論文

Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision
for the Future Korean Society?

Questioning the Korean Multicultural Model of
Immigrant Incorporation

Daesung Kwon

Ⅰ. Introduction: Korea as a New Multicultural Country in
Asia
Korea is normally seen as a relatively homogenous society in terms of history,
language, and cultural heritage. However, as Korean society has opened up, andespecially as it has become more prosperous and its economy internationalized
over the past few decades, the increasing influx of foreign migrants and theirsettlement results in greater ethno-cultural diversity. According to the Korean
Ministry of Justice (2007), in 1980 the number of long-term foreign residents
who remained in Korea for more than 90 days was 40,519, accounting for only
0.1 percent of Korea’s total population. However, by the end of 2016, the numberof foreign residents (ch’elyu oegugin), both long-term (1,530,539) and short-term(518,902), stood at about 2,049,441, making up 3.96 percent of Korea’s total
population (51,695,516) (KIS, 2017).
Growing ethno-cultural diversity is bringing about significant changes inmany aspects of Korean society, including public attitudes toward foreigners,
the development of new government agencies and civic organizations dealing
with the living conditions of foreign residents, new academic research on
immigration and incorporation, and the birth of new migration-policy initiatives
at the level of both central and local governments. In addition, the increase indiversity is also challenging conventional notions of national identity, citizenship,and belonging, reflected in immigration, citizenship policy and nationality law.
Remarkably, in March 2009 an amendment of the Nationality Act to officiallyacknowledge dual citizenship was introduced, and in December 2009 theKorean Cabinet approved a bill that permitted dual citizenship to Koreans as
115

論

文

well as to foreigners. In April 2010 the National Assembly voted to allow dual
citizenship under the name of multiple nationality, which took effect on January
1, 2011. Although this new citizenship law is aimed mainly at attracting
prosperous overseas Koreans currently living in affluent developed countries(Kim 2013) and highly skilled foreign talents, this regulation is a remarkable
step toward a more flexible approach to citizenship, a recognition that washitherto based mainly on descent. Amid the challenges and changes as its
consequence in Korea, xenophobic movements have also started to appear,
particularly in cyberspace, albeit slowly and on a small scale. Given that the
migratory process is now self-sustaining (Castles 2000,106; Castles and Miller
20 09, 29), it is not difficult to predict that, as in many other industriallyadvanced nations, tension between immigrants and local inhabitants will
become a major source of conflict.
Especially during the past decade, there has been much discussion, as well as
misunderstanding, of the Korean term damunhwa (multicultural). As of 2012
there were two hundred central government-funded multicultural centers(damunhwa sent’ŏ ) nationwide, and more and more local and municipal
governments are considering ways to internationalize so as to boost their local
economies, often by holding multicultural festivals. Since 2014 EBS, the national
educational TV channel, has been broadcasting a TV show entitled damunhwa
kopuyŏlchŏn (literally “multicultural mother-in-law and daughter-in law story”),
featuring conflict and reconciliation between a Korean mother-in-law and her
foreign daughter-in-law. The cultural differences they face are highlighted in avisit by the mother-in-law to the daughter-in-law’s country to stay with herfamily, during which she begins to understand their cultural differences and to
sympathize with the daughter-in-law’s struggle to live in Korea. Similarly, since2005 KBS, the Korean national public broadcasting organization, has beenbroadcasting a weekly show entitled “Love In Asia” to raise awareness about
foreign residents, particularly Asian migrants who married Koreans as well as
their families.
Korean filmmakers and writers have also become interested in the presenceof foreign residents, in particular dealing with issues of foreign migrants,
marriage migrants, and multicultural families, including their emotional
struggle, identity crisis, and narratives derived from their new settlement in
Korean society.1 Foreigners have also started to appear in public life. In 2009 a
116

Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the Future Korean Society?

German-born naturalized Korean citizen, Mr. Lee Charm (German name,Bernhard Quandt), was appointed to head the Korean Tourism Organization,
making him the first naturalized Korean citizen to hold such a high-ranking
post in a state-run organization. More notably, the Philippine-born Ms. Jasmin
Lee became the first naturalized Korean to become a member of the Korean
National Assembly, winning a seat for the Senuri Party by proportional
representation in the election of April 2012.
Despite its importance and despite the fact that the incorporation of
immigrants has become one of the salient policy issues in Korean society, theissues of immigration and incorporation have not yet become politicized.
Considering the frequently divisive consequences of the politicization of
immigration in most Western countries that receive immigrants, Korea isfortunate. However, there is a lack of public awareness of the problems ofimmigrant incorporation, particularly in relation to multiculturalism.
Ostensibly, the Korean government actively promotes a multicultural society
and implements the incorporation of immigrants under the label of damunhwa.
However, a careful scrutiny of the current policy for incorporating immigrants
reveals that the policy is not intended to pursue the inclusion of foreign
immigrants in all spheres of society without an expectation that they give up
their cultural characteristics. Rather, it is essentially designed to help
immigrants to successfully assimilate into mainstream Korean culture.
Meanwhile, the adjective ‘multicultural’ is used solely by the government, andthis use has nothing to do with the concept of multiculturalism. It is doubtful, in
reality, that the Korean government will pursue a multicultural society. It seems
that there is deliberate avoidance of the term ‘multiculturalism’ in order tosidestep any clarification of the goal of the current policy on incorporating
immigrants.
Given that the stark reality of growing immigration-driven diversity isirreversible, Korean society needs to seek a new vision of national identity. A
dilemma arises, however, between Korean society’s desire to maintain its strong
tradition of ethnic homogeneity and ethnic nationalism on the one hand and on
the other, the wish to celebrate diversity as part of the country’s national
identity. In this situation, the Korean government chooses to promote a type of“boutique multiculturalism” (Fish 1997) or “cosmetic multiculturalism” (MorrisSuzuki 2002), which helps to restrict the ideology of multiculturalism to a
117

論

文

symbolic and descriptive level.
As is the case in Japan, a type of cosmetic multiculturalism (Yamanaka 2008)
is uncritically perceived in Korean society as a new national identity, and theideal model is one of immigrant incorporation rather than of multiculturalism.
Simply put, contemporary Korean multiculturalism works as a new form ofnationalism; while maintaining the national identity based on blood, othercultures are simultaneously celebrated and appreciated as objects of consumption.
The Korean government attempts to spread the illusion of the peaceful andequal coexistence of diverse cultures. At the same time, the quasi multiculturallabeled policy conceals the continuing existence of inequality between thedominant Korean majority and ethno-cultural minorities. In this situation, theKorean people seem to accept “multicultural” as an adjective only as defining
enjoyment of multiculturalism as the object of consumption, such as exotic
minority cultures and ethnic cuisines; but Korean society never defines exactly
what a multicultural society represents and what it really stands for, nor what
type of multicultural society Korean society is actually pursuing.
Against this background, this paper attempts to provide a critical review of
the recent multicultural experience in Korean society with a specific focus on
the Korean damunhwa (multicultural) model of immigrant incorporation. In
response to Korea’s growing ethno-cultural diversity, this paper also seeks to
examine some questions of major importance for current and future Koreansociety. How will Korea continue to deal with the challenges of immigration andincorporation in future? Which model of immigrant incorporation works betteror best for the current and future Korean society? Is there any alternative
beyond the current quasi-multicultural model of immigrant incorporation, whichis in itself an assimilationist model? Will Korea try to maintain its homogenous
national identity, or will the nation attempt to create a true multiculturalsociety?

