Part 1/2
---
Part 2/2
Koreanists | Heterodox Academy member essay on memory politics and open discourse in East Asia: [https://inquisitivemag.org/articles/the-heterodox-life/and-thats-h... | FacebookKoreanists
Joseph E. Yi ·drSsnotepoahJunm264c07ug01l:6m9fg062h2uef3 f7 92t52u4 00u606 ·
Heterodox Academy member essay on memory politics and open discourse in East Asia: [https://inquisitivemag.org/.../and-thats-how-i-became.../](https://inquisitivemag.org/.../and-thats-how-i-became.../)
(The title/text will be edited from ‘most famous’ to ‘famous’.)
inquisitivemag.org
And That’s How I Became Korea’s Most Famous Denialist — Inquisitive
Brendan Wright
·The conversation would be better served if those calling for more open dialogue about this issue were forthright about whether or not they think there is scholarly merit to Ramsayer's work, and if so, make the case in those terms. Also, mudding the waters by comparing Ramsayer's scholarship to Soh's without making distinctions is deeply problematic from a scholarly perspective.
Adam Bohnet
·Brendan Wright For that matter, the student leader who said that Anti-Japanese Tribalism was bad social science was absolutely correct. This isn't a matter of Rhee's politics. He has produced some brilliant scholarship, but Anti-Japanese resembles a collection of angry, ranting op-eds.
Marcy Lyn
·Brendan Wright and beating a dead horse comes to nothing. Ramsayer has little credibility anymore.
Shaun ODwyer
·Brendan Wright Ramseyer is the leading exponent of the “law and economics” approach to Japan’s society, corporate sector and politics, and had been for decades before the publication of his comfort women article. Personally I regard his work, heavily influenced by the Chicago School of Economics, as often wrong but interestingly wrong, in the same way a brilliant but doctrinaire Marxist scholar can be wrong for cherry-picking empirical data to fit his priors, but still have insights that can contribute to scholarly development in his/her field.
In that light, I believe there are reasons for engaging with his work or for platforming him. And there are reasons for not engaging with his work or not platforming him, if you personally dislike it. But dogmatic demands for de-platforming and ostracizing him that I’ve seen over the past 5 years, and stigmatizing people who do platform him *even together with critics of his work* strikes me as counter-productive, and deeply problematic from a scholarly perspective. And yes, I am one of those people who has shared a platform with him and criticized his work.
Also, the article’s author is someone who has repeatedly faced threats to his academic freedom not just for publicly taking a stand on the Ramseyer controversy, but also even for teaching Sarah Soh’s work in his classes years before that controversy blew up. There is a serious issue about pressure on scholars in Korean universities to genuflect to narrow, dogmatic nationalist narratives about the comfort women (and the colonial period) which should not be overlooked.
Joseph E. Yi
·1) Thanks for reading and commenting. Heterodox Academy invited the author to share his experiences in its quarterly magazine, and he did so. The editor chose a more dramatic title and phrasing in the final publication, and the author subsequently requested edits. Koreanist members can decide for themselves whether to read the essay and what, if anything, to take from it.
2) Because of institutional concerns, certain names in the essay, including the author’s, have been removed. The author respectfully requests that readers not discuss or reveal his identity. Readers are welcome to discuss the essay’s arguments and examples, and to discuss the author in the third person.
3) On my objective: For several years, I have regularly shared publications and forums on academic freedom, civil liberties, and open discourse on controversial topics. Since a colleague introduced me to the Koreanist site, I have also shared some of these materials here.
The response has been meaningful. A Nikkei Asia essay on militant democracy received more than 500 Koreanist views, according to a Facebook notice, and a recent forum on U.S. military camptown women attracted 30-plus registrants.
Through Koreanist and similar sites, I have also invited expert speakers (e.g., Korea Times’ Michael Breen, Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Cheng).
My objective is to help interested scholars and students examine difficult topics thoughtfully. I am grateful to Korean Studies members for their participation.
4) I have read and listened to Dr. Ramseyer. I have also read and listened to his supporters and critics. I wrote a forthcoming review of Park Yu-ha’s book (2014/2024) for an academic journal, and would like to do the same for Ramseyer and Morgan (2023) in the near future. Before doing so, I’d like more serious dialogue with thoughtful critics.
Dr. Ramseyer speaks annually to HxA members and Hanyang students. He offers a detailed argument that many find persuasive and answers questions from the audience.
We have also listened to progressive scholars, including Hosaka Yuji.
What we would welcome is a scholar who can offer a detailed, point-by-point critique of Ramseyer’s work and engage with questions from the audience. We invited several such scholars in the past, but they withdrew after their talks had been publicly advertised.
If you are willing to engage in such discussion, you are very welcome to speak. Our forum offers a small honorarium and places no content restriction on invited speakers. If you prefer, we can limit the event to HxA members and Hanyang students without public advertising.
To speak or learn more about Heterodox Academy, please DM me. Thank you.
