Contradictions? (Bored of Waiting)

The quote below is from a review in the Seoul Herald of Michael Breen's book "Korea." I include it because it points out a misinterpretation some outsiders have when approaching Korea. In fact a problem that any outsider might have approaching any culture he or she can't understand from an inside perspective. Here's the words:

Review

Michael Breen illuminates through countless anecdotes and personal observations the weird and wonderful ways of Asia's most paradoxical, polarized country. Few Koreans, let alone foreigners, have a better understanding than Breen of how a people can be alternately warm and ruthless, shrewd and childlike, tolerant and pigheaded.

I say contradiction, they say paradoxical and polarized (when referring to North and South Korea you also must say "divided"). We're in the same ballpark here. But drop the specifics and what do your really have? You have paradoxical and polarized people who alternate between warm and ruthless, shrewd and childlike, and tolerant and pigheaded. In other words, normal people. And, pretty much, in defined arenas which I will discuss in a bit.

Why in the world is this considered "contradictory?" It shouldn't be. Most of the specifics don't fit. First, the "contradictions" are usually completely consonant with Korean cultural belief. Second, in case where there might be contraction, there is no more contradiction than in any other culture. We all might as well save our ire for our native cultures.

One weird thing is that Koreans seem to hear the message that they are contradictory and polarized without ignoring its simplicity and silliness. This is partly why Michael Breen is so popular.

But not much in the Korean model actually is contradictory. Everyone who writes on Korea recognizes that Korea is a nation built on the Five Confucian Relationships. Breen mentions this explicitly and then goes on to forget it entirely. When Breen wonders why Koreans can be so lovely in personal relationships but still kvetches that 20 years in Korea is not enough to make one understand/get used to being bumped on the subway? He's forgetting his own previous argument.

Take a look at the Confucian Relationships:

Ruler to Subject
Husband to Wife
Parent to Child
Older Sibling to Younger Sibling
Friend to Friend

and tell me where there is anything indicating an anonymous public relationship should be anything but brutal and brief? In fact, Koreans are hewing rather directly to a moral code which implicitly excludes the public realm from importance. This isn't contradiction, rather it is social system.

More than that? What this really is, is an outsider finding a contradiction between what he/she thinks a country should be like (perhaps based on some experience like personal friendliness from a Korean), or even worse something the outsider truly likes about a country which fits in with the outsiders's natural prejudices (again, personal friendliness will work) and something that outsider disliked (e.g. bumping on the subway) about their experience of the country. Unwilling to fit these disparate facts into known social structures, the outsider prefers to call names.

In other words, the contradiction is in the observer, not in Koreans.

And to the extent contradictions do exist? There is the second issue of how different a perceived contradiction of this sort is from similar contradictions in other countries. By which I mean, hey, if contradictions do exist why does this suprise an observer? I think Walt Whitman was right when he asked the question,"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself I am vast, I contain multitudes." I think here, as I must, of the United States. The US is a poster-child for contradiction between belief and practice.

Hunter S. Thompson, many years ago, wrote an article ("Living in the time of Alger, Greeley, Debs" National Observer) in which he noted that the US preached the glories of rugged individualism while it was becoming increasingly difficult to live outside of the semi-benevolent umbrella of some kind of corporate sinecure.

Rugged individualists, after all, don't have retirement benefits, dental insurance, or paid holidays.

Which is all only by way of noting that every country has its contradictions. And when I look at how tightly the Korean behaviors that "contradictionists" dislike are tied to Korean normative principles? I wonder how they are called contradictions.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER FOR OX
We can continue to discuss where the normative principles came from and what they really mean (e.g. how much is imposed by the government, how much is innate, how much is based on social deformation caused by Japanese colonialism, US colonialism, whatever) but the normative principles are floating out there..

Continuing to Wait for Ox (I see one in the queue)

I would just note this exciting difference between North and South Korea and admit that it is triumph for the DPRK since 50% fewer travelers get lost on their subway system than do in Seoul:


Pyongyang Subway System




Seoul Subway System

Homogeneity, continued

Ok...let's continue on the issue of homogeneity.

