A reflection on the concept of Minjok and the 21st century

It is known that Korean society holds a distinct sense of nationalism related to ethnicity. A concept reserved for Korean nationalism, ‘Minjok’, implies that one must be born of a ‘true Korean blood’ to be accepted as a member of the Korean society. Because of its narrowness in the definition of Koreans, Korea has been derided by the international society of its exclusiveness towards other culture and countries. Through this essay, I will try to seek an explanation for the development of this eccentricity, and eventually suggest my view of Minjok and the 21^st century, my hope for the better future.

 

The term ‘Minjok’ derives its origin in the early 20^th century when Japanese occupation took place. Japanese, when translating the concept of ‘nation’, chose to accept the Germanic view of the word, which was closer to ‘ethnic group’ in English. Japanese translation of ‘nation’ and the term ‘minjok’ was directly applied to Korea as Japanese occupation of Korea commenced.

Japan had originally adopted nationalism as means of resistance against Western Powers, which tried to exert their influence on Eastern countries using their military force. Ironically, Japanese nationalism grew into an impetus for imperialism and worked as a justification for its invasion of nearby countries. In Korea, nationalism was introduced by Japan’s attempts to arouse a Japanese nationalism throughout its colonies, but instead developed into a Korean nationalism against Japanese occupation. One of the leading figures of this movement was Shin Chae Ho, the father of a Minjok-ist view of history. He cut out the ‘Giza-Chosun’ period in Go-chosun era and instead proclaimed ‘Dangun-Chosun’ as the start of Korean history, denying that the origin of Korea is from the descendent of Shang Dynasty in China. As Japanese persecution of Korea prolonged, the idea of Minjok flourished among Koreans, holding them tightly together. Meanwhile, the usage of Minjok as an ethnic term caused Korea to use the term as something beyond simple formation of a nation-state, but formation of an ethnic nation-state.

Minjok continued to be a fuel of Korean identity even after WW2 ended. Dictator Park Jung Hee reinforced the unity of Korean nation for the sake of rapid industrialization. Some of the policies he enacted were the creation of a Korean hero, most of whom were military figures who protected Korea against foreign invasions, and investment to Korean traditional art represented by the construction of a Minjok cultural art center. Collectivist remnant of the totalitarian government plus the revival of the past as a policy fused to intensify the sense of Minjok in Korean people. Even people opposing to Park Jung Hee exhibited strong nationalism, often offensive towards foreign influences and nonetheless anti-individualist.

Park Jung Hee actually had double citizenship; one to Japan, another to Korea. It's surprising that he managed to exhibit extreme nationalism to both countries.

The Seghehwa movement did not dilute this either. Rather, an ‘instrumental view’ of globalization became prominent, trying to seek ‘our nation’s profit’ through protective trading and diplomacy. President Kim Dae Jung emphasized globalization as a key for Korea to survive in a competitive world economy. According to a research in ‘The Paradox of Korean Globalization’, it even seems that the level of positive view towards globalization is relevant to ethnic nationalism. This paradigm continues until today. Koreans keep protectionist stance about foreign influence and the view requiring ethnic purity as a condition of Korean continues.

Looking at the history of Minjok, there are several factors that drove nationalism to the current situation. They are: first, the adoption of the term Minjok as an ethnic group, second, Japanese occupation and the advent of resistant nationalism, and third, rapid industrialization and totalitarian society.

Park No Ja, referred to as the 'Korean of Blue Eyes', is reliable for his objective criticism of the contradictive Korean society.  

 

It is true that Minjok has served its function in preserving Korean identity throughout the dark tunnels of persecution and unifying the nation in situation of poverty. However, it is a question whether Minjok is legit in this era. The trend of nowadays society is postnationalism, a movement transcending traditional views about nation and embracing the world as one homogenous group. So to say, ‘Minjok’ is likely to be abandoned as an anachronistic concept. Plus, serious discrimination is committed as people are skeptical about the influx of foreigners into Korea. Park No Ja, a Russian who naturalized to Korea, gives a most frank account of the exclusive Korean society in his book ‘What You Call Korea’. According to him, apartheid in Korea is even applied to Korean immigrants living in China, Chosun Jok, on the basis that they’re also not ethnically pure.

 

To elevate Korea to a post-modern country, the definition of Minjok as people sharing the same blood must be replaced by people sharing the same citizenship. Ethnicity or ‘true blood’ is an ambivalent concept in a globalized society, and Korea is no exception to this. Furthermore, nationalistic tendency of Korean history textbook should be modified. Professor Lim Ji Hyeon in Hanyang University suggests that ancient history be treated outside the nationalist frame, without the mention of ‘the great Han nation’ or any implication of nationalist tendency. Especially on the issue of Korguryo, a history in dispute with China, an approach of ‘border history’ would be more appropriate.

This is what Koreans call 'Hwanppah', people who believe in the forged book <Hwan Dan Go Gi>. <Hwan Dan Go Gi> claims that, well, it's exactly what you see above.  