Ⅱ．Immigration and Incorporation: The Contemporary Korean
Reality
Goss and Lindquist (2000) divide the international movement of labor in the
Asia Pacific region into three main historical periods: the age of indenture118

Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the Future Korean Society?

(1830-1940), the period of guest workers (1940-1970), and the era of contract
labor (from 1970 onward). For Korea, the age of indenture corresponds to theJapanese recruitment of Korean labor during the colonial period, until 1945. In
the early postwar period, many Koreans moved overseas as guest workers, andnotably, during the 1960s and 1970s, many migrated to West Germany and to
the Middle East as contract workers. But as the Korean economy started to
expand after the 1980s, the flow of labor reversed, and foreign workers began
to arrive as guest workers in Korea. Throughout the 1990s, the number ofmarriage migrants—for the most part female spouses— increased dramatically,
and the settlement of these foreign spouses has created a new category of
ethnic minorities called “damunhwa kachŏng (multicultural families)”; this groupis currently at the center of Korea’s debate about multiculturalism. 2
Whether they are labor migrants or marriage migrants, most of these newly
arrived and arriving foreign migrants have come from less-developed countries
within Asia, and a considerable number of them are becoming Korean citizens
through naturalization by marriage. According to KIS (2017), by the end of
2016, Chinese nationals made up the largest group of foreign residents (1,016,607,
or 49.6 percent) in a total of 2,049,441 foreign residents; this group was followed
by immigrants from Vietnam (149,384 or 7.3 percent); the United States (140,222
or 6.8 percent); Thailand (100,860 or 4.9 percent); the Philippines (56,980, or 2.8
percent); Uzbekistan (54,490 or 2.7 percent). In 2009, the year with the highest
recorded naturalization rate, among the total number of 25,044 foreigners
naturalized, the significantly largest group gained citizenship throughinternational marriage, accounting for 17,141 individuals, or 68 percent. Of thetotal, 19,512, or 78 percent, were female, many of them immigrant spouses. Only
56 became naturalized Koreans through the general naturalization process
available to foreigners legally resident in Korea for more than five years (MOJ2010).
Hence, we must view contemporary Korean migration within the context oft he development of A s i a - Pac i f ic m ig rat ion a s a whole . More over, byaccommodating various types of new foreign migrants—not only foreign
workers and marriage migrants from Asian countries but also international
st u de nt s , r e f u g e e s , a nd a s ylu m s e e ke r s—K or e a h a s b e c o me a mor eheterogeneous society in terms of ethnicity and culture.
A vivid example of the multicultural change is the growth of new ethnic
119

論

文

communities and ethnic enclaves in towns and cities throughout Korea. Foreign
residents are mainly concentrated in urban areas, especially in the Seoul
Metropolitan Area (SMA), which includes Seoul, Gyeonggi Prefecture, andIncheon City, where more than 60 percent of foreign residents live (MOSPA
2014). These ethnic communities are usually located in the vicinity of Koreanneighborhoods, and thus the towns serve as venues for multicultural encountersand communication between foreign residents and local Koreans. However, it
should be noted that , there is a lso increasing sepa ration between two
communities of newcomers: those from less-developed Asian countries, who are
overrepresented in the lowest-paid segments of the labor market, and thosefrom developed countries, such as the United States, Japan, and France, whohold more prestigious occupations and live together with more affluent andsuccessful Koreans. The less-skilled Asian migrants, who make up the majorityof Korea’s foreign residents, are therefore starting to experience a process ofsegregation and ghettoization. A government report expresses concern aboutghettoization, especially as it is driven by the concentration of undocumented
foreigners in ethnic enclaves (KIS 2009, 81).
It is also important to point out that in recent years, growing ethno-cultural
diversity has challenged the conventional notion of Korean national identity andsense of belonging based on descent; the traditional attitude seems increasingly
at odds with the growing transnational identities of immigrants, especiallyamong children from multicultural families.
A state - sponsored study, pla nned to be long itudina l, of children a ndadolescents from multicultural families was begun by the National Youth Policy
Institute (Yang et al. 2012) among 1,502 fourth-graders (usually nine- to tenyear-olds) from multicultural families nationwide. A majority of multicultural
children in the survey answered that they are Korean; 323, or 21.5 percent,identified as both Korean and foreign; and 45, or 3 percent, believed themselves
to be are entirely foreign. Given that the longitudinal study was begun only a
few years ago, and that preschoolers who are under six years old still make up
the majority of children in multicultural families, 3 current findings from thesurvey may not clearly reflect how and to what extent the multicultural
children and adolescents have been developing transnational identities in theirever yday lives . Nevert heless , what is obvious is t hat t he format ion oftransnational identity has recently been observed more strongly among those120

Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the Future Korean Society?

children, opening a significant research topic in the study of the incorporation of
immig ra nts in Korea . Obser ving t he consta nt ly increasing number ofmulticultural families, it is very likely that children in such families may more
readily experience tensions or dilemmas about their national, ethnic, and social
identity, in particular as the multicultural children grow older and pass throughadolescence and young-adulthood.
As yet, no foreign migrants have made significant demands for political
recognition of group identity, mainly because Korea has a relatively shorthistory of immigration. However, considering that the current government’s
approach to multiculturalism is basically a policy of assimilation and that
Korean society is beginning to see the emergence of anti-immigrant sentiment,
albeit on a small scale, it is possible that with the presence of foreign migrants
and the development of their transnational identities, in time the Korean stateand society will view multiculturalism as a threat to the national identity.
At present, xenophobia and anti-immigration sentiments have largely
remained in cyberspace. It is widely known that Korea is one of the most wired
nations in the world, with the world’s fastest Internet connection speed andhigh Internet penetration rates.4 Considering such a highly internet-friendly
environment, it is not difficult to predict that racism will be expressed more
frequently on the internet and become a significant social problem in the near
future. Given particular circumstances, such as a deeper economic recession, we
have already witnessed “cyber-racism” (Daniels 2009), “virtual discrimination,”and “virtual harassment” in the new digital age (Schmidt and Cohen 2013, 188189).
Unlike the situation in Europe and other classical immigrant-receivingsocieties, far-right political parties, which have often adopted xenophobic or antiimmigration policies, and anti-immigrant politicians have not yet arisen in
Korea; this condition is mainly due to the lack of politicization of immigration.
Although so-called “moral panic” (Cohen 1972) is sometimes incited by the mass
media in Korea — most often in the context of discussing the increasing crime
rate involving foreigners 5 — it does not seem to be seriously generating public
or political reactions to the presence of immigrants. According to some recent
studies on the construction of immigrants by the Korean media (Kyung-Hee
Kim 2009; Chae 2010; Cheong et al. 2011; Park 2014), relatively favorable andpaternalistic attitudes toward immigrants have been dominant. Notably, the
121

