Analysis reveals Ju Yo-seop and Noh Yang-geun's views on invention science in colonial Korea, suggesting impacts on children's perception of their realities.
This study aims to examine the emergence of a new sensibility in the writings of Ju Yo-seop and Noh Yang-geun during the 1930s from the perspective of invention science. Ju Yo-seop criticized superstition as barbaric and emphasized the necessity of scientific thinking as a hallmark of civilized life. He described invention science as a key element in introducing modern civilization to the colonized Korean people. In his juvenile fiction “?”, Ju also expressed concerns about the potential dangers of invention science, particularly its threat to human life. Ju Yo-seop’s multifaceted view of invention science reflects his belief that it could serve as a solution to the oppression of Japanese imperialism, while also emphasizing that boys in colonial Korea should maintain a critical perspective on its impact on human life. His scientific writings encouraged young readers of the colonial era to confront the realities of their time and engage in existential reflection. In contrast, Noh Yang-geun emphasized a scientific way of life set against the backdrop of rural communities. In his children’s story “The Flying person”, he depicted impoverished rural children dreaming of economic gain and changes in their daily lives through invention science, presenting the ideal and self-directed figure of the “inventive child.” In this way, the scientific writings of both Ju Yo-seop and Noh Yang-geun reveal both the positive and negative aspects of invention science in 1930s colonial Korea. Their works presented the spirit of the inventor as a means of national independence and survival during the hardship and oppression of Japanese colonial rule. They also helped modern children recognize the importance of upholding human dignity and bioethics in the pursuit of invention science.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
H.S. Seo (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: