Media, Culture and Social Change in Asia Series. London, UK: Routledge [an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an informal business], 2018. 169 pp. (Tables.) US$170.00, cloth. ISBN 978-1-138-83135-3.
The author opens with a bold statement that “this is the first English language book on Korean cultural policy” (1). Such a statement raises a number of expectations for the reader, which are indeed met. Author Hye-Kyung Lee is very much in control of this literature and subject area. The subtitle, “Making a New Patron State” is provocative and opens up key issues of how to define the private and public spheres of culture as policy and process. Lee perhaps controversially states that, “Until the new millennium, Korean cultural policy had been unknown to the international community of cultural policy research” (1). Consequently, a myriad of paradoxes are identified with specific regard to Korean cultural policy, such as state cultural policy and neoliberal economic reform. However, the explanation of why the choices that have allowed these paradoxes to emerge and become accepted could be further investigated. On the issue of neoliberalism, David Harvey’s work is used but more could have been said about distinguishing between classic market liberalism and neoliberal forms of governance as in Michel Foucault’s work.
On the issue of the state, Lee rightly focuses on key writers such as Skocpol, Strange, and Jessop in the context of the competition or “hollowed out” regulation state. She also notes that the new patron state defies the myth of the “retreat of the state” and opens up the need to think beyond the “binary view of state versus market” (4). While I would wholeheartedly agree, more elaboration is needed on how this is likely or possible, and how any relevant conditions for this rethinking might be recognized and enacted. The author mentions an often overlooked issue (23) regarding the role of national museums in national identity construction. As an intrigued reader, I would have been interested to hear more about the context of inter-Korean legitimation identity contests with North Korea. This in my view is a key issue regarding the trajectories of domestic cultural policy in South Korea. While the issue of being anti-North Korea is acknowledged, the literature on practices of identity construction is only tacitly hinted at (60). Interestingly the author mentions Gyeongju as a site of cultural heritage status (51), and having visited this city numerous times, the production, representation, and organization of space and “southern” culture is clearly being portrayed as the authentic Korean culture. What might have been further explored are the inter-Korean contests over authentic Korean identity.
Organizationally the book starts with a broad overview and a setting of the agenda. The literature cited is relevant and used wisely. The emergence of South Korean cultural policy is the topic of chapter 2 with much emphasis on the role of Japan and the US, directly or indirectly, in this construction and direction. Yet alternative possibilities and reasons why these directions were not taken are only hinted at in this descriptive approach. From then on the chapters give a strictly chronological, yet wholly justifiable, account of South Korean history and cultural policies. This means that in chapter 3 the authoritarian period is discussed, followed by the democratic period in chapter 4, cultural policy in the neoliberal era in chapter 5, and chapter 6 almost inevitably addresses the “Korean Wave,” ending with chapter 7 as the conclusion. There is an intriguing use of inverted commas as cultural policy that could have been further developed (17).
Common Korean issues are, as expected, mentioned in the text, such as the role of the entrenched chaebol. From a political economy perspective more links might have been developed as to whether the patron state is to be regarded as a version of a neo-developmentalist, or (neo)liberal state or a (neo) “dirigiste” state or a (neo/post) “Listian” state. The author makes another crucial point regarding the cultural meanings of and attributed to South Korean democracy (65). This issue is rightly noted in the context of state cultural control (72). Perhaps more might have been said on the role of resistance, co-optation, and debate on the site and meaning of cultural autonomy, such as in the work of Habermas and Foucault, the latter who is mentioned but who could have been further utilized in the context of neoliberalism and bio politics. I was also struck by the lack of citation or reference to the writings of Antonio Gramsci; as such, the reader begins to wonder how the author is defining democracy “culture,” “cultural,” and “cultural policy” as products of a specific approach to culture if not necessarily cultural policy.
Lee convincingly argues that cultural policy “is a product of the past and has been shaped by the factors that have determined the trajectory of Korean society” (1). She notes that previous studies have been “skewed towards technical and administrative” approaches and that an understanding of the “institutionalized relationship between state and culture” has been “seldom attempted.” The concern here, justifiably, seems to be that economics and public policy have regarded the “developmental state” as a strategic instrument that “neutralizes” the “ideological, political, and social baggage from the concept of developmental state.” The author goes on to note that “this might be possible” for economic and public policy advocates but not for cultural policy commentators “who are conscious of how much culture was supressed by and utilized for the authoritarian regime” (4). Given the acceleration of interest in Korean culture and politics, and amidst the swathe of new courses in Korean Studies as a part of Korean soft power, this book gives a profound sense of the issues at stake for novices and veterans of Korean history and general cultural studies alike.
Iain Watson
Ajou University, Suwon, South Korea