論

文

news media most often describe immigrants as victims living under vulnerable
conditions, while native Koreans are often portrayed as protectors who help andcare for those same immigrants (Chae 2010). As Keumjae Park points out, when
the Korean news media deal with foreign migrant workers, their presence isstill not seriously depicted as a threat to domestic workers. This attitude results
mainly from the fact that the majority of foreign workers are located on thebottom rung of the clearly segmented labor market as low-skilled workers.6
In response to growing immigration, the main focus of Korea’s migration
policies has shifted from immigration control to immigrant incorporation.
Previously the presence of foreign migrants was viewed as a temporary
phenomenon, and the Korean government focused primarily on controlling theentry and exit of foreigners into and out of Korea. However, in the past few
years the Korean government has begun to formulate new policies towardforeign residents. In particular, during the Roh Moo Hyun administration (20032008), in 2006 new institutions, such as the Council for Protection of Human
Rights and Interests of Foreign Nationals, were established, and in 2007 newlegislation, such as the Foreigners’ Treatment Act, was introduced, followed in2008 by the Multicultural Families Support Act.
Subsequently, an ambitious First Basic Plan for Immigration Policy 2008-2012(FBPIP) was announced in 2009 during the Lee Myung Bak administration(2008-2013), to address a variety of issues associated with the increased inflow
of international migrants and to suggest policy directions in the formation of amulticultural society. Although the FBPIP urged a more flexible stance toward
immigration, it focused mainly on the limited migration of highly skilled foreign
professionals; this approach is in line with the administration’s major policy
objective of enhancing national competiveness rather than suggesting a longterm policy for building a multicultural society. In response to the pressure of
growing global competiveness, as well as Korea’s drastically low birth rate andrapidly aging population, it is certain that the Korean government will have tomodify its migration policies, as in the Second Basic Plan for Immigration
Policy, announced in December 2012 by the Korea Immigration Service (KIS)
under the Park Geun-Hye administration (2013-2017). Currently the KIS isdesigning the Third Basic Plan for Immigration Policy with a specific emphasison human rights of foreign residents and respecting diversity.

122

Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the Future Korean Society?

Ⅲ．Q u e s t i o n i n g I n c o r p o r a t i o n : A s s i m i l a t i o n ve r s u sMulticulturalism? No alternative?
Traditionally, Korea has used jus sanguinis, or descent, as the basis of its
citizenship, and Koreans continue to see national identity in terms of ethnic
homogeneity and a single culture. The forces of globalization and internationalmigration, however, have compelled the country to engage with the challenge ofmulticulturalism ever more seriously. On the one hand, this challenge hashelped Koreans to develop a more flexible approach to citizenship; on the other
hand, many still seem to be resisting the development of a genuine multiculturalsociety.
Scrutinizing the First (2008-2012) and Second Basic Plan for Immigration
Policy (2013-2017) prepared by the Korea Immigration Service (KIS 2009, 2012),
it is obvious that the Korean government clearly recognizes the rapid growth ofimmigration-driven diversity within society and, in response to the advent of amulticultural society, continuously emphasizes the importance of the successful
socia l i ncor porat ion of foreig n immig ra nts . . I n t his situat ion Korea isimplementing its immigrant-incorporation policy with the label of “multicultural,”which is commonly dubbed kwanchutohyŏng damunhwachuŭi (state-sponsoredmulticulturalism) and may be translated as multiculturalism initiated orsponsored by the state (Hui-Jung Kim 2007; Nam-Kook Kim 2009).
As a model of immigrant incorporation in Korean society, if the Korean
government truly intends to develop a multicultural model, as the namesuggests, the current model of incorporation, called “multicultural policy,” should
pursue the inclusion of immigrants in all areas of society, without an expectationthat the immigrants give up their own cultural, religious, or ling uistic
characteristics (Castles and Millers 2009, 247-248). In practice, however, Korea’s
goal for a multicultural policy is aimed at differential exclusion, keeping somecategories of migrants out such as temporary low-skilled migrant workers andassimilating foreign residents who are admitted into mainstream society; thepolicy does not promote equal rights for the majority and for ethno-cultural
minorities.
Striking evidence of the nature of Korea’s multicultural policy is the fact that
under the current immig ration policy, in 2 012 about 9 5 percent of thegovernment budget allocated to the social incorporation of immigrants went to
123

論

文

marriage migrants (foreign spouses) and their children, that is to say, todamunhwa kachŏng (multicultural families) (KIS 2012). It is generally accepted
that, as a policy that recognizes and promotes ethno-cultural diversity,“multiculturalism” can be defined as an alternative model to past policies thatemphasized assimilation as the way to achieve cultural homogeneity (Leach2009, 186). Unlike the label’s designation, however, Korea’s multicultural policy
operates as an assimilation policy solely for immigrant spouses and theirchildren. In this regard, Korean multicultural policy is largely cosmetic andsymbolic and ignores normative concerns at the center of the debate over“multiculturalism,” such as the protection of cultural rights and the political
incorporation of immigrants (Parekh 2006).
It is certain that the term multiculturalism, as a heavily debated concept,
continues to be a contested concept without a fixed or clear-cut definition. As
Michael Murphy points out. (Murphy 2013, 12),

There are so many multiculturalists, and so many different theories
of multiculturalism on the market, that many are finding it difficult tosay what exactly multiculturalism is and what it stands for.
Indeed, it is also not an easy task to define “what is the much-talked about
multiculturalism” in Korea’s multicultural context. Nevertheless, it is quite ironicthat the Korea n government is implementing a nd na ming its policy ofincorporating immigrants a multicultural policy without a formal definition ofmulticulturalism.7 For practical purposes, in the Korean context, the term
multiculturalism itself is mainly used to describe the extent of a growing
migration-driven ethno -cultural diversity in society. Regarding various
government policies, projects, and administrative measures given the name ofdamunhwa (multicultural), the term is still no more than an extension of thedescriptive migration-driven multiethnicization process in society, in that there
is no concrete policy or social consensus around multiculturalism; instead,central and local governments, using administrative decisions, have been
implementing a variety of policy measures to deal with diverse problems causedby the presence of foreign residents.
In this regard, I use the term compressed multiculturalism to denote an124Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the Future Korean Society?

