Scan barcode
A review by summerfruits
North Korea: Another Country by Bruce Cumings
3.0
thought this was a decent read, but i definitely did not like it as much as i thought i would have. i was initially quite excited to start reading this, as i haven’t encountered many academics sources/writers that were committed to providing a more comprehensive account of North Korea’s historical trajectory and present as Bruce Cumings seems to be, but i thought that this book, in addition to honestly being quite dry, despite Cumings’s attempts at making the text more personable, fell a bit short of my expectations.
though the book is split into six chapters each covering a different aspect of the DPRK and the chapters don’t seem to connect or flow into one another very smoothly, making for a bit of a disjointed read, there is a clear through line in the whole book that Cumings references again and again in each chapter. the main argument he seems to be making is that although the dominant narrative regarding North Korea is that all of its leaders act in irrational and violently unpredictable ways, everything the government does can be read as logical consequences of the country’s history of colonial and imperial occupation and violence. the dominant narrative regarding North Korea is neatly summed up by Hazel Smith as the “mad/bad actor” paradigm, which argues that all of North Korea’s actions/policies often get interpreted in two ways: as irrational (mad) or evil/immoral (bad). however, Cumings pushes back against this binary, arguing with this book that North Korea’s policies are not evidence of a country run by an immoral madman but instead evidence of a country that is simply trying to defend itself against even more foreign interference and imperial violence. whether or not one agrees with North Korea is irrelevant to the purpose of this book; what’s more important is the reconfiguration of North Korea from a country/government that is irrational to one that is quite predictable, which Cumings argues is an important perspective for analysts and other officials looking to ‘understand’ and work with North Korea to internalize.
in addition to Cumings’s main argument, there are two other themes that i thought undergirded the majority of this book. the first is that the overly punitive perspective the West, particularly the United States, has towards North Korea’s nuclear development and other military/defense actions is hypocritical, as practically everything that North Korea does and is then accused of being immoral for the United States also does as well. the second is that the way that North Korea gets represented in the United States is often blatantly racist–Cumings very candidly wrote, “Prominent Americans lose any sense of embarrassment or self-consciousness about the intricate and knotty problems of racial difference and Otherness when it comes to North Korea and its leaders” (49). this matches up with the observations made in Gauthier (2015) that the media often portray North Korean through an Orientalist lens. in this way, because he illuminates the narrow way that North Korea often gets represented and understood rather than continuing this tradition of representation, this book can be considered counter-hegemonic—that is, Cumings is presenting an alternate perspective of North Korea for his audience.
as Cumings is a historian—his research specifically focuses on the Korean War and East/West relations—and an academic, his audience is similar, as gleaned from the academic style this book is written in. as someone who honestly isn’t as well versed or interested in history than some, this book was definitely a tough read, and was very obviously not meant for a layman’s audience, or at least not written with one in mind. though I think Cumings’s writing style is more prosaic than most academic writing I’ve encountered, the book was still quite dry and difficult to get through. Cumings’s attempts at dispersing personal anecdotes or jokes throughout were honestly more eyeroll-inducing than genuinely humorous, and often felt straight up racist—one anecdote about the accented and ‘inaccurate’ English skills of the North Korean guide that accompanied him on one of his trips to North Korea sticks out in particular. this resulted in a weird feeling of tension as i read on—as this is one of the only counter-hegemonic representations of North Korea in academia that i’ve come across, should i turn a blind eye to Cumings’s questionable rhetoric for the maybe larger mission of representing North Korea more fairly and not only with the limited frameworks that are available? reading reviews of this book by academics and non-academics alike, it seems as though the attitudes towards this book and Cumings more broadly are quite mixed. some think that this book is a crucial, critical addition to the literature available regarding North Korea; some think he’s too sympathetic towards North Korea and too “anti-American”. still some think he doesn’t take his critiques far enough, as there is an undercurrent of anti-communism that Cumings references again and again throughout the book, as though reminding us of his personal beliefs in order not to be fully alienated from the canon or his academic field, which gets at a larger issue of anti-communism and defanging of radical/revolutionary politics in academia as a whole.
alongside his reluctance to stray too far from the mainstream perspective regarding North Korea, Cumings also relies heavily on the limited list of sources that are seen as acceptable evidence in academia—namely newspapers, historical records, and government documents (but only those originating in the US) and his own observations during his trips to North Korea. this privileging or reifying of American sources—even with, or maybe in spite of, the acknowledgement that Western media is often skewed in their reporting of North Korea that Cumings centers in this book—perpetuates the feeling of distrust regarding North Korea in the West, a feeling that considers all North Korean records as fictionalized propaganda and does not allow the country to define itself, instead holding that American perspectives, biased as they may be, still hold more weight and ultimately form truths. this aligns with a larger Orientalist framing of North Korea/ns as dishonest and unable to think or act for themselves that Gauthier (2015) talks about, representing North Korea as a country in perpetual need of foreign intervention.
additionally, his usage of his own personal experiences in North Korea as evidence adds to this denial of North Korean self-determination as it perpetuates the idea that Western visitors have a better understanding/view of North Korea than North Korean themselves because of their non-North Korean identity. in short, Americans/Westerners are allowed to use their personal experiences as objective evidence because their American identity is tied to notions of objectivity.