Brendan Wright
·Joseph E. Yidetailed and unimpeachable rebuttals of Ramsayers work have already been published. Will you address those in your review?
Adam Bohnet
·Joseph E. Yi While historians of course, have political beliefs that inevitably influence how they view their subject matter, the primary standard according to which we evaluate a scholar is not on whether they are "progressive" or "conservative," or how they sit on a sliding scale from left end of the US Democratic Party to the Maga end fo the Republicans, but on whether they understand the subject matter well, whether they interpret their sources appropriately and in proper context, whether they understand the scholars who they are reading, etc. I read with interest Rhee Younghoon's work on Late Choson economic history, the nobi system, etc., and have areas of agreement and disagreement with him that have very little to do with whether he voted for 국민의 힘 in the last election. If I were to guess, I expect that Sunjoo Kim of Harvard University voted for Joe Biden in the last US election - but that has nothing much to do with how we may differ in our understanding of late Choson nobi (although no doubt both of us have a range of political beliefs that shape our approach to late Choson nobi). How Charles Armstrong may have voted in US elections - whether he is defined as a "progressive" or a "Conservative" - similarly does not really change the fact that he plagiarized other scholars and invented non-existent sources (and likely did not read the scholarly languages he claimed to read). At the beginning of the Armstrong scandal, sadly, some people seemed to be trying to steer the debate into a "progressive" vs. "conservative" direction, but it was always a useless framing of the event. It is also an entirely useless framework for understanding the problems with Ramseyer's scholarship - putting up debates between "progressive" and "conservative" scholars doesn't deal with the fact that Ramseyer seriously misrepresented his sources and developed a discussion of contracts that don't exist. There seems to have been a political purpose to Ramsayer's sloppy scholarship, which should also be discussed, but that was not the primary objection people raised to his scholarship. If I have a rotten orange, I do not bring togehter a "progressive" scholar and a "conservative scholar," to debate whether or not the orange is truly rotten, or set up a heterodox academy in which we stand up boldly against those anti-Orangists who insist on calling the orange rotten; rather, I ask someone to tell me what the orange smells like, what it looks like, whether or ot it is soft, is there mould growing on it, etc.
Russell Burge
·The pertinent scholarly questions here have been asked and answered:
https://apjjf.org/2021/5/concernedscholars
APJJF.ORG
“Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War”: The Case for Retraction on Grounds of Academic Misconduct - Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus
“Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War”: The Case for Retraction on Grounds of Academic Misconduct - Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus
Joseph E. Yi
·Dear Adam Bohnet, Russell Burge, and Brendan Wright:
Thanks again for commenting.
1) To clarify, HxA East Asia sponsors 8–12 forums annually across various topics, including the implications of the U.S. prosecution of Mahmoud Khalil for free speech in East Asia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOlB2tCQrrM; https://japan-forward.com/preserving-democracies-and-the...
One forum annually covers the controversy over Japanese military comfort-women historiography. This remains a continuing topic of interest, especially as the ruling party has enacted new legal restrictions concerning historical memory (https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20260212011900315; https://english.hani.co.kr/.../e_national/1243540.html).
2) HxA colleagues and I strongly agree that a scholar’s political ideology should matter less than the quality of the scholarship. One reason HxA exists is that political ideology, from both left and right, can infiltrate academic judgment and weaken what HxA member Jonathan Rauch calls the “Constitution of Knowledge.”
As an academic, I am committed to the scholarly pursuit and teaching of empirical truth. That commitment does not fit neatly into left-right categories. I have criticized many sanctions on North Korea because they do not demonstrably improve the freedoms of North Korean people. I have also criticized the imprisonment of Lee Seok-ki because I do not think the evidence fully supported a concrete plan of insurrection.
3) Because my colleagues and I are committed to truth-seeking, we are open to arguments and evidence that challenge our priors.
At this point, simply repeating that Ramseyer is discredited, or that contracts do not exist, does not advance the discussion—specifically on the thesis that wartime contracts generally offered shorter terms and larger annualized advances than peacetime contracts.
Most students come to class thinking that women, or their parents, did not sign contracts, but were simply kidnapped or deceived into sex trafficking. What, then, is supported by the available evidence?
Ramseyer has responded in detail to critics in 2022 and 2024 publications and in public forums. Some HxA academics and students have found his response persuasive; others disagree on methodological and interpretive grounds but still find parts of his core thesis plausible. We all agree that his work deserves careful engagement and scrutiny. I would especially welcome engagement with the 2024 book’s empirical and methods appendix.
My colleague Shaun has noted that Ramseyer produced credible scholarship before this controversy, and Sarah Soh (2008) cited his earlier work. His current supporters may be an academic minority, but they represent a visible viewpoint and shape policy debates in Korea, Japan, and the United States. (If you DM me, I can discuss his academic supporters in general terms.)
4. I would therefore ask whether you, or any Koreanist member, would consider speaking to HxA and my Hanyang students. You would not need to share the platform with anyone else, and we can limit the audience to HxA members and Hanyang students.