Korean history, particularly the recent history, has much to do with the idea of homogeneity, possibly relating to why there aren't so many independent Korean voices in American academia. I wanted to avoid the history issue altogether, but found that this is a "no can do" matter. The reason for the change of heart is that I believe know or not knowing the past can influence one's conclusion. Even if the conclusion may look the same from an outsider's point of view, the depth of the answer reached would differ. Hence, here begins a short trip into the long history of Korea, relevant to homogeniety, the misunderstood.

Korean history is full of resistance and factionalism, hardly an ideal picture of homogenic society. For instance, Koguryo (BC 1000~AD 668) was a constant threat to China, even to the Chin Dynasty which unified China for the first time. Kokuryo was one of the main reason Emperor Chin had to build the Great Wall so close to Beijing, only one hour distance the city by car--Kokuryo's sphere of influence would not allow the Chinese to construct its major line of defence any farther than the current location. When Shilla unified the Korean peninsula, Shilla had to exert its utmost power to keep its people at bay from waging a war against China to reclaim Koguryo's territory beyond the Korean peninsula. The movement continued to Koryo (918~1392) and Balhae (713~1117). Against the Mongols, many Koryo kings secretly had planned a war, which often became their own demise. Balhae was able to reclaim a part of the old territory and spread into today's Sakhalin, Russia. However, Koryo brought down Balhae's glory after 30 separate wars. Even when Koryo became Chosun (1392~1910), the people's desire to regain its old territory continued. Some may say that Korea's history has mostly been volatile to say the least. Homogeneity in Korean history has less to do with being docile or complacent.

Then, things began taking a different turn since the Hideyoshi war, Japan's invasion to Korea. Imginweron, as Koreans call it, which occured from 1592~1598, was devastating (I translated parts of a modern novel based on this war which I may post here someday, provided that the posting would not violate the copyright of the author). The Korean king, during the time, had to flee to the north of North Korea and into the Chinese territory. Some war historians claim that this was a strategic move, just like the Russians retreated endlessly, burning down everything along the way, so that the German soldiers would be depleted of their supply soon. Nevertheless, fleeing to China was a national disgrace--especially when the King had even sent two diplomats to Japan to detect if there were any signs of war preparation in Hideyoshi side. One diplomat said there were plenty of signs of impending danger, and the other said there was none. The King chose to believe the latter. Hence, the King screwed up.

In order to dodge the blame and keep his throne, the King began netting a tight control over its people. He blamed that the was occurred because the public moral/ethics was at fault. Korea had always been known as the Eastern Nation of Moral. And because Korea's moral standing had fallen, even the island-dwelling midgets thought that it could invade, and did, Korea. Along with the aristocrats who made the booboo, the Korean King blamed the women, the relatively weaker social class of Chosun, the primary cause of the deterioration of Korea's moral standing. The top dogs who were really at fault had to invent lies after lies to keep their wealth and position. And the idea of homogeneity to reclaim the old glory had turn inward in the shape of "homogeneity," or the game of let's-eliminate-the-dissidents (I have another piece of translation which would show how the concept still lingers on). Hence an era of the end of independent voice started.

The Korean people, of course, didn't just sit around and swallowed the lies. There were violent upheavals. But all of them ended fruitlessly. Chosun, as a nation, battled to keep down the people's voices, concentrating the main portion of its power on oppressing domestic revolts. This led Korea to lose its edge and stay in the mud of stagnation. Korean kingship and government system rotted. Japan, which opened its doors to Western world earlier, became once more a formidable power to Korea. In 1910, Korea ended up signing over its soverignty and diplomatic power to Japan, another huge disgrace on a national level. And Japan immediately signed over the once Balhae territory to Soviet Union with the promise that the Soviet Union would not attack Japan as Japan invaded Chine via Korea.

With its government's spine as sturdy as that of a jelly fish, Korean people rose again. Interim Korean governments were established in Shanghai and in the United States. Many people lost their lives in assasination attempts (many succeded), and in their work to overthrow Japanese control. Then there were many, usually from the aristocrat class and the lowest and oppressed class, that worked for Japan for their own lives. They were downright traitors, and they were the ones in power, just like the King and nobles during the Hideyoshi war. When Korea regained its independence from the help of UN Forces and United States military power, the US and Soviet Union divided the Korea into halves. The US took the South Korea.

