The Roots of Regional Factionalism in Joseon Korea
Long before the 19th century, Korean society had been deeply influenced by regional identities and factional loyalties. The Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910) operated under a strict Confucian hierarchy where one’s birthplace often determined political alliances, social networks, and even ideological leanings. This regionalism became particularly pronounced within the Donghak (Eastern Learning) movement, a religious and social uprising that emerged in the late 1800s as a response to foreign encroachment and domestic corruption.
Donghak, founded by Choe Je-u in 1860, blended indigenous Korean beliefs with elements of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. By 1878, the movement had established regional centers known as jeopso (접소), or “meeting halls,” which later became the foundation for the factional divide between the Namjeop (Southern Faction) and Bukjeop (Northern Faction).
The Birth of Two Factions: Ideological and Geographic Rifts
The Namjeop, centered in Jeolla Province, advocated for direct political and military action against the Joseon government and foreign powers, particularly Japan. Their leader, Jeon Bong-jun, argued that Donghak could not remain a purely spiritual movement while Korea faced existential threats.
In contrast, the Bukjeop, based in Chungcheong Province and led by Choe Sihyeong (the second Donghak patriarch), insisted on maintaining Donghak as a religious organization focused on moral and spiritual reform. They viewed armed rebellion as reckless and contrary to Donghak’s original teachings.
This division was not merely ideological—it was deeply tied to regional identities. Jeolla natives were expected to align with the Namjeop, and Chungcheong locals with the Bukjeop. Yet, exceptions existed: some Jeolla followers rejected militarization, while certain Chungcheong members pushed for radical action.
Escalation: From Disputes to Armed Conflict
Korean society, historically prone to passionate debates and collective action, saw these factional tensions escalate into violent confrontations. What began as theological disagreements soon spiraled into physical clashes between Donghak members.
The Bukjeop, frustrated by the Namjeop’s aggressive stance, formed the “Army to Subdue the South” (벌남군), issuing declarations that condemned Jeon Bong-jun and his followers as “traitors to the nation and heretics to Donghak.” Meanwhile, the Namjeop ridiculed the Bukjeop as cowards, accusing them of abandoning Korea in its hour of need.
This infighting weakened Donghak at a critical moment. As Japanese forces advanced following their victory in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), the Korean government—now a puppet regime under Japan—saw an opportunity to crush Donghak entirely.
The Mediator: Oh Ji-yong and the Fragile Reconciliation
Recognizing the existential threat, Donghak intellectual Oh Ji-yong stepped in as a mediator. With ties to both factions (having studied under Southern and Northern teachers), he appealed to shared Korean values of familial loyalty.
In a dramatic meeting with Bukjeop leaders, Oh Ji-yong argued:
“If we fight each other, who benefits? Japan and the corrupt government. We are brothers—should we not unite against the true enemy?”
His persuasion worked. The Bukjeop disbanded their anti-Namjeop militia, and a fragile truce was formed. However, the reconciliation came too late to prevent Japan’s eventual suppression of the Donghak Rebellion.
Legacy: The Donghak Schism in Korean Memory
The Namjeop-Bukjeop divide remains a poignant example of how regionalism and ideological purity can fracture revolutionary movements. Modern scholars debate whether Donghak’s failure was inevitable—or if unity could have resisted Japanese imperialism more effectively.
Today, the rebellion is celebrated in South Korea as an early resistance against foreign domination, with Jeon Bong-jun revered as a national hero. Yet the internal divisions serve as a cautionary tale about the dangers of factionalism in times of crisis.
The Donghak movement, despite its defeat, laid groundwork for later Korean nationalist movements, proving that even in fragmentation, the struggle for sovereignty left an indelible mark on Korea’s path to independence.