Hanbok

Gold embroidered Hanbok worn by the Queen

When the Goryeo Dynasty was replaced by Chosun, the founder, an ex-Goryeo general and his descendants made Neo-Confucianism the predominant religion. The revised teachings emphasised acts of formality and etiquette which dictated the style of dress for the royal family, all the members of the court, aristocrats as well as commoners. These regulations of dress reflected the foremost social values which was integrity in men and chastity in women (Korean Culture and Information Service 2010).

  Where the different styles, colours and lengths of hanbok in the Chosun Dynasty instigated as the status symbols of the time, in contemporary South Korean society, this has been replaced by an idealised form of Western beauty. The rapid modernisation, more likely, the Americanisation of the country has left many women, old and young, with only one valid definition of ideal beauty. Naomi Wolf claimed in 1992, that existing within US culture there is a false perception that only a single set of characteristics represent the ideal beauty (Bissel & Chung 2009).

 Over the centuries men’s hanbok changed very little however, women’s style of dress evolved numerous times. During the 15^th Century hanbok skirts were pleated and full with long upper wear to conceal all the lines and every visible shape of the “Neo-Confucian female body” (Kim 2003, p.100). Hanbok in contemporary society, is no longer a status symbol and worn only during occasional celebrations once or twice a year.

 References:

Korean Culture and Information Service Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. 2010, Hollym International Corp., New Jersey.

Bissell , K. & Chung, J. 2009, ‘Americanised Beauty? Predictors of Perceived Attractiveness from US and South Korean Participants Based on Media Exposure, Ethnicity, and Socio-Cultural Attitudes Toward Ideal Beauty’, Asian Journal of Communciation, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 227-247.

Kim, T. 2003, ‘Neo-Confucian Body Techniques: Women’s Bodies in Korea’s Consumer Society’, Body and Society, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 97-113.