Jong-Won Lee
/Catholic University Won-Hee Lee Hankyeong National University/
Шинэ толь №63, 2008
In this buzz world, we see the unprecedented mobility of people irrespective of their colors, ethnics, languages across the countries to find jobs, to get some specific information, and for just travel purposes. The strong notion of national state is disappearing in people’s mind and so ‘cultural identity’ became the very important concept to understand people’s minds and behaviors in a globalization era. As such, issues of a multi-cultural society became very important tasks to be resolved by many governments. So we want to just clarify the meaning of cultural identity and citizenship, first.
The concept, if not the 19th century methodology, of monoculturalism has been gaining favor in recent years. This is generally fueled by a desire to safeguard national cultures or identities that are perceived as being under threat – particularly by globalization and the promulgation of multiculturalism by progressive political parties (Wikipedia).
Multiculturalism generally refers to ideology and policy in western nation-states, which previously had a de facto national identity. Many nation-states in Africa, Asia, and the Americas are culturally diverse, and are ‘multi-cultural’ in a descriptive sense.
In the United States especially, multiculturalism became associated with so-called “political correctness” and with the rise of ethnic identity politics. In the 1980s and 1990s many criticisms were expressed, from both the left and right. Criticisms come from a wide variety of perspectives, but predominantly from the perspective of liberal individualism, from American conservatives concerned about values, and from a national unity perspective.
A prominent criticism in the US, later echoed in Europe, Canada and Australia, was that multiculturalism undermined national unity, hindered social integration and cultural assimilation, and led to the fragmentation of society into several ethnic factions – Balanization.
- M. Schlesinger, Jr. (1991 and 1998) stated that a new attitude — one that celebrates difference and abandons assimilation — may replace the classic image of the melting pot, in which differences are submerged in democracy. According to him, multiculturalists are “very often ethnocentric separatists who see little in the Western heritage other than Western crimes.”
- Political scientist, Samuel.P. Huntington (1996) has described multiculturalism as “basically an anti-Western ideology.”According to Huntington, multiculturalism has “attacked the identification of the United States with Western civilization, denied the existence of a common American culture, and promoted racial, ethnic, and other subnational cultural identities and groupings.”
- Criticism of multiculturalism in the US was not always synonymous with opposition to immigration. Some politicians (notably former presidential candidate and journalist, Pat Buchanan) argued that multiculturalism is the ideology of the modern managerial state, an ongoing regime that remains in power, regardless of what political party holds a majority. It acts in the name of abstract goals, such as equality or positive rights, and uses its claim of moral superiority, power of taxation and wealth redistribution to keep itself in power. Another critic of multiculturalism is the political theorist Brian Barry. Barry (2002) argued that some forms of multiculturalism can divide people, although they need to unite in order to fight for social justice. Though, the idea of cultural identity needs to be discussed in various aspects.
- ‘Culture’ refers to the customs, practices, languages, values and world views that define social groups such as those based on ethnicity, region, or common interests. And people understand ‘cultural heritage’ is widely recognized across Europe as a vehicle of ‘cultural identity’.
- Cultural identity isimportant for people’s sense of self and how they relate to others. A strong cultural identity ultimately can contribute to people’s overall wellbeing (NZ Cultural Identity Social Report 2007).
In New Zealand, cultural identity based on ethnicity is not necessarily exclusive. People may identify themselves as New Zealanders in some circumstances and as part of a particular culture (e g. Maori, Chinese or Scottish) in other circumstances. They may also identify with more than one culture. New Zealanders, nonetheless, share a strong national identity, have a sense of belonging and value cultural diversity.
In New Zealand, cultural identity based on ethnicity is not necessarily exclusive. People may identify themselves as New Zealanders in some circumstances and as part of a particular culture (e g. Maori, Chinese or Scottish) in other circumstances. They may also identify with more than one culture. New Zealanders, nonetheless, share a strong national identity, have a sense of belonging and value cultural diversity.