uncritical use of the concept of multiculturalism in a descriptive manner,without rigorous scrutiny of the abrupt development of a multicultural society
brought about by migration-driven ethno-cultural diversity within Koreansociety. 8 The term is originally derived from the concepts of “compressed
modernity’’ and “compressed development” in the context of the contemporarytransformation of Korean society, in particular the Korean experience resulting
from its rapid economic transformation (Chang 1999, 2010; Jung and Kim 2009).
In this situation, three important questions arise concerning the current andfuture direction of Korea’s incorporation of immigrants.
Q1: W
 ill the Korean government and society continue to maintain the current
model of immigrant incorporation?
Q2: C an multiculturalism be adopted as the basis of a policy of incorporation for
Korean society?
Q3: If it cannot, is there any other way to manage ethno-cultural diversity?
To answer the first question: It will presumably become increasingly difficult
for the Korean government and society to retain a combination of differential
exclusion a nd assimilat ion as t he ma in model for t he incor porat ion of
immigrants. Migration, as a self-sustaining process, will continue to diversify
the ethnic composition of Korean society and will lead to institutional change.
More important in the long term, it is likely that the idea of Korean national
identity will become increasingly blurred and problematic, particularly astransnational identities develop among the children of Koreans and marriage
migrants. Moreover, since 2011, the Korean government has begun to allow
Korean citizens to hold multiple citizenship, albeit conditionally. In the long run
the changed situation may also significantly affect the notion of Korean national
identity.
As for the second question: While recognizing the presence of ethno-cultural
diversity in Korean society, the Korean government seems to continue to resist
the development of a genuine multicultural society. According to Bhikhu Parekh(2006, 6), a multicultural society is one that includes two or more culturalcommunities. A multicultural society may choose one of two ways in response
to internal cultural diversity: one way is to welcome and cherish its cultural
diversity and communities and respect their cultural demands; another
125

論

文

approach involves a n attempt to assimilate the diverse strains into its
mainstream culture. As Parekh argues, while both are multicultural societies,
the former is actually multiculturalist, while the latter is monoculturalist in its
orientation and ethos. In this categorization, Korean society can be considered amulticultural society, but it is monoculturalist rather than multiculturalist, since
the government continues seeking to assimilate its ethno-cultural diversity into
the mainstream culture. In this sense, using Parekh’s distinction between
multicultural and multiculturalism, only the term multicultural as the existenceof cultural diversity can be applied to Korean society, while multiculturalism as
a normative response to the fact of cultural diversity has been steadily ignoredby the Korean government.
Moreover, witnessing what is seen as the “failure of multiculturalism” inWestern societies, the Korean government is primarily concerned with thenegative outcomes of immigrant settlement. Thus, the rise of a multiculturalsociety is viewed as an undesirable phenomenon, which the government must
control and restrain. As a result, it is doubtful that multiculturalism can soon
gain a foothold in public policy as a basis for incorporating immigrants.
Contemplating the third question: Given that the current quasi-multicultural
policy is problematic, and multiculturalism is not politically acceptable to the
Korean government, what is an alternative? Is it possible to devise a new modelof immigrant incorporation that is more practically applicable to the Koreansituation? Until the current stage of multiculturalization in Korean society,multicultural debates about immigrant incorporation in Korea have been unable
to move beyond the dichotomy of assimilation versus multiculturalism. The
Korean government—more specifically, the Korea Immigration Service under
the Ministry of Justice–that supports the current immigrant policy is seriously
concerned about negative outcomes from multiculturalism, particularly as suchoutcomes have been witnessed in Europe, while civil activists who advocate
multiculturalism generally believe that more open immigration and theestablishment of a multicultural society driven by the inf lux of foreign
immigrants may help counter the strong belief in ethnic homogeneity anddescent-based national identity. Some criticize Korea’s current damunhwa policy
for its assimilationist stance (Watson, 2012).
In this situation, beyond the stereotypical existing models of immigrantincorporation, why would the Korean government and society not begin to126Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the Future Korean Society?

consider some alternative models that might be more applicable to Korea andcould help to overcome the tension between the assimilationist and themulticulturalist approach? Two alternative models come to mind: One possible
new conceptual and policy framework is “interculturalism,” or the “interculturalist
approach,” which is viewed as complementary to multiculturalism or even as areplacement for it ( Meer a nd Modood 2 01 2 ; Ca nt le 2 01 2 ).The ot her is“transnationalism,” or the transnational approach, which may be conceptualized
as a different model of incorporation and a new paradigm for incorporation
theories” (Faist et al. 2013).
Indeed, since both assimilationist and multiculturalist approaches have beencalled into question (Rodríguez García 2010), some scholars (Meer and Modood
2012; Cantle 2012) have suggested interculturalist approaches as alternatives.
Dan Rodríguez García (2010) argues for an interculturalist model of sociocultural incorporation that reconciles cultural diversity with social cohesionb eyond t he t wo dom i n a nt mo dels of i ncor p orat ion—a s s i m i l at ion a nd
multiculturalism. As Michael Emerson (2011, 2-3) puts it,
Interculturalism is a new term giving a name to attempts to find acompromise between the polar opposites of multiculturalism andassimilation. It is sympathetic and respectful towards ethno-culturalreligious minorities, and helpful with selected measures targeted at
disadvantaged situations, yet it also aims at ensuring commitment tothe values, history and traditions of the host nation. This may include
the use of integration policies and efforts to water down excessive
distinctiveness or segregation, for example in urban concentrations ofminority groups. It is sympathetic towards people from immigrantfamilies perceiving themselves as having a hybrid identity, who feel
Anglo–Indian, or French–Algerian or German–Turkish for example.
Considering interculturalism in the context of the Korean multiculturalization
process, an intercultural approach as a model of immigrant incorporation may
be strategically examined and considered by the Korean government. Such a
process would mitigate the conflict between the current government stancetoward assimilating foreign immigrants, driven by its strong blood-based ethnic
homogeneity, and pressure toward multiculturalism as a model of immigration
127

