The Study of Status Groups in the Chosŏn Period 243
The history of status stratification is one of the most important
aspects of Korean social history. “From the perspective of social history,”notes Shin Yong-ha,“the backbone of pre-modern society was the
status system”(Shin Yong-ha 1996: 53). Furthermore, the concept of
status group“allows us to have a better understanding of social
inequality in pre-modern society than class”(Kim Pil-dong 1991: 447).
I also have considered status groups and status structure as crucial
research topics for explaining the structure, character, and development
of pre-modern Korean society (Chi Sung-jong 1991:466). However,
despite its importance and necessity, research on Korean status groups
has not been satisfactory.
In Korean social history, status stratification constitutes one of the
most active research fields. The vast volume of works and the number
of specialists in this field far outnumber other areas of social history
(Chi Sung-jong 1995: 37). In this sense, the history of status stratification as an academic field retains great potential. However, it would not
be an exaggeration to say that a theory of status groups in Korea is virtually absent.1 The attitude toward the theories suggested by related
disciplines is generally indifferent or critical, and there remains a serious imbalance between empirical data and theory. It is difficult to
extract a theory amidst an over-emphasis on the facts and a one-dimenThe Review of Korean Studies Vol. 4, No. 2 (243-263)
©2001 by The Academy of Korean Studies
244 The Review of Korean Studies
sional elaboration of experiential facts. In academia, a theory has often
resulted from the conscious efforts to produce one. Accordingly, it is necessary to give effort to systematizing and elucidating the issues at hand,
in order to at least devise a theory of status groups in Korean history.
In this paper, I will review the current scholarship on status groups
in the Chosŏn dynasty under the premise that a theorization of status
groups is possible. I will identify the important issues in the field and
suggest further tasks for the advancement of research. I will briefly
examine the existing scholarship, but instead of comprehensively surveying the existing research,2 this paper focuses on identifying the
issues that must be resolved, and on theoretical issues more than
empirical ones. To do so, I will deal with the two most basic themes,
the concept of status group and the status structure.
After the 1970s the research on status groups of the Chosŏn period
has witnessed a tremendous growth in scholarship. Nevertheless,
there remains much to be done. The problem of conceptualizing
“status group”(sinbun) is one of the prime examples.
The history of the social sciences can be described as a continuous
attempt to analytically order reality through the construction of concepts (Max Weber, 1949:105). Clarification of the concept of status
group constitutes, then, the starting point for research on status groups
(Kim Pil-dong, 1991:455). However, up to this point the concept of status group has usually remained at the level of a nominal concept, and
research aimed at clarifying the concept of status group is almost
nonexistent.
Early on, Han Woo-keun (1960) defined status group as“a group of
people who share the same rights, continually possess a particular
1. From the position of social scientists researching social history, one of the important tasks is
“to theorize and develop sociological theories unique to Korea based on social and historical
facts”
(Shin Yong-ha 1981: 22).
2. I have already surveyed the research on status groups in the Choso˘n period. See Chi Sung-jong
1994; 1995. The review of current scholarship in this paper is based on this survey.
The Study of Status Groups in the Chosŏn Period 245
social position, and are distinguished by land ownership, residency,
occupation, and blood ties.”However, such a definition was considered
to be inadequate due to its vague characterization of the concept and
its inappropriate standards of distinction. Nevertheless, there was no
further discussion on the concept of status group, and no new attempts
to redefine the concept were made for a long time.
In light of this, Yu Sŭng-won’
s (1987) bold attempt to define status
group as“a group distinguished by legal, hereditary differentiation
from other groups”was notable. He then identified the standard for the
categorization of status groups as“a hereditary set of legal differences,
a differentiation in rights and duties.”Based on the theory of
“yangch’
ŏnje”
－the premise that there were only two legal status identities, (freeborn, literally“good”
) and ch’
ŏn (lowborn, literally“base”
)such a conceptualization remains, however, problematic for two reasons: its over-emphasis on legal differentiation, and its over-emphasis
on the rigidity of hereditary distinctions.
I have elaborated on the problems inherent in the two concepts
mentioned above and have argued for the need to define status group
based on the actual determining factors (Chi Sung-jong, 1988).
However, I did not suggest my own definition.
While recasting part of my arguments, Kim Pil-dong (1991) presented a further developed conceptualization of status group. He underscored the need to conceptually distinguish“legal status group”with
“social status group”and understood Yu Sŭng-won’
s concept to be confined to legal status group. Kim defined status group as“a very big
social concept, widely understood or determined by law, that a person
belonging to a certain group is hierarchically stratified according to
social privileges and differentiation, and in particular, that social privileges and differentiation are hereditary.”Kim Pil-dong, however, did
not push forward with concrete discussion on this matter.
In conceptualizing status group, I have asserted that the following
criteria must be considered: 1) determinants of status groups-regulation by law or social distinction by custom; 2) characteristics of status
group as a kind of social stratum-differentiation according to prestige;
3) properties of status groups as a general concept of sociology-heredity and closure; and 4) the consequences of status stratification-differ-
246 The Review of Korean Studies
entiation of life-chances and life-styles (Chi Sung-jong, 1991). I then
attempted to offer a concept of status group that considered all of the
above factors; however, I, too, failed to give any concrete definition.
As this suggests, the conceptualization of status group is still in its
preliminary phase. The definitions mentioned above remained mostly
at the level of personal opinion and have not been put to the scrutiny
of academic evaluation. I would like to make clear, however, that the
current situation stands at a difficult point, with no consensus even on
the fundamental issues.