This would be an opportunity to offer a well-reasoned, point-by-point critique of Ramseyer’s work for students and scholars who are trying to understand the controversy carefully.
Please DM me if interested. I expect this will be my last message on this thread, as I need to prepare for finals week. Thanks for reading.
YOUTUBE.COM
Mahmoud Khalil controversy & Global Implications: Davidai, Zimmerman, Yi
Mahmoud Khalil controversy & Global Implications: Davidai, Zimmerman, Yi
Russell Burge
·Joseph E. Yi No one in this thread has stated (much less repeated) the claim that contracts in general didn't exist—only that Ramseyer's sources seem not to. Your insistence on pivoting to this other, largely speculative conversation does not give me confidence in the integrity of your institution or project. I will be declining your invitation.
Adam Bohnet
·Joseph E. Yi Good to know. So, I would like to say (lest this gets missed in the discussion), that I dont think J. was treated well or fairly by H. students. It is my general experience that when student activists target instructors, they look for weak targets. Despite the media representation in North America of bearded white male professors living in fear of the woke mob, most cases of student campaigns against instructors that I have encountered in Canada, including by self-styled progressive students, have been against untenured instructors and indeed women of colour. In fact I know of several cases currently at my small college. I am not legally allowed to get into more detail. So I think that J. was treated badly. I say that without knowing the content of J's lecture (perhaps there were indeed errors), because I also think that it is important that teachers be allowed to experiment, and also that, undergraduate teaching is inherently unspecialised, it takes us out of our comfort zones. I thus also partly retract my comment on anti-Japanese tribalism - I dont think I can judge without knowing how J. used the book in class. In any case, there were better responses to J.'s lectures (even allowing for sosomee genuine errors) than a media campaign, and while J. may not be as famous as he worries, I can imagine that some sustained attention of the sort that he experienced would have been deeply unpleasant. But here is the thing - I can say all that, and Ramseyer remains a problem, for reasons already expressed - his scholarship is dishonest.
Adam Bohnet
·So, you are right to have the statement "South Korea's most famous denialist" corrected, since that is clearly not true. But, sorry to be catty, are you sure you are famous at all? I am sure that you have received renown in your sphere, like most academics, and I recognize that you received some media attention in 2021, but this doesn't seem to have lasted. Famous people in South Korea generally have at least a gossipy Namu wiki page, filled with snide and occasionally positive comments - and you notably lack that, and hardly appear in related pages concerning Ramseyer or Anti-Japanese Tribalism. So, breathe easy - I think it is clear that, like the rest of us academics, you are completely obscure!
Marcy Lyn
·What's your objective with this? This isn't a new perspective.
Joseph E. Yi
·Dear Brendan Wright and Russell Burgell: Thanks for your comments.
I have read the critiques, and assigned some to my students (https://apjjf.org/.../21/11/Concerned-Scholars-Response.html).
Dr. Ramseyer has also addressed the critiques in an essay (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4000145) and book, and discussed them in public forums.
What we need is an informed expert to explain why Ramseyer’s rebuttal is flawed and to answer live audience questions. Ideally, you and Ramseyer would both talk in the same forum, with arguments written and shared in advance so the other party can better address.
Alternately, you can talk separately, before or after Ramseyer’s talk.
We would very much appreciate hearing from you. Our forums seek to be rigorous yet respectful discussions of controversial topics, and our past speakers have not raised complaints.
APJJF.ORG
Scholarly and Public Responses to “Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War”: The Current State of the Problem, A Report by Concerned Scholars - The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus
Scholarly and Public Responses to “Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War”: The Current State of the Problem, A Report by Concerned Scholars - The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus
Russell Burge
·Joseph E. Yi Thanks; many of us here are familiar with Ramseyer's responses and ongoing oeuvre. There is just not much to debate. The crux of the matter is that Ramseyer systematically misrepresented sources and purported to provide an economic analysis of contracts he cannot demonstrate meaningfully existed. What I (and I think many others) would like to see going forward is more careful scholarship on the history of the comfort women, not town-hall-style events where discredited scholars can air their grievances free of fact checking and peer review.
Joseph E. Yi
·Thanks for your reply. I agree that the goal should be careful scholarship rather than grievance airing.
I do not think it is accurate, however, to describe Heterodox Academy forums as town-hall-style events free of scrutiny. When Dr. Ramseyer spoke, the audience included peer scholars with extensive research and publication backgrounds, and he answered critical questions. A forum can be structured around specific sources, claims, and counterclaims rather than reputational affirmation.
On the contract issue, I read Ramseyer’s (2022) and Ramseyer/Morgan’s (2024) responses as follows. They acknowledge that actual signed contracts between individual Korean women and brothel owners generally have not survived. But they argue that the absence of surviving individual contracts does not mean that contractual arrangements did not exist. They cite wartime documents describing advances, maximum service terms, travel permits, police requirements, return provisions, and form contracts. They also cite U.S. POW Interrogation Report No. 49, which they read as evidence of indentured-service arrangements among Korean comfort women in Burma, including upfront payments, finite terms, and some ability to refuse customers, while also acknowledging fraud in recruitment.
