Abstract
The burgeoning literature on transborder membership, largely focused on the thickening relationship between emigration states in the South and the postwar labor migrant populations and their descendants in North America or Western Europe, has not paid due attention to the long-term macroregional transformations that shape transborder national membership politics or to the bureaucratic practices of the state that undergird transborder claims-making. By comparing contentious transborder national membership politics in South Korea during the Cold War and Post-Cold War eras, this article seeks to overcome these limitations. In both periods, the membership status of colonial-era ethnic Korean migrants in Japan and northeast China and their descendants was the focus of contestation. The distinctiveness of the case—involving both a sustained period of colonial rule and a period of belated and divided nation-state building interwoven with the Cold War—highlights the crucial importance of three factors: (1) the dynamically evolving macro-regional context, which has shaped transborder national membership politics in the region in distinctive ways; (2) the essentially political, performative, and constitutive nature of transborder nation-building; and (3) the role of state registration and documentation practices in shaping the contours of transborder national membership politics in the long run. By incorporating Korea—and East Asia more broadly—into the comparative study of transborder nation-building, this article also lays the groundwork for future cross-regional comparative historical studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I do not intend to ratify the nationalist fiction that such incongruities are intrinsically abnormal. These incongruities, which had long existed but had not drawn significant attention before, were “problematized” by the rise of the modern nation state model.
I draw on both secondary literature and archival data. The secondary literature includes studies of migration, of political, legal, and administrative history, and of Korean ethnic organizations in Japan and China; it also includes ethnographic accounts of the Korean Japanese and the Korean Chinese. Archival data include laws, legislative debates, administrative regulations, reports, and memoranda issued by key governmental agencies, parliamentary debates, inter-state treaties, diplomatic records, jurisprudence, media reports, and published materials by various ethnic Korean organizations.
To be sure, symbolic practices do not exclude the bureaucratic techniques of the state. Bureaucratic practices are a seemingly mundane but crucial source of the symbolic power of the state; indeed this is one of the main arguments of this article. For the sake of schematic presentation, I will sometimes treat separately kinds of symbolic practices that are more discursive and representational.
The “national question” means the question about the proper relationship between the nation and the state. This question arises only if two conditions are met: (1) nation and state are understood as independent of one another, which is not always the case (e.g., France and the United States); and (2) the congruence of nation and state is understood as desirable, even necessary (Brubaker et al. 2006:27–30).
Transborder nation-building in Germany and Israel is similar in certain respects to post-communist East Europe, although these two states institutionalized transborder membership statuses in the immediate postwar period. The legitimacy of these transborder membership statuses, however, was challenged in both states, but with particular force in Germany, during the post-Cold War period. See Joppke (2005) and Levy and Weiss (2002).
Kim Barry (2006) argues that the analysis of expatriate citizenship has to consider not only “legal citizenship” but also “participatory citizenship,” since citizenship does not just perform an “administrative sorting function” but refers to a “designated political community.” But this argument ignores the performative power of the “administrative sorting function,” which may contribute to constituting the “designated political community” in nontrivial ways. See Ford (1994) on the politics inherent in “administering identity.”
Some studies have shown how the ethnocultural identities of transborder “kin” have become more salient, and in some cases have been discovered altogether, in response to the opportunities made available by transborder membership policies and practices (Brubaker 1998; Fox 2003; Moore 2000; Tsuda 1996).
Some studies have highlighted the ways in which such practices have helped to forge unitary citizenries by registering their culturally heterogeneous populations in the same format (Noiriel 2001; Scott et al. 2002). Other studies have highlighted rather the divisive effects of such practices: the rigidification or even creation, by the legal and bureaucratic apparatuses of the colonial state, of internal cleavages based on categorical identities such as caste, tribe, region, ethnicity, or religion; or the production of “foreigners” through a distinctive system of “cards and codes” (Noiriel 1996).
See Mann (1986) and Tilly (1992) for what Gorski (2003) has dubbed the “bellicist” argument on state-making in the European context. The goal of the occasional conquests in the border areas of China was to establish and maintain tributary relationships, not to secure enduring territorial gain (Lodén 1996). The dynastic regimes in the Korean peninsula had long been incorporated into this Sino-centric regional order, and Korean elites had long been integrated into the broader Sino-centric cultural world. The feudal regimes in the Japanese islands, at a second remove from China, were able to develop their own Japan-centric worldview, forging tributary relationships with the smaller islands to the north and south (Morris-Suzuki 1998).