- Also inn post-modern southern China, Laos, and Thailand, there are still minorities of language and culture. Take an example, So- called the “Hmong” people (Miao in Chinese) are composed of three major peoples, ethnic groups or cultures, who the Chinese put under this word ‘Miao’: the Hmong, the Hmu people in Southeast Guizhou province, and the Kho (or Qho) Xiong people of West Hunan province. In China, ‘Miao’ is an official government category or minority identity. Many features of Hmong identity stem from their cultural symbols, their perceptions of themselves in relation to other groups, and their status allocations into superior or inferior social positions. Rooted deeply in their culture and symbol, there comes a collective Hmong identity and consciousness (Lee, 1996).
Cultural identity is an important contributor to people’s wellbeing. Identifying with a particular culture gives people feelings of belonging and security. It also provides people with access to social networks which provide support and shared values and aspirations. These can help break down barriers and build a sense of trust between people – a phenomenon sometimes referred to as ‘social capital’ – although excessively strong cultural identity can also contribute to barriers between groups. An established cultural identity has also been linked with positive outcomes in other areas such as health and education.
Conversely, members of minority cultures can feel excluded from society if the majority of those in authority obstruct or are intolerant of their cultural practices, as happened to the Maori language and culture through much of New Zealand ‘s history.
- Culture can also play a part in promoting social wellbeing in other ways. A strong national culture or identity, and strength in artistic endeavors, can be a source of economic strength and higher material standards of living. Though culture is much broader than artistic endeavors, the arts often explore cultural identity and can contribute to it.
- Thus, the usage of cultural identity is not exclusive and it’s very diverse. People may identify themselves as South Koreans (for example) in some circumstances and as part of a particular culture – regional sense, national sense, continental sense, linguistic sense, ethnic sense, cybernetic sense, etc. – in other circumstances. They may also identify with more than one culture.
- There are 24 million Americans of Hispanic origin whose race is not the same. As a matter of fact, Hispanic is an ethnic, a cultural category, not a race one.
- So, defining a national identity as a kind of cultural identity is not a simple matter. Traditionally Korea was an ethnically very homogenous nation. But as globalization goes further and commercial exchange gets expanded, many Korean men marry southeastern Asia-born women and cocasians. As a result, we see many Kosians, Korean Chinese, Komericans as well as the original Koreans in South Korea. They share some cultural traditions but they think and act differently because of cultural differences derived from their citizenships. So the reality of cultural identity is much more complex than we can imagine.
Differences in color and behavior are potential obstacles to build a strong cultural identity, but to overcome it, we may need a rather very complicated mindset of blood-mixing or highly planned intentional mingling up culturally.
Cultural Citizenship and European Identity
‘Cultural citizenship’ and ‘European identity’ are considered two contemporary and circulating discourses on the relationship between cultural identity and citizenship (FШIesdal, 2007).
‘Cultural citizenship’ is the oxymoron that some American anthropologists use to describe chicano’s claims and ideas on citizenship, in certain towns of certain states of the United States (Rosaldo 1994; Juan M Delgado-Moreira, 1997).
‘European identity’ is what some call a ‘Project’, or more precisely, a desire of the administration of the European Union, as expressed in texts of European law, court cases and other official sources of news and reports. Hence, the concepts of cultural citizenship and European identity differ in nature, content, context, original data gathering procedure and means to access secondary data (Kohli, 2000). The possibility of a comparison and the dimensions that will be used demand more explanation (Robyn, 2005).
Political and social sciences need a type of analysis in which they are allowed to deal with identity and citizenship as if they were groundless inventions, discourses and practices in continuous remaking.
‘Social constructionism’ is an approach that emphasizes the creative as well as the reproductive activity of individuals and collectives. Both cultural citizenship and European identity, though from different angles, advocate for ideas which are not being upheld by the majority. The two of them stress the process of spreading certain values and constructing more suitable institutions. In doing so, both intend to define their communities and, what is more, reposition not only the meaning of being European or American, but also what identity or culture are in themselves.