That does not settle the deeper question of meaningful consent. Poverty, deception, debt, family pressure, colonial inequality, wartime conditions, brothel control, and practical exit all matter. But that is precisely why a serious point-by-point critique would be useful. The strongest critique, in my view, is not simply “there were no contracts,” but whether contract form adequately captures the coercive structure in which those arrangements operated.
Personally, I am not a historian and do not claim historical expertise on this issue. But as a political scientist concerned with liberal democracy, individual rights, and open discourse, I am disturbed by the way dissenting views on this subject have been institutionally punished. In South Korea, dissenting academics have faced legal proceedings. Outside Korea, Jason Morgan’s account describes professional retaliation after he challenged the dominant comfort-women narrative, including departmental efforts to remove notice of his published translation and a faculty recommendation letter that, in his account, deliberately sabotaged his job applications.
I am disappointed when scholars ignore, minimize, or support such pressures on academic freedom. Such behavior also makes me cautious about whether dissenting scholarship will receive objective and fair peer review.
Again, I think an open, one-hour forum is a better venue for these issues than a Facebook thread. If you are willing, you would be welcome to speak as the sole presenter, or to invite colleagues to join you.
Joseph E. Yi
·Ramseyer/Morgan’s main claim is that wartime comfort-station contracts generally involved shorter maximum terms than peacetime licensed-prostitution contracts, and that when advances are annualized, they likely offered higher compensation to offset greater wartime risk. The evidence for shorter terms is stronger than the evidence for higher compensation, which the authors themselves present as approximate.
Do you dispute the logic or evidence for their claim?
Russell Burge
·Joseph E. Yi With no signed contract available as evidence, it is difficult to make any claims about what they "generally" involved—and doubly so when the fragmentary, indirect sources used to provide evidence for contracts are twisted and mischaracterized. All this and more has been addressed, many times over, by scholars from numerous fields (including in the rebuttal linked above). Academic freedom is vitally important, but it does not extend to freedom from evidentiary standards—and both are threatened when we fail to make this distinction. There are better test cases, I think, for the forum you propose.
Shaun ODwyer
·Russell Burge it amazes me how some people quibble over the very possibility of contracts in the wartime comfort women system- unless actual signed specimens are supplied.
Sarah Soh’s book “The Comfort Women” positively cites Ramseyer’s earlier (1991) work on indenture contracts in pre-war Japanese prostitution (p114) and also cites testimony by one wartime comfort woman, Kim Ok-sil,
that she was on an indenture contract (p.90). Legal scholar Marie Kim has also discussed the issue of indenture contract in both pre-war and wartime prostitution, in the quasi-legal conditions in which colonial era prostitution recruitment took place https://academic.oup.com/.../article.../64/1/93/7686871... (oh, we platformed her too, alongside Ramseyer.
Does that make her a baddy in your books?)
I guess because I read Carole Pateman’s “The Sexual Contract” in my young and impressionable years I never got worked up at the idea of at least some wartime Korean women being recruited under indenture contracts, even if actual contracts can no longer be found. I wonder if, at a deep level, some of Ramseyer’s critics share in his liberal individualist assumptions about contract, but draw opposite conclusions to him about the plausibility of assuming their presence in highly unequal, exploitative and violent sexual labour situations?
ACADEMIC.OUP.COM
A Turbid River of History and Law: The Procurement of Women in Imperial Japan and Colonial Korea
A Turbid River of History and Law: The Procurement of Women in Imperial Japan and Colonial Korea
Russell Burge
·Shaun ODwyer You are missing the point here. The issue is not whether or not contracts actually existed, or might possibly have existed; the issue is that someone who makes academic claims based on contracts, especially an economic analysis suggesting a large data set or corpus, ought to have actually seen them.
Shaun ODwyer
·Russell Burge I think I understand what you are trying to say here, though some of your more vehement statements elsewhere on this thread might suggest otherwise. I’m not here to defend Ramseyer’s “credible commitments” position on Japanese prostitution indenture contracts, or whatever agreements Japanese and Korean women/their parents were bound to, by hook or by crook, in the wartime comfort women system. That should have been clear from my first comment in this thread, in which I replied to a query about the academic merit of Ramseyer’s thought (screen shot attached for reference).
I see Ramseyer’s credible commitments thesis as something best treated
as an ideal type, responsive to hypothetical *ideal* market conditions, such as contracting party’s equality of bargaining power,
equal access to information,
and standard rule of law enforcement/protection for both parties.