Under such circumstances, I will briefly examine several issues that
I believe to be of importance in conceptualizing status group. First of
all, the most basic task is to answer the question,“What is a status
group?”In order to identify the conceptual properties of status group,
an explanation of the formation of status groups and the status system
must be made a priori. Therefore, this is closely related to the issue of
status structure, which will be dealt with below. In other words, we
must resolve issues such as the foundation on which status groups are
formed, and the criteria that distinguish status groups. The urgent task
of researchers is to provide an answer to the question, Can status
groups be formed and distinguished by a single principle? Only after
such a question is answered will scholars be able to determine whether
the conceptual properties of status groups can be based on that one
principle, or else abandon such a hypothesis and move on to more a
flexible position. Having resolved these issues, researchers could then
proceed to identifying the conceptual properties of status groups, such
as heredity and closure.
Aside from this, what must be emphasized is that if each status
group carried a set of social values or social recognition, the content
and characteristics of such must be elucidated. It is estimated that the
upper status group will have received a positive social valuation,
whereas the lower the status, the lower the accorded social value.
Furthermore, social value would correspond to the chigyŏk (occupational function/public duty) typically assigned to each status group. In
addition, the highest status group would have some privileges, while
institutional and customary restraints, as well as discrimination, would
be imposed on lower groups, thus further reinforcing the negative
The Study of Status Groups in the Chosŏn Period 247
assessment of them. This task is very important for understanding status stratification as a form of social stratification.
The typology of status group is another important issue to be clarified. Currently, the discussion is at the level of distinguishing legal status groups from social status groups. However, further attempts to find
a new typology is needed.
Lastly, it is necessary to clarify conceptually the relationship
between the separate status groups and the chigyŏk associated with
them. A close relationship between status group and chigyŏk is widely
accepted. In fact, researchers on the census registers, or hojŏk, in the
late Chosŏn period have often used the records of chigyŏk to identify
the status group of the registered people. In addition, one scholar has
gone so far as to argue that“the status group a person belonged to was
determined by the chigyŏk the person performed for the state,”and has
called the status system in the Chosŏn Dynasty a“state status system.”
(Yi Sŏng-mu, 1987: 257). However, it is difficult to declare that the relationship between status group and chigyŏk has been fully explored.
The issues and tasks identified above are meant only to help put the
debate on the concept of status group on the right track. To a certain
extent, the most immediate task is to attract further interest and participation from scholars in solving this problem. This is because the present a-theoretical academic atmosphere in the field presents the primary obstacle to further research.
The status structure of the Chosŏn dynasty is understood either as
tripartite structure comprised of yangban, yangin (sangmin), and
ch’
ŏnin (ch’
ŏnmin), or as a quadripartite structure of four status
groups: yangban, chungin (chungsŏ), yangin (sangmin, p’
yŏngmin,
sangin), and ch’
ŏnin (nobi, ch’
ŏnmin).
Such an understanding, with slight variations according to one’
s
view on the period of formation for the chungin, was strongly challenged in the 1980s by the theory of“yangch’
ŏnje”(dichotomous structure consisting of“yangin”and“ch’
ŏnin”). Although there was no defi-
248 The Review of Korean Studies
nite conclusion to this debate, it resulted significantly in outlining the
future task of research and in expanding and deepening the understanding of the status structure. The antagonists were Han Young-woo,
who argued for a dichotomous structure, and Yi Sŏng-mu, who asserted a quadripartite structure. The outset of the debate began in the form
of a review of Yi’
s book (1980) by Han (1982a). However, contrary to
what appeared on the surface, Han’
s criticism was not limited to the
issue of the yangban but covered the entire status structure of the early
Chosŏn period.
According to Yi, the status structure consisted of “g
( ood”
) status
and ch’
ŏn “b
( ase”
) status, with status being further divided into yang ban, chungin “middle
(
people”
) and yangin (commoners). He argued,
in other words, that the status structure in the early Chosŏn period was
composed of four status groups, and that the yangban, who came to
secure ruling authority by the time of the early Chosŏn, began to
diverge from the yangin from the early Koryŏ dynasty onwards. As
such, in his book Yi attempted to investigate the concept of yangban,
its process of formation, and its privileges based on a conceptualization
of the whole status structure.
Even prior to this debate, Han Young-woo (1971) had questioned
the commonly accepted view that the quadripartite status structure
was fully established in the early Chosŏn period and began to collapse
in the late Chosŏn.He then proposed a hypothesis that: 1) the status
structure in the early Chosŏn consisted of two conflicting status groups,
yang and ch’
ŏn; 2) a yangban was a kwanin “official
(
person”
), a yan gin with bureaucratic office (chik) in the central government; and 3)
the status structure of the commonly held view started to form only in
the 16th century.
Later, Han (1978) wrote in a suggestive paper that the status system
in the early Chosŏn was a dichotomous system of and ch’
ŏn, and that
yangban and chungin were sub-groups within the yangin. Han argued
that yangban was a generic designation for all the civil and military
officials in the bureaucracy of the early Chosŏn. After the 16th century, with the emergence of the sarim literati, the bifurcation of into
yangban and sangin (ban-sang) became more concrete. Yangban as
the privileged ruling status group began to emerge at the turn of the
The Study of Status Groups in the Chosŏn Period 249
16th century and took its familiar form in the 17th century.
Yi Sŏng-mu, too, had earlier unveiled his position in the process of
presenting several other works, including studies of the hyangni (local
clerks) in the early Chosŏn period (1970), of technical officials (1971),
of yangban formation (1973), and of the status system (1976). In his
article on the formation of the chungin (1978), Yi defined the chungin
as a middle status group between yangban and yangin and included in
this category technical officials, sŏri (clerks), hyangni, and sŏŏl (concubine children and their descendants). He further argued that this concept of chungin, as reference to middle status groups, was widely
accepted in the late Chosŏn era.3 Since some chungin began to emerge
in the early Chosŏn period, however, it would not be a problem to use
the term in reference to the early Chosŏn as well.