論

文

incorporation, driven by a growing ethno-cultural diversity within the society.
First, compared to the idea of multiculturalism, interculturalism places
relatively greater emphasis on dialogue, mutual understanding, and interaction
between the cultural majority and cultural minorities (Maxwell et al. 2012, 431434; Cantle 2012, 157-158) and pursues the best interests of both the majority
culture and minorities. It does not downplay the interest of the majority culture(Rodríguez García 2010, 261; Bouchard 2011, 438). In this respect, it seems thatan interculturalist approach could produce more useful discussions of immigranti nc or p or at io n i n K ore a . B e c a u s e t he K ore a n g ove r n me nt c o n s ide r s
multiculturalism a threat to social cohesion and stability, its current damunhwa
approach to immigrant incorporation separates ethnic minorities from the
majority population rather than granting them equal rights and status. Aninterculturalist approach could help to overcome the present divide between theassimilation and multiculturalism models, taking into account the reality that
Korea is still largely an ethnically and culturally homogeneous society despite
the rapidly growing ethno-cultural diversity within it.
Second, as we examine the intercultural model of Quebec in Canada, we notethat the core of that city’s identity is cultural and linguistic, rather than ethnic.
Linguistic assimilation through the use of French is crucial for the successful
incorporation of immigrants in Quebec, and a similar approach may help Koreansociety to develop a new form of national identity, one based on culture andlanguage rather than on ethnicity and ethnic nationalism. Korean national
identity continues to be seen as mainly determined by ethnicity, and although
non-Korean foreigners can become Korean nationals through naturalization, it
seems impossible for them to be considered “pure” Koreans. For instance,
although Germans born and raised in Korea may eventually decide to acquire
Korean nationality through naturalization, they will not be considered “Korean”
by other Koreans. In contrast, third-generation Korean Americans born in the
United States as American citizens, who have never lived in or visited Korea
and who are unable to speak Korean, will still be considered “Korean” becauseof their ethnic origin. Moreover, when parents formerly were Korean nationals,
it is easy for their ethnic Korean descendants to regain Korean nationality
through a naturalization process that grants priority to overseas Koreans. Anintercultural approach would weaken the excessive ethnic nationalism that
continues to determine who is Korean and who is not.
128

Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the Future Korean Society?

Third, an intercultural perspective can create a more productive environment
in which to deal more practically with issues of multicultural education.
Intercultural education is not a new concept in Korea: the idea of education forinternational understanding can be traced back to the 1960s, promoted by
UNESCO. However, since 2000, the term multicultural education has been used
to deal with various issues raised by the increasing number of minority
students, most of whom are children from multicultural families (Stephanie K.
Kim and Lupita H. R.Kim 2012, 243). Although the current multicultural
education program in Korea outwardly emphasizes the significance of mutual
understanding, in practice it does not stress the need for Koreans to learn about
and understand the core values and cultural heritage of immigrants, not eventhose from neighboring Asian countries. Rather, the major emphasis has beenon assimilating foreign immigrants into mainstream Korean culture.9 Given thatinterculturalism emphasizes the interaction of different groups within adiversified society, education based on this notion may encourage both
immigrant groups and the local population to participate in a two-way processof incorporation.
In addition to interculturalism, or an interculturalist model, transnationalism,or the transnationalist model, represents another alternative approach. Thisavenue is mainly based on the view that, unlike traditional beliefs about
immigrant incorporation, today’s migrants do not necessarily uproot themselvesfrom their home societies. Many migrants settle and integrate into the societyof their new country even while they tend to maintain their cross-border ties
and networks with their previous homelands (Faist et al. 2013, 91).
Transnationalization introduces a new perspective and a new area ofstudy into research on international migration. In so doing, it alsocha l lenges t he ex ist i ng models of m ig ra nt i ncor porat ion . The
transnational approach shifts the focus from concerns about the
dynamics of migration, the origins of immigrants, and the latter’s
adaption to and incorporation into their new country, to the continuingties migrants maintain across borders connecting the societies of bothorigin and immigration. [Faist et al. 2013, 88]
Again, it should be noted that in Korea, the majority of foreign residents,
129

論

文

particularly marriage migrants, are Asians who migrated from China andSoutheast Asian countries. Among them, the co-ethnic Korean Chinese
Joseonjok constitute the largest group of foreign residents. Most Joseonjok
migrants live and work in Korea through the Visit and Employment System(VES), thanks to an ethnically selective immigration policy that allows thesemigrants to travel freely between Korea and China for a period of up to five
years. A growing number of Joseonjok have become seasonal workers bymoving between China and Korea, 10 though very recently the migratory
patterns of Joseonjok migrants has increasingly changed from seasonal travel or
short term visit to more permanent settlement in Korea.11
According to a government-funded study on how the introduction of the VES
influences those migrants’ lives (Jeanyoung Lee et al. 2008), the new policy may
facilitate the development of transnational lives among Joseonjok migrants
between China and Korea by enabling them to keep on engaging in various
cross-border activities. At the time of publication, this research indicated that,
according to interviews it had conducted, the expense of air travel impeded thefree movement of Joseonjok migrants. More recently, however, the dramatic
availability of much cheaper air travel by LCC (Low Cost Carriers) between
Korea and neighboring Asian countries has been observed, and in this situation,
Joseonjok and other types of Asian migrants, who used to find the two-way
travel a financial burden, have been able to undertake the trip so much moreeasily and frequently.
It is also important to note that the recent introduction of the multiplenationality law may facilitate the development of a transnational identity and asense of belonging among the younger generation of overseas Koreans andchildren of multicultural families. With the 2010 Nationality Act amendment,
the offer of de jure dual citizenship was officially acknowledged, albeit
conditionally. In principle, the new law allows Koreans who reside overseas,
talented foreign nationals, foreign spouses married to Koreans, and Korean
adoptees residing overseas, to hold dual citizenship under certain conditions.
However, given that the enactment of this law was mainly designed to attract
global talents and prosperous overseas Koreans from developed nations, it iscertain that upper-class Koreans, more specifically young Koreans who holdbirthright United States citizenship owing to their parents’ residence for study
or work in the United States are the major beneficiaries of the f lexible130

Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the Future Korean Society?

citizenship law (Kim 2013).
In the case of dual citizenship, the issues of identity and membershipessentially entail the question of transnationality (Faist 2010, 1679). Most
transnational migrants experience dual or multiple identities, marked byhybridity and heterogeneity (Wong and Satzewich 2006, 11-12), which maycont inue to provide a sig nif ica nt cha llenge to t he Korea n blood-based
homogenous national identity. Although it is still too early to discover the typeof transnational identity that can definitely be observed among those Koreans
and foreigners who are eligible for dual or multiple citizenship, it is not difficult
to assume that various forms of transnational identity are likely to be developed
among these groups as well as among other types of foreign migrants. Indeed,
many contemporary migrants can reasonably be considered transnationals
rather than uprooted people (Glick Schiller et al. 1995). Therefore, contemporary
migrants need not feel such strong pressure to become integrated into the newsociety in which they have settled because they continue to have access to their
homelands and are able to maintain their earlier social networks; thus they
belong to both their country of origin and the new host country (Bradatan et al.
2010, 171). It is certain that, as Korea’s new multiple-citizenship law becomes
more concretely institutionalized, the current assimilationist model of immigrantincorporation may effectively be unable to address what it means to be a
Korean in terms of national, ethnic, and social identity.
There is no urgent reason for the Korean government and society to adopt
one of those alternative approaches as the ultimate model for future immigrantincorporation. Korea is still at an early stage of the development of immigration,and the settlement of the first generation of newcomer immigrants is still an
ongoing process. Hence, the Korean government and society still have time todevelop strategies to cope with growing ethno-cultural diversity. As Castles(2007, 1) points out, there is still much room for “making informed choices about
strategies to effectively shape patterns of migration and ethnic diversity.” It istherefore important for the government to thoroughly scrutinize various models
of immigrant incorporation and design its own more flexible model rather thanrush to adopt either the assimilationist or the multiculturalist model as the basisof policy.