Ramseyer’s methodological error is to assume that those were not just ideal but actually existing conditions in both the pre-war Japanese licensed prostitution and wartime comfort women system using both Japanese and colonial Korean women, and then to treat the credible commitments thesis as an accurate reconstruction of the indenture agreements he believed they entered into. In committing this error he is guilty of presuming legal-material conditions, and the existence of contracts conforming to his ideal credible commitments thesis, that he has not adequately demonstrated existed. But imo this is an error that has a lot more to do with Ramseyer’s affinity with Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, than to do with his presumed affinities with Nippon Kaigi, white supremacy or whatever else was on his critics’ minds during the moral panic over his paper in 2021. I communicated my thoughts on this error directly to Ramseyer during one of those “town hall” meetings, and to his (very)
online critics back then.
In any case Marie Kim’s paper I pasted above is a better, “non-ideal” approach to multiple legal-historical questions such as how much continuity there was between the licensed prostitution system in Japan and how prostitution operated in Korea under colonial law, and how colonial law enforcement and law courts dealt, or failed to deal with wartime comfort women recruitment (inclusive of fraud, deception, and coercion during both recruitment and “employment” terms). In this sort of discussion -informed by sources such as women’s testimony, contemporary news media,
police and court records - indenture contracts,
Including fraudulent or deceptive variations on them are clearly documented.
In this discussion Ramseyer’s work can, and does also serve as a reference point, and his credible commitments thesis *could* have heuristic value as an ideal type.
Russell Burge
·Even your exculpatory framing would suggest that Ramseyer took something invented (an abstract "ideal type") and passed it off as evidence based, without evidence. This is not a small matter to shrug off or to attempt a filibuster around. You are making light of very serious issues.
Sayaka Chatani
·Russell Burge What did Shaun ODwyer say? It seems his comments are hidden from me (am I blocked?).
Russell Burge
·Sayaka Chatani Hey there! Attaching a screenshot here
Adam Bohnet
·Sayaka Chatani I had blocked him myself, but as a moderator I must see all. It is my sad fate.
Sayaka Chatani
·Russell Burge Oh I see...
Adam Bohnet
·I should add for others that, as a consequence, I am not acting as a moderator in this discussion.
Sayaka Chatani
·Adam Bohnet I am sure any interaction is appreciated by them!
=====
세진님, 보내주신 세 번째 파일은 조셉 이 교수의 에세이가 페이스북 한국학 연구자 커뮤니티()에 공유된 후 학자들 간에 벌어진 실시간 설전을 담은 기록입니다.
요약: 페이스북 공론장에서 재점화된 램지어 논쟁과 학문의 자유
1. 논쟁의 촉발
조셉 이 교수가 학문적 다양성을 다룬 자신의 에세이 <내가 어떻게 한국에서 가장 유명한 부정론자가 되었는가>를 페이스북 그룹에 공유하자, 동료 학자들의 비판과 옹호가 이어지며 설전이 벌어졌다
2. 주요 토론 참여자들의 입장
브렌든 라이트(Brendan Wright) & 러셀 버지(Russell Burge) : 램지어의 학문적 부실성 지적
핵심 주장: 램지어의 연구는 학술적 가치가 없으며 소의 연구와 동일 선상에서 비교하는 것은 심각한 오류다
. 램지어는 존재하지 않는 '계약'을 다량의 데이터가 존재하는 것처럼 왜곡하고 출처를 편집했다 . 반론: 학문의 자유가 증거 자료를 조작하거나 학술적 기준을 위반할 자유까지 의미하지는 않는다
. 이 교수가 본질적인 증거 위조 문제를 회피하고 speculative(추측성) 대화로 논점을 흐리고 있다며 이 교수의 포럼 초청을 거절했다 .
아담 보넷(Adam Bohnet) : 정치적 프레임 비판 및 대학 내 약자 공격 지적
핵심 주장: 학자의 평가는 '진보'나 '보수'라는 정치적 척도가 아니라, 사료를 적절하게 해석했는지에 따라 이루어져야 한다
. 램지어 논쟁을 좌우 진영 논리로 몰고 가는 것은 사료 왜곡이라는 본질을 가리는 무익한 프레임이다 . 에세이 주인공(J)에 대한 옹호: J 교수가 H 대학교 학생들과 미디어로부터 마녀사냥식 대우를 받은 것은 불공정했다
. 학생 운동가들은 대개 학자적 권력이 없는 비정규직(untenured) 강사나 유색인종 여성 등 취약한 타깃을 공격하는 경향이 있다 . 다만, 이 교수를 향해 "당신이 유명하긴 한가? 나무위키 문서도 없다"라며 냉소적인 촌평을 남기기도 했다 .