After another paper by Han (1982b) concerning the history of status
stratification, Song Jun-ho (1983) joined the debate with a critical
stance against both Han and Yi. He criticized severely Han’
s theory of
yangch’ŏnje, calling it“almost meaningless.” Song argued that“there
clearly existed an upper stratum calling itself yangban or sajok”even
in the early Chosŏn period, and that“the scholars arguing that yang ban had yet not emerged”in this period were completely wrong.
Afterwards, a continuous correspondence between the three－with Yi
(1984) publishing a rebuttal in response to Han’
s critical book review,
followed by Han’
s article (1985) responding to both Yi and Song－
made their positions and differences clearer. The debate, however, did
not progress further.4
After this debate, Yu Sŭng-won (1987) published his research on the
status system of the early Chosŏn period supporting the theory of
yangch’
ŏnje. Yu argued that yangin broadly referred to“the people who
were not nobi [slaves],”and that ch’
ŏnin referred only to the nobi. Yu
reiterated, then, that the two status categories of yang and ch’
ŏn covered all the people of the early Chosŏn. Yu also defined yangban
(k w a n i n) as fundamentally an achieved status and argued that
3. Later on, Han Young-woo (1986; 1988) published further works limiting the concept of chungin
to refer to technical specialists and estimating the formation of chungin to be in the early 17th
century.
4. As seen in a later writing (Yi So˘ng-mu, 1991), Yi’
s position has changed little.
250 The Review of Korean Studies
p’
yŏngmin (commoners) who could achieve upper mobility cannot be
categorized as a status group. Yu, however, considered sŏŏl, hyangni,
and those practicing hereditarily base occupations (yŏkri, chinch’
ŏk,
and yŏmkan) to have constituted an independent“status group”within the yangin. On the other hand, even if chongch’
in (the royal
5
6
family), yuŭmchason , changrichason , and chaesamkanyŏchason7
were separate ascriptive designations, they cannot be considered separate status groups, since the hereditary identity only lasted a few generations. In the end, Yu Sŭng-won’
s proposal of yangch’
ŏnje was significant, for it further systematized and concretized Han Young-woo’
s
argument made at a hypothetical level and provided a much clearer
explanation of the status structure of the early Chosŏn.
Premising that the status structure of the Chosŏn dynasty resulted
from a complex interaction of criteria and principles, Kim Pil-dong
(1991) has argued that the most fundamental status demarcation was
that between yangin and nobi. Secondary status divisions within the
yangin separated the yangban from the sŏŏl, chungin, hyangni, and
sangmin. Moreover, Kim understood the period at which the yangban
emerged as a distinctive“social status group”as the latter half of the
16th century.
Having determined that the basic framework of the status structure
in the Chosŏn was that of the ban-sang-ch’
ŏn (yangban, sangmin, and
nobi), I have argued for a dual confrontational structure that includes
both the yang-ch’
ŏn system and the ban-sang system (Chi Sung-jong ,
1991). I further noted a shift from a yang-ch’
ŏn system in the early
Chosŏn to a ban-sang-ch’
ŏn system in the mid-Chosŏn, and then to a
ban-sang configuration in the late Chosŏn. Accordingly, I attempted to
explain the dynamics of the Chosŏn status structure by analyzing the
change in this dual structure.
If the discussion on the status structure so far has centered on the
early and mid-Chosŏn periods, research on the changes in this struc-
5. Men who are nominated to receive a protection appointment (u˘m) due to their ancestor’
s
virtue.
6. Sons and grandsons of a corrupt official.
7. Children of a woman in her second or third marriage and their descendants.
The Study of Status Groups in the Chosŏn Period 251
ture has almost exclusively focused on the late Chosŏn period. Based
on his analysis of hojŏk census registers in the county of Sangju, Kim
Yong-sŏp (1963) brought attention to“the tremors in the status
system.”In the 1970s his research into this phenomenon soon spread
to other localities, mostly in Kyŏngsang Province, such as Tansŏng,
Sanŏm, Ŏnyang, Ulsan, Taegu, Chinhae, Kimwha, Seoul, and Cheju.
Despite the limitations of this research-the hojŏk census registers’
restriction to certain regions, the shaky credibility of the sources, and
the inconsistency in the categorization of chigyŏk－and despite the criticism that such research was nothing more than an expansion of, or an
appendage to, Shikata Hiroshi’
s study of Taegu in the 1930s (Kim
Hyŏn-yŏng, 1993: 145), the changes in the status system observed
through“the enlargement of the yangban stratum, the decrease in the
number of sangmin households, and the drastic fall in the number of
nobi households,”provided some of the strongest evidence for determining the late Chosŏn period as one of“the disintegration of medieval
society.”
Unfortunately, in the 1980s the foundation of the research on“the
tremors in the status system”based on the hojŏk began to“shake”
itself when scholars pointed to the inconsistency between the status
groups and the chigyŏk labels recorded in the hojŏk. Through case
studies using various old documents, Choi Sung-hi (1983a; 1983b;
1985; 1989) demonstrated that a significant number of people designated as“yuhak”in the census registers were in fact not yangban. Based
on this finding, Choi contended,“It is wrong to conclude that all yuhak
were yangban or semi-yangban, regardless of the period, based on the
chigyŏk designations. Hence these statistical reports can turn out to be
nothing more than fabrication.” Such criticism was potentially devastating, since the label of yuhak had been taken as a major factor in
explaining the enlargement of the yangban stratum and the“tremors of
the status system.”This is why the work of Lee Joon-koo(1993) carried
such significance, for he suggested that chigyŏk designations corresponded to different status group identities according to period.