131

論

文

Ⅳ．Conclusion: Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the
Future Korean Society?
The Korean government continues to view multiculturalism as a problem
rather than a goal for creating a more diverse society. The government isreluctant to deal with the process of facilitating a multiethnic and multiculturalsociety, a reluctance that is clearly reflected in current migration policies.
Korea’s thinking about immigrant incorporation continues to be locked into the
obsolete assimilationist versus multiculturalist dilemma.
Compared to the older generation, younger Korea ns seem capable ofembracing diversity, holding more open attitudes toward foreigners, although
this stance does not ref lect increasing public awareness, since cosmetic
multiculturalism remains dominant and is even officially promoted. Young
Koreans love talking about “diversity” as something they pursue and consume,
but the meaning is often narrowly defined as cultural diversity, as in ethnic
cuisine, music, fashion and arts, and a variety of other foreign goods andproducts. It does not mean that they accept multiculturalism as an ideology,
public policy, or model of immigrant incorporation. Thus, although they may bewilling to accept “diversity in unity,” they are not yet ready to accept “unity indiversity.” It is still uncertain how younger Koreans will interact with thesecond and third generation of immigrants as Korean citizens in the future, nor
is it clear whether they can accept children of mixed-race backgrounds or nonethnic Koreans as fellow Koreans, transcending the belief in ethnic homogeneity.
At this point, it should be noted that the development of an Asian perspectiveon immigrant incorporation also is one of the most important tasks forpolicymaking, research, and public education in Korea. As recent statistics
invariably show, the majority of foreign residents in Korea have come fromneighboring Asian countries, including China, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam,
Thailand, Cambodia, and Mongolia. Hence, in Korea, the multicultural society is
primarily Asian. Many of those Asian residents have become permanent
settlers in Korea and may even become naturalized Korean citizens. Perhaps
the next generation of Asian migrants may be seen as Chinese Koreans,
Japanese Koreans, Filipino Koreans, Vietnamese Koreans, Mongolian Koreans,or Tha i Korea ns . It is t herefore cr ucia l for a l l Korea ns , i n pa r t icu la r
policymakers, scholars, and educators to learn about and understand other132

Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the Future Korean Society?

Asian cultures—their values, attitudes, and identities; they would also profit
learning from the migration experience in other countries in Asia. Moreover,given that most Asian migrants are low-skilled workers and marriage migrants,
they tend to be negatively stereotyped in contrast to foreign residents fromwealthier countries. Coexisting in a multicultural society means not only
overcoming the myth of ethnic homogeneity and embracing diversity but also
overcoming prejudice toward Asian immigrants and embracing marginalized
ethnic minority groups.
It is generally agreed that immigration can be a valuable national asset if it iseffectively managed, particularly if a receiving society can accomplish thesuccessful incorporation of newcomers. We also know, however, that if
incorporation is incorrectly managed, it can generate tensions and harm social
cohesion. In the next few years, the number of children of new immigrants to
Korea will increase, and how these children fare in mainstream Korean society
will be a critical question in evaluating the success of immigrant incorporation.
Will immigration be a great boon to Korea, or will the growing influx of
newcomers result in social aches and pains? Although I would like to be
optimistic, it is too early to tell. However, what is clear now is that the choices
made by the Korean government and the Korean people will greatly affect thenature of the outcomes for future Korean society.

133

論

文

Notes
(Endnotes)
1 Korea JoongAng Daily (March 23, 2012). “Korean writers imagine the immigrantexperience.” Retrieved from http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/
Article.aspx?aid=2950320.
2 The term damuhwa kachŏng, or multicultural family, usually refers to a family madeup of a Korean citizen, a foreign spouse, and any children they might have. Recently,
however, the term seems gradually to have come to refer to a broader category of
foreign residents and their families in Korea, including foreign migrant workers’ families
and even including families of North Korean refugees.
3 As of 2012, children from multicultural families were 138,583 in total. Among them,children under 6 years of age were 104,694 (62.1 %) and those between 7 and 12 years
were 40,235 (23.9%). It shows that the majority of children from multicultural families
are in large part preschoolers or elementary-school students (Yang et al. 2012, 3).
4 CNET (July 16, 2012). “Getting Online In Super-Wired South Korea.”
Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57473480-1/getting-online-in-superwired-south-korea/
5 The Korea Times (May 28, 2012). “Crimes by Foreigners,”
Retrieved from http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2012/05/202_111887.
html ;
Chosun Ibo (2013, June 24). “Oekukin pŏmchoe chochik, tŏ simkakhaechiki chŏne ppuli
ppopaya” (Eradicate organized crime gangs before they get worse).
Retrieved from http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/06/23/2013062302125.
html.
6 Park also points out that, inf luenced by the legacy of Korea’s long struggle fordemocratization, the development of collective consciousness about human-rights norms,
and a strong traditional labor movement seem to enable Korean society to more easily
view foreign migrant workers living and working in poor conditions as victims of
exploitations and human-rights violations (Park 2013, 14-16).
7 In the Second Basic Plan for Immigration Policy (2013-2017), the Korean government
admits in a self-confessed manner that the term “multiculturalism” has been usedrecklessly for the implementation of various multicultural policies and projects (KIS,
2012: 17).
8 Oh Kyung- Seok (2 0 0 7, 2 9) argues that the term compression is a keyword thatcharacterizes the modernization of Korea. Given the current nature of Korean society,
Korea’s multiculturalism may be described as a modern phenomenon. Compared to themigration experience of most advanced industrial nations, Western societies, and other
East Asian countries, Korean society has been experiencing migration issues in a fairly
compressed way and at a very rapid pace.
9 Jee Young Lee (2013, 18-19) analyzed significant features of Korea’s multicultural
education based on two major studies on multicultural education programs. The findings
show that Korea n multicultura l education a ims at assimilating students frommulticultural families into mainstream Korean society.
10 For exa mple, Joseo njok who work as teachers in China come to Korea to have
temporary job opportunities during school vacations and return to China when school
resu mes . Most of t he ma ny ma le Jos e o njok m ig ra nts who a re engaged i n t heconstruction sector usually return to China during the winter, when the demand for134Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the Future Korean Society?