숀 오도이어(Shaun O'Dwyer) : 시카고 학파의 방법론적 오류로 접근
핵심 주장: 램지어는 시카고 경제학파의 '법과 경제학' 접근법을 대변하는 학자다
. 그의 오류는 극우 단체(일본회의)나 백인 우월주의 성향 때문이 아니라, 밀턴 프리드먼 식의 '이상적 시장 조건(정보의 대등함, 법 집행의 공정함)'이 식민지 한국과 전쟁터라는 현실에 그대로 존재했다고 착각한 방법론적 오류다 . 근거: 비록 실제 서명된 계약서 원본이 남아있지 않더라도 당시 선급금, 복무 기간, 경찰 규정 등을 다룬 역사적 문서가 존재하며, 소의 저서에서도 위안부 개인이 인덴처(채무노예) 계약 상태에 있었다는 증언이 나온다
. 따라서 램지어의 논문을 무조건 매장(de-platforming)하기보다 비판적 검증의 대상으로 삼아야 한다 .
조셉 이(Joseph Yi) : 열린 토론과 연대 제안
핵심 주장: 학자의 정치적 이념보다 학문적 질이 중요하다는 점에 동의한다
. 램지어는 2022년과 2024년 출판물을 통해 평시와 전시 계약의 구조적 차이(위험 수당에 따른 높은 보상, 짧은 계약 기간)를 실증적으로 반박했다 . 제안: 단순한 비난을 넘어 램지어의 2024년 데이터 방법론 부록을 논리적으로 반박할 수 있는 전문가를 헤테로도크스 포럼에 독점 발표자로 초청하겠다고 제안하며 공론장 참여를 유도했다
.
평론: 공론장의 축소판 — 지적 도그마와 학문적 엄밀성의 날선 대치
1. '사료적 엄밀성'과 '방법론적 스펙트럼'의 충돌
이 토론은 램지어 교수의 연구를 어떻게 바라볼 것인가를 두고 학계의 두 가지 시선이 격렬하게 부딪히는 현장이다. 라이트와 버지로 대변되는 주류 역사학계는 램지어가 '존재하지 않는 1차 사료(실제 계약서)'를 아전인수 격으로 해석했으므로 학자적 정직성(Academic integrity)을 상실했다고 단언한다
반면 오도이어와 이 교수는 이를 단순한 '거짓말'이 아니라 시카고 학파 특유의 '이상적 시장 경제 모델'을 전시 상황에 무리하게 대입한 방법론적 실패(Methodological error)로 규정한다
2. 대학 내 권력 구조와 마녀사냥의 역학 관계
아담 보넷의 논평은 이 논쟁이 단순히 학술적 진위 공방을 넘어 대학 내 '정치적 올바름'과 '권력 관계'가 어떻게 작동하는지 폭로한다
3. '플랫폼 박탈(De-platforming)'이라는 현대적 검열
버지 교수가 "이미 검증이 끝난 썩은 오렌지(램지어)를 두고 토론회를 열어 불만을 토로할 기회를 줄 필요가 없다"라며 초청을 거절하는 장면은 현대 학계가 직면한 '취소 문화(Cancel Culture)'의 단면을 보여준다
버지가 우려하는 '사이비 학자에게 면죄부를 주는 행위'와 이 교수가 지향하는 '학문적 표현의 자유' 사이의 딜레마는 현대 자유주의 공론장이 해결해야 할 숙제다
4. 총평
이 페이스북 토론은 첫 번째, 두 번째 글에서 제기된 '한국 사회의 집단사고'라는 화두가 해외 한국학 연구자 커뮤니티 내에서도 여전히 유효하게 작동하고 있음을 보여준다
세 편의 글을 모두 살펴보니 한국 사회의 위안부 담론이 가진 정치성, 학문의 자유, 그리고 학계 내부의 처절한 공방이 입체적으로 연결됩니다.
==<And That’s How I Became Korea’s Most Famous Denialist> FB 논쟁 요점+평론
이 자료는 Joseph Yi가 자신의 글 <And That’s How I Became Korea’s Most Famous Denialist>를 페이스북에 공유한 뒤 벌어진 논쟁을 모은 것이다. 핵심 쟁점은 세 가지다. 첫째, 램지어 논문은 토론할 가치가 있는가. 둘째, 위안부 문제를 둘러싼 한국 사회의 기억 정치와 학문 자유 문제는 실제로 존재하는가. 셋째, Joseph Yi와 Heterodox Academy 쪽이 “열린 토론”을 말하면서도 램지어의 학문적 결함을 과소평가하는 것은 아닌가 하는 문제다.
1. 논쟁의 출발점
1쪽에서 Joseph Yi는 자신의 글을 공유하면서, 동아시아의 기억 정치와 열린 담론에 관한 Heterodox Academy 회원 에세이라고 소개한다. 곧바로 Brendan Wright가 댓글을 단다. 그는 대화 자체는 필요하지만, 램지어의 연구를 학문적으로 신뢰할 수 있는 작업처럼 취급하는 것은 문제라고 비판한다. 램지어는 이미 충분히 반박되었고, 이제는 “죽은 말을 때리는 것”처럼 더 논의할 가치가 없다는 식의 반응도 나온다.