So far, I have briefly overviewed the scholarship on the Chosŏn status system, focusing on the major issues. As we have seen, significant
progress has been made, but there still remains much to be done.
252 The Review of Korean Studies
Status group and status structure are not only historical phenomena
explanadum but also are explanan. The research on the status structure must fulfill this dual task. As explanadum, it must develop and
strengthen a macro explanation of the formation, maintenance, and
change of the status structure in the Chosŏn period. At the same time,
it must not loiter within its own boundary but engage in dialogue with
other fields8 to explain the social nexus of broader society. This is
because the status structure was closely associated with the class structure and power structure. These two tasks demand very intense and
rigorous theoretical research, for they are the foundation for further
research. Toward this end, I would like to suggest some concrete tasks
as follows.
First, it is urgent that we unify the terms used for each status group.
C u r re n t l y, the most problematic terms are yangin a n d c h u n g i n.
Depending on the scholars, yangin is a general term that is used to
denote a status in contrast to ch’
ŏnin and includes yangban, chungin,
and sangmin before these developed into several status groups.
Alternatively, yangin corresponds to sangmin (commoner). This is
why a method that differentiates the concept between the“broad sense
of yangin”and the“narrow sense of yangin”is currently in use.
In the case of chungin, positioned between the yangban and sangmin, various opinions exist, from limiting its usage to lineages of technical officials in medicine and interpretation etc., to considering the
term as a reference to the middle status that includes technical officials,
sŏŏl, and hyangni. Some scholars even contend that chungin should
include various chigyŏk designations like napsokp’
umkwan,9 who were
not quite yangban but treated superior to sangmin. Here, too, a difference between the“chungin in the broad sense”and the“chungin in
the narrow sense”has been maintained.
However, it is inappropriate to divide the term into broad and nar8. Though there might be differences in character and degree, it would be reasonable to assume
that status groups and status structure are related to almost all aspects of politics, economy,
society, and culture of the Choso˘n dynasty, including the ruling system, bureaucracy, means of
production, levy system, occupation system, kinship system, ideology, religion, arts, education,
and lifestyle.
9. Men who hold yangban title in exchange for contributions of grain (napsok).
The Study of Status Groups in the Chosŏn Period 253
row meanings. This has only increased the ambiguity of the terms. The
same caution should be applied to the cases of sangmin, for which the
terms yangin and p’
yŏngmin are often interchanged, and yangban,
which some refer to as sajok.
A second crucial task is to identify the formation period of each status group. It is particularly important to identify the formation period
of the yangban, the ruling status group. In other words, the question
of whether yangban already existed as a status group in the 15th century, or became a distinctive status group in the 16th or early 17th century, must be answered. This issue, one of the most controversial, is
related not only to the status structure, but also to an understanding of
Chosŏn society as a whole. Resolving the issue of the formation of the
various middle status groups has made some progress, but still remains
unsatisfactory. More specific and detailed research on the composition
of the early Chosŏn hyangni and its status position, and on the formation processes of sŏŏl and chungin, are needed. In addition, we need
further clarification on the period in which the status line between
sangmin and other groups became clear, as well as on the formation of
non-nobi ch’
ŏnin such as paekchŭng, chaein or shinyangyŭkch’
ŏn10 in
the early Chosŏn.
Third, together with the issue of formation, a more systematic
explanation of the abolition of the status structure is necessary. The
research on the“tremors of the status system”has hitherto contributed
to demonstrating the phenomenological form of the change of the status structure, and to identifying the economic factors of major change.
However, the term“tremors”(tongyo) lacks discipline and is an
improper concept for explaining the breakdown process of the status
structure. The“tremors”were only a symptom and were detected not
only in the breakdown process of the structure, but also in the formation process. In fact, much research has concentrated on elucidating
the instability of the status system in the 17th or 18th century, but this
scholarship has not addressed the more fundamental question of how
and when the structure started to“shake.” The research on the breakdown of the status system has lacked consideration of the“time and
10. People whose legal status was yang and whose occupational functions (yo˘k) were base (ch’
o˘n).
254 The Review of Korean Studies
space of transformation”(Yi Tae-jin, 1992: 180-197) and have centered
instead on the hojŏk without any attempt to carry out research from the
perspective of institutional history (Kim In-gŏl, 1987: 331-332). In the
future, research on the breakdown process of the status structure needs
to be more systematic by critically appropriating the results of existing
research, framing it within a theory of social change, and basing this
theory on a detailed investigation of the origins and development of
each status group.11
One of the major problems with research on the breakdown of the
status structure is the lack of scholarly interest in the process following
the“abolition of the status system.” Therefore, there is a strong need
for research on the dissolution process of the status structure beginning
with the Kabo Reforms of 1894 to the emergence of a modern industrial society. From the perspective of social history, in the transition from
pre-modern society to modern society, the abolition of the status system was one of the pivotal moments of historical change (Shin Yongha, 1985: 49). From this point of view, the Kabo Reforms hold great
historical significance. Still, the status structure continued to exist as a
“customary hereditary institution”for a while even after its legal abolition in 1894. This fact cannot be denied despite the efforts from the
below, like the Tonghak Peasant War, to destroy the status structure.
Although the dissolution of the status structure is a theme that must be
clarified in order to explain the modernization of Korean social stratification and of Korean society as a whole, precise information is not
available. For this, what is required is clarification of the status structure before and after the legal abolition of the status system, and in
particular more precise research on the process of the final dissolution
of the structure. It is, however, very difficult to find research with this
clear and concrete theme.
11. Unifying the theory of social structure and the theory of social change is the most ideal kind of
social theory.
