Mid-term Examination Cultural History of Modern Korea

Discussion on Multiculturalism in Korea - The Origin of Lack of Opposition to Multiculturalism

저자 (Authors)

Lee, Yong Seung

출처 (Source)

OMNES: The Journal of Multicultural Society 5(2), 2015.1, 85-114 (30 pages)

발행처 (Publisher)

숙명여자대학교 다문화통합연구소 Sookmyung Institute for Multicultural Studies

URL http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Article/NODE06094386

APA Style Lee, Yong Seung (2015). Discussion on Multiculturalism in Korea. OMNES: The Journal of Multicultural Society, 5(2), 85-114.

이용정보 (Accessed)

저작권 안내

DBpia에서 제공되는 모든 저작물의 저작권은 원저작자에게 있으며, 누리미디어는 각 저작물의 내용을 보증하거나 책임을 지지 않 습니다. 그리고 DBpia에서 제공되는 저작물은 DBpia와 구독계약을 체결한 기관소속 이용자 혹은 해당 저작물의 개별 구매자가 비 영리적으로만 이용할 수 있습니다. 그러므로 이에 위반하여 DBpia에서 제공되는 저작물을 복제, 전송 등의 방법으로 무단 이용하는 경우 관련 법령에 따라 민, 형사상의 책임을 질 수 있습니다.

Copyright Information

Copyright of all literary works provided by DBpia belongs to the copyright holder(s)and Nurimedia does not guarantee contents of the literary work or assume responsibility for the same. In addition, the literary works provided by DBpia may only be used by the users affiliated to the institutions which executed a subscription agreement with DBpia or the individual purchasers of the literary work(s)for non-commercial purposes. Therefore, any person who illegally uses the literary works provided by DBpia by means of reproduction or transmission shall assume civil and criminal responsibility according to applicable laws and regulations.

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) 128.97.244.*** 2017/05/30 00:42 (KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2, pp. 85-100.

❙Article❙

Discussion on Multiculturalism in Korea: The Origin of Lack of Opposition to Multiculturalism* 1)

Yong Seung Lee

Abstract

Multiculturalism is in the grip of a fierce dispute throughout the world. In contrast, Multiculturalism in Korea has not been yet faced with the mean- ingful and acute challenges. What could explain these differences? The purpose of this study is to answer to the question. This thesis suggested three causes of the phenomena. The first cause can be attributed to the lack of theoretical dispute on multiculturalism in Korea. Second, state paternalism that originated from Confucian traditions can be presented to the origin of ‘Korean way of multiculturalism.’ Third, current situation of multiculturalism in Korea results from the absence of ‘politics of multiculturalism.’

❚Key words：migration, Korean multiculturalism, multicultural policy, state paternalism, normativity, assimilation

Introduction

Dispute over multiculturalism

Globalization has been advancing since the Second World War in

view of velocity, quantity, and quality, more than ever, at an incomparable

degree. We are now observing free movement of products, technology,

capital, services, and population on the basis of development of trans-

portation, communication, and information technology. Even human mi-

gration, which is under the relatively strict regulations, increases more

* This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MEST) (NRF-2010-413-B00023).

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

86 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

and more swiftly as if to laugh at the efforts of nations. Population move-

ment changes demographic landscape in the receiving countries and aug-

ments the frequency of contact with different cultures as well. Critical

for a state to maintain its solid integration is establishing the relationship

between mainstream and new cultures that flowed, only as long as the

nation-states would like to maintain their integration rigidly.1)

In the past, a state, which had confronted racial, national, and cultural

diversity, had implemented assimilation policies in the name of social

cohesion. Assimilation connotes a tacit hierarchy in races and cultures,

and keeps pace with exclusion, suppression, and compelling non-visibli-

zation over minority cultures and the groups which incarnate certain

cultures. Assimilation policy seems in modern society, however, to reach

the limit in serving as a social integration measures.2) Despite the assump-

tion of ‘assimilation’, minority cultures have not been annihilated.

Instead, they survived and emerged whenever possible. in addition, assim-

ilation policy, keeping pace with exclusion and suppression, hardly, now,

lasts any longer with a voice of the minority has just begun to come

about. It is worthwhile to point out that this change has run parallel

with extension of democracy which may be interpreted as “the reduction

process of the excluded.” Multiculturalism is an ideology and practice

which has been emerging at the end of the supposed utility of assimilation

policies. Although multiculturalism faces various challenges and some

alternative paradigms are being sought,3) they still keep their position

as a key in resolving problems of social integration in many countries.

However, at the advent of this century, repulsion against multi-

culturalism has also been significantly spreading out its influence. Daily

Mail, the British daily newspaper, reported as the title, “Multiculturalism

is dead,” which resembled as advertisement in July 7th, 2006, exactly

one year after the London bombings (7/7). The title, more or less sugges-

tive, manifested some aspects about current multiculturalism. The article,

citing certain research, suggested that British society should encourage

mix based on the new ‘Britishness,’ rather than multiculturalism. Britain,

one of the leading countries in implementing multicultural policies, has

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 87

been seeing fierce disputes about multiculturalism since the London terror

attacks in 2005. But, such ‘backlash’ can be observed in places other

than Britain. Many countries that have adopted multicultural policies,

whether or not they have been institutional, are going through the same

motions of discussing the pros and cons, despites the subtle differences

of situations (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010, pp. 2-3). That such far right

parties or groups in Europe acquire political power is an extreme part

of such phenomenon. Being not so serious, German Prime Minister

Angela Merkel declared on Oct 2010 that attempts to build a multicultural

society “have utterly failed,” while British Prime Minister David Cameron

commented that “state multiculturalism has had disastrous results”

(Battistella, 2011, p. 16).

A more extreme response to multiculturalism was the tragic act of

terror committed by a young Norwegian man, armed with a far right

mentality, islamophobia, and religious vocation, had identified himself

as a “Christian fundamentalist.” His act of terror was to dramatically

express repulsion against multiculturalism and a specific religion, and

he specified Korea and Japan as economically successful model in spite

of their refusal of multiculturalism and their restriction of migration.

Korea, which is actively seeking multiculturalism policies at this time,

may be regretful about his eulogy.

Just as was mentioned, some accept multiculturalism as an influential

way and an ideology for social integration, whereas some refuse and

fiercely criticize it. Korean society, different from the global trends, has

not yet experienced considerable disputes over multiculturalism, theoret-

ically or philosophically. Besides, there is no evidence for widely spread

repulsion against multiculturalism in Korean society.4) Taking into con-

sideration the global trend and Korean peculiarity, the point of this paper

is to critically review Korean multiculturalism and search for the causes

which produce Korean Multiculturalism. Section two describes multi-

culturalism, which I consider to be for a critical evaluation of multi-

culturalism in Korea.

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

88 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

What for multiculturalism?

In the midst of the pros and cons of multiculturalism, no unitary

definition of multiculturalism has been settled on, which is, in part, a

characteristic of any ‘-ism,’ itself. There are just as many multi-

culturalism‘s’ as the number of countries that practice multiculturalism

or as the population of people who advocate or criticize it. But, a few

factors can be extracted across its diversity (Vertovec & Wessendorf,

2010, p. 3). Multiculturalism provides public ‘recognition’ concentrated

on support for the organizations, the activities, and the institutions of

ethnic minorities. Multiculturalism is sensitive to the value of a certain

ethnic and religious groups and also takes into account gender-specific

customs in education. Furthermore, it acknowledges curriculum develop-

ment, mother tongue education, and the establishment of minority schools

aimed at the formation of identity of a minority and cognitive competence

improvement of a host society’s students over their colleagues.

Multiculturalism also can contain such as institutions like this, the re-

structuring of the system and customs and retraining personnel in public

institutions, medical institutions, social service institutions, police forces,

courts, etc. for more culture-sensitive works; public services given in

multiple languages, and legal exceptions for the minorities (For example

turbans permitted to the Sikhs instead of helmets); protection from dis-

crimination, provision of religious conveniences, formulations of public

schemes for prohibited foods; permission of media for minority and

media coverage monitoring to avoid stereotype generation, and so forth.

Such institutions can also be included like affirmative action and legal

stipulations for multiculturalism and non-discrimination; and, although

rather different from Korean contexts, multiculturalism may include his-

torical reconciliation with indigenous peoples and an acknowledgement

of their territorial rights.5)

Despite differences among the types, countries implementing multi-

culturalism policies don’t confine cultural customs within private regions,

but permit them to be presented in public spheres. The state serves as

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 89

an arbitrator in this process or devolves a certain part of their power,

just as Canada does. In addition, multiculturalism adheres to a perspective

of ‘incommensurability,’ with regard to culture. Unlike cultural relativ-

ism, while multiculturalism refuses the idea of the superiority of a culture

over another, it advocates the universal values of mankind. In this way,

it asserts that multiculturalism should be achieved within cultural groups

and that the members of minority groups should have a voice which

enables them to raise objection to their own culture and then a “right

to exit” (Okin, 2002). Multiculturalism is to admit self-expression, ex-

plicit statements, and self-respect of a unit culture; and, based on this

assumption, it takes the modification and the transformation of a culture

through fusion and interaction for granted. Multiculturalism may be con-

sidered as eventually aiming at the establishment of multicultural identity

by mutual understanding, respect, dialogue, and communication among

equivalent cultures, assuming the diversity in them but penetrating the

cultures as a whole (Y-S. Lee, 2010, p. 43).

So, what should such multiculturalism be advocated for? Logic to

justify multiculturalism is as follows (Y-S. Lee 2010, pp. 44-45): First,

multiculturalism is based on affirmation of the inevitability of ‘multi-cul-

tural conditions’ in human societies. In this regard, multiculturalism rec-

ognizes the differences and advocates the preservation and the develop-

ment of the cultures of the minority communities. Second, multi-

culturalism follows the logic of equality of differences. Multiculturalism

pays attention to power distribution in order to maintain the differences

and to practically realize the equality among them. Equal treatment of

a culture of individuals and of groups keeps pace with the extension

of democracy. Third, multiculturalism promotes social integration by rec-

ognizing cultural differences and rights, encouraging the coexistence and

mutually constructive interchange among them. Such logic is the limit

that multiculturalism imposes on itself and also serves as the basis of

reflection to reflect itself continuously. Fourth, in the most comprehensive

senses, multiculturalism stands for the human rights and intrinsic equality

of mankind. Multiculturalism addresses the question of the values of in-

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

90 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

dividuals or groups that have acquired membership of a community but

have also been sacrificed by the host society, and at the same time, pays

attention to individuals who don’t have membership but have been resid-

ing in the society. It is not necessary to explain that the logic to support

it is the very perception of human equality.

Korea shifted to a labor importing country in the late 1980’s. The

rapid increase of the marriage migrant women, in line with the structural

collapse of the rural community, has spread apprehension that problems

and conflicts accompanied with multiethnic society are going to be

brought to the surface. Confronting such change in reality, the Korean

government has established and implemented a variety of migrant in-

tegration measures since the mid-2000s under the pretext of multi-

culturalism policies (Kwon et al., 2012, p. 223). Prior to the soaring

number of marriage migrants via international marriage, the foreign pop-

ulation policies of the Korean government concentrated mainly on

‘controlling and managerial strategy’ in accordance with the domestic

demands of the economy without any special policies that can be true

to the name of immigration policies. The increase in female marriage

migrants, however, is different from the case of migrant workers, and

has eventually brought forth a reflective awareness about the fundamental

characteristic of Korean society (K-G. Han & G-S. Han, 2007, p. 73).

An existing angle which regarded migrants as temporary residents, who

would depart Korea after supplementing its labor deficiency or simply

as a object of control, was mitigated and a consensus was formed to

acknowledge them as subjects to go with the future along with us―the existing Korean citizens.

It may be true that the Korean government has commenced with

multiculturalism policy implementation since 2006 at the time the central

government announced “the transition to a multicultural, multinational

society” and presented the policy paper “Social Integration Support

Measure for Marriage Migrant Families” on Apr. 26th, 2006. The main

contents of the paper was as follows: The establishment of the gov-

ernmental office which is responsible to support migrants including mar-

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 91

riage immigrants, the appointment of the multicultural family support

centers, the legislative push for an administration of brokerage business

for international marriages, the revision of unearthed representation of

racial discrimination in textbooks, the influence of essential multicultural

elements in these same textbooks, and the push for the Anti-discrim-

ination Law (a tentative name), etc. These became the backbone of the

currently multicultural policies of Korea.

On May 26, 2006, at the 1st Council on Policy for Foreign

Population, under the supervision of the President, the council deliberated

and set up “Basic policy for foreign population and implemental system,”

which was the first policy aimed at helping the foreign population in

Korea (Prime Ministerial Committee on Policy for Foreigners, 2006).

