Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Surveillance and Punishment in Postliberation North Korea

Surveillance and Punishment in Postliberation North Korea Winter 1995 structivist strategies in their critique of bourgeois nationalism in South Asia.’ Yet strangely absent in this critique, perhaps because the issue is not directly relevant in the South Asian context, is the place of revolutionary nationalism. What are we to make, then, of a postcolonial state that claims to have rejected the western bourgeois model of politics, to have eliminated the ruling classes, to represent the poor and oppressed? What is the relationship of such a state to its colonial predecessor, and to the modern West in general? T h e Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), China, and (North) Vietnam are unique as revolutionary nationalist regimes founded in a postcolonial environment in the aftermath of World War 11. Of the three, only the IIPRK (North Korea) was directly occupied by the Soviet Red Army in the formative period of the regime (1945-1948), and ever since North Korea has been consistently misread as a Soviet satellite, rather than as a postcolonial revolutionary nationalist state.3 More than China or Vietnam, North Korea has fallen squarely under the rubric of “totalitarianism,” an illegitimate and coercive state with complete control over the everyday life of its subjects.’ One the http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png positions asia critique Duke University Press

Surveillance and Punishment in Postliberation North Korea

Armstrong, Charles K.
positions asia critique , Volume 3 (3) – Dec 1, 1995
Download PDF
28 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/surveillance-and-punishment-in-postliberation-north-korea-335438iLTO
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 1995 by Duke University Press
ISSN
1067-9847
eISSN
1527-8271
DOI
10.1215/10679847-3-3-695
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Winter 1995 structivist strategies in their critique of bourgeois nationalism in South Asia.’ Yet strangely absent in this critique, perhaps because the issue is not directly relevant in the South Asian context, is the place of revolutionary nationalism. What are we to make, then, of a postcolonial state that claims to have rejected the western bourgeois model of politics, to have eliminated the ruling classes, to represent the poor and oppressed? What is the relationship of such a state to its colonial predecessor, and to the modern West in general? T h e Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), China, and (North) Vietnam are unique as revolutionary nationalist regimes founded in a postcolonial environment in the aftermath of World War 11. Of the three, only the IIPRK (North Korea) was directly occupied by the Soviet Red Army in the formative period of the regime (1945-1948), and ever since North Korea has been consistently misread as a Soviet satellite, rather than as a postcolonial revolutionary nationalist state.3 More than China or Vietnam, North Korea has fallen squarely under the rubric of “totalitarianism,” an illegitimate and coercive state with complete control over the everyday life of its subjects.’ One the

Journal

positions asia critique – Duke University Press

Published: Dec 1, 1995

There are no references for this article.