their work is lower, and return to Korea when they can see better work opportunities
there (Jeanyoung Lee et al. 2008, 47-48; Hye-Kyung Lee ,2010, 571).
11 See a “Kuknae chosŏnchok 70man hankuk chŏngch’aki taese” (700,000 Joseonjok,
permanent settlement in Korea becomes the general trend), a special article about
recent settlement trends of Joseonjok migrants in Korea. Yonhap News Agency, Feb. 4,
2015. Retrieved fromh t t p : // w w w . y o n h a p n e w s . c o . k r / b u l l e t i n / 2 0 1 5 / 0 1 / 3 0 / 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A
KR20150130110700372.HTML?input=1179m

135

論

文

References
Bouchard, Gérard. 2011. What is interculturalism? McGill Law Journal, 56, 435-468.
Bradatan, Cristina, Adrian Popan, and Rachel Melton. 2010. Transnationality as a fluid social
identity. Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, 16(2), 169-178.
Cantle, Ted. 2012. Interculturalism : The new era of cohesion and diversity. . Bansingstoke
and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Castles, Stephen. 2000. Ethnicity and globalization. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi:
Sage.
Castles, Stephen. 2007. Will labour migration lead to a multicultural society in Korea?
Paper presented at the session: Globalization, Foreign Workers and the Impact on
Homogeneous Societies, Global Human Resources Forum 23-25 October, Seoul.
Castles, Stephen, and Mark J. Miller. 2009. The Age of migration: international population
movements in the modern world (4th ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Chae, Young-Gi. 2010. Mitiŏŭi ichumin t’achahwa p’ŭleim punsŏk: hankyŏlyesinmunkwa
chosŏnilpoe nat’anan ichumin t’achahwa p’ŭleimingŭi sikyeyŏlchŏk punsŏk ( Media’s
the Otherness Frames in Korea: Comparative Time Series Analysis of The Otherness
Frames Between Hakyoureh Shinmoon and Chosun Ilbo). Ŏnlonhakyŏnku (Journalism& Communication), 14(2), 205-241.
Chang, Kyung-Sup. 1999. Compressed modernity and its discontents: South Korean society
in transition. Economy and Society, 28(1), 30-55.
Chang, Kyung- Sup. 2 010. The second modern condition? Compressed modernity as
internalized reflexive cosmopolitization. The British Journal of Sociology, 61(3), 444464.
Cheong, Yeon Goo, Hyung-Joo Song, Tae-II Yoon,and Hoon Shim. 2011. Nyusŭ mitiŏŭi
k yŏlhonichuyŏsŏng potok a suyongch aŭi puchŏngchŏk kochŏngkwannyŏmkwa
tamunhwachihyangsŏnge mich’inŭn yŏnghyang (The Effect of media stereotyping of
Immigrants on attitudes toward multiculturalism in Korea). Han’guk ŏllon hakpo(Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies), 55(2), 405-427.
Choi, Jang-Jip. 2012a. Democracy after democratization : The Korean experience. Stanford,
CA: Asia-Pacific Research Center.
Choi, Jang-Jip. 2 012b. Democracy in contemporary Korea : The politics of extreme
uncertainty. Paper presented for a lecture delivered at Shorenstein Asia-PacificResearch Center, Stanford University (October 5, 2012), Stanford, C A.
Cohen, Stanley. 1972. Folk devils and moral panics: the creation of the mods and rockers.
London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Daniels, Jessie. 2009. Cloaked website: propaganda, cyber-racism and epistemology in thedigital ea. New Media & Society, 11(5), 659-683.
Emerson, Michael. 2011. Summary and conclusions. In Michael Emerson (ed.), Europe and its
Muslims in search of sound societal Models, 1-16. Brussels: Centre for European
Policy Studies.
Faist, Thomas. 2010. Towards transnational studies: World theories, transnationalisation andchanging institutions. Jornal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1665-1687.
Faist, Thomas, Margit Fauser, and Eveline Reisenauer. 2013. Transnational migration.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fish, Stanley. 1997. Boutique multiculturalism, or why liberals are incapable of thinking
about hate speech. Critical Inquiry, 23(2), 378-395.
Glick Schiller, Nina, Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc‐Szanton. 1995. From immigrant to136

Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the Future Korean Society?

transmigrant: Theorizing transnational migration. Anthropological Quarterly, 68(1),48-63.
Goss, Jon, and Bruce Lindquist. 2000. Placing movers: An overview of the Asian-Pacificmigration system. The Contemporary Pacific, 12(2), 385-414.
Jung, Hae Gu, and Ho Ki Kim. 2009. Development of democratization movement in South
Korea, Working Paper,: Stanford: Korea Democracy Project/ Shorenstein APARC
Project.
Kim, Hui-Jung. 2007. Hankukŭi kwanchutohyŏng tamunhwachuŭi: tamunhwachuŭi ilonkwa
hankukchŏk chŏkyong (Government-sponsored multiculturalism in Korea: Theories ofmulticulturalism and their application in Korea). In Kyung-Seok Oh (ed.), Hankukesŏŭi
tamunhwachuŭi: hyŏnsilkwa chaengchŏm (Multiculturalism in South Korea: A
critical review), 58-79. Paju: Hanul Ak’atemi.
Kim, Kyung-Hee. 2009. T’ellepichŏn nyusŭ naelŏt’ipŭe nat’anan chaehan ichumin t’ŭksŏng
(The representation of immigrants in narratives of TV news). Hankuk pangsong
hakpo (Korean Journal of Broadcasting), 23(3), 7-44.
Kim, Nam-Kook. 2009. Multicultural challenges in Korea: The current stage and a prospect.
International Migration, 52(3), 100-121.
Kim, Nora Hui-Jung. 2013. Flexible yet inflexible: Development of dual citizenship in South
Korea. Jornal of Korean Studies, 18(1), 7-28.
Kim, Stephanie K., and Lupita H. R. Kim. 2012. The need for multicultural education inSouth Korea. In David A Urias (ed.), The immigration and education nexus: A focus
on the context and consequences of schooling, 243-251. Boston: Sense Publishers.
KIS. 2009. The first basic plan for immigration policy 2008-2012. Korea Immigration
Service (KIS).
KIS. 2012. The second basic plan for immigration policy 2013-2017. Korea Immigration
Service (KIS).
KIS. 2017. 2016 Ch’ulipkuk oekukinchŏngch’aek t’ongkyeyŏnpo (2016 KIS annual statisticalreport). Korea Immigration Service.
Leach, Robert. 2009. Political ideology in Britain, 2nd ed.. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lee, Hye-Kyung. 2010. Preference for co-ethnic groups in Korean Immigration Policy: A caseof ethnic nationalism? Korea Observer, 41(4), 559-591.
Lee, Jeanyoung, Hye-Kyung Lee, and Hyun Mee. (2008). Pangmunch’wiŏpchee taehan silt’aemich’ tongp’o manchokto chosa (The state of the working visit system and thesatisfaction survey). Ministry of Justice, Korea.
Lee, Jee Young. (2013). Multicultural education in the Republic of Korea: How elementary
school teachers interpret multicultural education and Its practical use in classrooms.
Ph.D dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://
www.escholarship.org/uc/item/5gx8t3qv.
Maxwell, Bruce, David I. Waddington, Kevin McDonough, Andrée‐Anne Cormier, andMarina Schwimmer. 2012 Interculturalism, multiculturalism, and the state funding
and regulation of conservative religious schools. Educational Theory, 62(4), 427-447.
Meer, Na sa r, a nd Modo od , Ta r iq. 2 01 2 . How does i ntercu lt u ra l ism cont ra st w it hmulticulturalism?. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33(2), 175-196.
MOJ. 2007. Ch’elyu oekukin 100manmyŏng tolp’a (The number of foreign residents has
exceeded one million) [press release]. Korean Ministry of Justice (MOJ). Retrieved
from
http://www.immigration.go.kr/HP/COM/bbs_003/ListShowData.do?strNbodCd=noti0
091&strWrtNo=393&strAnsNo=A&strOrgGbnCd=104000&strRtnURL=IMM_3020&

