By SoEun Park
Foreign Affairs
Due to the increasing interdependence of nations, cultures, and populations, globalization has become more widespread than ever before. South Korea is not an exception to this development. Over the past few generations, Korea has evolved from an underdeveloped country to one of the world’s most developed, high-income countries. Along with globalization and Korea’s development, including the rise of South Korean culture with music, and films, it’s natural for Korea to be an attraction for foreigners worldwide. The number of expats in Korea has exploded to 25 times more compared to the early 1980s; foreigners “now make up 3.4% of the population” (Marrinan 2022:1).
However, foreigners still face discrimination in supposedly “globalized” South Korea. An Institute of Public Administration survey conducted recently found that Koreans have lukewarm feelings toward foreigners and Koreans and foreigners do not get along well, with 95% of Koreans aware of their general dislike for foreigners (Pressley 2022). The survey illustrates a sharp intangible symbolic boundary in Korea, a cultural tension felt by Koreans. According to Lamont (2015:850), symbolic boundaries are lines that include and define some people groups, and things while excluding others, in this case, defining what a natural “Korean” is versus foreigners. Thus, this paper will explore the question: Why do many Koreans draw sharp distinctions between themselves and others who are perceived as foreigners in South Korea? By examining attitudes and belief systems, policies and discriminatory actions, and resistance to world culture, I’ll attempt to explain this overwhelming animosity and sense of distinction.
The Korean Creed: Attitudes and Belief Systems
An obvious answer is related to history, a less obvious answer is related to what I’ll call the “Korean Creed”. According to Fredrickson, when racism is conceived as a natural human reaction to encounters with strangers, it’s removed from the context of history and placed in psychology and sociology (Fredrickson 2015:99). However, it’s necessary to look at both to understand what racism is in South Korea as the pandemic of xenophobia and scapegoating is evidently prevalent among foreigners in Korea.
History of Korea
Historically, Korea has cultivated a strong national identity based on ‘pure’ ancestral bloodlines, common language, and customs. As Darwin claims, colonialism is a recent phenomenon, and “empire and ethnicity have been among the most powerful forces that have shaped the modern world” (Darwin 2010:147). This is evident in South Korea. As a result of Japanese colonialism in the 20th century, Koreans were even more compelled to reclaim and maintain their sovereignty using ethnocentrism and ethno-nationalism, strengthening this national identity. This reinforces the fact that there was a colonial intervention of identity, and the Korean ethnicity and nationalism was constructed by the Japanese. The view of Koreans as the inferior race and the target they got because of their race have long-lasting effects on how Koreans think of themselves ethnically and nationally. As a result of the Asian financial crisis of 1997, South Korea’s attitude toward foreigners was also shaped, as the IMF forced it to take a bailout. This adverse effect caused Korean financial institutions to close, resulting in the loss of jobs and reduced earnings for most residents (Coe 2002).
Korean Creed and Nationalism: Imagined South Korean Community
Largely influenced and contextualized by historical events, the imagined South Korean community is extremely narrow, only including “natural” Koreans. What I call the “Korean Creed” is the sense of equality that is needed among Koreans, but not among foreigners.
According to Anderson (1991), nations are imagined political communities with cultural roots in religion, dynasties and conceptions of time. Korea is greatly solidified by both historical and cultural roots, and has three parts Anderson (1991) emphasizes about nationalism: how it’s limited, sovereign, and community, correlated with the Korean Creed. Firstly, South Korea is limited because they have defined borders physically on the geographical map of South Korea, and symbolically; there’s an in-group and out-group South Koreans don’t want to lose. Secondly, South Korea is sovereign because they have a principle of legitimacy of the state and recognize their right to administer violence. Their democracy goes hand in hand with their nationalism, consolidating this group even more. The horizontal comradeship of “we” as co-owners of this nation also greatly aids the sense of South Korean nationalism. Finally, South Korea is a limited community. Despite exploitation and inequality in South Korea, there’s a community and universalism with national principles. There’s a sense of togetherness associated with Durkheim’s mechanical solidarity, where members of society with similar values and beliefs are socially integrated.
In addition, Bonikowski (2016:952) defines nationalism as “a heterogeneous set of ‘nation’- oriented idioms, practices, and possibilities that are continuously available or ‘endemic’ in modern cultural and political life.” Compared to Anderson who is more general and theoretical about imagined communities and nationalism, Bonikowski’s arguments draw in real application and present concrete definitions that somehow seem to build on Anderson’s. 5 Bonikowski (2016) discusses four aspects of American nationalism: national identification, criteria of national membership (legitimacy), national pride, national hubris. Each one of these aspects can be connected to Korean nationalism. National identity relative to other aspects of personal identity is very important. It is common for Koreans to feel very close to Korea as compared to any other region or political unit. In American nationalism, there’s a difference between creedal and ethnocultural traditions. For Korea, these two concepts are intertwined within the Korean Creed. They embrace the liberal creed of democracy but still draw strong boundaries on characteristics such as birthplace, language, religion, and race for Korean citizens. For instance, speaking Korean would be an essential part of being Korean. In addition, national pride is omnipresent in Korea, a “cohesive force that both holds nation-states together and shapes their relationships with other states” (Bonikowski 2016:955). As a result of their national identity, Koreans feel a positive sense of pride towards their country. National hubris is not very prevalent among South Koreans as there are not many assertions of superiority of others; however, there’s an idealization of the U.S. Further, the Korean Creed also has multiple layers that distinguish the in-group from the out-group. Our discussion above so far has been dividing Koreans from non-Koreans. There’s also a layer between White-Foreigners and Non-White Foreigners: whites are perceived more favorably because of how the American media portray whites as heroes and sympathy for America’s aid of South Korea during the Korean War.