Some scholars questions on whether citizenship is still meaningful, how it will relate to post-national states, how it could overcome the limitations of the state and embrace the body of human rights in the context of globalization, transnational movements, localism.
It is true that the Latino understanding of cultural citizenship is not the only cultural citizenship available, for it takes part in the larger wave of identity politics, politics of citizenship or group politics, even though identity politics is considered as illiberal or sometimes irrational (Fish, 2008).
Yet it is the opposite in Europe. Europeans expect cultural citizenship in the context of a nation of immigrants, the creature of European political economy, which had a remarkable civil rights decade, and enjoys the status of international superpower. How much people know about their cultural heritage depends both on what is done to promote it and also on the capacity of Europeans to become familiar with and appreciate their own culture and those of the other EU Member States.
In contrast, the American conception in the international arena casts the image of a solid political nationalism. From the outside there is but unity and American nationalism. From the inside the discussion is about multiculturalism which bases itself on nationalism pointing at a foreign affair.
In this regard, the mere presence of cultural citizenship is a discovery in itself that calls for further research.
Asian Values and (Imagined) Cultural Community
Debates on Asian values are rapidly on the rise. Asian values have been extolled for their contribution to the “miracle” of Asian economic development and censured for their role in Asia’s financial meltdown. But whether praised or blamed, Asian values are assumed to be pervasively shared among the dozen countries and 2.7 billion people in the Asian region (including India) and to be distinct from Western values.
A Summary list of ‘Asian Values’ wouldjnclude:
- predisposition towards strong and stable leadership rather than political pluralism;
- respect for social harmony and an inclination towards consensus as opposed to a
- tendency towards dissents or confrontations;
- acceptance of broad and penetrating state and bureaucratic
- intervention in social
- and economic affairs;
- concern with socio-economic well-being instead of civil liberties and human rights;
- preferences for the welfare and collective well-being of the
- community over
- individual rights (Wikipedia).
Despite the crisis of the East Asian economy in the late 1990s, some scholars insist on underlining the positive aspects of Asian values which, they believe, are responsible for the region’s decades-long economic performance as well as even for the recent democratic transition (Fukuyama, 1998).
The idea that Asian cultural values are more hospitable to paternalistic authoritarianism of the sort practiced in Singapore, Malaysia, or Indonesia than to Western-style democracy has been put forward by politicians like former Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore and Mahathir bin Muhammed of Malaysia.
In this they have been supported by a number of Western academic observers. Samuel Huntington has argued that there is a broad zone of “Confucian” civilization that is hostile to democracy: Almost no scholarly disagreement exists on the proposition that traditional Confucianism was either undemocratic or anti-democratic… Harmony and cooperation were preferred over disagreement and competition. The maintenance of order and respect for hierarchy were central values(Huntington, 1991). Apart from Confucianism, Asia’s religions do not give particular support to Western democratic principles (Fukuyama, 1998).
As a matter of fact, the question of whether the Confucian ethic has contributed to the rise of industrial East Asia has attracted considerable public attention and generated a great deal of scholarly inquiry since the 1960s. The efforts to ‘bring Asian values back in’ have now produced the concept of ‘Confucian capitalism. ’According to it, the Confucian emphasis on a strong state and political authority, education and self- cultivation, frugality and thrift, hard work and labor discipline, social harmony and group-orientation, social civility and the role of intellectuals has been quite conducive to the capitalist development in East Asia.
For example, a Korean scholar, Hye-ln Cho (1998:95) contends that even though capitalism originated in Western Europe, its eventual growth in East Asia implies certain cultural similarities between Christianity and Confucianism.
Likewise, Professor, Suk-Choon LewofYonsei University(1997:75) even succinctly argues, “Without the Confucian legacy, East Asia’s economic success was impossible.”
Certainly, this view is a repetition and continuation of the culturalist argument in the Weberian tradition, but, in consequence, it arrives at an almost complete repudiation of Max Weber who denied the possibility of a self-made Asian capitalism (Jun, 1999).
