Transnational Korea, 1. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, 2014. xiii, 344 pp. (Illustrations.) US$25.00, paper. ISBN 978-1-55729-110-3.
This book provides an in-depth analysis of a key number of conceptual and policy dilemmas, contradictions, and issues regarding multiethnic and multicultural debates in and of Korea. The book clearly sets out in the editor’s introductory chapter the above goals and expectations of the work. The book is organised into three parts. Part one consists of chapters focusing on whether Korea is an emergent multiethnic or multicultural society. Part two considers the myriad of issues faced and raised by migrants “and others,” whilst part three takes a more transformative approach, with chapters debating whether a diversifying Korea is a fact or merely a hope, and why this question is important both for Korea and wider regional cultural and geopolitical contexts. There is a Coda by Jack Jin Gary Lee and John D. Skrentny that ostensibly reflects upon and compares Korean multicultural issues with a wider geographical and geo-economic context. All the chapters are aware of two key interconnected issues. Firstly, that the academic debate is itself a part of multicultural dynamics and interpretations. Secondly, that the definitions and types of institutional “application” of multiculturalism are a product of cultural interpretations, boundaries, and contestations over what culture and ethnicity is or should be.
John Lie’s introduction is a logical chronology of the meanings and policies of multiculturalism and multiethnicity in Korea. As Nora Hui-Jung Kim crucially points out, it is “not enough to ask, therefore, whether Korea is becoming a multicultural and multiethnic society,” the more important issue is ascertaining “what kind of multicultural and multiethnic society is envisioned and proposed” (67). This is the issue of who has the legitimacy and political capital to do the envisioning, and as to how and why. Most chapters point to the 2006 “Grand Plan” as being a turning point in the debates and policies on multicultural Korea. The Grand Plan asked Koreans to overcome the “obsession with purity” (69), but whilst the obsession might certainly be dissipating, this does not necessarily mean that deep beliefs in ethnic homogeneity are also waning and, in fact, may even be reinforced by current multicultural policies.
In his chapter, Timothy Lim discusses in a concise and conceptual context the issues and tensions of (and relations between) diversity recognition, tolerance, assimilation, segregation, integration, and the setting of boundaries. One intriguing example Lim gives, which in my view sums up a lot of the difficulties with present multicultural policy, is of immigrant/foreign lecturers being called upon to teach “diversity.” Problematically, the government assumes, and demonstrating an extraordinary lack of imagination, that foreigners just by virtue of being foreign, know (or care) about multiculturalism and diversity. Nancy Abelmann et al. focus on the issue of education. Though I did wonder on occasions whether the authors were being fair in their judgements of particular individuals observed in their research, their methodology is sound, with results showing that educating the educators is fraught with tensions regarding resources, a constant emphasis by officials on “urgency” and of “being seen to be doing something.” Emphasis is placed on government terminologies and maybe a distinction could also be made between responses to the government sanctioned term damunhwa (multicultural family) which, for certain families, is viewed as derogatory, but for others is a form of identity allowing for state assistance. EuyRyung Jun’s chapter addressed the issue of tolerance, regarding which, it is argued, the “Korean discourse of tolerance is a narcissistic one” (83) to further the Korean sense of development and modernity. The chapter also importantly cites Wendy Brown’s work that tolerance de-politicises the reasons for cultural inequalities and problematically creates fake “level playing fields” of cultural diversity/relativism.
In part two, Hae Yeon Choo, Jin-Heon Jung, Eleana Kim, and Keiko Yamanaka address the migrant question, describing and evaluating current policies. What becomes very apparent in all the chapters is how diaspora identity itself is constantly being constructed by the diasporas themselves and as a response to government policies. This also brings in the issue of diaspora leadership and perhaps more could have been said regarding the power struggles within the diasporas and foreign communities. Eleana Kim’s chapter insightfully discusses multiculturalism and multiethnic Korea in the context of the experiences of overseas adoptees (174). The chapter also observes that a lot of policies and responses can be traced to underlying issues of the construction of a specific South Korean identity.
In part three, Sue-Je L. Gage discusses the issue of “Amerasians.” The chapter diagrammatically represents beliefs in Korean society that Amerasians are “missing a bit” of Korean-ness (261). On page 267 an interesting observation is made that English language is often used by Amerasians publicly when in the company of Koreans and seems to represent a “power” or resistance issue to real and perceived discrimination against Amerasians. Charles Taylor’s approach to the recognition question is rightly addressed, but perhaps a more critical assessment of Taylor might have been engaged with, and more said here about the issue of identifying who it is doing the recognising (and why). Indeed, might it not be the case that individuals or groups could conceivably refuse the “gaze” of state-led multicultural recognition as a power issue. The chapters by Minjeong Kim and Nadia Kim explicitly address the experiences of often-marginalised groups and the support networks available. The chapters take on a number of problematic assumptions that “foreigners” are, paradoxically, regarded as a “homogenous” group in themselves. Nadia Kim makes a crucial point that Korean multiculturalism often abstracts “Africa” and does not distinguish between Christian and Muslim Africans. The book rightly revels in the contradictions and inconsistencies in a lot of the current beliefs in, and policies of, multiculturalism. It is with this kind of well-researched and critical literature that barriers to a genuine multiethnicity and multiculturalism in Korea might be lifted.
Iain Watson
Ajou University, Suwon, South Korea
pp. 374-376