The US, in its ill-fated logic and unfamiliarity of Koreans in general, hired Korean people to help the US rule over Korea. And the US thought that those who had been in power during the Japanese regime probably had a more working knowledge of how Korea was run and to be run. And the traitors unexpectedly assumed the power again. Korean people did not stand still and just took this. However, when Korean War broke, none of this mattered.

After the Korean War, those traitors who amassed the wealth relcaimed their land and fortune. And American government wanted the traitors (or the pesky Santa's evil helpers) to be happy and cooperative. The language barrier probably had a lot to do with the situations, too. Americans just did not know what they were doing. And from 1953 and on, oppression by the traitors to keep holding onto power continued. Lies after lies were fabricated to support their comfortable lives. And Amercan military power made sure to let other Koreans know that the US proudly supported their helpers. After the Japanese regime, Korean ended up serving the same traitors in power, in partnership withAmerican regime.....alas!

Then through a brief history of Korea since the war, each President succeded the throne by coup d'Etat, amassed enormous personal wealth and incarcerated for it. Then in 1980, Kwangju massacre occured under the tacit consent by the American government, and etc..... Only in the last 10 to 15 years or so has Korean people seen peaceful hand-over of the throne. Even then, extortion and embezzelment continued since those who were doing it were the same traitors, or their offsprings, from the Japanese-American regime (the Presidents might have been changed, but not the Congressmen). And the traitors' favorite slogan during the last 50 years or so was homogeneity: We are Koreans, we are one people who endured many invasions, we need to stick together, let's not make noise to split our attention from what we need the most...our survival.

And, guess what happened to so-called an independent or consciencious voice of Korea?

Acting out, or raising one's indepent voice is considered as rocking the boat. Spliters are never welcome. Hierarchy is the rule everyone must obey.
Many Koreans consider that Confucionism truly blossomed in Korea. In fact, Confucionism has been twisted over the last 400 years in Korea to become a handy tool to rule over Korea and Koreans, namely homogeneity or, as I see it, anti-heterogeneity out of fear and lies.

So...here is the question to pop. Is homogeniety really the cause of the silence among Asian American scholars? The Answer is YES, as whatever-the-scholar's-name-was pointed out. However, what YOU consider "homogeniety" may differ from the "homogeniety" Korean understands through the stories, upbringings, and school education they have experienced....

The better question that what's posed above would be How to break the chain of Homogeneity among Korean American scholars? Who's going to stand out first?

Korean Execs have Great Marketing Ideas!

Mr. Crackerman sez....

Since Mr. Ox is AWOL I will post silliness....

The Korean Supreme Court sucks sour yogurt:

The Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling convicting a dairy executive for an obscene event. The court upheld a lower court fine of 5 million won ($5,000) for the executive.

It also upheld fines of between 500,000 won ($500) and 2 million won ($2,000) on three models for staging a nude performance with the yogurt at a crowded Seoul art gallery in 2003, Yonhap said. The models, caked in wheat flour, used spray devices to squirt each other with yogurt, which washed off the flour to expose their bodies, Yonhap reported.

Killjoy Korean Supreme Court! I have no idea if this says anything at all about Korea worth saying. But I had to say it.

Entire silly thing here...

No Intellectuals Speak to Korean Issues

Mr. Crackerman Sez,

Ox,

Digging around on the intarwebs I came across a piece for your consideration. I like this piece for two reasons. First, it explains (or tries to) why there are few, if any, Korean intellectuals standing up and making noise (like, say, attacking Breen for his inherently anti-Korean prejudice). Second, it could be a useful point of view for you to look at your style of argument and discourse. That is to ask, how Korean you must be when you can't/won't wield the mighty sword of snark? ;-)

If this guy's arguments are accurate they help explain the weird perception I have that there is no Korean or Korean American solidy and significantly debating any matters of weight about Korea - it wouldn't be homogenous to do so. Anyway, here is a shortened version of the article and a link to the real deal:

The Dearth of Korean-American Public Intellectuals

Kichoon Yang
Dean, College of Natural Sciences
Professor of Mathematics
University of Northern Iowa

Korean-Americans are abundant in academe, yet the invisibility of Korean-American scholars as public intellectuals in media and politics is also a well-observed fact. This is a lamentable state of affairs - for both Korean-Americans and non-Korean-Americans - in that an unequal participation by any one ethnic group in public discourse skews the public policy making process, and can lead to social fragmentation. The question I would like to pose is,"Why the dearth of public intellectuals among Korean-Americans in this country?"