Finally, irrational hostility towards other countries, especially Japan, should be rejected. It is true that Japanese government’s reflection of WW2 is surprisingly positive, and that most Japanese people are ignorant of the Japanese occupation of Korea. However, it must not lead to xenophobic behaviors against the basic principle of human rights; constant attempt should be made to achieve civil communication with Japan.

 

A ceremony referred to as the 'worst racial discriminating act in all Korea-Japan games', monkey ceremony.

My Melodramatic Friends

It's always refreshing to meet ideologists and melodramatics. They make me feel like I'm a bit more innocent and moral, that I do have my name on the long list of true humanists.
So, here is Stars, an indie rock band from Canada. The first taste of their music I had was Calender Girl, a song about a girl who thought of committing suicide then regained hope from everyday life. The melody was good, but too soft, too sweet without a touch of eccentricity in it. But since there was nothing else for me to listen, I decided to fill up my playlist with this new artist. There were three albums that they released when I found them: Nightsongs, Heart, and Set Yourself on Fire. All of them were surprisingly unknown. Filled up with great expectations, I delved into all of their songs. Within a month, Nightsongs was the best album of the year, a melodramatic, tragic, but piercing piece of work. So I introduce some of their songs here.

 

 

a 1990ish album cover; quite corresponding considering this was released in 2001

 

1. International Rock Star

The narrative of a woman and a man, inserted throughout the music is what amplifies the emotion. It's actually from a 1965 movie 'Collector' that they extracted the voice from. I never watched the movie, heard it was about an insect collector kidnapping and eventually murdering his student. The song is a replica of the movie: the woman hesitates from escaping from the collector in a vain hope that he is in love with her, while the collector thinks love is 'keeping her down'.

 

2. My Radio

http://youtu.be/1kACBhm8Mak

This song is just about listening to the radio. Seems nothing special, but hearing the hissing voices coming from the radio in the obscure hours of dawn, says Stars, is a remarkable experience. 'We kissed to that voice each night, bathed in pale reactor lights', 'All day long I fantasize in the dark behind other people's lies' are my favorite part of the lyrics. The melody is intimate, like you are in the small corridor holding a dull blue radio, putting it close to your ear as possible and breathing together with all the songs.

 

3. Write What You Know

 

It's the only song that's spiting others. The melodies are dripping cold, and the lyrics fiercely attack the streotypical Hollywood movies, with sexually attractive female and expectable storyline.

 

As you can see from these songs, Nightsongs is definitely a sad-core, melodramatic chronicle. I recommend you listen to these songs after 1 A.M., when your senses are heightened and your empathy with the singer unbearable.

Mr.Card...

I'm a fan of the SF genre. It's not that I'm particularly enthusiastic about spaceships and frontiers; the dynamic plot, great character development and portrayal of the human race that I get from the classic SF novels are something I value the most. Among a handful of SF writers it'd be Isaac Asimov, Frank Herbert, Arthur Clarke who are legends, but my favorite is Orson Scott Card, the author of the 'Ender's Game', a classic military SF novel. The books he write is insightful, poising a bundle of questions dealing with deep human nature, but at the same time he is faithful to the agenda of every book: that it must be fun.

But there's a problem with becoming a fan of this wonderful, intelligent Mr. Card. He holds strong allegiance to the Mormon religion, being a great-great-grandson of Brigham Young, an American leader of the Latter Day Saint movement. Having a religion in itself, of course, is nothing to be ashamed of, since every person holds the right to believe in what they want. It is the religious doctrine entailed to Mormonism, rather austere in its prohibition of homosexuality, that is harshly criticized. Mr. Card has been one of the leading figures to state his homophobic tendency and antagonism against gay marriage. The result of this was a direct bombarding on the sale of his books, expectable considering that the majority of SF fans are left. Many of his former fans claimed that they will never read his book again no matter how interesting it may be. Card was, of course, strikingly indifferent about this reaction. He stood firm and embraced the criticisms with sheer sarcasm.
I start to hesitate at this point. Shouldn't I hate all of Card's work if I'm truly against his stance?But does his being a homophobia actually 'contaminate' his books? Did he reflect his homophobia into the book? All kinds of thoughts cross my mind, some of them civil, some of them outright and frank like 'Shit I wouldn't really care if he's against gay or not. Fun is all that matters anyways.' It's harder when they start to apply dichotomy to the issue. 'Are you even sane for advocating a homophobia's work?' The Internet community would shout out. It's like for that quarter of a second, I' m a minority. So the question of 'Does an author and his book share a common tree of morality?' starts.
Seeing some examples in my own country, it seems only just that the work of a moral failure be embedded a scarlet letter. Seo Jung Joo, a renowned poet for his pro-Japanese stance, is never openly acclaimed by the critics even now. Actress Lee Ji-A's dramas are tacitly banned to mention among many internet communities after her identity as a granddaughter of a major pro-Japanese figure was revealed. I understand those cases and deeply empathize with the public emotion against them even without the direct relationship between an author and the book.
But in the case of Card, it's a bit more tricky. He never expresses any of his homophobia throughout his books, and it's considered by a problem of faith still by some people.

Becoming a major motion picture(yay!) while being sabotaged by its original fans, huh.

So I hesitate.