The report came the Korean title “외국인 정책 ” (Oikukin Jeongchaeck),

which literally means ‘policy for foreigners,’ however, in English it is

simply translated as “Immigration Policy” by committee. This means that

the Korean government has the first formal immigration policy in the

name of “외국인 정책.” Formerly, the Korean government had no concrete

established policy for the foreign population. There can be no stipulated

immigration policy because the government simply operated policy for

foreigners in a passive way to deal with rotating foreign workers.

However, as the number of immigrants through international marriages

increased, a novel policy was inevitable. Therefore, adoption of the policy

can be significantly meaningful in that it might not only be a para-

digm-shift in terms of the policy for the foreign population, but also

can be an introduction of the first immigration policy in Korea (Kwon

et al., 2012, pp. 228-9).

After that, “The Basic Act for Foreign Residents” and “The

Multicultural Family Support Act” (hereinafter MFSA) was passed in

2007 and 2008, respectively, in order to establish a legal foundation for

multiculturalism policies. The central government announced an action

plan every year on the basis of “The Basic Plan for Foreign population”

and “The Basic Plan for Multicultural Families,” all of which are to be

formulated every five years pursuant to pertinent legislation.6) The

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

92 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

Ministry of Public Administration and Security (MOPAS hereinafter) ad-

vised in July 2011 that the provincial and the municipal government shall

set up a foreign resident-designated department, in phases, by 2013.7)

Problems of multiculturalism in Korea

Multiculturalism as a norm

The first side to be mentioned is the absence of a social consensus

to the multiculturalism in Korea. It seems that multiculturalism in Korea

is regarded as a norm. The term of ‘norm,’ as written in the subtitle,

assumes the ‘fact’ that multiculturalism has already acquired a social

consensus, which invites more detailed explanation. The normativity that

Korean multiculturalism has acquired comes from ‘Korean style multi-

culturalism policy’ which is nearly similar to assimilation policy. In other

words, because the multiculturalism in Korea is based on the premise

that the minority should be absorbed into the mainstream culture in princi-

ple, there is almost no room for criticism from the natives. If there were

a sort of social consensus about multiculturalism in Korea, that would

be a consensus on the pseudo multiculturalism or ‘in fact’ assimilation

policy.

The insistence that multiculturalism in Korea has acquired the posi-

tion of a quasi-norm can be confirmed by the following issues: First,

while similar types of ideological conflicts of the Cold War has been

continuing in Korea, in 2008, there was the unanimous passing of a multi-

culturalism related law. Second, in the 2012 General Election, the con-

servative party (Saenuri party) nominated an immigrant as proportional

representative, and she became the first migrant Member of Parliament.

And finally, Multiculturalism is being dealt with in a favorable manner

by even the conservative media.

Because Korea had experienced a civil war due to the ideological

conflicts 5 years after the end of the Second World War, and is still

divided into North and South Korea, the conflicts in accordance with

the ideology remain unchanged. After the Cold War had ended, while

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 93

there was not the catastrophic level of ideological conflicts that can cause

another war, the global tendency of post-ideology is very far away from

the reality of Korea. This kind of ideological feud influences party politics

or the gap between the political parties, which is one of the main causes

of contestation between the political parties. However, the National

Assembly of Korea unanimously passed the bill which was related to

the support for immigrants. The issues about immigration, as well-known,

have produced a sharp crack in many western countries, and far-right

parties that are committed to the anti-immigration frequently enter into

parliament in several countries. By contrast, even the conservative party

which is located to the right unanimously agreed about the bill in Korea.

Even at that time, a majority party of parliament was liberal party which

had just lost the presidential election the previous year.

During the 2012 General Election, the Korean voters came face to

face with a very ironic situation. The Saenuri party (former Grand

National Party) that stood for conservatism put up a native Filipino female

as a candidate of proportional representative for parliament and had her

elected. It was very difficult event that an immigrant could be brought

into the National Assembly in racially and ethnically homogeneous soci-

ety for a long time. The fact that an exception like this occurred by

the conservative political party can be called an intense irony. Before

than this event, there was also a first in a 2010 local election. The same

conservative party nominated a native Mongolian woman for the most

tightly populated Gyeongi Provincial Assembly and made her the first

Member of Parliament of the province (in Korean, a ‘Do’/도). These

nominations were just done in the name of multiculturalism policy.

Multiculturalism in Korea has been in the position of quasi-norm to the

extent that the conservative party exercised initiatives in multicultural

policies.

The normativity of Korean multiculturalism can also be found in

that the conservative media – in Europe’s spectrum of ideology, they are very similar to the ‘far right’– consider multiculturalism with a very favorable view, needless to say the liberal media. While the conservative

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

94 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

media promotes and aggravates the anti-foreigner sentiment for crimes

by foreigners with racist demeanor, they nevertheless maintain a very

positive attitude toward multiculturalism.

As can be seen through these examples, Korean multiculturalism

seems to have acquired a normal position without meaningful public

contestations. Now, multiculturalism that was introduced lacked profound

considering on the future of Korean society and lacked a social consensus,

but has ironically taken a position of an ideology which most people

agree with. However, the normativity Korean multiculturalism obtained

is not on a rigid foundation. Such instability has a vulnerability that may

become damaged even by mere chance. It is the normativity that can

be reversed at any time.

Policy without a theoretical foundation is also easily changeable.

Policies responding extemporaneously to practical current needs without

holistic planning over multicultural society can hardly maintain

consistency. Dissipation of national energy and its inefficiency is a natural

outcome in the implementation of such policies, lacking a philosophical

and theoretical guide. One cannot assert that theoretical discussion must

be ahead of practice. If so, social issues requiring urgent treatment may

be thrown away and the theory can possibly turn around aimlessly. Even

Canada, which adopted multiculturalism as the state identity for the first

time in the world, put priority on policy prior to concentration on theoret-

ical contemplation. However, circumstantial practice in accordance with

change in reality without a proper backing philosophy, theoretical debate,

and related social consensus may not guarantee the consistency, sustain-

ability, and efficiency of the policy. Both should go side by side like

two sides of the same coin. In this regard, the Korean situation in which

the one side overwhelms the other is not desirable.

In conclusion, Korean multiculturalism and policies pertaining to it

may be evaluated to stand on an unstable normativity or ‘Sollen,’ having

a theoretical and philosophical discernment of ‘why’ omitted.

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 95

Limitation of the intended beneficiaries of multiculturalism policies

A group or individuals that may be called a multicultural subjects

accounts for the minority, including migrant workers (the undocumented

included), indigenous people, immigrants, the national minority, the eth-

nic minority, the mixed blood, and the social minority, including females,

homosexuals, the handicapped minority, and so forth. The peculiarity of

Korean society may contain defectors from North Korea and overseas

Koreans residing in the Korean territory. Korean multiculturalism poli-

cies, however, concentrate only on marriage migrants; inter alia, and mar-

riage migrant women and their children. Intermittent supports for mi-

grants, such as special measures for the children of undocumented work-

ers, have been introduced, but they have only been in exceptional cases.

The aim of the MFSA is to basically support those who became

or might become Korean nationals in the future. According to Article

2 of MFSA, the subjects to the law are restricted to the families who

are composed of Korean nationals, including the nationals by natural-

ization or affiliation, and marriage migrants. Accordingly, legal beneficia-

ries that can be included in the category of multicultural families are

shrunk significantly (Kwon et al., 2012, pp. 233-4). MFSA excludes the

migrant workers who account for the highest number in Korea.

A further serious problem accounts for an approach of the policy

that treats even the narrowly defined subjects to the policy from a view-

point of a solution seeking for the future problems or causes of conflicts.

This inclination is based on concern about family disorganization, social

conflict caused by the first and second generations of immigrants and

consequential obstacles of integration into Korean society that may occur

in case of failure of transforming marriage immigrants into decent

Koreans. ‘The Basic Plan for Multicultural Families’ based on MFSA

is presented regularly every five years by related ministries. According

to the plan, there is a rapid increase in multicultural families in Korea,

but they are suffering from social alienation and difficulty with

integration. With the failure or lag in integration bringing the multi-

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

96 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

cultural families into the society, the plan forecasts the problem of societal

cost caused by poverty and conflicts in and among ethnic groups and

classes (MGEF & Related Joint Ministries, 2011). If the background of

the basic plan is closely looked at, Korean multicultural policies based

on an instrumental and ‘problem solving’ approach: an instrument for

aging and low birthrate alleviation, for preparedness for a decline of the

working-age population, and for solving the disproportion of sex ratio

(Y-S. Lee, 2011, p. 145). There is considerable gap between such per-

spective and a multicultural coexistence which multiculturalism aims to

reach at.

Such an approach serves as the hotbed for throwing away the task

of raising marriage migrants as dignified agents and even brings about

pessimism and criticism about multiculturalism whenever there is social

maladjustment of migrants. Besides, such a ‘problem solving’ approach

pays attention only to raising the efficiency of existing policies. It hinders

transitional access to a policy paradigm.8)

That multiculturalism regards its objects just as a beneficiary and

the governmental policy aims at paternal almsgiving may make to evade

the key values of multiculturalism, inter alia, the question of power. Even

if the question of power is not specified, policy deliberation to raise them

as the agents of multiculturalism is very rare. Multiculturalism that prem-

ises the object’s being passive and unilaterally provides governmental

assistance strengthens their passivity and makes it difficult to discern

the policy demand exactly.

Contradictions in the naming

The contents of multiculturalism policies that the Korean government

so far has implemented don’t seem very different from the rhetoric of

an assimilation policy. Both the legal principle and its actual im-

plementation with a common aim at making migrants adapt themselves

entirely into Korean society and reducing the possibility of

problematizing. Even though they includes the exclusion of discrim-

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 97

ination and prejudice, and improvement of the quality of migrants’ lives

and so forth that is the similar goals of multiculturalism, it just appears

that they place such goals as fragmentary, desirable aspects that assim-

ilation could bring about. Helping migrants successfully settle into Korean

society is necessary and proper. Korean language education, for example,

is a necessity for the migrants to enjoy basic rights, including labor rights

in Korea and would lead a humane life of their own. Even so, multi-

culturalism in language policy area is composed of a far wide range of

contents including multi-linguistic instructor fostering, bilingual educa-

tion, multi-linguistic broadcasting, multi-linguistic service provision for

higher accessibility to public service, etc. And, it is expressly different

from current Korean language education for immigrants in terms of its

aim. Such measures of the Korean government may yet be evaluated

as a multiculturalism policy on an elementary level. However, when it

comes to the goals the government declares, the phrases it expresses,

the narrowness of the object range of the policy and permanent residency

prevention policy against migrant workers, the Korean government’s mi-

grant integration policy can be classified into an assimilation policy.9)

There is a study (Park & Cho, 2006) that conducted a preparation

for the MFSA which govern the current multicultural policies in Korea.

This study confirms that Korea’s multicultural policies are not sig-

nificantly different from assimilation policies. Although the study was

carried out before the bill was passed, the document acquired a status

of an authoritative explanatory note on the MFSA because the treatise’s

proposals were mostly reflected in the bill. The study said:

It is too hasty to introduce whole multiculturalism policies in our situation, but it is necessary to set up assimilation policy by default seasoned with multicultural policy. It is not desirable for government to supply the network information of immigrants in order to let them maintain the languages and cultures of the homeland, which would hinder the assimilative integration of marriage immigrants.

The study showed a negative attitude toward the cultural rights of

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

98 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

the immigrants which are the core of multiculturalism, and it mentioned

that assimilation policies had to be a basic principle. Through this, we

can see that MFSA has regulated Korean multiculturalism with the per-

spective of assimilation.

The premise of any assimilation policy is cultural commensurability

and the existence of a hierarchy of cultures. It maps out, therefore, the

absorption and extinction of the inferior culture into the superior one.

The Korean integration policy of migrants, as a whole, has not much

deviated from such framework. Even if there is no intentional assumption

of the superiority of Korean culture, it seems obviously true that the

focus of multiculturalism in Korea is on the entire adjustment of migrants

into Korean society and the maintenance of the family or similar unit.

Korean multiculturalism policies treat such migrants as passive objects

of support and assistance. Such approaches are broadly consistent with

the purpose of assimilation policies.

Terminological contradiction, namely the problem of naming, is a

phenomenon peculiar to Korean society, which has been brought forth

owing to a relatively rapid demographic diversification and a good deal

of possibility that such a demographic shift would be accelerated. Current

inconsistent phenomenon will very possibly not occur if the entry into

multicultural society has taken place rather smoothly and if agent for-

mation has kept pace with related policies. Meatiness on contents shall

not always be prior to the urgent political demands. Simultaneous tasks

in response to the pressing social and political demands and theoretical

contemplation pertaining to it account for Korean peculiarity of the nam-

ing contradictory. However, such conditions cannot always justify the

contradictory being prevailed in Korean multiculturalism.

The origin of ‘Korean multiculturalism’

The absence of pros and cons that stick out

As mentioned above, different from the world’s general tendency,

there has scarcely been a vigorous dispute over multiculturalism in Korea.

