Abstract
From Genocide to Development: A study on collective learning process of
Gasi-ri Village, Jeju, Korea
Hyeok Jun Goh
Global Education Cooperation Program
The Graduate School Seoul National University

Through the case study of the reconstruction process of Gasi-ri village, this research examines the process of and motivation for collective learning in community development. Although the village was burned to the ground and more than 300 people were branded as communists and massacred by the government in 1948, the village was successfully reconstructed and received “The Best New Village Award” in the 1970s.
In order to analyze the historical singularity of Gasi-ri village in the perspective
of learning, this study introduces Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a
conceptual framework. By conceptualizing humans’ object-oriented behaviors as an act of learning, CHAT enables us to capture everyday activities in the context of learning.
In this regard, the villagers’ interaction which occurred in the process of village
reconstruction is analyzed as a collective learning system that continues to create
expansive activities. Meanwhile, the central pillar of the village’s historical singularity is the memory of genocide caused by the Jeju 4.3 Incident. Since the relationship between the genocidal experience and village reconstruction has been raised as a crucial factor during the data collection process, this study analyzes the history of the villages based on the collective memory theory, which deals with memory and identity at the group level. With these theoretical backgrounds, the researcher conducts in-depth interview and participant observation. The results of the study are as follows.
Firstly, the village reconstruction of Gasi-ri can be seen as a collective learning
process. The first stage of group learning occurs when a group member shares a
common objective from their inner necessity. In the case of Gasi-ri, the discovery of economic crops which are suitable to cultivate in the village served as a momentum of common objective sharing, and the crops were identified by the “Gasi-ri 1.5th generation,” who mainly led all of the rebuilding activities since the early 1950s. The 1.5th generation was a few educated people who survived the genocide by virtue of their young age and they played a central role in rebuilding the village with their distinctive responsibilities. By introducing modern economic food processing techniques such as those for making sliced potato and dried slice radish, they made it possible for the villagers to set the common objective of increasing income through the mass production of economic crops. Since then, the villagers began to forge a collective learning system under a common objective. In order to realize effective mass production, they divided production, distribution, and parenting tasks according to their roles in the village. In addition, they established several sub-organizations such as the Youth Association, Men and Women’s Association, and Agricultural Cooperative to systematically implement each role, while the village’s general assembly decided on the ground rules of co-production and co-sale to respond to external commodity price fluctuations. Through this interaction process, the villagers not only learned the knowledge and skills necessary for increasing income, but also established a collective learning system that enabled them to improve their circumstances. once the system was established, it contributed to establishment of new future objectives, not to mention the overcoming of immediate difficulties. In the early 1970s, for instance, the villagers determined to pave new mountainous road for improving the distribution of goods despite the fact that they had already achieved considerable improvement in terms of income and standard of living. In this determination, the group’s enhanced ability to learn caused by the establishment of collective learning system was heavily affected. As a result of sustained collective learning activities, the community of Gasi-ri village achieved economic prosperity. Furthermore, by being recognized by the state, they could recover their self-esteem, which was severely damaged following the 4.3 Incident.
Secondly, the genocidal memory of the Jeju 4.3 Incident heavily influenced the
motivation of collective learning in the village. During the field study and in-depth
interview processes, the researcher found that most of the villagers had an ambivalent attitude about the 4.3 incident. It seems to be related to the contradiction caused by the recognition gap between the past-self and the present-self. Specifically, the villagers’ past-selves are represented by fear and chagrin. on the other hand, their present-selves are signified by the regretful remembrance of their ignorance. Among these, the latter is directly linked to the motivation of village reconstruction. Since the villagers recognized that their ignorance had caused the genocide in the village, they felt that being freed from the fetters of ignorance was the only way to prevent future tragedies.
The researcher’s analysis suggests that the external (or environmental) context, which suppressed the memory of genocide, and the internal context, which endeavored to protect the unity of the community, were simultaneously affected in the process of recognition. As the decades-long military dictatorship had created an oppressive atmosphere in the village, the villagers could not mention anything about the genocide and state violence. Nevertheless, the survivors could not be thoroughly frustrated; they distorted their memories of genocide by transforming them from “resentment against the state” to “blaming themselves for being ignorant.” It was the only constructive alternative to maintaining the sense of community in the situation of extreme poverty and social disgrace. Additionally, the memory of conflict and enmity between the villagers, especially the tragedy of fratricidal experiences, has become a tacit taboo in the village. Therefore, the distortion of collective memory was not only an internally attributed response to social oppression, but also self-censoring to protect the solidarity of the community. Namely, it is found that the community tried to sublimate their tragic
experience into a new driving force for the village reconstruction. The newly formed collective memory caused the formation of a new collective identity characterized by diligence and austerity, responsibility, and the desire to learn. It was a catalyst to facilitate the learning activities in the village. The researcher conceptualizes the process as a collective learning mechanism in the following manner: contradiction recognition, collective memory formation, collective identity formation, and the establishment of activity system. This process seems to be not linear but cyclical. Meanwhile, not all contradictory recognition is connected to a new formation of collective memory and identity. For a successful collective learning progress, it is necessary for group members to share recognition of the common objective. In addition, a contributory factor such as a successful experience is helpful for the recognition-sharing process. In the case of Gasi-ri village, the 1.5th generation, who had a different identity from the previous generation and other villagers, they could share their collective memory by being
encouraged by the success of economic crop mass-cultivation in the early 1960s.
Consequently, Gasi-ri village reconstruction was a collective learning process
which followed the procedures of setting a common objective, deciding on rules and the division of labor, and acting collectively under a common objective. In this process, the villagers’ contradictory perception of the Jeju 4.3 Incident worked as a fundamental motivation by forming a new collective memory which blamed the villagers’ ignorance to facilitate the learning process. Through the collective learning system, the villagers continuously learned and extended their objective, thereby resulting in the villagers’ economic prosperity and psychological recovery. The result of this analysis implies that we need a comprehensive understanding of the cultural-historical factors of each community when it comes to implementing a community development project. In the perspective of education development studies, it offers the significant possibility for researchers to explain the development process with the integrated concept of learning rather than the existing traditional tendency in development studies, which considers education and learning simply as an instrumental factor to facilitate the development process.
Keywords: Community development, collective learning, cultural historical activity theory, collective memory, genocide, Saemaul Undong