in sum, although Cumings’s goal for this book was to provide a more nuanced understanding of North Korea that doesn’t fully fall into pre-existing narratives regarding the country, ones that are often problematic, he is only able to achieve this to a certain extent, as the rest of the book is bogged down by a recurring undercurrent—that is sometimes made quite explicit—of anti-communism and Orientalism/racism that Cumings seems to espouse simultaneously as well.
though the book is split into six chapters each covering a different aspect of the DPRK and the chapters don’t seem to connect or flow into one another very smoothly, making for a bit of a disjointed read, there is a clear through line in the whole book that Cumings references again and again in each chapter. the main argument he seems to be making is that although the dominant narrative regarding North Korea is that all of its leaders act in irrational and violently unpredictable ways, everything the government does can be read as logical consequences of the country’s history of colonial and imperial occupation and violence. the dominant narrative regarding North Korea is neatly summed up by Hazel Smith as the “mad/bad actor” paradigm, which argues that all of North Korea’s actions/policies often get interpreted in two ways: as irrational (mad) or evil/immoral (bad). however, Cumings pushes back against this binary, arguing with this book that North Korea’s policies are not evidence of a country run by an immoral madman but instead evidence of a country that is simply trying to defend itself against even more foreign interference and imperial violence. whether or not one agrees with North Korea is irrelevant to the purpose of this book; what’s more important is the reconfiguration of North Korea from a country/government that is irrational to one that is quite predictable, which Cumings argues is an important perspective for analysts and other officials looking to ‘understand’ and work with North Korea to internalize.
in addition to Cumings’s main argument, there are two other themes that i thought undergirded the majority of this book. the first is that the overly punitive perspective the West, particularly the United States, has towards North Korea’s nuclear development and other military/defense actions is hypocritical, as practically everything that North Korea does and is then accused of being immoral for the United States also does as well. the second is that the way that North Korea gets represented in the United States is often blatantly racist–Cumings very candidly wrote, “Prominent Americans lose any sense of embarrassment or self-consciousness about the intricate and knotty problems of racial difference and Otherness when it comes to North Korea and its leaders” (49). this matches up with the observations made in Gauthier (2015) that the media often portray North Korean through an Orientalist lens. in this way, because he illuminates the narrow way that North Korea often gets represented and understood rather than continuing this tradition of representation, this book can be considered counter-hegemonic—that is, Cumings is presenting an alternate perspective of North Korea for his audience.
as Cumings is a historian—his research specifically focuses on the Korean War and East/West relations—and an academic, his audience is similar, as gleaned from the academic style this book is written in. as someone who honestly isn’t as well versed or interested in history than some, this book was definitely a tough read, and was very obviously not meant for a layman’s audience, or at least not written with one in mind. though I think Cumings’s writing style is more prosaic than most academic writing I’ve encountered, the book was still quite dry and difficult to get through. Cumings’s attempts at dispersing personal anecdotes or jokes throughout were honestly more eyeroll-inducing than genuinely humorous, and often felt straight up racist—one anecdote about the accented and ‘inaccurate’ English skills of the North Korean guide that accompanied him on one of his trips to North Korea sticks out in particular. this resulted in a weird feeling of tension as i read on—as this is one of the only counter-hegemonic representations of North Korea in academia that i’ve come across, should i turn a blind eye to Cumings’s questionable rhetoric for the maybe larger mission of representing North Korea more fairly and not only with the limited frameworks that are available? reading reviews of this book by academics and non-academics alike, it seems as though the attitudes towards this book and Cumings more broadly are quite mixed. some think that this book is a crucial, critical addition to the literature available regarding North Korea; some think he’s too sympathetic towards North Korea and too “anti-American”. still some think he doesn’t take his critiques far enough, as there is an undercurrent of anti-communism that Cumings references again and again throughout the book, as though reminding us of his personal beliefs in order not to be fully alienated from the canon or his academic field, which gets at a larger issue of anti-communism and defanging of radical/revolutionary politics in academia as a whole.
alongside his reluctance to stray too far from the mainstream perspective regarding North Korea, Cumings also relies heavily on the limited list of sources that are seen as acceptable evidence in academia—namely newspapers, historical records, and government documents (but only those originating in the US) and his own observations during his trips to North Korea. this privileging or reifying of American sources—even with, or maybe in spite of, the acknowledgement that Western media is often skewed in their reporting of North Korea that Cumings centers in this book—perpetuates the feeling of distrust regarding North Korea in the West, a feeling that considers all North Korean records as fictionalized propaganda and does not allow the country to define itself, instead holding that American perspectives, biased as they may be, still hold more weight and ultimately form truths. this aligns with a larger Orientalist framing of North Korea/ns as dishonest and unable to think or act for themselves that Gauthier (2015) talks about, representing North Korea as a country in perpetual need of foreign intervention.
additionally, his usage of his own personal experiences in North Korea as evidence adds to this denial of North Korean self-determination as it perpetuates the idea that Western visitors have a better understanding/view of North Korea than North Korean themselves because of their non-North Korean identity. in short, Americans/Westerners are allowed to use their personal experiences as objective evidence because their American identity is tied to notions of objectivity.
in sum, although Cumings’s goal for this book was to provide a more nuanced understanding of North Korea that doesn’t fully fall into pre-existing narratives regarding the country, ones that are often problematic, he is only able to achieve this to a certain extent, as the rest of the book is bogged down by a recurring undercurrent—that is sometimes made quite explicit—of anti-communism and Orientalism/racism that Cumings seems to espouse simultaneously as well.