I’m excluding here the continuous migration flows from southern China to South East Asia.
Colonial-era migrants also include about 400,000 Koreans who migrated (beginning in the late nineteenth century) to the maritime provinces of Russia. However, I exclude these migrants from my analysis for several reasons: (1) since most of them were forcibly moved to Central Asia by Stalin in 1937, they were out of reach of the Japanese colonial state; (2) almost none could repatriate to Korea in the aftermath of World War II (except for a small number of communist elites dispatched to North Korea); (3) despite official recognition as a Soviet “nationality,” many of the migrants and their descendants have assimilated culturally and linguistically to other Russian-speaking populations in Central Asia; (4) this cultural loss discouraged them from “returning” to South Korea in search of better opportunities in the post-Cold War era; (5) post-Soviet Koreans have even more difficulties than Korean Chinese in providing the documentation needed to apply for the “coethnics abroad” status, which is discussed below. In other words, Soviet and post-Soviet Koreans have been marginal to transborder national membership politics during the Cold War and the post-Cold War periods.
The immigration control excluding “Asians,” which was institutionalized across North and South Americas in the early twentieth century, also contributed to this migration pattern (McKeown 2004).
See Elkins and Pedersen (2005) for an attempt to locate the Japanese Empire in comparative perspective in terms of settler colonialism.
By 1945, about 20% of the population originating from the Korean peninsula was residing outside the peninsula (D. Kim 1998).
As China sank to the status of a semi-colony as a result of western, Russian, and Japanese interventions, Chinese authorities could not effectively police this borderland. Moreover, the immigration and settlement of Koreans were not seen as entirely negative given their ability to cultivate rice. The colonial government in the peninsula, for its part, did not control exit in the earlier period and officially endorsed emigration in the later period, for it saw this migration flow as both a safety valve to release surplus population in the peninsula and a conduit to make a foray into Manchuria (Liu 2001; Park 2005).
The boundary of Japan proper—which was called naichi, meaning “inlands”—was delineated to include only the territories that were already under the control of the Japanese government when the Meiji Constitution was promulgated in 1899. All other territories annexed afterwards were regarded as colonies (Chen 1984).
In the Japanese Empire, “region” did not merely mean a geographically defined place, but a legal and administrative unit governed by a separate set of laws (Chen 1984).
The family registration system was first instituted in 1871 by the Meiji government and subsequently grafted onto its colonies. In both Japan and its colonies, family registration systems were not a totally novel institution; they were transformed from preexisting archaic population registration systems to modern administrative tools by which the Japanese state “embraced” or “penetrated” its population for the purposes, inter alia, of taxation, conscription, and universal compulsory education (Kashiwazaki 1998).
A Japanese subject belonged to a certain family (a conceptual unit rather than a real unit of cohabitation), which belonged to a certain place where his family was registered; this place was located in one of the “regions” such as Japan, Korea, or Taiwan. Only by changing the family to which one belonged—through inter-regional marriage, divorce, adoption, etc.—could one change the region to which one belonged.
Since the colonial state prohibited Koreans from renouncing their Japanese nationality, Japan continued to claim personal jurisdiction over those Koreans who had obtained foreign citizenship, based on their alleged dual nationality status. The movement across the regional boundary was not entirely impossible, but (as indicated in the previous note) it was difficult.
A caveat is in order. The colonial state is not the sole creator of the imagined community of the nation emerging in the colonial public sphere; and nationalist discourse is not entirely imitative or derivative of colonial discourse. See Chatterjee’s critique (1993) of Anderson (1991). In focusing here on the symbolic power of the state, I do not seek to provide a comprehensive account of the development of the “imagined community” of the Korean nation.
It is worth noting that the symbolic geography invoked by this qualifier “outland” was different from, if not subversive of, what was used in the legal arena of the Japanese Empire: in the former, “outland” meant somewhere outside the Korean peninsula, except for the Japanese archipelago; in the latter, “outland” meant the colonies.
The counting was based on the family registry and the report of the local police officers. However, not only contemporary demographers but also officials of the Government General of Korea acknowledged that these governmental statistics were far from accurate, generally undercounting the real number of people, especially in Manchuria (Kim et al. 2004; Park and Seo 2003).