137

論

文

strAllOrgYn=N&strThisPage=1&strFilePath=imm/.
MOJ. (2010). Chaknyŏn han hae tongan kwihwahan oekukin 49kaekuk 25,044myŏngŭlo
sasang ch’oetae (Last year 25,044 individuals, from forty-nine different countries, were
naturalized; this was a record high) [Press release]. Korean Ministry of Justice.
Retrieved fromhttp://www.immigration.go.kr/HP/COM/bbs_003/ListShowData.do?strNbodCd=noti0
091&strWrtNo=612&strAnsNo=A&strOrgGbnCd=104000&strRtnURL=IMM_3020&
strAllOrgYn=N&strThisPage=18&strFilePath=.
MOSPA . 2 014 . St a t i st i c s o n fo rei g n re s i d ent s b y l oc al go ver nm ent s (2014 nyŏ nt ochipangchach’itanch’e oekukinchumin hyŏnhwang). Korean Ministry of Security andPublic Administration (MOSPA). Retrieved from http://www.mospa.go.kr/frt/bbs/
type0 01/commonSelectBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 014&ntt
Id=42492.
Morris-Suzuki, Tessa. 2002. Immigration and citizenship in contemporary Japan. In Jawed
Maswood , Jef frey Gra ha m , a nd H idea ki M iyajima (eds .). Ja p an: Ch an ge an dcontinuity, 163-178. New York: Routledge.
Murphy, Michael. 2013. Multiculturalism : A critical introduction. London and New York:
Routledge.
Oh, Kyung-Seok. 2007. Ŏttŏn tamunhwachuŭiinka?: tamunhwasahoe nonŭie kwanhan
pip’anchŏk chomang (What type of multiculturalism? Critical review on debates about
multicultural society). In Kyung- Seok Oh (ed.), Hankukesŏŭi t amunhwachuŭi:hyŏnsilkwa chaengchŏm (Multicuturlaism in South Korea : A Critical Review), 2156. Paju: Hanul Ak’atemi. .
Parekh, Bhikhu. 2006. Rethinking multiculturalism: Cultural diversity and political theory,
2nd ed. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Park, Keumjae. 2014. Foreigners or multicultural citizens? Press media’s construction of
immigrants in South Korea. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(9), 1565-1586.
Rodríguez García, Dan. 2010. Beyond assimilation and multiculturalism: A critical review oft he debate on ma nag i ng d iversit y. Jo ur n a l of In t e r n a t i o n a l Mi g ra t i o n a n dIntegration, 11, 251-271.
Schmidt, Eric, and Jared Cohen. 2013. The new digital age: Reshaping the future of people,
nations and business. London: John Murray.
Watson, Iain. 2012. Paradoxical multiculturalism in South Korea. Asian Politics & Policy,4(4).
Wong, Lloyd, and Vic Satzewich. 2006. Introduction: The meaning and significance oftransnationalism In Vic Satzewich ad Lloyd Wong (eds.), Transnational identities andpractices in Canada (pp. xvii - xxxiii). Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press.
Yamanaka, Keiko. 2008. Japan as a country of Immigration: Two decades after an influx of
immigrant workers. In Shinji Yamashita, Makito Minami, David W Haines, and Jerry
S Eades (eds.), Senri ethnological reports: Transnational migration in East Asia, 77,
187-196. Suita, Japan: National Museum of Ethnology.
Yang, Kye-Min, Seung-Kyung Kim, and Yoon-Young Kim. 2012. damunhwakachok atongch’ŏngsonyŏnŭi paltalkwachŏng ch’uchŏkŭl wihan chongtanyŏnku III (A longitudinal
study of children and adolescents from Multi-cultural Families III). National Youth
Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://lib.nypi.re.kr/pdfs/2012/08.pdf

138

Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision for the Future Korean Society?

Abstract

Is Multicultural Korea a Feasible Vision
for the Future Korean Society?

Questioning the Korean Multicultural Model of
Immigrant Incorporation

Daesung Kwon

Over the past two decades, the greater ethno-cultural diversity driven by
migration is bringing about significant changes in many aspects of Koreansociety which has been usually seen as a relatively homogenous society in termsof history, language, and culture. Ostensibly the Korean government is actively
promoting a multicultural society and even implementing its immigrantincorporation policy under the label of “damunhwa (multicultural)”. However, inmany ways the government seems to continue to resist the development of amulticultural society, and it is doubtful that the government and society truly
want to pursue a genuinely multicultural immigrant society. Against thisbackground, this paper attempts to provide a critical review of the recent
multicultural experience in Korean society with a specific focus on the Korean
multicultural model of immigrant incorporation. In response to Korea’s growing
ethno-cultural diversity, this paper also seeks to examine some questions ofmajor importance for current and future society. How will Korean society
continue to deal with the challenges of immigration and incorporation in future?
Which model of immigrant incorporation works better for the current andfuture Korean society? Is there any alternative beyond the current quasimu lt icu lt u ra l model of i m m ig ra nt i ncor porat ion , wh ich is i n it sel f a n
assimilationist model? Will Korea try to maintain its homogenous national
identity, or will the nation attempt to create a genuinely multicultural immigrantsociety?
Key Words
Immigration, immigrant incorporation, integration, national identity, multiculturalism,
interculturalism, transnationalism, Korea.

139

論

140

文