Subtly Overt Policies and Discriminatory Actions
Thus far, we’ve discussed the prejudice or beliefs Koreans have through a cultural and historical context. In addition to these elements, another component elucidates why Koreans draw the line between themselves and foreigners: discrimination in behavior. While authors like 6 Anderson and Bonikowski talk about attitudes, it’s impossible to understand a nation completely without looking at their policies.
Despite being far from an overtly racist regime, South Korea still imitates slight aspects of it to varying degrees. According to Fredrickson (2015), there are five components of an overtly racist regime: official ideology, no interracial marriage, state-led segregation, exclusion from politics, and impoverishment. In the behavioral aspect, the latter three are still widespread in Korea.
Shockingly, some South Korean businesses can still legally refuse to serve foreigners, a degree of state-led segregation. These businesses claim only Koreans are allowed because their employees cannot communicate in English or they refuse entry to those who “clearly look like foreigners” to appease their Korean customers (Poon 2016:1). These discriminatory actions supported legally by the country can have detrimental effects. Although South Korea’s population has become increasingly multicultural and globalized, it does not have anti-discrimination laws like other developed countries like the U.S. After U.N. human rights expert Mutuma Ruteere’s first official visit to the country, he urged Korea to enact comprehensive laws to address “racism, xenophobia, and discrimination” (Poon 2016:1).
In addition, Korea primarily excludes foreigners from politics. Holding public office as a foreigner is extremely difficult. Thus, there’s almost no representation of foreigners in the government. Voting requires citizenship, and getting citizenship for foreigners is a challenge. The pool of resources available to native-board citizens is limited by immigration, which limits foreigners’ economic opportunities and resources. Due to a lack of independence between attitudes and overt behaviors, Merton (1976) would argue Koreans are most likely to be prejudiced discriminators. These policies and discriminatory behaviors self-perpetuate and perpetuate how Koreans draw fine lines between themselves and foreigners, reinforcing the symbolic boundaries.
Resistance to a World Culture: Foreign to Culturally Korean
These fine lines are intriguing because it’s a paradox. As world society grows and “resistance to world models is difficult”, nation-states are becoming globalized with a cultural template that dictates how state institutions should be shaped without consideration for local needs (Meyer 1997:160). Unlike previous authors, Meyer makes a broader argument about culture rather than symbolic boundaries, explaining the transfer globally. Global cultures demonstrate the diffusion of culture by nation-states, subnational actors, organizations, and individuals seeking to conform to world cultures. As these nations strive to be rationalized actors, there’s generally a mismatch between their local needs. They resemble each other not due to economic reasons or forcefulness, but due to their strong influence, which leads to socialization.
Despite world culture providing a “framework” by which state actions are oriented to institutional isomorphism, South Korea appears to be immune to this phenomenon regarding discrimination against foreigners. According to Meyer (1997:152), a property of a culturally constituted nation-state induces isomorphism, which states each state’s culture will “promptly take on standardized forms and soon appear to be similar to a hundred other nation-states around the world.” Nevertheless, Korea’s nationalism, culture, and racism overcome this isomorphism of anti-discrimination. Korea remains stagnant on this issue despite other developed nations advocating for more anti-discrimination policies. Lack of anti-discrimination laws and legalized 8 “no foreigners” businesses make it especially apparent that Koreans draw sharp distinctions between themselves and those they perceive as foreigners.
Conclusion
Consequently, many Koreans draw sharp distinctions between themselves and foreigners in South Korea for three main reasons: history and the “Korean Creed,” behaviors and policies, and its immunity to world politics. As a result of all these factors, Koreans can draw fine lines between themselves and “them.” Others might argue South Korea doesn’t need to change its culture of homogeneity and distinctive “us.” However, while South Korea embraces globalization, it’s also essential they embrace multiculturalism, which comes with globalization. A commitment to inclusivity and anti-discrimination policies and actions is critical for South Korea, and hopefully, beliefs will follow.
Photo: Jirka Matousek/flickr
Works Cited:
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Bonikowski, Bart and Paul DiMaggio. 2016. “Varieties of American Popular Nationalism.” American Sociological Review 81(5):949–80.
Coe, David T. and Se-Jik Kim. 2002. Korean Crisis and Recovery. Washington (D.C.): International Monetary Fund.
Darwin, John. 2010. “Empire and Ethnicity.” Nations and Nationalism 16(3):383–401.
Fredrickson, George M. and Albert Camarillo. 2015. Racism: A Short History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lamont, Michèle, Sabrina Pendergrass, and Mark Pachucki. 2015. “Symbolic Boundaries.” International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences 850–55.
Marrinan, Joel. 2022. “How Many Foreigners in Korea Are There? 2022 Updated Stats.” In My Korea.
Poon, Linda. 2016. “Why Some South Korean Businesses Can Legally Refuse to Serve Foreigners.” Business Insider.
Pressley, Mai Anna. 2022. “Foreigners Face Discrimination with Little Recourse.” Korea 10 Economic Institute of America. Merton, Robert King. 1976. “Discrimination and the American Creed.” in Sociological ambivalence and other essays. New York: Free Press.
Comments