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 99

What is the cause of these phenomena? First of all, the cause can be

attributed to the lack of theoretical dispute or discourse on multi-

culturalism and multicultural policies. The scarcity of theoretical dispute

may be explained for two reasons, as follows: First, with the overflow

of discourse over multiculturalism in Korea, it still not yet reaches the

level of threatening any unity nationalism sentiment. Second, although

Korea has declared multiculturalism in its policies, Korea’s multi-

culturalism has not been much different from assimilation, which mini-

mizes the criticism concerned. Those interpretations are identical to each

other in that they give clearance to critically contemplate the actualities

of Korean multiculturalism.

A lack of theoretical study and an absence of dispute pertaining

to it have led to the absence of a social consensus, which was mentioned

above. The lack of study and absence of dispute actually move in pairs.

There is no room for denial that abundance of theoretical studies will

stir up disputes and the latter would activate the former. Social consensus

can be established through the process of countless disputes.

The absence of dispute serves as a kind of an obstacle to the activa-

tion of theoretical discussion. Although a few criticize, in principle, the

discourses over multiculturalism (Chun, 2004), but it has not, so far,

reached the level of public dispute. On one hand, although multi-

culturalism has obtained normativity in public sphere, the discourse over

multiculturalism doesn’t reach the critical point, and on the other hand,

as N-K. Kim (2008, p. 355) pointed out, far right groups have not, so

far, selected it as an agenda. It is also because Korean society doesn’t

pay attention to it because there are much significant problems, while

there is no experience of a serious ethnic conflict yet. In other words,

owing to Korea has been confronted with the critical problems to be

solved such as social, economic, and political polarization rather than

challenges from multiculturalization, full-fledged debates over multi-

culturalism have not surfaced off. As H-S. Kim (2007) pointed out,

“Because no social conflicts and politics of identity had been experienced

in Korea, Korea lacks a sense of actualities about ethnic conflict, which

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

100 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

has made multiculturalism to be easily mobilized and accepted.” A flood

of discourses at the same time of a lack of theoretical investigation and

dispute is also an unbalanced phenomenon, at any rate.

One of the reasons why Korean society lacks much debate on multi-

culturalism is that multiculturalism has been viewed in terms of a too

‘politically correct’ manner. Also, the government interfered too much

with the issue. It seems that Korean multiculturalism has the appearance

of political correctness; a tolerant attitude to the marriage immigrants

and their children, the benign concern about the hardship of the immi-

grants, and the support for the immigrants with a warm heart. The logic

which constitutes the basis of Korean multiculturalism policy is an exam-

ple of an almost perfect political correctness. The configuration of the

content, like this, contributed greatly for Korean multiculturalism to ac-

quire the quasi-norm position.

‘Politically correct’ discourse has brought about the overwhelmingly

government led multiculturalism that has not been confronted with public

contestation. The excessive engagement of the government with multi-

cultural issues could be counter-productive as it extremely weakens the

social deliberations. Because the government has the main interest in

immediate policy implementation, she does not have a stake in the theo-

retical studies which is the hotbed of opposition to the policies of their

own. This is the reason of the Korean government scarcely allocating

fund to a theoretical research that could be a philosophical foundation

of multiculturalism policies, as well as for the preoccupation of the devel-

opment of policies which can be immediately applicable. In short, leaning

against the ‘politically correct’ discourse, the Korean government has

implemented multicultural policies without reasonable and meaningful

opposition, to the extent which has adverse effects that disturb the lively

discussion about multiculturalism in civil society.

Korean society, due to the particularity of division of territory and

the nation, has always had a problem with a ‘surplus of ideology.’

However, there has been a problem with a ‘poverty of ideology’ with

regard to multiculturalism. There are also endemic problems of theoretical

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 101

colonialism that Western theory has been applied unreasonably in the

Korean reality without modification. In the case of multiculturalism, how-

ever, the situation only uses the terminology and imitates some practices,

omitting the theoretical core. This is the cause of the lack of a philosophy

about multiculturalism. If there is no philosophical foundation of policies,

most policies would be immersed in the settlement of matters in hand,

and a decision making process would be swayed by the budget max-

imizing bureaucrats. The negligence about philosophical foundation forms

a condition where paradoxically Korean multiculturalism can flow into

a surplus. That is because if the legitimacy and ultimate orientation of

the policy is vague, any policies, which are related to immigrants, can

be carried out in the name of multiculturalism (Y-S. Lee, 2011, p. 148).

State paternalism and nationalism

As mentioned in Section Three, the targets of multiculturalism poli-

cies in Korea are extremely restricted. Multiculturalism policies, which

narrowly define the beneficiaries, have two kinds of effects: First, because

it concentrates on married female migrants, Korean multiculturalism poli-

cies bring of assimilation and paternalism to a conclusion, which is just

designed to help migrants rapidly adjust to the host society. In con-

sequence of a consensus that defines the migrants as beneficiary or the

social weak, multiculturalism policies that have them a main target tend

to be accepted in Korean society without any special controversy. Due

to such a peculiarity, public criticism on supporting multicultural families

or multiculturalism is almost not brought about. Second, multiculturalism

brings forth an effect that concentrates on maintenance and sustainability

of a family. This is deeply related to the Confucian patriarchal tradition

of Korea. Those effects, by mass-producing a perception that multi-

culturalism has been agreed upon within all aspects of the society, bring

about policy competition and duplication among ministries; and, in some

aspects, excessiveness and inefficiency of the policies.

Although there may be various discussions, the recognition of the

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

102 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

marginalized and alienated since the building of nation-states as agents

is the starting point of multiculturalism. Studies which worked on immi-

grants’ incorporation in American society in the 1920s, pointed out that

immigrants’ memories and organizations are very important even in the

process of assimilation (Park & Miller, 1921, pp. 180, 187). In other

words, even assimilation policy which is assumed that immigrants would

throw away their own culture and would be absorbed into the mainstream,

made use of the memories and organizations of immigrants. Likewise,

there is no need to say, in case of multicultural policy, that it’s a very

crucial to guarantee the sustainability of their own cultures and to support

migrant organizations. Multiculturalism in Korea, however, doesn’t have

an interest in the immigrants’ cultures and organizations. That is to say,

multiculturalism, which has been advocated by the Korean government,

is missing ‘recognition.’ The missing position of recognition is occupied

by state paternalism which regards cultural agents as mere beneficiaries.

