The Paradox of Remembering Violent Struggle: The Gwangju Uprising and Its Selective Memories in Democratic South Korea

The legacy of activists who resisted authoritarian regimes through violent means presents a significant dilemma for post-democratic societies, as they occupy a dual role as practitioners of both violence and democracy. While their resistance was crucial in overthrowing oppressive regimes, their use of violence presents an uncomfortable reality for societies that emphasize nonviolent political transformation. In constructing a narrative of democratic legitimacy, post-democratic societies may selectively downplay the violent aspects through which democracy was achieved. This raises a question: how can violent struggles, which played a pivotal role in securing democratic outcomes, be remembered as part of the democratic legacy?

This study uncovers the selective processes behind the construction of collective memory surrounding the Gwangju Uprising of May 1980, South Korea’s only instance of armed conflict during its democratization, which led to at least 166 deaths. Despite its tragic consequences, the Gwangju Uprising is recognized as a catalyst for subsequent movements, ultimately contributing to the Korean democratic transition in 1987. This study discovers, given the complex features of the uprising, three key actors in Korean society have constructed their own memories of the violent struggles by emphasizing specific aspects selectively.

This study analyzes how three actors have selectively constructed the memory of the uprising: victims' families, in opposition to the official memory that labeled it a riot, developed a "memory of restitution," remembering their actions as necessary for community protection; social movements, focusing on violent struggle, created a "mythologized memory" of activists as fearless figures willing to face death; the democratic state, by erasing the violent aspects, constructed a "domesticated memory" to prevent the uprising’s memory from fueling new movements that might challenge state authority. By analyzing the discourses in the media outlets and political campaigns, this study reveals how the three actors have tried to make their memories prevail.