The Study of Status Groups in the Chosŏn Period 255
Yangban is the status group with the most research. In reviewing
the previous scholarship, one finds that serious study of the yangban
began in the 1970s as scholarly interest in the sajok and sarim (local
yangban) also rose. Yangban studies have centered mainly on the first
half of the Chosŏn, and there has been relatively little research on
yangban in the latter half of the Chosŏn dynasty. Yi Sŏng-mu’
s systematic study mentioned above, for example, was limited to the 15th century and approached his topic as institutional history.
Such limitations were overcome when studies on sajok and sarim
gained popularity. The scholar who pioneered this approach was Yi
Tae-jin. His studies on sarim from the 1970s and 1980s were closely
related to the study of rural society and stimulated interest in the“local
sajok”(chaechisajok). His work contributed to pushing yangban studies beyond the 16th century.
The research on sajok and sarim achieved a major breakthrough
also with the works of Lee Soo-gŏ n and Lee Byung-hyu on the
Yŏngnam (Kyŏngsang province) and Kiho (Kyŏnggi province) sarim
groups. Lee Soo-gŏn’
s research, in particular, became a guideline for
subsequent studies that based on old documents like ŭpchi (local
gazettes) and chokpo (clan genealogies), analyzed the social and economic foundation of local sajok. Throughout the 1980s and the 1990s,
numerous scholars began examining the political, social, and economic
aspects of the sajok, producing considerable results. Such research on
local sajok also expanded to cover beyond the 17th century.
Meanwhile, the yangban studies of Song Jun-ho, who highlighted
the persistence of the“yangban system”while drawing attention to the
importance of lineage ties, wielded important influence in understanding the yangban from a different point of view.
Despite these many achievements, in order for yangban studies to
move forward, there remains much to be done. I would like to suggest
five tasks. First, we need a dynamic examination of yangban covering
all periods, including yangban and local sajok or sarim, as well as a
precise definition of the concept of yangban. In this context, what is
called for is research on yangban in the late Chosŏn dynasty within the
discipline of social history, as distinct from political history and from
256 The Review of Korean Studies
the history of rural society. Second is a better attempt to comprehensively explain the internal composition and factions of yangban. Third,
we need greater efforts to explain systematically, from the perspective
of social history, the political role and socioeconomic background of
not only local sajok but also the“upper yangban. Fourth, if the basic
characteristics of yangban are determined to be“domination”and
“privilege,”explanations on how these characteristics were expressed
in reality remain incomplete. Finally, there is a need to re-examine
concepts like“the domination system of sajok”or“yangban society.”
The amount of research on the nobi (slaves) of the Chosŏn has
rivaled that on the yangban, although this research has mostly been
done after the 1980s. The characteristics of nobi studies are as follows.
First of all, unlike yangban studies, while most of the research has
concentrated on the first half of the Chosŏn, there have been many
studies on the latter half as well.
Second, nobi studies have been led by a handful of specialists. The
work of Kim Sŏk-hyŏng and Sudo Yoshiyuki have had great influence
in both theoretical and empirical aspects. After the 1980s, the research
has been deepened and enlarged through the efforts of scholars like
Chi Sung-jong, Chŏn Hyŏng-taek, Chung Hyeon-jae, Im Yŏng-jŏng, Kim
Yong-man, Lee Young-hun, and Hiraki Makoto.
Third, the studies originally remained on a simple level of sophistication, centering on themes like the institution of public nobi and nobi
policy, and drew on sources that were fairly easy to secure. However,
after the 1980s, the themes and the methodology became diversified.
Of particular note were the studies on nobi ownership, the nobi system, and nobi land ownership, which used old documents like punjae gi (records of family wealth distribution) to focus on the relationship
between the master and nobi. These new directions in the scholarship
suggested the possibility of overcoming the simplicity and impartiality
of the early research. At the same time, it gave an opportunity for nobi
scholarship to break away from its dependence on Sudo Yoshiyuki of
the 1930s and Kim Sŏk-hyŏng of the 1950s.12
The research on nobi, however, remains somewhat unsatisfactory in
The Study of Status Groups in the Chosŏn Period 257
its approach to the basic tasks. I will briefly identify two such problems.
First, there is a need to examine nobi in all periods of the Chosŏn, to
overcome the prevailing tendency to fragment the periods and accompanying themes. Second, the scholarship must properly frame the nobi
system within the specific historical contexts, accounting, for example,
for developments in the modes of production. Notwithstanding the prevailing perception of the nobi system as one of the keys to understanding pre-modern Korean society, it is rare to find any meaningful
research based on this perspective. Recently, an attempt was made to
explain the characteristics of the nobi system by historically recasting
the concepts of slave and serf, as used in the history of the West (Lee
Young-hun, 1998), but such an approach is still at a preliminary stage.
The remaining research on status groups can be divided into sang min studies and studies on the middle status groups. However, compared to scholarship on yangban and nobi, relatively little research has
been done on these two groups.
After a period of inactivity following the research done by Lee Sangbeck in the 1930s and 1950s, and by Yi Tae-jin in 1965 on the history of
discrimination against the sŏŏl, scholarship picked up again in the late
1980s. In exploring themes such as hŏt’
ong (permission to sit for the
civil examination), sot’
ong (access to high office), chong’
yang (mobility
to commoner“yang”status), and the characteristics of the sŏŏl as a status group, this new round of research has centered on institutional
analysis. But this scholarship has failed to illuminate the real conditions of the sŏŏl in relation to the concrete social realities of the past.