Dongpo literally meant sibling. However, this term was always used in a metaphorical sense. In premodern times, the usage was colored by Confucian political philosophy: the term either emphasized the ruler’s paternalistic care of the ruled or expressed a certain sense of brotherhood existing among those who embraced Confucian universalism (Kwon 2005). It was at the turn of the twentieth century that Dongpo obtained its contemporary meaning. During the colonial period, the term was seldom used in the legal or administrative arenas, but its usage in the public sphere was not censored by the colonial state, partly because the emphasis was on affective attachment, not on political project.
The devastating economic and political turmoil in the peninsula, the strict limit on the amount of cash that could be carried by the repatriates from Japan, and the civil war and the imminent land reform in Manchuria—beneficial to poor Korean tenants—were the major factors that deterred the repatriation of long-time settlers.
Characteristically, both states defined their respective national territories and citizenries expansively so as to cover the entire Korean peninsula and the entire Korean population living in the peninsula.
In the immediate postwar period, Manchuria was first occupied by the Soviet Union marching from north, later taken over by the Chinese nationalist government marching from south, and soon thereafter became the major battlefield of the civil war (1946–1949).
The Yanbian Autonomous Prefecture was established in 1952, in which the Korean language was used in bureaucratic and educational settings, and Korean elites were entitled to a sort of affirmative action in staffing government and party organizations (Suh and Schultz 1990).
Occasional visitations, family reunions, and petty commerce at the border continued (Olivier 1991).
Yet it was, ironically, the US military governments on both sides that operated as substitutes for the subjugated Japanese state and the incipient Korean state.
The same Chinese character is pronounced differently in the Korean and in the Japanese language: it is read Choseon in Korean and Chōsen in Japanese. In this article, I use one or the other according to the context in which the term was actually used.
With many critical materials still inaccessible to researchers, it is difficult to explain completely what led to this declaration. Several factors have been proposed: a post-civil war demographic and economic imperative to draw reliable human and economic “capital” from abroad for reconstruction; the threat from the South Korean government that it would repatriate some pro-North Korean Japanese to South Korea for interrogation; the seizure of power by a nationalist group and the liquidation of internationalists at the level of the leadership; and the need to drive a wedge between Japan and South Korea to stymie the ongoing diplomatic negotiations between the two (Chin 1998; Morris-Suzuki 2005; You 1993).
For instance, the Japanese government had urged South Korea to take back ethnic Koreans who were detained in the Ômura detention center, a proposal that the South Korean government rejected because of the anticipated burden on its already suffering postwar economy. Many of the inmates in this Ômura detention center were actually those who had tried to “return” to Japan after visiting Korea, only to find at the port of entry that they were now classified as illegal migrants because they were no longer Japanese nationals (Morris-Suzuki 2005:364).
The socioeconomic status of those who “repatriated” in 1963 to North Korea is instructive: 4,200 out of 6,000 workers were day laborers, while 7,800 were unemployed. Most of the recorded jobs were peddling, waste paper collecting, factory work, and secondhand goods dealing (Ryang 1997:113). A disproportionate share of Japanese social security payments went to Korean residents, whose socioeconomic status, due in part to pervasive discrimination, was far worse than that of most Japanese citizens (Chin 1998; Ryang 1997).
The legal nationality of the repatriates as North Koreans was never openly recognized by the Japanese officials. The Japanese government still defines approximately 200,000 Koreans registered under Chōsen as statelesss, and diplomatic relations between Japan and North Korea have yet to be established.
For detail, see B. Kim (2006).
The report of the pro-South Korean organization to the South Korean government listed typical problems: back-and-forth movements were very common in the immediate postwar era, yet were now seen as illegal border-crossings; many did not register in the Foreigners’ Registry, especially in 1947, for fear of deportation or as an expression of resistance; and the records in the Foreigners’ Registry were not always consistent across time due to mistakes made by those registering or by Japanese bureaucrats (Korean Residents Union in Japan 1976).
South Korea had relied on a pro-South Korean organization in Japan, Mindan, to issue passports and certificates for “nationals abroad.” Initially, this delegation reflected the lack of administrative resources of the inchoate South Korean state, but Mindan, surprisingly enough, retained the right to process these documents until 1994 (Doh 2003).
The ironic twist here is that the consular office refused the issuance of a passport—which is the right of citizens—to those who did not apply for permanent resident status in a foreign country!