What is the cause of omitting the ‘recognition’ in terms of cultural

identity which is the fundamental factor of multiculturalism? This can

be found in the state paternalism that originated from Confucian traditions

and a nationally homogeneous consciousness which has prevailed

throughout Korea for such a long time. Korea, along with Japan, is cited

as a culturally homogeneous nation-state (which is very rare in the world),

consisting of a single nation or ethnic. The terminology of a single nation

has disappeared from the government approved textbooks since 2007.

Nevertheless the single nation consciousness has remained strong in

Korean people. Nationalism also has influenced the implementation of

immigration policies. There have been no acts or regulations related with

immigration in Korea, which has made it extremely difficult to immigrate

into Korea. The practically only way to immigrate into Korea is through

marriage, which is similar to the Western experience, before the 1960’s,

that ‘assimilability’ is the pre-condition to permission of immigration.

In other words, ‘Koreanizability’ is the critical condition of immigration

into Korea. Nationalism resulted in selective immigration permission,

which resulted in assimilation policies related to the selective immigrants

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 103

in Korea.

Nationalism and ‘family-ism’ are closely interlocked. Marriage mi-

grant women are charged with the role to solve the problems that Korean

society can’t be solvable. One of the problems is that a male of marriage-

able age has not been able to find a spouse mainly related with the sharp

collapse of rural communities. Another problem is the weakening of home

care labor which was traditionally a women’s charge. The patriarchal

convention had prevailed in Korea, which forced the housewives the bur-

den of the whole housework including house care labor. Although the

convention of patriarchy has faded away gradually, the remnants of it

remain with the marriage migrant women who settled in the rural areas.10)

These have resulted in state paternalism which is expressed through dis-

pensation to marriage migrants, and people’s easy acceptance of paternal-

istic welfare benefits for multicultural families. As a result, nationalism

and ‘family-ism’ has caused a limitation of beneficiary of multicultural

policies and has enabled de facto assimilation policies. Also these chain

causes have omitted philosophical discourse.

The absence of ‘politics’: the absence of experience with modern immigration policy

Finally, the most important factor which brought forth the present

condition of Korean multiculturalism is the absence of ‘politics of multi-

culturalism’ which are deeply related to the past experiences of Korea.

Public disputes, discussions, and interactions among pertinent groups in

the process of decision making in public policies may be defined as

‘politics.’ In this regard, multicultural politics or the politics of multi-

culturalism connotes conflicts and arbitration in all related groups, includ-

ing the state and parties, surrounding the distribution of values in the

issue area generalized as ‘multiculturalism.’ Politics of Multiculturalism

cannot be activated without a premise of subjectification of all the multi-

culturalism-related groups and individuals. The spread of politics in the

multicultural fields cannot avoid being accompanied by the sub-

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

104 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

jectification of cultural minorities, the acknowledgment of their political

rights, and the reflection of their demands on the political process. In

Korea, however, politics has been almost excluded from the area of

multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism has been deeply related to democracy in the view

of the expansion of the ‘rights of minority.’ Just as democracy has been

in line with the promotion of the rights of citizens, multiculturalism,

which reflects influential tendency of promotion of the citizenship, de-

mands that cultural minority who is experiencing a lack of full citizenship,

should be accepted as the agent of civil rights. The construction of a

new agent may bring about a new problem of power distribution.

Multiculturalism should not quit at ‘giving’ cultural rights to minorities,

but to aggressively take into account the power distribution, so as to

acquire and maintain cultural rights by themselves. In order to secure

equal continuation of each cultural group, political power distribution

has to be deliberated. Rights induced by power are the key means for

the sub-cultural groups to retain their own culture. Multiculturalism that

is not endowed with such power has to depend on the mere kindness

or tolerance of the majority population that can be retracted anytime and

cannot guarantee the sustainability of the minority cultures and its re-

production, let alone equality among cultural groups (Y-S. Lee, 2010,

p. 39). Subjectification and power distribution could have the governance

extended in policy making and the implementing process.

The ‘subject’ is missing in Korean Multiculturalism, however. The

target beneficiaries of multicultural policies are treated only as a passive

object that needs help from society and state, and the aide-beneficiary

perspective is composed of the principal contents of multicultural policies

in Korea. Regardless of the intention, considering minorities as people

in need understandably has been disqualified them from the right to voice

their own problems. The beneficiaries of multicultural policies are alien-

ated from the policy making process which has a great influence on their

lives.

What is the main cause of the omission of the politics which can

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 105

be operated by a diverse interest of agents? This first cause can be found

in the lack of experience of modern immigration policies. Korea is ex-

tremely short of experience in terms of immigration policies since the

country’s establishment in 1948. Because Korea had not admitted immi-

grants or restricted extremely, there has been very little experience of

conflict about immigration policies. The lack of experience with immigra-

tion policies brings a void in the notion about the rights of the minority.

This leads to the omission of multicultural politics in a chain reaction.

What makes the matter more serious is that the potential for immigrants

to have a voice based on the awareness of their own rights is very limited,

because current multicultural policies yield mere beneficiaries who are

dependent on state paternalism.

The second main cause for the missing of ‘politics of multi-

culturalism’ is the myth of a single-nation which has regulated Korean

society for a long time. The myth of single-nation has caused hesitation

about accepting immigrants, and has resulted in a delay in policy dis-

cussion about immigration.

In conclusion, multicultural policies do not confront relevant opposi-

tion because the politics of multiculturalism has been skipped in the proc-

ess of implementation of them. Furthermore, the missing of politics has

blocked the opportunity for immigrants, who have been excluded or as-

signed to the position of beneficiaries, to voice their rights in the public

sphere. And, that opened the window of opportunity which de facto as-

similation policies can be practiced in the name of multiculturalism. If

multicultural policies were introduced through means of politics of multi-

culturalism the present reversed situation would have been impossible

from the beginning.

Conclusion

Rapid demographical change in Korea highly depends on structural

factors of society. Push factors rather than pull factors dominated around

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

106 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

twenty to thirty years ago. But after that period, various pull factors have

been exerting their effects to swiftly change the population structure. The

entrance of labor population in accordance with economic development

and global labor division, the inflow of international students, the rapid

inflow of marriage migrants with the change in industrial structure accom-

panied by the rural collapse, and North Korean settlers11) as a peculiarity

of Korea account for the fierce increase in the rate of visible minorities.

