One might think on the surface that the history of department stores would be pretty dull stuff. On the contrary, it is a fascinating topic, with an almost unlimited scope to draw from. In particular, Brian Moeran’s paper on the history of Japanese department stores reveals a wealth of information about the changing nature of shopping and consumerism in Japan. Having studied modernism and consumer culture for my long essay last year, focusing especially on the flagship companies of Mitsukoshi and Shiseido, I was eager to learn more about department stores, this time taking a look not at the goods on display inside, but from a conceptual stance on how the very concept of a department store was seen as a site of contradiction and control.
In discussing the way that the department store brought modernity to Japan, Moeran states that it “personified the new intelligentsia’s aspirations for enrichment, self-fulfilment and gracious living during the period of Taishou democracy.”1. In contrast, Jina Kim’s work Urban Modernities in Colonial Korea and Taiwan shows how this was no less true in Korea and Taiwan, but that it came with an inherent contradiction for those living under colonial control. In her chapter on consuming modernity, Kim takes a different angle of analysis in looking at how department stores were viewed in literature, taking two specific short stories as her basis. Like Moeran, she begins by giving a historical overview of department stores in Japan, but then turns her attention to how they were brought over to Korea and Taiwan as part of the Japanese occupation. She shows how what is now such a staple part of daily life was viewed with fear and conflicting feelings for those living under colonial control, as it was a symbol of modernity, but a forced modernity, brought not by their own wishes but as the coloniser’s desire to shape Korea and Taiwan according to their own view of what a ‘modern’ nation ought to look like.
Kim’s work is fascinating for showing how literature can be used as a contemporary source for historical analysis. She notes that the decades of the 1920s and 30s saw heavy crackdowns on political and activist groups, and so literature allowed authors to “spiritedly engage with the changing attitudes toward modern life and the best possible way to make sense of the often insensible modern world.”2 By depicting scenes of modern life replete with vivid descriptions of western clothes, shops, food and goods of all kinds, authors were able to make “subtle yet strong leftist critiques” which “[made] the reader question the conditions of urban life.”3 By contrasting authors in Korea and Taiwan, Kim shows the similarities and differences in attitudes in the two countries. Although her analysis on Taiwan is far shorter and could benefit from further examples, her detailed discussion on Korea and the work of Yi Hyosǒk shows how fiction can reveal a wealth of information about daily life and the contradictory views of the time. While the historian has to keep in mind issues with straying into literary analysis, Kim’s work is a brilliant example of how it can be done while keeping a firm historical focus and bringing a new perspective into the existing work on imperialism and colonialism.