For example, Korean Chinese disappeared from the Annual Report on the Conditions of the Nationals Abroad issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The report also classified and counted Korean Japanese according to such criteria as whether or not they were registered as South Korean nationals abroad, whether the nationality entry in the Foreigners’ Registry was Kankoku or Chōsen, and whether or not they had obtained permanent residence by treaty. The underlying concern was to classify Korean Japanese as pro-South and pro-North.
The South Korean state capitalized on this control of entry to “convert” Korean Japanese into loyal South Koreans. The Visiting Hometown Campaign (from 1975 until the mid 1980s) was tailored to Korean Japanese who had not registered as South Koreans. However, under the anti-communist authoritarian regime, even those who registered as South Koreans had to go through complex procedures to enter South Korea.
North Korea took a different stance. Instead of narrowing the scope of the Korean “nation” to match the scope of North Korean “citizens,” it defined North Korean citizens extremely expansively so as to include all transborder Koreans. Yet its definition of Koreanness was as state-centered as that of South Korea.
While the Chinese character 同 (dong) in Dongpo emphasizes common origin, the Chinese character 僑 (gyo) in Gyopo emphasizes the context of migration, mostly understood as a short-term sojourning. Though the same letter 僑 (read as “qiao” in Chinese) in Huaqiao (often translated as “overseas Chinese”) is said to have originally had the connotation of “enforced migration, duty to return and nostalgia for home” (Wang 1981:119), in South Korea the term has been used to denote post-1960s emigrants, emphasizing their emigration as South Korean nationals. It is also notable that “Overseas” often qualified Gyopo, deleting Koreans in China and the Soviet Union who are not really overseas, but including those in Japan, in the US, and in many other countries.
This Nordpolitik occasioned a certain rapprochement with North Korea as well, emulating the rapprochement between West and East Germany in the 1970s: after South and North Korea simultaneously obtained UN membership in 1991, both states began to indicate in various ways that they would accept the de facto existence of the other and work towards establishing closer ties.
The ethnic minority or “nationality” policies of China, like those of the Soviet Union, shrewdly mixed a hard-line approach to economic and political matters with a flexible and sometimes nurturing (albeit reifying and depoliticizing) attitude towards cultural matters. With the institutional backing of the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture and its geographical proximity to the peninsula, Korean Chinese could preserve and transmit their language and ethnocultural practices (Olivier 1991).
One illustrative example is the discursive representation of the marriages between Korean Chinese women and Korean men, mostly farmers, in the early 1990s. These marriages were highly publicized and celebrated by media and high officials as a symbol of the “national reunification in the offing” (Hong 2000).
The reports also included new techniques for visually representing transborder Koreans: maps showing the geographical distribution of Koreans over the entire globe; a pie graph showing the proportion of Koreans in each region, which made China stand out; and a bar graph showing the annual increase of Koreans abroad, which highlighted the break in 1991, when the number doubled.
Familial connections to South Korean nationals were a distinctive resource of Korean Chinese, rarely available to other foreigners. Moreover, this opportunity to obtain a family visitation visa was not limited to those who were able to reestablish contact with their relatives. Korean Chinese brides—the most popular among “foreign brides” of South Korean men—could obtain South Korean citizenship upon marriage before 1999 and were then able to send letters of invitation to their parents in China.
The initial conception of South Korea as a rediscovered “homeland” changed as a result. The change in tone in which four mainstream Korean Chinese newspapers reported South Korea-related issue is revealing; while 5.7% were written from a negative perspective in 1992–1993, 45.7% were negative in 1996–1997 (G. Kim 2000b). Three best-selling books by Korean Chinese intellectuals rearticulated the Korean Chinese sense of dual belonging, but ultimately put more weight on their Chinese identity (G. Kim 2000b). One can find similar experiences among Transylvanian Hungarians, who found themselves seen and treated as “Romanians” by their “brethren” in Hungary, among ethnic German resettlers in Germany, and among Middle Eastern and Soviet Jewish immigrants in Israel (Brubaker 1998; Brubaker et al. 2006; Fox 2003).
South Korea was desperately seeking for foreign investment in order to weather the financial crisis of 1998.
Since 1962, when the Overseas Emigration Act was enacted, South Korea has been an emigration state; its emigrant population reached about 2.5 million by 1999. These emigrants have been increasingly active in calling for more protection and support from, and more rights and participation in, their homeland state.