An utter lack of Korean-American intellectuals in the national media and politics is in contrast to the increasing and large (relative to their population size) number of Korean-American scientists and other professionals. Also, the dearth of Korean-American university administrators parallels that of Korean-American public intellectuals elsewhere.

One obvious explanation to the above question is that the qualities of a public intellectual are not consistent with the traditional oriental notions of a "virtuous" person: Taoist, Confucian, Buddhist, and Hindu nomenclature equate avoidance of conflict with virtue, and infuse the quality of aloofness in their descriptions of wisdom. This somewhat pedestrian explanation, in my view, is in part true, and it offers an easy-to-understand cultural explanation at the risk of stereo-typifying Korean and other Asian cultures. Homogeneity sometimes translates into a bifurcative public behavior, a sense of ambivalence, towards the role of confrontation in public discourse: many individuals tend to avoid open confrontations, and at the same time groups of individuals often would actively seek confrontations - student street demonstrations may be an example here. This dichotomy in the minds of many Koreans regarding the role of confrontation in public discourse is an interesting cultural phenomenon.

Skilled and experienced public intellectuals often use confrontation as a ploy to bring to public's attention an issue that might otherwise go unnoticed - there is no need to mention the plethora of social issues and their champions, where such use of confrontation is evident in the national media. One can legitimately argue that the social agenda in this country is often driven by a relatively small number of outspoken public figures, among which a fair number are intellectuals.

There are several possible explanations for the general lack of Korean-American public intellectuals: There is the usual cultural explanation mentioned earlier. Or perhaps, simply more time is needed. Also, it is interesting to contrast, or draw an analogy with, the situation African-Americans have faced, and still face to a large extent, in professional sports. It would be interesting to see to what extent the analogy - predominance of African-American professional athletes coupled with a lack of African-Americans at the managerial ranks and a relatively high and growing presence of Korean-American scholars and professionals coupled with a lack of Korean-American public figures - is valid. It is conceivable that (I have no data to support this) the level of "public" ambition and aspirations among Korean-American scholars and professionals is relatively low; if so, it would provide a benign explanation for the phenomenon, which is not to say that such state of affairs is desirable.

Yang gets a bit off there at the end.. his analogy to African-Americans is murky to me and his "perhaps Koreans have low public ambition" is not an explanation, rather it is a description (I mean, why would Koreans have lower public ambition? If it is true doesn't it come from somwhere?)

Anyway, grist for two mills.. one about the hole in the discourse, the other about Korean (and your) unwillingness to fill it.

Coming next? Those racist Koreans!

Mr. Ox Responds

Now that I have come back from Korea, which causes me to smoke less, since I am partly relieved from all the stress of having one too many parents in a perilously auspicious occassion, my phlegm seems to have subsided a bit for now. Hence, perhaps, my hands may be a bit freer from clutching ;) the tissues--one made of pulp and the other my former white cells.

I definitely am a Korean by birth, Korean-American by residence, and American by education (or institutionalization, in a twist between "The Wall" and "Shawshank Redemption"). Cough...cough...

I know Mr. Crackerman, or 철수 as I call him, brought much intentional humour into his experience in Korea, which may reveal more truth than summation of facts alone.

I intend to match his brilliance in seeing Korea and Koreans from an Alien perspective (or Korean perspective depending on the circumstance) and bring befitting commentaries onto this weblog. That, of course, may cause me more stress, which will make me smoke more and eventually drown me in excessive phlem......Oh well.

Intro Post

Mr. Crackerman sez...

Well, here we have the start of some..... thing......

I have plenty to say now, no doubt, but will certainly run out of steam. And Mr. Ox is as phlegmatic and retiring (though equally as broad-shouldered and swivel-hipped) as his namesake. So who know what comes from that quarter?

The notion here, I suppose, is to discuss Korea, Koreans, Korean-Americans and Americans through a primarily critical (in the literary, not attacking sense) lense. I would like this website to eventually grow to include complete forums and IMPORTANT DISCUSSION! ;-).

But I have the megalomania that comes from being an Anglo in the land of Empire.

For the moment I leave it at that as I have just put all this .... "stuff".... up and must send some info to Mr. Ox.