여기서 첫 번째 갈림길이 생긴다. Joseph Yi 쪽은 “논쟁적 주제일수록 공개 토론이 필요하다”고 말한다. 반면 비판자들은 “토론 일반은 좋지만, 램지어 논문은 단순히 불편한 견해가 아니라 학문적 부정확성, 자료 왜곡, 방법론적 결함이 드러난 글”이라고 본다.
2. Shaun O’Dwyer의 중재적 입장
2쪽에서 Shaun O’Dwyer는 비교적 중간 입장을 취한다. 그는 램지어가 “법경제학적 접근”의 대표적 인물이고, 위안부 문제뿐 아니라 계약이 존재하지 않거나 강제가 있는 상황에도 계약 모델을 과도하게 적용해 왔다고 지적한다. 램지어의 분석은 “흥미롭게 틀린” 작업일 수 있으며, 그래서 비판적으로 논의할 가치는 있다는 것이다.
하지만 O’Dwyer는 동시에 램지어가 자신을 비판한 연구자들, 특히 Amy Stanley 같은 학자를 향해 적대적으로 대응했고, 여러 위협과 명예훼손에 시달렸다고 말한다. 따라서 램지어를 플랫폼에 세우는 일에는 조심이 필요하다고 본다. 그의 입장은 “토론은 필요하지만, 램지어를 피해자나 순교자처럼 만들면 안 된다”에 가깝다.
3. Joseph Yi의 자기 해명
3쪽과 5쪽에서 Joseph Yi는 자신이 하려는 일은 램지어를 무비판적으로 옹호하는 것이 아니라고 반복한다. 그는 Heterodox Academy East Asia가 학기마다 여러 공개 포럼을 열고, 보수·진보를 막론하고 논쟁적 주제를 다뤄 왔다고 설명한다. Mahmoud Khalil 사건, 공자학원, 위안부 문제, 한국 민주주의, 북한 관련 주제 등이 예로 제시된다.
그는 자신이 원했던 것은 램지어와 비판자들을 같은 자리에서 불러, 서로의 주장을 직접 검증하는 토론이었다고 말한다. 램지어의 주장을 인정하라는 것이 아니라, 램지어가 어떤 자료와 논리로 말하는지, 그 비판자들이 왜 그것을 틀렸다고 보는지를 공개적으로 보여주자는 것이다.
이 점에서 Joseph Yi의 주장은 일관성이 있다. 그는 “학문적 자유”와 “열린 검증”을 핵심 가치로 내세운다. 하지만 바로 이 지점이 비판자들에게는 불충분하게 보인다. 왜냐하면 그들은 램지어 논문의 문제는 이미 충분히 검증되었고, 다시 플랫폼을 주는 것은 학문적 토론이 아니라 부실한 주장을 재활성화하는 효과를 낸다고 보기 때문이다.
4. Russell Burge와 Adam Bohnet의 강한 비판
4쪽, 6쪽, 7쪽에서 Russell Burge와 Adam Bohnet은 램지어 논문에 대해 훨씬 더 엄격한 태도를 보인다. Burge는 이미 관련 학자들이 램지어 논문의 문제점을 정리했으며, 핵심 질문들은 “이미 묻고 답해졌다”고 말한다. 그는 램지어의 원자료, 계약서 부재, 법경제학적 추정의 무리함, 위안부 제도의 폭력성과 불평등성을 가볍게 다루는 점을 문제 삼는다.
Adam Bohnet은 더 날카롭다. 그는 램지어가 “보수냐 진보냐”의 문제가 아니라, 자료를 제대로 읽고 맥락화했는지의 문제라고 말한다. 특히 램지어가 조선 후기 신분제, 기생·공녀·성노동 관련 자료를 잘못 이해하거나 과도하게 일반화한 점을 비판한다. 그는 Heterodox Academy식 “서로 다른 관점의 토론” 프레임이 때로는 실제 학문적 품질 문제를 흐릴 수 있다고 본다.
이 비판의 핵심은 이렇다. “양쪽을 불러 토론하자”는 말은 겉으로는 공정해 보이지만, 한쪽 주장이 이미 자료상 심각하게 무너진 경우에는 부정확한 균형이 될 수 있다는 것이다.
5. 계약 문제: 논쟁의 핵심
8쪽부터 10쪽까지 논쟁은 더 구체적으로 “계약” 문제로 들어간다. Joseph Yi는 램지어와 Morgan의 핵심 주장을 이렇게 정리한다. 전시 위안소 계약은 전시 위험 때문에 평시 매춘 계약보다 더 높은 보상, 더 짧은 기간, 위험에 따른 조건 조정을 제공했을 가능성이 있다는 것이다. 즉 램지어는 위안부 제도를 “폭력적 납치”만이 아니라, 위험이 반영된 계약 노동의 관점에서 해석하려 했다는 설명이다.