One who meets the definition of the “Coethnics Abroad with foreign citizenship” is granted a special visa (F-4), which permits a 2-year stay, during which entries and exits are exempt from any additional visa processes. Visa renewals are basically unlimited. Note that this Act did not grant privileges to “coethnics abroad” in the acquisition of citizenship; this distinguished the status from transborder membership legislation in many other emigrant-sending states such as Turkey and Mexico.
This was added since in Japan, Mindan had taken charge of this registration task on behalf of the South Korean government as mentioned in note 45 above.
Making former registration as “nationals abroad” a criterion of this status also excluded those Korean Japanese who had registered under the Chōsen marker in the Japanese Foreigners’ Registry and later naturalized as Japanese.
The reformist NGOs were generally sympathetic to Korean Chinese migrants, not because they were “Koreans” but because they were victimized as unprotected, downtrodden migrant workers.
Despite their eligibility in principle, Korean Chinese still have difficulty applying for this status in practice. The South Korean government requires those who are from the 20 countries designated as producing many illegal workers, including China, to submit additional documentation showing that they would not work in the secondary labor market (http://www.immigration.go.kr). Moreover, Korean Chinese have difficulty submitting their old family registries, for reasons discussed below.
Historically oriented scholars have challenged this presentist view by drawing attention to the European states that were seemingly inexhaustible sources of cross-Atlantic emigrants at the turn of the last century. They have emphasized that what we call “statehood” was developed in the very context of, and in part as a response to, increasing “international” migrations. See Waldinger and Fitzgerald (2004) and the essays in Green and Weil (2007).
What institutions purport to do does not always coincide with what they actually do; implementation has its own dynamics, which are not reducible to the logic of legislation. There is a growing body of literature on this theme especially focused on international migration and border control. See Andreas (2000), Ellermann (2005), Heyman (1995), and Singer and Massey (1998).
References
English
Alavi, H. (1972). The state in post-colonial societies. New Left Review, 74, 59–81.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (2nd ed.). London: Verso.
Anderson, B. (1993). The new world disorder. New Left Review, 193, 2–13.
Andreas, P. (2000). Border games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico divide. Ithaca and New York: Cornell University.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Asad, T. (1994). Ethnography and statistical representation. Social Research, 6, 55–88.
Barry, K. (2006). Home and away: The construction of citizenship in an emigration context. Public law and legal theory research paper series Working Paper No. 06-13. New York University School of Law.
Basch, L., Glick Schiller, N., & Szanton Blanc, C. (1994). Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments, and deterritorialized nation-states. New York: Routledge.
Bauböck, R. (2003). Towards a political theory of migrant transnationalism. International Migration Review, 37(3), 700–723.
Bear, L. (2001). Public genealogies: Documents, bodies and nations in Anglo-Indian railway family histories. Indian Sociology, 35, 355–388.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Rethinking the state: genesis and structure of the bureaucratic field. In: G. Steinmetz (Ed.), L. Wacquant, & Samar Farage (Trans.) State/Culture: State formation after the cultural turn, (pp. 53–75). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Brubaker, R. (1992). Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationalism reframed: Nationhood and the national question in the new Europe. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brubaker, R. (1998). Migrations of ethnic unmixing in the ‘New Europe’. International Migration Review, 32(4), 1047–1065.
Brubaker, R., Feischmidt, M., Fox, J., & Grancea, L. (2006). Nationalist politics and everyday ethnicity in a Transylvanian town. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Caplan, J., & Torpey, J., (Eds.) (2001). Documenting individual identity: The development of state practices in the modern world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chatterjee, P. (1993). The nation and its fragments: Colonial and postcolonial histories. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chen, E. I. (1984). The attempt to integrate the empire: Legal perspectives. In R. H. Myers, & M. R. Peattie (Eds.), The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945 (pp. 240–274). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Choe, H. (2006). National identity and citizenship in the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Korea. Journal of Historical Sociology, 19(1), 84–118.
Clifford, J. (1994). Diasporas. Cultural Anthropology, 9(3), 302–338.
Cohn, B. S. (1987). An anthropologist among the historians and other essays. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Cook, D. A. (2005). Making and Unmaking Nationals: 150 Years of Migration between Argentina, Italy, and Spain. Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Cooper, F. forthcoming. From imperial inclusion to republican exclusion?: France’s ambiguous post-war trajectory. In Tshimanga-Kashama, Charles, Gondola, Didier, & Bloom, Peter (Eds.) Frenchness and the Africa Diaspora. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Corbridge, S., Williams, G., Srivastava, M., & Véron, R. (2005). Seeing the state: Governance and governmentality in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dery, D. (1998). ‘Paperreality’ and learning in bureaucratic organizations. Administration and Society, 29(6), 677–689.
