VI. Sok Hon Ham, Korea and the World.

"Throughout its history, Korea could not produce a David, Jeremiah, Dante or Milton. In spite of our wondrous nature, we could not produce even one Wordsworth. Moreover, despite our provocative history we could not produce even one Tagore. We just gouged out our eyes, shaved off our hair, bound our hands with shackles and set ourselves to grinding in the prison like Samson."²⁵¹

Sok Hon Ham was given several descriptive names throughout his life: "Crying in the Wilderness", "Prophet in the Era of Suffering" and "Conscience of Korea." Among his followers, Byung-mu Ahn defined him as "a pioneer for the People's Democracy in Korea."²⁵²   And Kyong-Jae Kim has characterized his existence as being "a forerunner of religious pluralism in Korea."²⁵³   As these names suggested, he was a deep religious thinker, great civil rights leader and prolific writer of history, politics, religion and society. Ironically though, he never achieved the status of a "formal" religious scholar, politician, journalist or historian. Here lies the irony of his time: chaotic 20th century Korea shaped him as a deeply religious thinker yet not as a scholar. Time and space were merely given to him for research in the religious laboratory. It made him a great political activist yet not a politician, since the political field was dominated by totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships. In the same way, contradictions can be seen in his ideas: he was enthusiastic for his nation yet also a broad-minded Universalist; he was a strict follower of Christ yet a free humanistic thinker and he was a mystic-idealist of the Orient, yet he liked the rationalism and the scientific views of the West.

In this respect, in this concluding chapter I shall evaluate Sok Hon Ham's strengths and weakness; with special reference to his understanding of Taoism and Quakerism, and in particular, as the role of intermediary between the West and the Orient. Then I will analyse critically how well his religious ideas have stood up to the political and social trials of his era, both as a "failure" and a "success". Therewith I intend to examine his role in articulating a kind of "counter" national identity for Korea as against General Park and others' defining national identity.

It is obvious that Sok Hon Ham's erudition was the basis of his tolerance of all religions. His religious universal views, as Kyong-Jae Kim pointed out, ²⁵⁴ have made him "a pioneer for religious pluralism in Korea". His understanding of Western history and philosophy, at the same time as his understanding of Oriental classical philosophy and religion, helped his openness toward various ideologies and religions. Subsequently, as a Quaker, he taught his own version of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu to the ordinary people. Furthermore, he published his interpretation of Lao-tzu, Chuang-tzu and other Oriental philosophies in his magazine, Voice of the People.²⁵⁵   In this way he attempted to find a middle ground between the philosophy of the Orient and the West, from the perspective of an Oriental-Christian thinker.

In metaphysical terms, Sok Hon Ham tried to develop an Oriental interpretation of Western Christianity, just as he developed the Biblical interpretation of Oriental history and philosophy. Therefore, one can define Sok Hon Ham as an intermediary between the West and Orient, between Christian culture and Non-Christian culture. That is why, throughout his life, he pursued various ideas and philosophies between the Orient and the West, as a religious Universalist.

As I have shown, from childhood to the end of his adult life, Sok Hon Ham's life was a response to the challenge of the era he lived in. Whenever the challenge of the epoch emerged in front of him, he had to respond in the light of his own conscience. Having undergone much inner turmoil and a long religious odyssey, he arrived at a fusion of Taoism and Quakerism as the "answer" to the "challenge" of the era in which he lived. At the same time, he responded to this challenge through his outward activities, prolific writings and fearlessness in speaking out in public protest at the injustices of the regimes of the time. He believed that democracy, freedom of expression, civil rights, the struggle for social justice and against war were what Korea needed at this specific period; Koreans needed to think for themselves and to breath fresh air as free humanity. In other words, he pursued the spirit of from here to eternity as well as from eternity to here, by resisting the here-and-now. In this light, he can be seen as "too political" to be a religious thinker, and yet "too religious" to be a civil rights activist.

Sok Hon Ham's use of Taoism and Quakerism enabled him to help others to see that one can still preserve self-respect and inner strength in the face of a mightier power. Thus, by symbolizing weakness as strength, he tried to help the Korean people to cope with the Herculean task of resisting colonialism and subsequent strong totalitarian regimes. He saw the philosophy of Taoism as turning weakness to strength through its idea of tenderness and "feebleness". And, in a similar way, he saw the philosophy of Quakerism, as cultivating inner strength, through its Inward Light and outward social concerns. Hence, he offered the hope of turning weakness into strength which served to strengthen the inner will of the nation. Naturally within such a milieu, Sok Hon Ham was raised up as a symbolical-moral figure as "a" Korean, above the political dimensions of left and right wing ideologies; above Christian and non-Christian conflicts, above traditionalists and progressives and last but not least, above "failure" and "success". That is why, when discussing the life of Sok Hon Ham, Donggill Kim saw him as a symbol of Korea's conscience throughout the era of Japanese colonialism in the Korean peninsula, communist totalitarianism in North Korea, and military dictatorship in South Korea.²⁵⁶

