Nationalizing Transnationalism: A Comparative Study of the “Comfort Women” Social Movement in China, Taiwan, and South Korea

M. Álvarez
{"title":"Nationalizing Transnationalism: A Comparative Study of the “Comfort Women” Social Movement in China, Taiwan, and South Korea","authors":"M. Álvarez","doi":"10.17477/JCEA.2020.19.1.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most literature on the “comfort women” social movement focuses on the case of Korea. These works tend to transpose the meanings generated by South Korean organizations onto the transnational network, assuming certain homogeneity of repertoires and identities among the different social actors that comprise this network. Even though there is some degree of consensus about demands, repertoires, and advocacy strategies at the international level, does this same uniformity exist at the national level? In each country, what similarities and differences are present in the laboratories of ideas, relationships, and identities of social actors in the network? Symbolically and politically, do they challenge their respective societies in the same way? This article compares this social movement in South Korea, China, and Taiwan. My main argument is that the constitutive base for this transnational network is the domestic actions of these organizations. It is in the domestic sphere that these social actors reinforce their agendas, reinvent their repertoires, transform their identities, and expand their submerged networks, allowing national movements to retain their latency and autonomy. Following Melucci’s relational approach to the study of social movements, this research is based on a qualitative analysis of institutional documents, participant observation, and open-ended interviews with members of the main social actors.","PeriodicalId":52207,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17477/JCEA.2020.19.1.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Most literature on the “comfort women” social movement focuses on the case of Korea. These works tend to transpose the meanings generated by South Korean organizations onto the transnational network, assuming certain homogeneity of repertoires and identities among the different social actors that comprise this network. Even though there is some degree of consensus about demands, repertoires, and advocacy strategies at the international level, does this same uniformity exist at the national level? In each country, what similarities and differences are present in the laboratories of ideas, relationships, and identities of social actors in the network? Symbolically and politically, do they challenge their respective societies in the same way? This article compares this social movement in South Korea, China, and Taiwan. My main argument is that the constitutive base for this transnational network is the domestic actions of these organizations. It is in the domestic sphere that these social actors reinforce their agendas, reinvent their repertoires, transform their identities, and expand their submerged networks, allowing national movements to retain their latency and autonomy. Following Melucci’s relational approach to the study of social movements, this research is based on a qualitative analysis of institutional documents, participant observation, and open-ended interviews with members of the main social actors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
民族化的跨国主义:中国、台湾和韩国“慰安妇”社会运动的比较研究
大多数关于“慰安妇”社会运动的文献都集中在韩国的案例上。这些作品倾向于将韩国组织产生的意义转移到跨国网络上,假设构成这个网络的不同社会参与者之间的曲目和身份具有一定的同质性。尽管在国际层面上对需求、剧目和宣传战略达成了一定程度的共识,但在国家层面上是否存在同样的一致性?在每个国家,网络中社会参与者的思想、关系和身份的实验室中存在哪些相似之处和差异?在象征意义和政治意义上,他们是否以同样的方式挑战各自的社会?本文将这一社会运动在韩国、中国和台湾进行了比较。我的主要论点是,这个跨国网络的组成基础是这些组织的国内行动。正是在国内领域,这些社会行动者加强了他们的议程,重塑了他们的剧目,改变了他们的身份,扩大了他们被淹没的网络,使民族运动能够保持其潜伏性和自主权。遵循梅卢奇研究社会运动的关系方法,本研究基于对机构文件的定性分析、参与者观察和对主要社会参与者成员的开放式采访。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia
Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Conflating Blackness and Rurality: Urban Politics and Social Control of Africans in Guangzhou, China Guest Editorial: The Third Round of Migrant Incorporation in East Asia: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Friends and Foes of Multicultural East Asia Nationalizing Transnationalism: A Comparative Study of the “Comfort Women” Social Movement in China, Taiwan, and South Korea A Bibliometric Approach for Department-Level Disciplinary Analysis and Science Mapping of Research Output Using Multiple Classification Schemes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1