Duara, P. (2003). Sovereignty and authenticity: Manchukuo and the east Asian modern. Boulder: Roman and Littlefield.
Duus, P., Myers, R. H., & Peattie, M. R. (1989). The Japanese informal empire in China, 1895–1937. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Elkins, C., & Pedersen, S. (2005). Settler colonialism in the twentieth century: Projects, practices, legacies. New York and London: Routledge.
Ellermann, A. (2005). Coercive capacity and the politics of implementation: Deportation in Germany and the United States. Comparative Political Studies, 38(10), 1219–1244.
Eriksen, T. A. (1993). Ethnicity and nationalism: Anthropological perspectives. London: Pluto Press.
Faist, T. (2000). Transnationalization in international migration: Implications for the study of citizenship and culture. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(2), 189–222.
Fitzgerald, D. (2005). Nationality and migration in modern Mexico. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(1), 171–191.
Ford, C. A. (1994). Administering identity: The determination of ‘race’ in race-conscious law. California Law Review, 82(5), 1231–1285.
Foucault, M. (1991 [1979]). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Fowler, B. (2002). Fuzzy citizenship, nationalizing political space: A framework for interpreting the Hungarian ‘Status Law’ as a new form of kin-state policy in Central and Eastern Europe. One Europe or Several programme, Working Paper 40/02. Sussex European Institute.
Fox, J. E. (2003). National identities on the move: Transylvanian Hungarian labor migrants in Hungary. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29(3), 449–466.
Fuglerud, O. (1999). Life on the outside: The Tamil diaspora and long distance nationalism. London: Pluto.
Gabaccia, D. R., Hoerder, D., & Walaszek, A. (2007). Emigration and nation building during the mass migration from Europe. In N. L. Green, & F. Weil (Eds.), Citizenship and those who leave: The politics of emigration and expatriation (pp. 63–90). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Giddens, A. (1995). The Nation state and violence. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Glick Schiller, N. (2005a). Transborder citizenship: An outcome of legal pluralism within transnational social fields. In F. von Benda-Beckmann, K. von Benda-Beckmann, & A. Griffths (Eds.), Mobile people, mobile law: expanding legal relations in a contracting world (pp. 27–49). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Glick Schiller, N. (2005b). Long distance nationalism. In M. Ember, C. R. Ember, & I. Skoggard (Eds.), Encyclopedia of diasporas: Immigrant and refugee cultures around the world, Vol. I (pp. 70–80). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Glick Schiller, N., & Fouron, G. (1998). Transnational lives and national identities: The identity politics of Haitian immigrants. In M. Smith, & L. Guarnizo (Eds.), Transnationalism from below (pp. 130–161). New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.
Gorski, P. S. (2003). The disciplinary revolution: Calvinism and the rise of the state in early modern Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Green, N. L., & Weil, F. (Eds.) (2007). Citizenship and those who leave: The politics of emigration and expatriation. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Gupta, A. (1995). Blurred boundaries: the discourse of corruption, the culture of politics, and the imagined state. American Ethnologist, 22(2), 375–402.
Hacking, I. (1991). How should we do the history of statistics. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 181–196). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Heyman, J. M. (1995). Putting power into the anthropology of bureaucracy: the immigration and naturalization service at the Mexico-United States border. Current Anthropology, 36(2), 261–287.
Itzigsohn, J. (2000). Immigration and the boundaries of citizenship: The institutions of immigrants’ political transnationalism. International Migration Review, 34(4), 1126–1154.
Joppke, C. (2005). Selecting by origin: Ethnic migration in the liberal state. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kashiwazaki, C. (1998). Jus sanguinis in Japan: The origin of citizenship in a comparative perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 39(3), 278–300.
Kearney, M. (1991). Borders and boundaries of states and self at the end of empire. Journal of Historical Sociology, 4(1), 52–74.
Kertzer, D. I., & Arel, D. A. (Eds.) (2002). Census and identity: The politics of race, ethnicity, and language in national censuses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, B. (2006). From exclusion to inclusion?: The legal treatment of ‘foreigners’ in contemporary Japan. Immigrants & Minorities, 24(1), 51–73.
