Settings

ⓕ font-size

  • -2
  • -1
  • 0
  • +1
  • +2

K-ideology: The end of communication?

  • Facebook share button
  • Twitter share button
  • Kakao share button
  • Mail share button
  • Link share button
Courtesy of 8 astan
Courtesy of 8 astan

By David A. Tizzard

We all eat from a trashcan called ideology, but few of us are aware of it. Thus it has been said that ideology is like bad breath: you can smell everyone else's but your own.

And of course, I include myself in these dietary and dental descriptions. None of us is free from ideology.

We are all enslaved by this reality. The world appears to us as a paradigm, with things appearing as fundamentally right or wrong, accordingly. The tragedy of our predicament is that there is a growing number of people in society who see the same world differently.

These differences in views cause cleavages, division, hate, gaslighting, fear, and more so than ever, the commodification of these emotions and desires, so as to generate money and maintain a status quo that serves the rich and powerful, but does little to ease the suffering of those of us without.

The cynical might even suggest that some social media platforms and news broadcasters do their best to exacerbate such tensions, because doing so drives their own financial interests, despite what societal and existential effects they may be having. If there was no cultural crisis to be enraged at, there's always the possibility that we might come to understand that there are deeper more engrained structural injustices taking place affecting us all, and which, if we were more unified, we might seek to alleviate or rectify.

We do not live in a post-ideological society as some may claim. While Cold War realities have diminished for many, videos about Marxism, capitalism, socialism, and the broader culture wars drive YouTube and fuel Twitter. This situation is as true here in Korea ― particularly on issues related to gender and politics ― as it is elsewhere.

A single remark from the president will be interpreted by half the population as a heart-warming and supportive message; other citizens will see the exact same words as a sign of aloofness, ineptitude and worse. A single remark produces contradictory and fundamentally incompatible interpretations. How is such an issue to be resolved?

A gesture on an advertising slogan is seen by some as misandry, offensive and sexually explicit. To others, it's a commonplace action made by people all over the world and characteristic of nothing beyond the object itself. The opposing groups are unable to reconcile their worldviews.

A comedian makes a light-hearted comment while playing with a doll. This scene is simple humor; it's someone being herself; it's using comedy to disarm; it's retaking agency from the patriarchy; and it's simultaneously offensive, corrupting, sexual harassment and worthy of a police investigation.

The actual truth of all of these events seemingly adopts an insecure position. The world is messy and full of ambiguities.

My own views on the above issues will likely be clear to those who know me or who have followed my writings. I don't believe that we have reached a Panglossian best of all possible worlds. I do still understand that change is required to better the lives of those less fortunate and suffering from oppression.

But if we have created a post-modern society in which everyone's truth is valid, what do we do when people hold truths that we find ultimately untenable? Do we then have to backtrack on the idea that there are multiple competing truths so that only ours remains?

Why is all this happening? How did we get so enamored by ideology? How does it wrap its claws around us?

Ideology is not simply imposed on us. We do not always see the world as a libertarian, a conservative, a liberal, a radical or a progressive because we have been brainwashed into thinking a certain way ― though of course that can be the case. More often, ideologies result from our spontaneous, emotional and human response to the social world around us and how we perceive its meaning.

Marx's famed observation is worth recalling: it is not our consciousness that determines our being, but rather our social being that determines our consciousness.

Ideology thus comes out of our seemingly natural state of social being. To get beyond ideology, if such a thing is possible, we have to adopt contrasting views from our own existing ones.

Nevertheless, any attempt to see the world differently from the narrative we have already constructed is painful. Facts, statistics or reason do not necessarily work because they mean undermining much of our existence to date.

Therefore, many people I speak to see Korean society as fundamentally divided. But note, to me, this division is ideational.

People with exactly the same diminishing job prospects, people unable to buy the same homes in which to live in Seoul, because of inept government policies, people wondering when they will be able to receive vaccines like their friends abroad, and people frustrated by the hypocrisies of politicians preaching morality from behind a slew of cases of sexual assault, are united in their arduous physical and material existences. Their ways of seeing certain events, however, are at odds with each other.

But what happens when two incompatible worldviews come into conflict? Is there a solution? Is it possible to understand that perhaps we are more united than we are different? Should unity even be the goal?

Or do we find violence in liberation? Must we be forced to be free and hear Slavoj Zizek echoing Plato's cave, saying that "freedom hurts?"

Who knows? Maybe these ideological divisions are just an internet thing, and when Dogecoin becomes the de facto global currency, the transition to a post-ironic society will finally be complete, and Elon Musk will be our Wario-in-Chief.

But I get the feeling my breath is beginning to smell again. And there's the problem of bills, rent and the continued failure of our elected political representatives to worry about.


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. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.




X
CLOSE

Top 10 Stories

go top LETTER