– The so-called ‘post-Confucian challenge’ (MacFarquhar, 1980) is, to be sure, a drastic reversal of the conventional understanding of Confucianism which characterizes Asian values as playing a negative role in the process of modernization. For example, Paul Krugman argued, “the most basic explanation for Asian economic development lies in conventional factors like inputs of capital and labor, combined with political stability and reasonably good government” (Krugman, 1994). The Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen criticized human right issues covered by Asian values discussion (Sen, 1997). This is the backdrop against which an increasing number of scholars have become concerned with Confucianism in East Asia.
O.K. Let’s face that there are a lot of confusion and discord on the Asian values issues. Then, how can we link it with the our topic of Asian cultural identity? As we all agree, Asia is a diverse world with many ethnics, languages, and countries. Some of them are very populous and potentially powerful nations such as China, Japan, and India. Vietnam and Korea and Taiwan, Malaysia and Indonesia are also notable countries in some senses. Could we reach to a homogeneous Asian cultural identity?
If a diversity in Asia is a fact, it is an obstacle to an Asian cultural identity itself.
And recent evidences are also quite different. The so-called Asian values cherished by Asia’s heterogeneous peoples, nations, and cultures are very diverse, and much, indeed most, of what is valued highly in Asia has gotten markedly similar to what was highly valued in the West. That is, individualistic values and attitudes are not unusual.
For instance, the alleged common Confucian tradition in East Asian countries has not only considerably weakened in general but also it has been significantly transformed due to the acculturation process following Western invasion. It is well known that Japan’s modernization was achieved through the nationwide campaign for de-Confucianization and pro-Westernization. In contemporary Korea, the Christian population outnumbers the Confucian population, according to official statistics.
Of course, the most typical East Asian nations are China, Japan, and Korea. Their traditional societies were, however, rather a universe unto themselves, lacking in political alignments or large- scale flows of trade over a long period of time.
This region’s separate countries were, in fact, insulated from one another before the 19th century. Historically speaking, therefore, traditional East Asia was hardly comparable to feudalistic Europe in terms of cross-national cultural universality as well as of conditions conducive to the construction of the kind of significant trading network. The concept of East Asia itself was of external origin via the Western impact. The three countries’ seeming similarity based upon Confucianism is somewhat deceptive when such variables as ethnicity, language, and custom are accurately taken into account.
Even today, each country is too big and too unique in its own way to be united with one another conceptually. Furthermore, East Asia is the only region in the world where the nations are divided into capitalist and socialist countries. Therefore, it is hard to expect them to form a European-style regional community in near future. In this sense, the concept of East Asia in conventional literature seems to be a ‘wishful’ construction of an imagined community. Considering its flexible boundaries, cultural diversity, and structural heterogeneity, the concept of East Asia exists not in reality but only in the intentional efforts to invent it as an ‘inverse image’ of the West.
Taking all these into account, in short, it is really difficult to agree on the homogeneous Asian cultural identity as well as on the scope and characteristics of East Asia as a proper unit of analysis.
Cultural identity in Korean Context
We looked at diverse aspects of cultural identity, citizenship, and asian cultural identity. Now let’s turn to the Korean context. Korean-chinese, North Korean refugees, and Asian wives, and Kosians
To this date, most Koreans tend to equate nationality or citizenship with membership in a single, homogeneous ethnic group sharing the same “blood” and history. A common language and culture are also viewed as important elements in Korean identity.
Those who do not share such features are often rejected by the Korean society or face discrimination. Moreover, the Korean office of Amnesty International has claimed that the word “Kosian” represents racial discrimination. A report says, there are approximately 30,000 Kosians in South Korea. Kosian children, like those of other mixed-race backgrounds in Korea, often face discrimination.
A lot of policy issues are open to us.
- which includes philosophical and ethical, psychological, social, political, economical, and legal issues, will not touch upon these issues here.
Need for a strong sense of a ‘integrative social and communal identity’ than a national identity.
