What a fascinating podcast. I learned a little bit about 18th century Korea when I read Margaret Drabble's "Red Queen" a few years ago, the first part of which focuses (or purports to focus) on the life of Chŏngjo's mother (the titular queen -- the Lady Hyegyōng -- who apparently wrote a sort of autobiography, which Drabble said inspired her book). So I was familiar with the narrative of Chŏngjo's youth -- the violence of his grandfather towards his own family, the (presumed) madness and eventual execution of his father, etc. But despite my best intentions (at the time of reading Drabble's book) to follow up on the historic background of 18th century Korea, I haven't yet gotten around to do so ... this might well be the incentive I needed.
I also found the narrative of the "factions" fascinating, not least the significance of their inherited family positions (including the shame of previous generations trickling down to their descendants to stain them in turn. It made me think of the system that, according to the description that Hyeongseo Lee gives in her memoir "The Girl with the Seven Names", Kim Il-Sung instituted upon having seized power in North Korea after WWII, whereby your family's status in North Korean society was determined, forever after, by the role that the members of your family had played in the establishment of the regime: If they were active participants, they and all their descendants until the end of time are entitled to the highest honors and positions. If they were in favor but did not exert themselves, their families will still do OK as long as they continue their faithful allegiance. But if they were opposed to Kim Il-Sung, their descendants in all future generations until the end of time are barred from ever achieving positions of importance, and the entire clan is generally treated much more harshly than others, even by North Korean standards. At first blush -- and looking only at one single generation -- this of course doesn't sound much different from the way that * all * dictatorships treat their people, but I'm now wondering to what extent the inherited / trickle-down effect is a legacy (be it deliberate or accidental) of the social philosophy underlying Korea's "factions" system and its own notions of inherited guilt!
I also found the narrative of the "factions" fascinating, not least the significance of their inherited family positions (including the shame of previous generations trickling down to their descendants to stain them in turn. It made me think of the system that, according to the description that Hyeongseo Lee gives in her memoir "The Girl with the Seven Names", Kim Il-Sung instituted upon having seized power in North Korea after WWII, whereby your family's status in North Korean society was determined, forever after, by the role that the members of your family had played in the establishment of the regime: If they were active participants, they and all their descendants until the end of time are entitled to the highest honors and positions. If they were in favor but did not exert themselves, their families will still do OK as long as they continue their faithful allegiance. But if they were opposed to Kim Il-Sung, their descendants in all future generations until the end of time are barred from ever achieving positions of importance, and the entire clan is generally treated much more harshly than others, even by North Korean standards. At first blush -- and looking only at one single generation -- this of course doesn't sound much different from the way that * all * dictatorships treat their people, but I'm now wondering to what extent the inherited / trickle-down effect is a legacy (be it deliberate or accidental) of the social philosophy underlying Korea's "factions" system and its own notions of inherited guilt!