BOOK REVIEW
Comfort women of the Japanese empire: colonial rule and the battle over
memory, by Park Yuha, Routledge, 2024, 256 pp., A$273.00 (hardback)
In Comfort Women of the Japanese Empire: Colonial Rule and the Battle over Memory, Park
Yuha offers a provocative reassessment of the ‘comfort women’ issue – first proposed over
a decade ago in the Korean version of this book.
Situated at the heart of one of the most
contentious debates in East Asian historiography, the book examines the enduring legacies of
Japan’s colonial rule and its impact on the lives of Korean comfort women. Park positions
comfort women within a broader imperial context, claiming that comfort women were not
only self-internalised imperial subjects but also ‘compatriots’ (38; 186). She argues that
conventional approaches – viewing the issue as a war crime (responsibility) – are problematic
and that it should instead be examined ‘within a different context of imperialism/colonialism’
(xii).
This book presents the comfort women issue as a collective outcome, shaped by multiple
factors and actors – from Japanese imperial ideology at the top to middlemen or Korean
collaborators at the bottom.
The book includes 14 chapters presented in four parts.
The first part, ‘Who Were the
Comfort Women?’, explores who the comfort women were, their relationship with the
empire, and factors that shaped their identities. Examining selective memory practices in
Korea and Japan, Park reveals political dynamics that have shaped public understanding of
the comfort women issue, advocating for a nuanced historical reckoning that acknowledges
the complexity of these women’s lives and the legacy of imperial violence.
The second part,
‘Colonial Rule and the Korean Comfort Women’, examines how South Korea’s collective
memory of comfort women has been constructed and politicised over time. Park argues that
support groups, particularly the Korean Council, have hindered reconciliation by reducing
the issue to a moral indictment of Japan, neglecting Korean collaborators and the postliberation ostracism of the women, and perpetuating animosity between the two countries
while leaving unresolved the deeper contradictions of colonial history.
The third part, ‘The
Conflict of Memory’, focuses on contested narratives surrounding the comfort women. Here
Park explores how Japan and South Korea’s conflicting positions have deepened their
historical rift, turning the comfort women issue into a larger struggle over national identity,
colonial legacy, and historical justice.
The final section, ‘Beyond the Empire and the Cold
War’, explores the systems and ideologies that sustained the comfort women system, tracing
its roots to licensed prostitution and broader imperial structures, and examining how the
system extended beyond Japan’s empire. Park provides a broader critique of capitalism,
imperialism, and patriarchy, calling for a re-evaluation of historical narratives and a move
towards genuine reconciliation and justice.
The issue of comfort women is deeply traumatic, especially in South Korea, where
it remains a powerful symbol of historical injustice and national suffering.
In nationalist discourse, comfort women were depicted as ‘200,000 girls’ (30) or young women,
symbolising the chastity of Korean women and creating an ideal victim image ‘of the
identity South Koreans wish to superimpose on themselves’ (88).
Within this prevailing nationalist situation, Park’s book stirs controversy because it deviates from the
predominant narrative of these women as only victims of brutal coercion by the
Japanese military.
Instead, she considers their complex experiences, suggesting that some comfort women might have gone voluntarily or even cooperated with Japanese
soldiers because of their unified identity as imperial citizens. Some may find Park’s
analysis uncomfortable, as it touches on positive and collaborative attitudes of comfort
women, such as ‘patriotism’ (26), ‘pride’ (36), and a sense of camaraderie as ‘fellow
compatriots’ (38).
Park labels various types of women as ‘comfort women’ without necessarily offering
clear definitions and distinctions. The definition is broadened to include most women
engaged in either sex work or ‘service’ to the empire, and narrowed to apply to those
whose experiences align with particular imperial narratives, such as providing ‘spiritual comfort’ to Japanese soldiers ‘without having sex’ (37). This prompts readers to
question the complexities of identity, agency, and the diverse experiences of women
within the imperial system.
Simultaneously, the book has been critiqued as an attempt
to dilute the severity of the exploitation and suffering endured by comfort women,
undermining the gravity of the historical injustice and providing a narrative that
could absolve Japan of responsibility for its wartime actions.
In the end, Park contextualises her claims within a broader framework of ‘Asian solidarity’ (200), suggesting that South Korea, together with Japan, can achieve this solidarity by overcoming
the enduring impact of Western imperialism.
This approach – examining the comfort
women issue within the imperialism/colonialism framework – appears limited in
transcending nationalist discourses.
The controversies surrounding the book highlight
key questions: How might we transcend nation-state frameworks? Is positioning
Western imperialism as the primary obstacle sufficient to achieve solidarity?
Comfort Women of the Japanese Empire is a thought-provoking book, eliciting
positive and negative reactions as it boldly counters much of the existing scholarship
on comfort women. It compels readers to (re-)evaluate accepted narratives – whether
reflexively or with fresh insight – and to confront the (un)comfortable complexities
within this history. While the long-term impact of the English translation remains to
be seen, the arguments delineated in Park’s research are likely to resonate over time.
This book is an arguably welcome challenge to conventional perspectives on sexual
violence studies and beyond, and it should be read by the general public and
academics alike.
Ming Gao
Lund University
drgao20@gmail.com
© 2025 The Author(s)
https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2025.2456187
No comments:
Post a Comment