The research on“chungin,”families of hereditary technical officials,
made significant progress with Yi Sŏng-mu’
s studies of the early
Chosŏn (1971), and started to gain greater attention in the latter half of
the 1980s. Topics included the various types of specialists, such as
12. Compare Yi Chae-ryong’
s article in Han’
guksa (Korean History) Vol. 10 (1974) and Cho˘ n
Hyo˘ng-taek’
s article in [Shinp’
yo˘ n] Han’
guksa (Korean History, revised) Vol. 25 (1994), both
published by Kuksa p’
yo˘nch’
an wiwonhoe (National History Compilation Committee) and
both covering the nobi of the first half of the Choso˘n. It is clear that the former has been
greatly influenced by Sudo Yoshiyuki and Kim So˘ k-hyo˘ ng.
258 The Review of Korean Studies
yŏkkwan (interpreters), ŭigwan (medical doctors), hwawon (painters),
and sanwon (accountants), as well as the chapkwa (specialist examinations). There were also attempts to redefine the concept of chungin by
examining the formation and development of this group.
Considering the importance of the hyangni, or local clerks, there has
not been enough research. Upon the foundation laid by the work of Yi
Sŏng-mu and Lee Soo-gŏn in the early 1970s, Lee Hoon-sang, Kim Pildong, and a handful of other scholars have advanced the research,
focusing on the latter half of the Chosŏn. It is rare to find research on
the first half of the Chosŏn, however.
The research on kyŏngajŏn (clerks in the capital) has centered on
the first half of the Chosŏn and reached a systematization through the
work of Shin Hae-sun, but there has been no further investigation.
The scholarship on sangmin has remained at a standstill following
the proclamation of Kim Sŏk-hyŏng’
s theory of yangin in 1957. The
few studies on the levy system, military service, and yangyŏk, the tax
and labor burdens of commoners, cannot really be considered research
on status groups.13
In establishing a theory of status groups in the Chosŏn dynasty, the
research is still at a preliminary stage and has not yet solved the very
fundamental problems of defining the concept of status group and of
systematically explaining the status structure and its changes.14
It is true that the tasks and issues that I have suggested and identified
are in fact difficult to solve given the current state of scholarship.
However, I believe this is possible if we keep in mind the importance of
theorization. I cannot stress enough that the studies on status groups
13. For a similar reason, it is difficult to include the research on peasants (nongmin). Since peasants are typically associated with sangmin and nobi, research on them would be different
from research on a status group.
14. In his overview of the previous scholarship on the theory of social change, Yi Tae-jin (1992:
225) writes,“I have felt that the research on the social change in the latter half of the Chosŭn
period has just begun.”The same impression can be applied to the current academic state of
research on status groups.
The Study of Status Groups in the Chosŏn Period 259
have accumulated a substantial amount of empirical data for theorization.
It was not a coincidence that this research made significant progress
through the debate on the status system of the early Chosŏn period.
The reason I have devoted a considerable amount of attention to
describing this debate is because I believe it could be a model for the
future research on status groups. Creating an academic atmosphere
conducive to discussion and achieving progress through debate may
perhaps be the most important tasks for further developing the
research on status groups.
Chi, Sung-jong (1988).“Shinbun kaenyŏm chŏngrip ŭl wihan siron”
(An Essay on Defining the Concept of Status Group). In Han’
guk
sahoesa yon’guhoe nonmunchip (Papers of the Korean Social
History Association), Vol.11, 58-90. Seoul: Munhakgwa Chisŏngsa.
______ (1991).“Shinbun kaenyŏmkwa shinbun kucho”(The Concept
of Status Group and Status Structure). In Sahoekyech’
ŭng: ironkwa
shilche (Social Stratification: Theory and Reality), 466-484. Seoul:
Tasan Ch’
ulp’
ansa.
______ (1994).“Chosŏn chŏngi sahoesa yŏn’
gu ŭi tonghyang: kajok,
hyangchonsahoe, shinbun yŏn’
gu rŭl chungshimŭro”(Trends of
Social History Research on the First Half of the Chosŏn: Focusing on
the Studies of the Fa m i l y, Ru ral Society, and Status Gro u p ) .
Han’
guksaron (Essays on Korean History) Vol. 24: 123-186.
______ (1995).“Chŭnt’
ong sahoewa sahoesa yŏn’
gu”
(Traditional Society
and Social History Reseach). Hankuk hakpo (Journal of Korean Studies)
Vol. 80:29-65.
Choi, Sung-hi (1983a).“Chosŏn hugi hyangni shinbun pyŏntong yŏbu
ko: hyangni kamun komunsŏe ŭihan sarye yŏn’
gu”(A Study of the
Social Mobility of Hyangni in the Late Chosŏn Period: A Case Study
Based on Old Documents of a Hyangni Family). In Kim Ch’
ŏl-jun
paksa hwankap kinyŏm sahak nonch’
ong (Papers Commemorating
the 60th Birthday of Dr. Kim Ch’
ol-chun), 487-524.
______ (1983b).“Chosŏn hugi hyangni shinbun pyŏntong yŏbu ko (2):
260 The Review of Korean Studies
Ch’
ogye Pyŏn ssi kamun komunsŏeŭ ihan sarye yŏn’
gu”(A Study of
the Social Mobility of Hyangni in the Late Chosŏn (2): A Case Study
on Old Documents of the Ch’
ogye Pyŏn Family). Han’
guk munhwa
(Korean Culture) Vol. 4: 39-68.
______ (1985).“Chosŏn hugi shinbun pyŏntong ŭ i sarye yŏn’
gu:
Yongkung hyŏn Taegu Paek ssika komunsŏ ŭ i punsŏk”(A Case
Study of Social Mobility in the Late Chosŏn: Analysis of the Old
Documents of the Taegu Paek Family in Yongkung County). In Pyŏn
T’
a e - sŏp paksa hwankap kinyŏm sahak nonch’
ong ( Pa p e rs
Commemorating the 60th Birthday of Dr. Pyŏn T’
ae-sŏp), 821-850.
