After a long history of an unusually high level of ethnic homogeneity, South Korea now finds itself at the advent of an influx of foreigners, many of whom intend to live for extended periods in the Land of the Morning Calm. With this change arises a debate as to whether the increase in heterogeneity will be politically beneficial. The majority of traditionalists believe that augmented diversity will only create fragmentation among the nation, reducing democracy’s efficacy. Others believe that heterogeneity can enhance the unifying effect of democracy, citing the range of opinions that contribute to the complex issues that states deal with.
Just where did this increase come from, though? Historically, Korea has been associated with a strong sense of ethnic nationalism, most likely as a product of its extensive imperialist history as a longtime pawn of Chinese and Japanese rule. Particularly under the latter, Koreans found the need to emphasize the purity of Korean blood. Even after independence, the notion of purity assumed an almost ‘totalitarian’ rule over Korean culture, politics and society in general. Foreign notions of liberalism and radicalism were virtually nonexistent. This school of thought persists today despite the increasing American and Western influence in Korean culture.
Simultaneously, the number of foreigners has been steadily rising throughout the past couple of decades. A study conducted in 2015 by the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs found that the number of foreigners had tripled in the past decade. While the majority is comprised of Chinese immigrants and Chinese Koreans (a demographic who have been prevalent for a substantial portion of Korean history,) Muslim communities of various nationalities have also risen to prominence. However, following a crisis in Afghanistan where a Korean Presbyterian missionary group was taken hostage by the Taliban, perspectives on Islam have definitely been skeptical at best, particularly among the majority-Christian national demographic. This led many to blame Muslim ideals for the added financial burden that the ransom placed on the Korean government, thereby further alienating Islam in the nation.
The Southeast Asian community has also expanded dramatically. Former President Moon Jae-in, in partnership with President Biden, vowed to expand economic relations with ASEAN and the Southeast Asian nations as a whole. The result of this effort has been a steady growth in ex-pats and migrant workers from states such as Indonesia and Malaysia.
I used to live near the Indonesian embassy. Admittedly, it was not an impressive sight — a single building surrounded by a plain white wall, with a sandy tennis court and futsal field scattering the perimeter. As I passed by, I would often get the feeling that the small community within the barbed wire fences was isolated. Even in the heart of Seoul’s financial district, this microcosm seems to merely exist on the sidelines.
This is true for most of the minority communities in Korea. They exist merely to fuel the facade that Korea is progressing from the severely homogeneous identity that it has crafted for so long. In truth, the diverse additions to the country are not truly integrated into Korean society. Rather than active discrimination, it is neglect that diminishes the potential for ethnic diversity, and positive democracy as a result of it.
Nevertheless, the mere fact that Korea has begun to consider heterogeneity is a positive sign. After totalitarian regimes dominated the majority of Korean history, the advent of liberal attitudes has generated more awareness for inclusive narratives, no doubt thanks in part to the US’ image as the epitome of ethnic diversity as an outlet for democracy.
One can contend that American politics, and its inherently polarizing nature, may not be the best example for Korea. However, an alternative argument is that it is income disparity and not ethnic diversity that mainly drives the divide between the two ends of the American political spectrum — another argument that could span an entirely new article.
The Journal of Chinese Political Science outlines that an increase in the Gini coefficient of a country (a value that measures income inequality) will lead to an increase in political polarization. If we apply this knowledge to Korea’s situation, one can postulate that this is a similar case. When we consider the fact that the majority of marginalized communities work in low-income brackets, it is possible that notions of neglect stem from wage inequality instead. In areas where foreigners are integral to economic output, they are treated as equals.
For instance, when the government started distributing relief funds amid the pandemic, the city of Ansan — known for its foreign population — was controversially the only area to hand out funds regardless of nationality. Other municipalities limited their distribution to foreigners married to Korean citizens, whereas independent foreigners were excluded due to relatively minor inconveniences.
In this case, Ansan’s foreign demographic is viewed as economically integral to the community, hence the relatively generous treatment. While this is true, there is no real difference between Ansan’s foreign output and any other municipality. However, in times of genuine need, it appears that foreigners are often cast into the shadows of society; they can seem invisible. What Ansan has done has unfortunately been outside the norm, perhaps even the first of its kind.
Thinking back on my own experience, this unspoken disparity would slip in and out of my mind. Caucasian English teachers would seem to fit in better than the Indonesian teenagers who lived nearby. Foreign TV stars are met with the same adoration as local K-POP idols, yet few are even aware of the nation’s Muslim representation.
For all the emphasis on multicultural education, and the conservative counter-argument in favor of ‘racial purity,’ it remains the clearest factor fueling political polarization in South Korea. I vehemently believe that Koreans do not receive enough credit for their tolerance of ethnic differences. Perhaps I speak from a privileged position, but in my years as a student in an international school, I have never encountered a case of genuine racism. Discrimination only occurs when one factors in taxes, or income — in short, money.
Money talks. Money kills. And in this case, money seems to be stopping Korea from harmonizing, regardless of race or religion, creed or color.