Besides, the Korean demographical crisis, namely the low birth rate and

aging, boosts the international population inflow. Foreigner inflow de-

pends on individual decision following the ‘Korean Dream,’ and far more

on the needs of Korean society. On this account, two normative factors

may be discussed. First, because Korea cannot avoid its multicultural

phenomena, it is necessarily natural to stably manage the relationship

between the increasing minority and the majority. The way how to lead

their relationship should be one of the most important factors in determin-

ing Korea’s future. Second, given the foreigner inflow in accordance with

the needs of Korean society, to support them with proper policies is an

obligation of Korean society. In some aspects, the latter is an ethical

task of Korean society.

Sollen (what should be) alone, however, cannot bring about policy

and maintain legitimacy of it. Policy is to be formulated and implemented

for the first time when social pressure exists, and political agency will-

ingly makes an effort to realize this normative necessity. Korea has a

wide social consensus, in this regard, with relation to the needs of multi-

culturalism policy. And, the government is actively and confidently aim-

ing at this. This is the best time when practical demand for policy, wide

consensus for multicultural policy, and willing authority are readily pre-

pared to precisely refine the policy orientation. In addition, we can ob-

jectively look at our identity as single-nation or ethnic, and can amend

it toward more open and tolerant directions thanks to a gradual increment

of foreign population. We are able to realize our real figures through

‘the others within us,’ because identity can only stand up through the

relation with others. It is the duty of Korean society to modify their

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 107

identity and values in order to meet the multicultural era.

Multiculturalism may not be the best way to accommodate diversity.

But, as long as it has been emerging after a great deal of trial and error,

and through reflection, it also connotes practical adaptability and

feasibility. It is plainly true that multiculturalism still confronts criticism

and continuously experience trial and error. And furthermore, although

there is no consensus about what comes after multiculturalism, there is

a consensus that we are in a post-multicultural era (Kymlicka, 2010, p.

97). Even so, it cannot return to an assimilation whose illegitimacy is

already verified. Even with such possibility, if any, a new assimilation

policy has to be different from that of any old one. Korea has not yet

become a multicultural society true to its name, nor implemented multi-

cultural policies in earnest. Accordingly, hasty alternative groping at mul-

ticulturalism is not relevant to the case of Korea. What is needed is to

push ahead with multiculturalism to the end and ascertain what is at

the end of multiculturalism. The process will forge social integration poli-

cies that can be consistent to the Korean context.

1) The growth of international migration sometimes changes the perception of national border or extends citizenship. Regional blocs, such as the European Union, lead these trends.

2) Kymlicka (2003, p. 8) once stated “assimilation policy has been dead” in this regard. However, it may be useful to point out any voluntary wish of migrants toward assimilation into the majority culture.

3) Interculturalism representatively accounts for the alternative ideology of multiculturalism. Refer to Battistella (2011), and Wood (2010, pp. 22-26).

4) A few internet cafés or blogs manifest anti-multiculturalism sentiments, but they may hardly have enough impact to influence the policies which aim at multiculturalism. Nevertheless, it is necessary to anticipate their role in the spreading out of anti-multi- culturalism when multiculturalism applied to the whole sometimes or other in Korean society.

5) Banting et al. (2006) divided practices, which may be considered as multiculturalism policies, into measures for immigrants, indigenous peoples, and sizable national minorities. The multiculturalism policies/indexes they suggested address most of contents of multicultural policies.

6) Although those two Plans share their provisions significantly because the Basic Plan for Foreign Population also contains policies for multicultural families, provisions in

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

108 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

the Basic Plan for Multicultural Families are relatively more specific.

7) Vide [Appendix 1], which breaks down the multiculturalism-related programs of the central government.

8) According to P.A. Hall, a policy paradigm is “a framework of ideas and standards that specifies not only the goals of policy and the kind of instruments that can be used to attain them, but also the very nature of the problems they meant to be addressing.” Simply speaking, a policy paradigm can be expressed as a hermeneutical holistic prism through which the issues and agendas are managed. A good example of this policy paradigm is the Keynesianism that frame-worked the macroeconomic policies of Britain in the postwar period (Hall, 1993, p. 279).

9) The assertion that Korean multicultural policies are no more than assimilation ones is shared with many researchers. Refer to S-O. Lee (2007), H-M. Kim (2008), Seol (2010), and Choi (2010).

10) There is tacit social pressure on the marriage migrant women that they must represent the patriarchal core elements, such as obedient women who sustain an extended family and a willing charge to do house care labor, regardless of rural or urban areas. Through this, we can see ‘the projection of patriarchal romances,’ which has faded away from Korean society.

11) Pursuant to the Korean peculiar territory provisions of the constitution, North Korean residents are already Korean citizens and as soon as they are out of the “Unoccupied Region,” which was swayed by a puppet regime. The Korean government takes responsi- bility to protect them and regarding them as overseas Koreans. As long as North Korea doesn’t become a ‘normal state’ in the nearly future, North Korean settlers will also continue to flow in.

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 109

Ministry Category Main subproject

Ministry of Gender

Equality & Family

High Quality Social

Integration

∙ understanding improvement of multiculturalism via social education

∙ hosting of forums and seminars concerned with multiculturalism

∙ public service advertisement, broadcast programs

∙ spread of Korean language and Korean culture understanding education

∙ issuance and circulation of information magazine with multiple languages

∙ establishment of nationwide hot-line for interpretation and translation

∙ strengthening visiting support of life cycle and children care service

∙ municipality’s active utilization of local resources

∙ operation of self-help community (of the spouse) (un)

∙ employment support of marriage immigrants

∙ early stabilization of international marriage intermediary business registration scheme and reinforcement of education of the international marriage intermediaries

∙ information provision for marriage migrant-to-be

∙ environment establishment for bilingual education

∙ basic learning and competency development support for preschoolers

∙ early adaptation program operation for multicultural juveniles

∙ fostering of multicultural juvenile professionals

Foreigner Rights

Protection

∙ nation-wide support system establishment for migrant woman victims

∙ protection support for foreign woman victims due to family violence, etc.

