Colonial Modernity and Buddhist Intellectuals’ Social-Movement Responses: Focusing on Kim Beoprin’s Formation of the Mandang (卍黨) and Independence Activism

This study reinterprets the formation of the Mandang (卍黨) and the independence activism of the Buddhist intellectual Kim Beoprin against the backdrop of the shock of modernity experienced in colonial Korea, approaching them as forms of social-movement practice. Korea’s modernization was not a simple imitation of a single Western trajectory; rather, under the involuntary condition of colonial rule, it unfolded as a configuration of multiple modernities in which oppression, resistance, and the reinterpretation of tradition were layered and intertwined. However, previous scholarship has tended to explain Kim Beoprin’s activities primarily in terms of national duty, the moral practice of patriotic or nationalist Buddhism, or his personal intellectual characteristics. As a result, it has largely remained at the level of describing “what he did,” without sufficiently addressing the structural question of “why such practices became unavoidable.” By treating colonial conditions merely as historical background, it has also been limited in elucidating the social pressures and tasks through which Buddhist intellectuals were formed and their practices organized. Accordingly, this study confines “colonial (dependent) modernity” not to a grand explanatory theory but to a minimal analytical reference for capturing the structural conditions under which Kim Beoprin’s practices took shape. It likewise defines “Buddhist intellectuals” not as a status category of monastic or lay identity, but as a type of actor who interprets and raises public problems, legitimizes meanings, organizes through associations, education, publishing, and networks, and links outward- oriented social practice with inward reconfiguration of Buddhism. Through this framework, the study seeks to demonstrate that the Mandang’s formation, independence activism, and Kim’s educational and scholarly work constituted a trajectory of response through which Buddhism attempted to reconstitute its social voice and practical capacities under the conditions of colonial modernity. The significance of this study lies in offering a perspective that analyzes modern and contemporary Buddhist social movements within the interaction of structure, agency, and meaning—rather than reducing them to nationalism or individual morality—thereby opening an analytic horizon that can be extended to other Buddhist intellectuals and to Buddhist social movements in subsequent periods.