Why “Sadae” Became a Slur — and What That Says About How Societies Survive
On a rainy night, people instinctively look for a bigger roof.
In wartime, that instinct turns brutal. When bullets start cutting the air and tomorrow feels negotiable, individuals call for gods, communities call for rituals, and states call for something even more reliable: a larger order—a system that looks bigger than fear.
In Korean history, this scene is painfully familiar. The word sadae (사대) is often tossed around like a moral insult, as if it’s nothing but cowardice dressed as diplomacy. But if you take one step back, a colder interpretation appears:
Sadae wasn’t only submission. It was a method of procuring legitimacy—importing authority when authority at home felt fragile.
And once you notice that, you start seeing the same pattern everywhere—not just in royal documents, but in folk belief, popular narratives, even in the modern appetite for “too-perfect” origins.
1) “Sinocentrism” Wasn’t Always Faith — Sometimes It Was an Operating System
In the East Asian international order, adopting Chinese ritual language, titles, formats, and diplomatic grammar wasn’t simply “copying the strong.” It was closer to installing a shared OS so your state could run: negotiate, trade, issue documents, and be recognized as a proper player.
Joseon’s classic foreign-relations framework is often summarized as sadae-gyorin: maintain relations with the “great” power (China) and manage neighborly relations with surrounding polities. It’s less a confession of inferiority than a description of how diplomacy worked in that ecosystem. (한국민족문화대백과사전)
The problem isn’t that standards arrive from outside. Standards always do—today it’s language, currency, platforms, protocols, and international compliance.
The real danger begins when a practical standard quietly mutates into identity. When the tool becomes sacred, authority stops being a technique and turns into religion.
That’s when imported legitimacy becomes a dependency.
2) Gija Isn’t Just a “Did He Exist?” Debate — He’s a Legitimacy Machine
The Gija (기자) narrative often gets dragged into an exhausting binary: real or fake, proven or debunked. But for a blog reader, the more interesting question is usually different:
Why did this story survive so long and so stubbornly?
Because Gija functions like a certificate:
“We are connected to civilization. We didn’t appear out of nowhere.”
In other words, Gija is less a person than a stamp. And the hungrier a society feels for recognition, the heavier it presses the stamp into its paper.
That emotional pressure is history, too. Not because it proves the story, but because it exposes what the society wanted—security, prestige, and a narrative that ends arguments quickly.
3) Guan Yu Wasn’t “China’s God” in Joseon — He Became a Wartime Safety Device
The Imjin War wasn’t merely a conflict. It was a psychological collapse on a national scale.
After a catastrophe like that, a society doesn’t just rebuild walls and granaries. It rebuilds symbols—mental infrastructure strong enough to carry fear, rage, betrayal, and grief.
This is where Guan Yu enters the story. Joseon’s Guan Yu shrines and related commemorative materials reflect how Guan Yu’s cult was received and maintained in Korea, tied to state ritual and wartime memory. The “Bukmyo stele” (북묘비), for example, is explicitly connected to Guan Yu veneration and the institutional setting around these shrines.
Here’s the key point:
It’s too shallow to summarize this as “worshiping someone else’s god.”
A better reading is harsher—and more human:
When a community is shattered, the fastest symbol to import is the one already tested across the region.
A “martial deity brand” that feels pre-validated. A ready-made emotional bunker.
And imported authority has a killer advantage: it’s difficult to argue with.
“Recognized by the great power” becomes a spell that ends debate.
(Seoul’s Donggwanwangmyo (동관왕묘) is one of the state-designated heritage sites linked to this Guan Yu shrine tradition and its later historical layers. (국립문화재연구소))
4) The Twist: “Anti-Sadae” Can Become Another Form of Sadae
Now comes the paradox.
Some people try to smash sadae by calling up an even bigger, even grander ancient past—one that makes humiliation impossible. But when that move substitutes myth for evidence, certainty for verification, and origin stories for sources, it doesn’t escape the structure.
It simply swaps the supplier.
This is where modern pseudohistory becomes seductive: it offers a narrative that doesn’t require slow reading, competing translations, or uncomfortable ambiguity. It offers something better (emotionally): a story that wins instantly.
A recent Korea JoongAng Daily column describes Hwandan Gogi as a controversial early-20th-century compilation that is “widely regarded by professional historians as a modern fabrication with no credible historic basis,” and notes how such narratives can become politically charged. (Korea Joongang Daily)
Sadae is not only “admiring China.”
It’s the habit of leaning on authority that exempts itself from verification—whether the authority comes from an empire or from a fantasy of perfect antiquity.
Same engine. Different fuel.
5) Conclusion: What We Need Isn’t “Pride.” It’s Verifiable Pride.
Sadae looks like a moral issue, but it’s often a cognitive one.
The more anxious people become, the more they crave a single clean sentence that ends complexity. The more complicated reality gets, the more tempting it becomes to purchase certainty—import a story, import a stamp, import a god, import a glorious origin.
Imported authority can protect a society.
But it can also freeze it in place.
So the goal isn’t to replace superiority complexes with inferiority complexes (or vice versa). Those are just two ways to substitute emotion for method.
The only way out is boring—and therefore rare:
check originals when possible,
compare sources,
admit uncertainty without panic,
and resist narratives that “solve everything” in one paragraph.
That isn’t “the opposite of sadae.”
It’s outside sadae.
No comments:
Post a Comment