Kim, D. (1998). Korean emigration to Manchuria and Japan, and the repatriation movements after the liberation in 1945. The Journal of Social Science Studies, 17, 441–470. Seoul: Hanyang University Press.
King, C., & Melvin, N. J. (1998). Nations abroad: Diaspora politics and international relations in the former Soviet Union. Boulder: Westview Press.
Kligman, G. (1998). The politics of duplicity: Controlling reproduction in Ceausescu’s Romania. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Lall, M. (2003). Mother India’s forgotten children. In: E. Østergaard-Nielsen (Ed.), International migration and sending countries: Perceptions, policies, and transnational relations (pp. 121–139). Palgrave Macmillan.
Levy, D., & Weiss, Y. (Eds). (2002). Challenging ethnic citizenship: German and Israeli perspectives on immigration. New York: Berghahn Books.
Lodén, T. (1996). Nationalism transcending the state. In S. Tønnesson, & H. Antlőv (Eds.), Asian forms of the nation (pp. 270–297). Richmond and Surrey: Routledge Curzon Press.
Loveman, M. (2005). The modern state and the primitive accumulation of symbolic power. American Journal of Sociology, 110(6), 1651–1683.
Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mann, M. (1986). The sources of social power: a history of power from the beginning to A.D. 1760, Vol. 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, T. (2001). The affirmative action empire: nations and nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939. Ithaca and London: Connell University Press.
McKeown, A. (2004). Global migration, 1846–1940. Journal of World History, 15(2), 155–189.
Migdal, J. S. (1988). Strong societies and weak states: State-society relations and state capabilities in the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mitchell, T. (1999). Society, economy, and the state effect. In G . Steinmetz (Ed.), State/Culture: State formation after the cultural turn (pp. 76–97). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Moore, D. S. Jr. (2000). Boundaries of “Germanness”: Repatriation, development, and the practices of nation in the international system. Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia.
Morris-Suzuki, T. (1998). Reinventing Japan: time, space, nation. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Morris-Suzuki, T. (2005). A dream betrayed: Cold War politics and the repatriation of Koreans from Japan to North Korea. Asian Studies Review, 29, 357–381.
Noiriel, G. (1996). The French melting pot: Immigration, citizenship, and national identity. de Laforcade, Goeffroy (Trans). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Noiriel, G. (2001). The identification of the citizen: The birth of republican civil status in France. In J. Caplan, & J. Torpey (Eds.), Documenting individual identity: the development of state practices in the modern world (pp. 28–48). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Olivier, B. V. (1991). The implementation of China’s nationality policy in the northeastern provinces. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press.
Østergaard-Nielsen, E. (2003). The politics of migrants: Transnational political practices. International Migration Review, 37(3), 760–786.
Park, H. (2005). Two dreams in one bed: Empire, social life, and the origins of the North Korean revolution in Manchuria. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Rodriguez, R. M. (2002). Migrant heroes: Nationalism, citizenship and the politics of Filipino migrant labor. Citizenship Studies, 6(3), 341–356.
Rouse, R. (1991). Mexican migration and the social space of postmodernism. Diaspora, 1(1), 8–23.
Ryang, S. (1997). North Koreans in Japan: Language, ideology, and identity. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Scott, J. C., Tehranian, J., & Mathias, J. (2002). The production of legal identities proper to states: The case of the permanent family surname. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 44, 4–44.
Sharma, A., & Gupta, A. (2006). Introduction: Rethinking theories of the state in an age of globalization. In A. Sharma, & A. Gupta (Eds.), The anthropology of the state: A reader (pp. 1–41). Malden: Blackwell.
Shin, G. (2006). Ethnic nationalism in Korea. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Singer, A., & Massey, D. S. (1998). The social process of undocumented border crossing among Mexican migrants. International Migration Review, 32(3), 561–592.
Skrbiŝ, Z. (1999). Long distance nationalism: Diasporas, homelands and identities. Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Smith, M. P., & Guarnizo, L. E. (1998). Transnationalism from below. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.
Smith, R. C. (2003). Migrant membership as an instituted process: Transnationalization, the state and the extra-territorial conduct of Mexican politics. International Migration Research, 37(2), 297–343.
Stalker, P. (2000). Workers without frontiers: The impact of globalization on international migration. International Labor Organization.