It must be admitted that, judged by worldly standards, Sok Hon Ham's "achievements" were few. But to appreciate this one must recall the circumstances on the Korean peninsula brought about by the Second World War. By and large, the politics of post-war Korea can be seen as the hottest conflict between the worlds left and right ideologies. The South Korean "fascism" of General Park, began in a similar way to the North Korean "communism" of Kim Il-Sung. Additionally, as I have pointed out, even after Korea's liberation from Japan, most of the pro-Japanese Korean fascists maintained their status quo within South Korea. In a similar way, in 1972 General Park declared a series of "revitalizing" reforms(yusin) in South Korea. It is interesting to note that the same word-yusin was used by the Japanese to denote the "Restoration" during the Meiji period (1868). The new yusin Constitution officially authorised, through the public referendum of an intimidated populace, the transformation of the presidency into a judicial dictatorship.²⁵⁷   In these circumstances even after Korea's liberation, Sok Hon Ham found himself having to resist, but this time against an internal enemy, the pro-Japanese Korean ruler. That is why in his words Korean history was shaped like a "Broken Axle" and consisted of "Disaster upon Disaster". Consequently, he perceived Korea, as the Queen of Suffering;

"Korean history amounted to nothing but a series of humiliations, frustrations, and failures. --- I began to gaze upon Korean history squarely. When I did, it appeared like a beggar girl who, chased by village urchins, ran this way and that and hid herself and then finally collapsed on the street, crying her heart out."²⁵⁸

Sok Hon Ham's own limitations and weakness, therefore, were, in large part, a result of the era, that he lived in, as if Kicked by God. If we measure the success of Sok Hon Ham's non-violence movement in terms of his ability to organize and mobilize the people for protest against unjust regimes, he may also be seen as having failed. The "failure" of Sok Hon Ham was formidably shaped by the era in which he lived, Korea, as the extreme conditions of Japanese colonizing rule and the Cold War. To organise needs ruthlessness, like Kim Il-Sung in the North and single-mindedness like Syngman Rhee and General Park in the South. Sok Hon Ham did not have these qualities, but more importantly, throughout his life, he pursued the "way of right" rather than the "way of success".

In thinking about his "failure" we capture something profound about the man. For Sok Hon Ham never had a steady job and, apart from the period of 1928-1938, never had a regular income. In sociological terms, he was a marginal individual. Perhaps it was this social marginality that helped to form his eccentric character. He described himself in the following terms:

"I love the bird, the Albatross. This creature is so strong and powerful in flight that it is referred to as the Emperor of the Pacific, yet it cannot even catch its own fish; it lives as a scavenger off the occasional fish-food that the seagull leaves behind. Thus the Japanese call this bird a "Foolish Bird". The reason for my favouring this creature is because of its name. Perhaps my life-style is the same as the Albatross. Though my heart beholds and stays with the blue sky, I cannot even earn a piece of bread for my mouth. My daily bread is given by my friends, so I am a foolish bird"²⁵⁹

Likewise Sok Hon Ham also saw his personal life as a continuous failure, as that of a "Foolish Bird", and described his own failures in his ironical monologue, Beyond the Horizon:

"I tried to study to become a medical doctor but dropped out, meant to take arts but stopped, wanted to take education professionally but never became an educator, was very much interested in farming but never became a farmer, meant to research history but threw the history books away, wanted to study the Bible but only held it in my hand. In the family I could not fulfil the role of proper father, in the nation, not a good national, not even a scholar, a technician, a thinker, only a fisherman²⁶⁰   but I have never caught a fish."²⁶¹

It seems from this, that he was a total failure in the worldly sense. Yet I would define Sok Hon Ham more as an idealist, Korea's most influential idealist, who was faced with the reality of Korea. When his country fought for Independence from the Japanese oppressors he fought for it, dropping his role of educator and throwing the history books away. When his country desired democracy, he pursued the freedom of the press for Ssi-Al through his fearless speeches; that is why he never fulfilled the role of father to his family²⁶² or had the time to "take arts". When his religion, Christianity, insisted on its own superiority, he continued to consider the position of other religions; that is why he only held the Bible in his hand and never caught a fish²⁶³. When his country advocated her own nationalism, in the North Kim Il-Sung's Juche (Self-Reliance), in the South General Park's authoritarian power with its emphasis on a strong economy and anti-communism, both were defining Koreans' national identity but with opposing ideologies; Sok Hon Ham considered the rights of other nations and asserted the importance of internationalism, that is why he was not a "good nationalist". In my view Sok Hon Ham was a humanist and idealist working for a global community.

