Regional research is also expanding. Interest in Japanese and Chinese
religions is increasing (Lim 2002; Park K. 2005; Park M. 1997). A careful
study of religious culture in North Korea is underway (Ryu 2003, 2006).
Narrative introductions to religious cultures for the general public have
appeared (Korea Institute 1999; Park K. et al. 1999). Finally, one of the
significant accomplishments of this generation has been the writing of the
history of the study of religions in Korea carried out by the Korean Association
for the History of Religions, the Institute of Religious Studies of Seogang
University, and the National Academy of Sciences (Institute of Religious Studies
1999; Korean Association 1997; National Academy 2000).
Emerging issues. In the world of Korean academics, the study of religions
is still on the periphery, but the situation is changing rapidly with a rise in the
religious population, the politicization of religious power, religious conflict,
and the problem of religious education in public and private schools. Issues
surrounding gender, the environment, human rights, biotechnology, and the
Internet are not overlooked. In an open, pluralistic society with an expectation
of prosperity but facing an uncertain future with regard to unification, religious
value, the raison d’êtreof religion in society, cannot be averted. Religion comes
to the fore as a subject of cultural discourse. In this situation, the study of
religions has encountered several issues that are not new but should be
addressed with new approaches.
First, the concept of ‘religion’ is being revisited with the question of whether
it is valid even in the Western sphere. It would be impetuous to expect an
alternative term for religion, but it is time to reflect not only on the category
of religion but also on its conceptual clarity—or lack thereof.
Second, one of the urgent issues is how to describe a history of religion or
a history of religious culture. Figuratively speaking, the history of religion that
has been written was a topography. It was an accumulation of facts arranged
chronologically and in terms of causal interpretation. But such a history cannot
fulfill the desire to understand the religious ethos. Even though the ethos is
variable, it constantly affects the climate above the stable earth. It is not only
topographical but also meteorological. Thus, a history of religion should not
be written simply as a topography but also as a meteorology. That is no easy
task, because it requires new categories and concepts and a new logic of
interpretation. More than that, it requires a new identity for the historian of
religion.
Third, and finally, the study of religions should do cultural criticism. A
preference for the term ‘religious culture’ rather than ‘religion’ not only extends
the concerns of the study of religions but also gives it a new responsibility. In
a sense, such work can be a translation of non-religious language into religious
language and vice versa. Today religious studies in Korea is trying to establish
its own creative cultural criticism, which is consequently preparing a new184
HE GUANGHU, CHUNG CHIN-HONG, AND LEE CHANG-YICK