______ (1989).“Chosŏn hugi yuhak haksaeng ŭi shinpunsajŏk ŭimi”
(Significance of“Yuhak”and“Haksaeng”in the Late Chosŏn in
Terms of the History of Status Stratification). Kuksagwan Nonchong
(Treatises on Korean History) Vol. 1: 85-118.
Kim, Hyŏn-yŏng (1993).“Chosŏn sigi sajok ŭi hyangch’
on chipae yŏn’
guwa charyo”(Research and Materials on Sajok’
s Rule of Rural
Society in the Chosŏn Period). In Chosŏn siki sahoesa yŏn’
gupŏp
(The Methods of Social History on the Chosŏn Period) eds. Lee Haejun, Kim In-gŏl, et al., 137-171. Sŏngnam: Han’guk Chŏngshin
munhwa Yŏn’
guwon (The Academy of Korean Studies).
Kim, In-gŏl (1987).“Chosŏn hugi shinbunsa yŏn’
gu hyŏnhwang”
( C u r rent Situation of Re s e a rch on Status Groups in the Late
Chosŏn). In Chosŏn chungse sahoe haech’
egi ŭi chemunje ha (Issues
on the Period of Disintegration of Korean Medieval Society, Part 2),
ed. Han’
guk keuntaesa yŏn’
guhoe (Society of Korean Modern
History Research), 331-376. Seoul: Hanul.
Kim, Jun-hyeong (1991). Chosŏn sitae hya n g n i ch’
ŭ ng yŏn’
gu ŭi
tonghyangkwa munjejŏm (Trends and Problems in the Research on
the Hyangni in the Chosŏn Period). In Han’
guk sahoesa yŏn’
guhoe
nonmunjip (Papers of the Korean Social History Association), Vol.
27, 147-177. Seoul: Munhakgwa Chisŏngsa.
Kim, Pil-dong (1991). Shinbun iron gusŏng ŭl wihan yepijŏk koch’
al (A
Preliminary Study for the Purpose of Constructing a Theory of
Status Groups). In Sahoe kyech’
ŭng: Irongwa Shilch’
e (Social
Stratification: Theory and Reality), 447-465. Seoul: Tasan Ch’
ulp’
ansa.
The Study of Status Groups in the Chosŏn Period 261
Kim, Yong-sŏp (1963).“Chosŏn hugi e issŏsŏ ŭi shinbunje ŭi tongyowa
nongji soyu: Sangju yang’
an yŏn’
gu ŭ i iltan”(Tremors in the Status
System and System of Land Ownership in the Late Chosŏn: Findings
from an Examination of the Sangju Land Registers). Sahak yŏn’
gu
(Research on History) 15: 1-50.
Han, Young-woo (1971).“Chosŏn ch’
ogi sangkŭp sŏri sŏngjungkwan: sŭ
ngjungkwan ŭi noksaro ŭi ilwonhwa kwajŏng”(High Ranking Sŏri
Sŏ n g j u n g k wan in the Early Chosŏ n Period: The Process of
Combining Sŏngjungkwan and Noksa). Tonga munhwa 10: 3-88.
______ (1978).“Chosŏn chŏngi ŭi sahoe kyech’
ŭnggwa sahoeitonge
kwanhan siron”(An Interpretation of Social Stratification and Social
Mobility in the Early Yi Dynasty). Tongyanghak 8: 249-272.
______(1982a).“Yi Sŏng-mu chŏ, Chosŏn ch’
ogi yangban yŏn’gu:
Chosŏn ch’
ogi shinbun kyech’
ŭng yŏn’gu ŭi hyŏn h wa n g g wa
munjejŏm”(A Study of the Yangban in Early Yi Dynasty by Yi Sŏngmu: The Current Situation and Problems of the Research on Status
Groups and Social Strata in the Early Chosŏn Period). Sahoegwahak
nonp’
yŏng 1: 81-109.
______ (1982b).“Chosŏn chŏngi yŏn’
gu ŭi chemunje: shinbun, t’
ochi,
sasangsa yŏn’
g u rŭl chungshimŭro”( G e n e ral Problems in the
Research on the First Half of the Chosŏn Period: Focusing on the
History of Status Group, Land, and Thought). In Hyŏntae han’
guk
yŏksahak ŭi tonghyang (Trends in Contemporary Korean History),
71-125. Seoul: Ilchokak.
______ (1985).“Chosŏn ch’
ogi sahoe kyech’
ŭng yŏn’
gu e taehan
chaeron: Yi Sŏng-mu kyosu ŭ i‘Chosŏn ch’
ogi shinbunsa yŏn’
gu ŭ i
munjejom mit Song Jun-ho kyosu ŭi‘C h o sŏ n yangban ko e
tapham”(A Re-examiniation of the Research on Social Stratification
in the Early Chosŏn Period: Responding to Prof. Yi Sŏng-mu’
s“Reexamination of the Researches on Status Group in the Early Chosŏn
Period”and Prof. Song Jun-ho’
s“On Chosŏn Yangban”
). Han’
guk saron 12: 305-358.
______ (1986).“Chosŏn hugi chungine taehayŏ”(On the Chungin in
the Latter Chosŏn Period) Hankuk hakpo 45: 66-89.
______ (1988).“Chosŏn sitae chungin ŭ i shinbun k ye c h’
ŭn gjŏk
sŏnggyŏk”(Characteristics of Chungin as a Status Group in the
262 The Review of Korean Studies
Chosŏn). Han’
guk munhwa 9: 179-209.
Han, Woo-keun (1960).“Han’
guk sahoe kyech’
ŏng ŭi kŏntaehwa
kwajŏng”(The Modernization Process of Social Stratification in
Korea). Sasangkye (World of Thought) 8.10: 229-239.