이에 대해 Burge와 O’Dwyer는 강하게 반박한다. Burge는 실제 서명 계약서가 충분히 존재하지 않는 상황에서 “일반적으로 자발적 계약이었을 것”이라고 추론하는 것은 위험하다고 본다. O’Dwyer는 Marie Kim의 연구 등을 언급하며, 실제 식민지 조선의 법·경찰·모집·중개 체계, 여성들의 취약한 지위, 인신매매적 요소, 기만과 강압의 구조를 함께 봐야 한다고 말한다.
O’Dwyer의 중요한 지적은 이것이다. 설령 어떤 종류의 계약이나 계약 유사 문서가 있었다 해도, 그것이 “의미 있는 동의”를 뜻하지는 않는다. 가난, 가족 압력, 중개업자의 속임수, 식민지 권력, 군사적 폭력, 귀환 불가능성, 이동 제한 등이 결합하면 계약은 형식일 뿐 실질적 자유를 보장하지 못한다.
이 부분이 전체 논쟁의 가장 중요한 대목이다. 램지어 논란은 단순히 “계약이 있었나 없었나”가 아니다. 진짜 문제는 “계약이라는 형식이 강제와 착취를 지울 수 있는가”이다. 비판자들은 바로 그 점에서 램지어의 법경제학적 모델이 현실을 지나치게 단순화한다고 본다.
6. 평론: Joseph Yi의 문제 제기는 필요하지만, 램지어 방어와 분리되어야 한다
이 페이스북 논쟁을 보면 Joseph Yi의 문제의식은 완전히 무시할 수 없다. 한국 사회에서 위안부 문제는 오랫동안 도덕적 성역이 되었고, 이 문제에 대해 다른 질문을 던지는 학자들이 “친일”이나 “부정론자”로 몰린 사례도 있었다. 박유하 사건이나 송 교수 사건처럼, 학문적 주장에 법적·행정적 제재가 가해진 것은 분명히 우려할 만하다. 이런 문제를 지적하는 것은 필요하다.
그러나 이 자료에서 드러나는 약점도 분명하다. Joseph Yi는 “열린 토론”이라는 원칙을 강조하지만, 램지어 논문의 구체적 결함에 대한 비판자들의 문제 제기를 충분히 심각하게 받아들이지 않는 듯 보인다. 물론 그는 램지어를 무조건 옹호하지 않는다고 말한다. 그러나 램지어를 “비판적으로 토론할 가치가 있는 학자”로 계속 세우는 순간, 이미 그 논문이 갖는 학문적 결함은 부차화된다.
이 지점에서 비판자들의 말이 더 설득력 있다. 학문 자유는 모든 주장을 같은 무게로 다루라는 뜻이 아니다. 학문 자유는 문제 있는 주장도 검토할 수 있게 해주지만, 검토 결과 심각하게 부실하다고 판명된 주장을 계속 “논쟁적 관점”으로 재포장해야 한다는 뜻은 아니다. 열린 토론과 부실한 연구의 재활용은 구별되어야 한다.
또 하나 중요한 점은 “위안부 문제의 성역화 비판”과 “램지어 논문 방어”는 분리되어야 한다는 것이다. 한국 사회의 위안부 기억 정치에는 실제 문제가 있다. 피해자 서사의 단순화, 운동단체의 권력화, 반일 민족주의와 결합한 도덕주의, 반대 의견에 대한 낙인찍기 등은 비판받을 수 있다. 그러나 그렇다고 해서 램지어 논문이 좋은 대안이 되는 것은 아니다. 나쁜 기억 정치에 대한 비판이 나쁜 학문을 정당화하지는 않는다.
7. 결론
이 FB 논쟁은 매우 유익하다. 왜냐하면 Joseph Yi의 에세이만 읽었을 때는 “한국 사회가 학문 자유를 억압했다”는 구도가 강하게 보이지만, 이 댓글 논쟁을 읽으면 반대편의 핵심 논리도 보이기 때문이다. 비판자들은 단순히 토론을 막자는 것이 아니다. 그들은 램지어의 작업이 이미 자료와 방법 면에서 심각하게 문제가 있으며, 그것을 다시 플랫폼화하는 것이 오히려 학문적 진실성을 해친다고 본다.
따라서 이 논쟁의 결론은 양쪽 모두에서 배울 수 있다. Joseph Yi에게서 배울 점은 위안부 문제도 성역이 되어서는 안 된다는 것이다. Burge, Bohnet, O’Dwyer에게서 배울 점은 학문 자유가 학문적 책임을 면제하지 않는다는 것이다.
가장 균형 잡힌 입장은 이렇다. 위안부 문제는 공개적으로 토론되어야 한다. 피해자 증언, 운동단체, 보상 문제, 기지촌 성노동, 식민지 조선의 성착취 구조 모두 연구 대상이 되어야 한다. 그러나 램지어식 계약론은 그 토론의 출발점이 되기에는 너무 약하다. 위안부 기억 정치의 폐쇄성을 비판하려면, 램지어보다 훨씬 더 정교하고 역사적으로 책임 있는 연구 위에서 해야 한다.
==
==
No comments:
Post a Comment