Han-geul scholar Dr. Kim Seul-ong has released an essay defining the argument to introduce Chinese characters (Hanzi/Hanja) into elementary school textbooks as "modern Hanzi dogmatism," tracing the immense tragedies this mindset has brought upon Korean history.

Dr. Kim defines "Hanzi dogmatists" as those who blindly worship Chinese characters. It began with figures in the 18th and 19th centuries like Jeong Yak-yong, Park Ji-won, and Park Je-ga, who did not view Han-geul as a fully legitimate script. In the 21st century, those who insist on writing Sino-Korean words in Chinese characters rather than respecting them as our own language, those who advocate for side-by-side notation (byeong-gi), and those who prioritize Chinese characters to segregate Sino-Korean words belong to the same category, according to him. Dr. Kim points to National Education Commission Chairperson Cha Jeong-in—who advocates for introducing Hanzi in elementary textbooks—as the quintessential example.

Below is the full text of Dr. Kim’s essay.

Why Persuasion Fails is Not Because Evidence is Lacking

The people I have stood against for nearly 50 years, since I was a first-year high school student, were those who wanted to mix Chinese characters into our writing. Figures like National Education Commission Chairperson Cha Jeong-in, who wants to put Hanzi into elementary textbooks, belong to that camp. The conclusion I’ve reached after debating them is singular: they cannot be persuaded. It is not because evidence is lacking. It is because their argument never stood on evidence in the first place.

"You need to know Hanzi to understand Sino-Korean words," "Homophones are confusing," "Tradition is cut off." These claims have repeatedly collapsed in front of empirical data. Yet, every few years, they resurface with the exact same face. If a claim were built on evidence, it would collapse when the evidence collapses. If it does not collapse, it is not an argument; it is a dogma.

I call this "Hanzi dogmatism." The belief that Hanzi is superior and Han-geul is inferior, the belief that lacking knowledge of Hanzi means a lack of cultural refinement, is embedded in our cultural DNA like a code. Dogma cannot be overturned by logical refutation. That is why we must first examine where that dogma came from and what it left behind in this country.

Even Silhak Scholars Looked Down on Han-geul

In Joseon, Hanzi was not just a writing system; it was social status. The civil service examinations were conducted in Classical Chinese, and all official posts and prestige lay behind those characters. Those who knew Hanzi moved up; those who didn't remained at the bottom. Because characters were the absolute yardstick of upward mobility and economic survival, upholding Hanzi was not a matter of rationality, but of survival. When survival passes down through generations, it becomes a religion.

We can see how deep that faith was by looking at the most enlightened minds of the era. The Silhak (Practical Learning) scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries cried out for reforms to the class system and the promotion of commerce and industry. Yet, all those appeals were written in Classical Chinese. Jeong Yak-yong left behind writings amounting to 118 modern books, but not a single one was written in Han-geul for the common people to read.

Ahakpyeon, the children's Hanzi textbook, was also designed merely to teach Chinese characters better. Park Ji-won, the finest literary master of his time, left no writings in Han-geul and confessed that he had never learned it. Park Je-ga went a step further, arguing in Bukhakui (Discourse on Northern Learning) that Chinese should be adopted as the official language and the native tongue discarded.

These men were not fools. Rather, they were the leading intellectuals of their era. The fact that even such figures turned their backs on the script created by King Sejong shows the terrifying power of Hanzi dogmatism. Dogma transcends rationality. It blinds even the most rational eyes.

A Nation That Failed to Return Knowledge to the People

The price of dogma was the monopolization of knowledge. Knowledge written exclusively in Classical Chinese circulated only within the small minority who knew it. Agricultural techniques, medical knowledge, and the workings of the world failed to reach the common people. The "practicality" so loudly championed by Silhak scholars was trapped inside characters unreadable by the masses, failing to become practical at all. Knowledge existed, but it could not become power.

Japan took a different path during the same period. Although Japan was also part of the Chinese character cultural sphere, it translated Western books in a flood using the kana syllabary, broadening the circle of people who read those translations. Early Meiji educational promotions were read by hundreds of copies—tens of thousands of copies. As knowledge became popularized, industries rose and the military grew strong. Korea already possessed the world's easiest script, created by King Sejong 400 years prior. Yet, Hanzi dogma locked that script away in living rooms and kitchens.

The first textbook to explain knowledge purely in Han-geul in this land was not written by a Joseon scholar, but by a young American, Homer Hulbert. In his 1891 book Samin Pilji, he expressed dismay that the Korean people looked down upon such a great script. It was not until the Gabo Reform of 1894 that the nation declared the national script as its primary official writing system. It was far too late. By then, Japan had already stationed troops on this land.

Tragedies Are Complex, but the Foundation is One

The causes of Japanese colonial rule cannot be boiled down to a single factor. Imperialist greed, power struggles among global powers, the incompetence of the royal court, and factional politics were all intertwined. The national division and the Korean War were likewise products of a global Cold War order. Attributing all of this solely to Hanzi would be another form of dogma. It must also be made clear that Japanese aggression possessed no justification whatsoever.

However, if we ask about the foundation upon which those multiple causes stood, the answer is singular: a country where the people were excluded from knowledge, and thus the strength of the people could not become the strength of the nation. Because the people could not read, they did not understand the world; and because they did not understand the world, they had no idea where the country was being dragged. The ruling minority bickered among themselves in Classical Chinese and handed the country over. A nation that lost its independence lacked the power to determine its own future, and after liberation, foreign superpowers carved up the vacuum. Division came that way, and war came from division.

A nation that failed to popularize knowledge fell prey to a nation that succeeded in popularizing it. At the center of that failure lies Hanzi dogmatism. Even if there were ten causes, what blinded the people's eyes and prevented those ten causes from being checked was the wall of characters. And that tragedy is still drawn across this land as the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).

Dogma Crumbles Through Time and Fact, Not Debate

Today’s advocates for introducing Hanzi into elementary textbooks are not Joseon scholars. However, the beliefs supporting their arguments are no different from the faith of Jeong Yak-yong and Park Je-ga. It is the belief that one must know Hanzi to be a proper human being, and that Han-geul alone is somehow deficient. That belief is once again reaching its hands into children’s textbooks.

Dogma does not collapse through debate. However, it is possible to eliminate the ground upon which dogma stands. The fact that generations educated in Han-geul have produced world-class literacy and culture, the fact that laws, science, and literature written in Han-geul accumulate daily, and the fact that the world is coming to learn Han-geul accomplish this. What we must do is steadily build and record those facts, and protect our classrooms and textbooks from dogma.

King Sejong lamented that illiterate common people could not fully express their thoughts. We already know the price paid by history for turning away from that vision. There is no reason to pay that price again.

[Copyright (c) Global Economic Times. All Rights Reserved.]