| Courtesy of Jar |
By David A. Tizzard
Many of us working in the media and engaging in social media are culpable. As a society, we have become too quick to retweet and express outrage at every element of the culture war and political mudslinging that conforms to our existing biases. The success of these stories (measured by user interaction and subsequent advertisement revenue) then tells media companies that deep dives into social issues and think pieces are nowhere near as cash-generating as something with a headline that causes half the population to lose their collective shit while the others boast proudly.
This is happening across various mediums and suggests that, contra McLuhan, perhaps the message is sometimes actually the message. Television broadcast companies have understood that in this capitalist era, a light entertainment program of celebrities eating noodles, showing you their house, and playing pointless games with each other is going to be far more commercially successful than something informative, long-form, and peppered with academics, analysis, and expert insight. If a high-teen romantic drama like "Snowdrop" can produce such visceral outbursts and threats of cancellation for the way some people interpreted its vision of history, imagine what would happen if television channels started exploring the actual history of the country.
Chang Kyung-sup is a professor of sociology at Seoul National University. I have read a lot of his work and find his analysis of Korean social, cultural and political developments thought-provoking and effective at communicating certain ideas to students. His concept of "compressed modernity" is one I have often used in these columns. In a recent interview with the Kyunghyang Shinmun, Professor Chang gave it his usual two-barreled approach.
He suggested that political parties, particularly the Conservatives, have used the issue of gender to divide people much like the "Yonghonam" regional conflict did from the 70s onwards. While obviously being ground in certain realities, issues borne out by the data and covered in depth here before, these are social cleavages exacerbated by politicians for their own gain and at the expense of citizens. Regardless of one's gender, the current day-to-day economic situation, the job market, and the possibility of housing are all dire. If the youth were able to create a united front, think what they could achieve considering the paucity of charisma in high-end politics at the moment. Another imagine moment, I know. But, then again, that is the very point of atomizing and dividing people rather than actually bringing them together. It entrenches the current political power structures.
This does not suggest that Chang downplays the hardships faced by women in Korean society and the workforce, however. He details at length the problems they deal with, drawing attention to what he describes as a "delayed liberal modernization" ― a suggestion that the value of individualism and being recognized as a social subjective actor has been long denied to Korean women. He also talks of the "lee-dae-nam" phenomenon: males born between 1994 and 2003 who have turned away from the ruling democratic party for a multitude of reasons. With what is effectively a two-party political system, large numbers of this group then voted for the conservative opposition and brought in two new mayors in Seoul and Busan and left the ruling party reeling. For many, this was more an anti-vote rather than a heel turn towards conservatism. International media has been quick to label these young men "incels" and other more derogatory terms commonly associated with American politics, but while that might explain some of the situation, the reality here is clearly more complex than that and doesn't fit easily inside ideological boxes despite the attempts of many.
Chang doesn't limit his criticisms to the opposition either. He suggests that while President Moon continually points to various macroeconomic indicators to demonstrate his success in government, predominantly those associated with the country's chaebol and hallyu cultural achievements, the lives of the self-employed and ordinary citizens have become harder and harder amidst this increasing polarization. More than any other, Chang says, democratization has benefited the chaebols because the recognition of private property has allowed them to monopolize resources.
The result today is that private success is valued over public efforts and good. Chang closes with the observation that the people of Korea no longer greet each other by asking whether they have eaten, as they did in times when food was more scarce, but instead whether their sons are good at studying. This is done because it is the one hope (beyond a lottery win) that might help guarantee the family's future. And when you are so focused on the academic success of your own children, what happens to one's sense of duty to others and broader morality can often be relegated to a secondary concern as we have seen in the high profile cases of the country's top politicians and their family members.
Chang has a far better sense of Korean social and political change than me so I encourage you to read his work directly. But I do share his assessment about the desperate nature of citizens' plight and how cleavages are exacerbated by a political elite to solidify their position at the top of the social and financial hierarchy. Criticism of one aspect of politics should not be seen as support for the other party, whoever they might be. And, more importantly, for all the energy the internet spends fighting over certain issues promoted by social media companies and what were once public broadcasters, real tangible change becomes further removed from our grasp.
One last existential thought to leave you with. Think of the sad conditions that the elderly today face in their retirement and twilight years. Then consider that many of these you see today were homeowners with decent pensions and long careers. They also have decades of growth and a huge tax-paying population behind them. Now think of your own retirement, in a super-aging society, based on atomized individual desires, and in which all your possessions are rented from the state and big business. Maybe Chang will come up with a catchy name for that condition too.
Dr. David A. Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) has a Ph.D. in Korean Studies. He is a social/cultural commentator and musician who has lived in Korea for nearly two decades. He is also the host of the Korea Deconstructed podcast, which can be found online. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.