Starr, P. (1992). Social categories and claims in the liberal state. In M. Douglas, & D. Hull (Eds.), How classification works: Nelson Goodman among the social sciences (pp. 154–179). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Stewart, M. (2003). The Hungarian Status Law: A new European form of transnational politics? Diaspora, 12(1), 67–101.
Suh, D., & Shultz, E. J. (Eds.) (1990). Koreans in China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Tarlo, E. (2003). Unsettling memories: Narratives of the emergency in Delhi. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tilly, C. (1992). Coercion, capital and European states, AD 990–1990. Malden: Blackwell.
Torpey, J. (1998). Coming and going: on the state monopolization of the legitimate ‘means of movement’. Sociological Theory, 16(3), 239–259.
Torpey, J. (2000). The invention of the passport: surveillance, citizenship, and the state. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Trouillot, M.-R. (2001). The anthropology of the state in the age of globalization: Close encounters of the deceptive kind. Current Anthropology, 42, 125–138.
Tsuda, T. (1996). Strangers in the ethnic homeland: The migration, ethnic identity, and psychosocial adaptation of Japan’s new immigrant minority. Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Waldinger, R., & Fitzgerald, D. (2004). Transnationalism in question. American Journal of Sociology, 109(5), 1177–1195.
Wang, G. (1981). Community and nation: essays on Southeast Asia and the Chinese. Singapore: Heinemann.
Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2003). Methodological nationalism and the study of migration: beyond nation-state building. International Migration Review, 37(3), 576–610.
Young, C. (1994). The African colonial state in comparative perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Korean
Chin, H. (1998). The study on Chongryun (North Koreans in Japan): the history and character. Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Dongguk University. Seoul.
Constitutional Court (2001). Ruling on the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Coethnics Abroad of 1999 (Case Number 99헌마494). November 29, 2001.
Doh, J. (2003). A study on the diversification of national identity formation in Koreans in Japan: past and present, and change of Mindan. Master’s Thesis, Department of International Relations, Seoul National University, Seoul.
Hong, G. (2000). Gender politics of migration: Focused on the marriage between Choseonjok women and Korean men. Master’s Thesis, Department of Women’s Studies, Ewha University. Seoul.
Kim, C. (2000a). A study on entry, exit, and residence control of ethnic Koreans in China. Master’s Thesis, Department of Public Administration, Kangwon National University. Kangwon.
Kim, G. (2000b). Empirical survey on the opinions of Yanbian Choseonjok towards South and North Korea: Focused on the change after the establishment of diplomacy between South Korea and China. Peace Studies, 9, 205–220.
Kim, T. (2000c). Cooperation and conflict between Mindan and the South Korean government. Asia-Pacific Regional Studies, 3(1), 60–97.
Kim, K., Yoon, H., Lee, D., & Lim, S. (2004). Korean diasporas in Manchuria cities in the early twentieth century. Seoul: The Historical Critique Press.
Korean Residents Union in Japan (1976). The thirty-year history of Mindan. Tokyo: Korean Residents Union in Japan.
Kwon, B. (2005). The rhetoric of ‘brotherhood’ and the significance of ‘history’. The collection of Korean literature studies, 41, 267–287.
Kwon, J. (2002). Nationalism of divided Korea and Chosen people in Japan: The interpretation of the concept ‘Chosen’ nationality by the third generation. Korean-Japanese Nationalism Studies, 3, 185–218.
Liu, B. (2001). A study on the issues of nationality concerning Korean people in Manchu territory, 1881–1911. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of History, Chuang-ang University. Seoul.
Park, M., & Seo, H. (2003). Colonial power and statistics: The statistics and census-taking of the Government General of Korea. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
You, S. (1993). North Korean control of Korean residents in Japan: Rise and fall of “Chosoren.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Sogang University. Seoul.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks are due to Rogers Brubaker, who shared enthusiasm about the project and offered insightful comments and sharp critiques at every stage of its development. Andreas Wimmer, Gail Kligman, Akhil Gupta, Robert Jansen, Kristin Surak, Wesley Hiers, Angela Jamison, and the reviewers of Theory and Society all provided helpful comments on earlier drafts. Finally, I thank participants in the graduate student conference held by the Society for Comparative Research at Yale University and in the Comparative Social Analysis seminar at UCLA, where earlier drafts were presented.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, J. The making and unmaking of a “transborder nation”: South Korea during and after the Cold War. Theor Soc 38, 133–164 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9075-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9075-z