Reflection on “Multiculturalism” and Migrant Women Workers in South Korea

Reflection on “Multiculturalism” and Migrant Women Workers in South Korea

By Moon, Seungsook,
Dept. of Sociology & Asian Studies Program
Vassar College, USA

The term multiculturalism unexpectedly burst into public discourse in the past couple of years. It is noteworthy that its adjective form, multicultural, has been commonly used in the contexts of discussing couples, families and children generated by international marriages particularly between Korean men and foreign women from other Asian countries.
“…multiculturalism tends to de-politicize cultural differences. This has been the case in the Unites States and it appears to be the case in South Korea as well. In its lop-sided focus on cultural sensitivity and negligence to fundamental issues of equality and basic rights, multiculturalism muddles what is really at stake.”During the past decade, the growth of this type of international marriage has been dramatic. Between 2000 and 2007, one out of every 11 married couples was “multicultural couple” and 72.5% of 225,873 “multicultural marriages” were those between Korean men and foreign Asian women. In 2006 and 2007, over 40 % of rural marriages were this type of multicultural marriage (Munhwa Daily August 14, 2008). In 2008, there are 130,000 “multicultural households” and 44,000 “children of multicultural families” (Seoul Newspaper July 17, 2008). Since 2001, these children of multicultural family or home (tamunhwagajŏng chanyŏ) have been increasingly visible in local grade schools (Chŏbuk Daily October 24, 2008). In 2007, multicultural families organized themselves into the Multicultural Families Association and in 2008 the Korea Multicultural Studies Society was established (Munhwa Daily August 14, 2008). Against the backdrop of this series of remarkable social change, I would like to reflect on the emergence of “multiculturalism” and its meanings.

In contemporary Korea, the trendy use of multiculturalism obscures three crucial issues. First, it glosses over the issue of the foreign woman’s basic rights under the comforting rhetoric and image of families and children. For example, the Ministry of Family, Health and Welfare introduced the Multicultural Family Aid Act and the Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Sports introduced the Multicultural Society Cultural Support Act. In 2006, Kyŏnggi Province Education Office established the Society for Studying Curriculum for Children of Multicultural Families. The absence of serious attention to the woman’s basic rights as individuals and workers in the midst of this type of policy is deeply troubling given the peculiar nature of the current international marriage. Although these women enter Korea as brides, a majority of them have to work due to their own and their husbands’ economic status. That is, these wives are also part of over one-million migrant (foreign) workers who come to Korea from over 100 countries (Seoul Newspaper July 18, 2008). Yet this reality is obscured in the so-called multicultural policies that treat these women almost exclusively as wives, mothers, and daughters-in-law. The pervasive rhetoric of family and home reveals the governments’ wish to tame and domesticate the foreign and the unfamiliar, which is the bride. This underlying anxiety can be detected in the shift in how a marriage between Korean and non-Korean is named: from international marriage to multicultural family. Unlike earlier international marriages characterized by a small number of Korean women marrying foreign men and leaving Korea, the current international marriages involve a large number of Korean men marrying foreign Asian women who come to Korea to live. Yet these women are not viewed as equal members of Korean society but as source of problem that is attributed to their cultural differences (usually centered on their language, religion and custom). Under the veneer of multiculturalism, these women are perceived to be threats to stability and purported homogeneity of Korean society and multicultural policies are supposed to domesticate and manage them.

Second, multiculturalism in the so-called multicultural policies in Korea obscures serious difference between multiculturalism and assimilationism as principles that govern the treatment of (foreign) migrants or social minorities. A history of multiculturalism in the United States is instructive here. The idea of multiculturalism in the U.S. developed in a critical response to the dominant framework of assimilation in its treatment of immigrants (and other social minorities). Until the 1980s, immigrants were expected to assimilate into the mainstream white American society in order to be treated equally. That is, immigrants had to learn normative ways of the mainstream America and abandon their ethnic (or cultural) traits or at least suppress them in public sphere to avoid discrimination. However, this condition of equality did not really work for non-white immigrants. Because the U.S. was constructed as a white nation and this view remains among conservative sectors of the society, these non-white immigrants have faced various forms of discrimination even when they are willing to be assimilated. That is, unlike white European immigrants, non-white immigrants have not had an option of assimilation to a large extent. Responding to the gap between formal equality and the reality of inequality, grassroots social movements developed among racial minorities (along with social movements by women and sexual minorities) in the 1960s and the 1970s. Multiculturalism grew out of these social movements as an alternative to assimilationism. Hence, it advocates positive affirmation of socially stigmatized identities of racial and ethnic minorities (and by extension other social minorities) and recognition of their (cultural) differences from dominant social groups as being legitimate, rather than a problem to be domesticated, suppressed, or managed. Although this ideal of multiculturalism exists only in modified versions in contemporary American society, rather than the dominant framework that replaces assimilationism, multiculturalism contains the history of collective struggle for equality and efforts to redefine the terms of integration of social minorities into the mainstream society. In Korea, this type of collective struggle to give substance to multiculturalism is in its inchoate stage. As a result, multiculturalism appears to be conflated with assimilation and even a misnomer; it functions as palpable sugar coat on the governments’ intension to assimilate these women into mainstream Korea.

Third, multiculturalism tends to de-politicize cultural differences. This has been the case in the Unites States and it appears to be the case in South Korea as well. In its lop-sided focus on cultural sensitivity and negligence to fundamental issues of equality and basic rights, multiculturalism muddles what is really at stake. Cultural differences matter in a given society precisely because they have functioned as source of inequality; that is, those who appear to be different from a social majority are discriminated against in their access to such crucial resources in society as secure employment, affordable health care, education, and housing. In contemporary Korea, migrant (foreign) women who marry Korean men face this line of problems. Given their economic position, these women are integral part of migrant labor force that has been discriminated against initially under the Industrial Trainees System and since 2007 under the Employment Permission System. Yet these crucial issues are not addressed in multicultural policies of the central and local governments. For example, Kyunggi Province women’s policy on migrant foreign women focuses on marriage immigrants and uses these migrant women as day teachers who can instruct their own mother tongues to children of multicultural families in local schools. This is certainly better than not having anything at all that recognizes different cultures these women bring to Korean society. Yet the trouble is that this type of policy displaces more serious concern for how to address inequality and discrimination experienced by them. Despite this problem, multiculturalism will continue to shape public discourse and governmental policies. The appeal of multiculturalism to political leaders and the general public (composed of social majority) lies in the seemingly apolitical meaning of the term culture. Culture commonly reminds many people of arts, literature, and various forms of refined practices that appear to have little to do with conflict and struggle over crucial resources in society. This seemingly mellifluous meaning of culture carries positive image of anything multicultural, including multicultural policies with their dubious contents and implications. ##