Lee, Byung-hyu (1984). Chosŏn chŏngi Kiho sarimp’
a yŏn’
gu (The
Formation and Development of the Kiho Sarim in the Early Chosŏn
Period). Seoul: Ilchokak.
Lee, Joon-koo (1993). Chosŏn hugi shinbun chigyŏk pyŏntong yŏn’
gu (A
Study on Changes in the Status-Based Official Burdens in the Late
Chosŏn Dynasty). Seoul: Ilchokak.
Lee, Soo-gŏn (1979). Y ŏngnam sarimp’
a ŭi hyŏngsŏng (The Formation
of the Yŏngnam Sarim). Taegu: Yŏngnam Taehakkyo Ch’
ulp’
anpu
(The Yŏngnam University Press).
L e e, Young-hun (1998).“H a n’
guksae issŏ sŏ nobije ŭ i ch’
u i wa
sŏnggyŏk”(Characteristics and Development of the Nobi System in
Korean History). In Nobi nongno noye (Nobi, Serf, and Slave), ed.
Yŭksahakhoe (Society of Korean History), 304-422. Seoul: Ilchokak.
Shin, Yong-ha (1981).“Han’
guk sahoesa ŭi taesanggwa iron ŭi munje”
(Topics and Theory in Korean Social History). Han’
guk hakpo
(Journal of Korean Studies) 25: 2-24.
______ (1985).“1894nyŏn ŭ i sahoe shinbunje ŭ i p’
yeji”(The Abolition
of the Social Status System in 1894). Kyuchanggak 9: 49-84.
______ (1996).“1894nyŏn kap’
okaehyŏk ŭi sahoesa”(Social History of
the Kabo Reforms of 1894). In Han’
guk sahoesa hakhoe nonmunjip
(Papers of the Korean Social History Association), Vol. 50, 11-67.
Seoul: Munhakgwa Jisungsa.
Song, Jun-ho (1983).“Chosŏn yangban ko: Chosŏncho sahoe ŭi
kyekŏp kujo’
e kwanhan han siron”(On Chosŏn Yangban: A Theory
on the Class Structure of Chosŏn Society). In Han’
guksahak (Korean
History), Vol. 4, 277-357. Sŏngnam, Korea: Han’
guk Chŭngshin
Munhwa Yŏn’
guwon (The Academy of Korean Studies).
Weber, Max (1949). The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Translated
and edited by E.A. Shils & H.A. Finch. The Free Press.
Yi, Sŏng-mu (1970).“Chosŏn ch’
ogi ŭi hyangni”(Local Clerks in the
Early Chosŏn Period). Han’
guksa yŏn’
gu (Research on Korean
History) 5: 65-95.
The Study of Status Groups in the Chosŏn Period 263
______ (1971).“Chosŏn ch’
ogi ŭi kisulkwangwa kŭ chiwi: Chunginch’
ŭ
ng ŭi sŏngrip munje rŭl chungshimŭro”(Technical Officials and Their
Position in the Early Chosŏn Period: Focusing on the Formation of
the Chungin). In Ryu Hong-ryŏl paksa hoekap kinyŏm nonch’
ong
(Papers Commemorating the 60th Birthday of Dr. Ryu Hong-ryŏl),
193-229.
______ (1973).“15seki yangban ron”(On the 15th Century Yangban).
Changchakkwa pip’
yŏng (Creation and Criticism) 28: 484-515.
______ (1976).“Chosŏn chŏngi ŭi shinbun cheto”(Status System of
the Early Chosŏn). Tonga munhwa (Culture of East Asia) 13: 173-191.
______ (1978).“Chosŏn chŏngi chunginch’
ŭng ŭi sŏngrip munje”(The
Issue of the Formation of the Chungin Class in the Early Chosŏn
Period). Tongyanghak (Eastern Learning) 8: 272-284.
______ (1980). Chosŏn ch’
ogi yangban yŏn’
gu (A Study of the Yangban
in the Early Chosŏn) Seoul: Ilchokak.
______ (1984).“Chosŏn ch’
oki Shinbunsa yŏn’
gu ŭi chaekomt’
o”(Reexamination of the Research on Status Groups in the Early Chosŏn
Period). Yŏksahakpo (Journal of History) 102: 206-233.
______ (1987).“Yangbangwa Yangch’
ŏnje”(Yangban and the Status
System of Yang and Chon). Han’
guksa yŏn’
gu ipmun (Introduction
to Research on Korean History), ed. Han’guksa yŏn’
guhoe (Society
of Korean History Research), 255-262. Seoul: Chishik Sanŏpsa.
______ (1991).“Sarimgwa sarim chŏngch’
i”(Sarim and Sarim Politics).
Ch’
ŏnggyesahak, Vol. 8, 279-289. Sŏngnam, Korea: Han’guk Chŭ
ngshin Munhwa Yŏn’
guwon (The Academy of Korean Studies).
Yi, Tae-jin (1992).“Chosŏn hugi yangban sahoe ŭi pyŏnhwa: shinbunjewa hyangch’
on sahoe unyŏng kuchoe taehan yŏn’
gu rŏl chungshimŏro”(Changes in Yangban Society in the Latter Chosŏn: Focusing
on Research into the Status System and Management Structure of
Rural Society). In Han’
guk sahoe palchŏn s a ro n (Studies on the
Social Development of Korean History), Chu Po-ton and others, 129226. Seoul: Ilchokak.
Yu, Sŭng-won (1987). Chosŏn ch’
ogi shinbunje yŏn’
gu (A Study on the
Status System in the Early Chosŏn). Seoul: Ŭlyumunhwasa.
Chi Sung-jong is Professor of Sociology at Gyeongsang National University.