Obviously, today we cannot live without organization and established institutions. But to Sok Hon Ham, any organised regime was a symbol of violence, and any established institution a curb to the Free-Spirit of Ssi-Al and humanity. In this respect, he was a free thinker rather than a political organizer. He constantly considered interconnected relations between an individual's spiritual quest and the struggle with social justice. Nevertheless, to Sok Hon Ham, these two values, the individual's spiritual quest and social transformation, must not impose upon each other. In other words, he pursued Messianic Politics rather than Political Messianism, because the latter can encourage the superficial creed more easily than the essence of things.

Moreover, in spite of his suffering, Sok Hon Ham was convinced that history was the movement up the steps of eternity and the stepping stone to moral growth.²⁶⁴   He believed that humanity had to have roots in order to make progress both forward and upward.²⁶⁵   I am sure he will be delighted with his pursuit and belief, whether he "failed" or not as he confessed:

"Why doesn't the mixture of ignorance, passion, corruption and distrust make the world a failure? It's because all of them are as one. We will not know failure when we can appreciate that Jesus, knowing that he was being betrayed by a cold kiss, could call Judas a 'Friend'."²⁶⁶

From this perspective, Sok Hon Ham did not distinguish between failure and success, nor between secular (socio-political) matters and sacred (religious) ones, maintaining the parallel terminology through the illustration of the human's body structure:

"The same mouth is used for eating for one's physical need, but also for speaking and satisfying one's mental need. The same organ is used for elimination as well as for the birth of life."²⁶⁷   So one can claim that secular is sacred and sacred is secular.

If we measure a man's success according to the historic age he lives in, Jesus Christ can be seen as a failure and a loser. After His death on the cross, His disciples ran away in fear, even His most favoured disciple, Peter, denied knowing him. How brilliant a "failure" and "loser" in history He is! No one can escape from one's own history, and humans cannot live beyond their Age, can they?

To sum up, as I have shown, Sok Hon Ham's life and thoughts can be seen as the "answer" and "response" to the "question" and "challenge" of his epoch; the 20th century in the Korean peninsula. Through his "answer" and "response", Sok Hon Ham had a profound impact on the national identity of the Korean people, i.e. the way in which Koreans understood themselves as a nation. As Anthony Smith has pointed out, "nationalism provides the sole vision and rationale of political solidarity today. One that commands popular assent and elicits popular enthusiasm".²⁶⁸   Within such a framework, "nations must have an example of a civic ideology, a set of common understandings and aspirations, sentiments and notions, that bind the nation together in their homeland."²⁶⁹   In a paradoxical way, Sok Hon Ham's ideal of nationhood - Korea as a "loser", "failure" and downtrodden - challenged the Western concept of nationhood ("winner" and "success", especially in warfare) but yet served to bind the nation together. His ideal of nationhood added crucial new elements, more adjusted to the very distinct surroundings and trajectories of a non-Western nation. He also tried to encourage Koreans to think about their distinctiveness and to believe in themselves, so he offered a kind of model for Koreans' national identity. His quest of "who I am?", "who do I feel?", was his spiritual endeavour to find out Koreans', ("losers", "failures" and oppressed people's) identity in world history. It was also paradoxical, because Sok Hon Ham was a committed internationalist. As he asserted, "It is time for the world to become one [and] only the realization that we are brothers and sisters of common ancestors will bring an end to fighting".²⁷⁰

Compared with General Park's image of nationhood, (authoritarian power, strong economy, anti-communism etc.), or Kim Il-Sung's image of Juche (Self-Reliance), Sok Hon Ham's ideals of pacifism as "losers", and his goal for religious-political freedom of humanity, can be seen as hopelessly "idealistic", not suited to solving the problems of realpolitik or of Korea herself. Yet his idealistic view can be compared to the position of the Polar Star, which at vast distances can accommodate a more definite mark than a nearby hill (like General Park, Kim Il-Sung and others'). No matter how far one walks in the direction of the Polar Star, one may never reach it. But that is no reason to comment that the Polar Star is not there or that it is a vain goal. Rather if one can reach the goal like the nearby hill, it cannot be of use any more as a definite mark. Can the values of authoritarian power, a strong economy, anti-communism and "Self-Reliance", be a goal for humanity, or should they be used as a definite guide for mankind?

The Polar Star can serve as a guide precisely like the ideal of Sok Hon Ham, as a goal of humanity. One cannot capture it no matter how far one goes. In this comparison, in order to evaluate a man's place within history, what really matters is, as John Ruskin pointed out, "one's morality rather than one's ability". Perhaps, the sayings of Lao-tzu and Christ are suitable in summarizing the essence of Sok Hon Ham's Understanding of Taoism and Quakerism, and possibly his entire life and thought:

"To the good, I show goodness; to those who are not good, I also show goodness."²⁷¹   "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you."²⁷²