity and asymmetry in digital diplomacy: Geopolitics of national identity in South Korea–Japan and South Korea–US relations

“…Likewise, tweets asking the Japanese residents in Seoul to take precautions during the anti-Japanese rallies work to further construct Japan as a victim of Korea's emotional volatility and unruliness. These tweets reflect the long-established repertoire in Japan's discourse of moral and rational superiority over the irrational, emotional, and unpredictable Koreans (Deacon, 2021;Tamaki, 2010) manifested in digital diplomacy practice.…”

“…From a constructivist lens, “malfunctioning” bilateral relationship between Korea and Japan is interpreted as “a core element” of their respective national identities (Seo, 2021). Japan's identity as a modern, rational actor and a responsible international player has been constructed vis‐à‐vis the construction of Korea as irrational, emotional, and unpredictable (Deacon, 2021; Tamaki, 2010). Indeed, large numbers of Japanese citizens hold negative views of Korea—even as they express appreciation for its culture industry (Genron NPO, 2019).…”

Struggle for coalition‐building: Japan, South Korea, and the Indo‐Pacific

“…In fact, because of the prolonged historical animosity caused by the Pacific War experiences, their diplomatic ties are not concretely institutionalized, and the bilateral diplomatic hiatus at the summit level often occurs particularly under South Korea's “progressive” political parties, such as the Roh Moo‐huyn administration and the Moon Jae‐in administration. This makes Japan–South Korea relations one of the most intriguing inter‐state relationships in the post‐Cold War world (e.g., Deacon, 2022; Glosserman & Snyder, 2015; Kim, 2014).…”

Perpetual ontological crisis: national division, enduring anxieties and South Korea’s discursive relationship with Japan

“…Such mainstream perspectives have struggled to offer answers, with their theoretical assumptions suggesting that ‘rational’ actors would engage in significantly more cooperation in such circumstances. Many scholars have, therefore, turned to constructivist themes of identity and memory to provide better insights (Bukh, 2015; Deacon, 2022; Jo, 2022; Kim, 2015; Tamaki, 2010). On the South Korean side of the relationship especially, it has become well established that anti-Japanese sentiment is an overwhelmingly significant component of national identity and that this persistently takes the form of acute Othering, especially in relation to the past (Cha, 1999, 2000; Deacon, 2022; Glosserman and Snyder, 2015).…”