Ministry of Education,

Science and Technology

High Quality Social

Integration

∙ strengthening of multiculturalism understanding education in curriculum

∙ strengthening of multiculturalism understanding education in revised kindergarten curricula (un)

∙ competence reinforcement of teachers of kindergarten and elementary and secondary education

∙ environment establishment for bilingual education

∙ basic learning competence development education support for preschoolers

∙ reinforcement of multicultural education support system

∙ customized instruction of underachieving students

∙ operation of happy class of multicultural family parents and their students in the local school

∙ extended learning opportunity for school maladjustment students and dropouts

[Appendix 1]

Key Ministries’ Multiculturalism-related Projects

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

110 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

Ministry Category Main subproject

Ministry of Justice

High Quality Social

Integration

∙ expansion of multicultural education instructors

∙ multiculturalism understanding education for municipal governmental personnel and denizen

∙ forums or seminars concerned with multiculturalism (un)

∙ public service advertisement, broadcast programs (un)

∙ holding a ‘Together day’ ∙ standardization of social

integration programs

∙ activation of consultations on problems of marriage migrants and their family (un)

∙ support of self-help community for marriage migrants

∙ monitoring activation of marriage migrants’ actualities after immigration (un)

∙ international marriage information advice program

∙ prosecution of institutional legal support projects (un)

∙ designation and operation of overseas Korean residence support centers

Foreigner Rights

Protection

∙ monitoring system establishment of discrimination correction

∙ nationwide support system establishment for migrant woman victims (un)

∙ operation of human rights infringement remedy institution (un)

∙ establishment prosecution of refugee support institutions

Ministry of Culture,

Sports and Tourism

Active Opening-up

∙ Korean language education promotion

∙ performances for multicultural families

∙ multicultural archives establishment in multicultural family-concentrated areas

∙ building of multicultural knowledge information

∙ improvement of library service for multicultural families, etc.

∙ content development of reading for multicultural families

∙ foreign books purchase project ∙ support of sport for

multicultural children

High Quality Social

Integration

∙ program development of multicultural education

∙ multicultural education, multicultural exhibitions

∙ improvement project of multiculturalism perception of domestic citizens

∙ multicultural education and invitation programs

Ministry of Health and

Welfare

Active Opening-up

∙ social security benefit rights extension to foreign residents (Basic Livelihood Security Program and emergency support)

∙ support of heath care for foreign workers

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 111

Ministry Category Main subproject

High Quality Social

Integration

∙ activation of consultation for marriage migrants and their families

∙ environment establishment for bilingual education

∙ extended financial support of multicultural childcare

Ministry of Public

Administratio n and

Security

High Quality Social

Integration

∙ training for municipality’s public service personnel

∙ current state investigation of foreign residents

∙ installing the department for foreign population and the supply of manpower

∙ spread of best practices of settlement

∙ education for fostering marriage migrant woman leaders

∙ education on informatization for marriage migrants

∙ formulation or revision of the “Foreign Residents Support Regulations” (un)

Orderly Migration

Administration

∙ support of life stability in foreign residents concentrated areas

Ministry of Employment and Labor

High Quality Social

Integration

∙ job finding support for marriage migrants (un)

∙ job finding support for overseas Korean guest workers (un)

Foreigner Rights

Protection

∙ strengthening the protection of rights and interests of foreign workers (un)

Ministry of Food,

Agriculture, Forestry and

Fisheries

High Quality Social

Integration

∙ 1:1 customized agriculture management education for marriage migrant women

∙ basic agriculture education for marriage migrant women

Source: Action Plan of Central Government for the 1 st

Basic Plan for Foreign Population

(2008-2012) in 2012.

1. Only multiculturalism-related projects in the 1 st Basic Plan for Foreign Population

were listed. 2. Unbudgeted projects were not to be listed in principle but some of them were

listed if necessary. Unbudgeted projects were marked with (un).

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

112 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

References

Banting, K., Johnson, R., Kymlicka, W., & S. Soroka. (2006). Do multi- culturalism policies erode the welfare state? An empirical analysis.” In K. Banting & W. Kymlicka (Eds.), Multiculturalism and the wel- fare state (pp. 49-91). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Battistella, G. (2011). The ups and downs of multiculturalism. Proceedings of an International Conference convened at Catholic University of Daegu, Korea. March 25.

Choi, J-R. (2010). Multiculturalism policies in South Korea: A Comparative Perspective. Social Theory, 37, 229-274.

Chun, S-Y. (2004). The limitation and paradox of discourses on ‘multicultural society’. Korea-Germany Studies of Social Science, 14, 363-380.

Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policy making in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25, 275–296.

Han, K-G., & Han, G-S. (2007). The reality and ideal of Korean multicultural society: Beyond the ‘pure blood’ and civilizational discrimination. In H-S. Kim (Ed.), Theorizing the Korean multiculturalism (pp. 67-107). Presidential Committee on Northeast Asian Cooperation Initiative.

Kim, H-M. (2008). Migrants and multiculturalism. Culture and Modern Society, 26, 57-78.

Kim, H-S. (2007). Groping for Korean ‘multiculturalism’: universality of migra- tion and particularity of Korea in globalization. In H-S. Kim (Ed.), Theorizing the Korean multiculturalism (pp. 35-62). Presidential Committee on Northeast Asian Cooperation Initiative.

Kim, N-K. (2008). Development and acceptance of multiculturalism in Korea. Economy and Society, 80, 343-361.

Kwon, G-S., et al. (2012). Nine approaches: Understanding of multicultural society. Seoul: Taeyeongbook.

Kymlicka, W. (2003). Canadian multiculturalism in historical and com- parative perspective: Is Canada unique? Constitutional Forum, 13,

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2 113

1-8.

Kymlicka, W. (2010). The rise and fall of multiculturalism?: New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse societies. International Social Science Journal, 61, 97-112.

Lee, S-O. (2007). Migrant labor movement and multiculturalism in Korea. In K-S. Oh (Ed.), Multiculturalism in Korea (pp. 81-110). Paju: Hanul Academy.

Lee, Y-S. (2010). Theoretical review and justification of multiculturalism. MinJokYeongu [민족연구], 41, 18-52.

Lee, Y-S. (2011). Reconsidered Korean multiculturalism. Studies in the Humanities, 16, 133-159.

Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MGEF) & Related Joint Ministries. (2011). The action plan to the basic plan (2010~2012) for Multicultural Families. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family.

Multiculturalism is dead, say academics. (2006, July 7). Daily Mail Online. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-394566/Mu ticulturalism-dead-say-academics.html

Okin, S. (2002). Mistresses of their own destiny: Group rights, gender, and realistic rights of exit. Ethics, 112, 205-230.

Park, J-B., & Cho, Y-M. (2006). The study for preparation of ‘Multicultural families support act’. Seoul: Ministry of Gender Equality & Family.

Park, R. E., & Miller, H. A. (1921). Old world traits transplanted. NY: Harper & Brothers.

Presidential Committee on Social Inclusion. (2006). Social integration sup- port measure for marriage migrant families. Retrieved from http://pcsi.pa.go.kr/publish/chp05.asp?ex=v&ex2=1&seq=3851

Prime Ministerial Committee on Policy for Foreign Population. (2006). Basic policy for foreign population and implemental system. Materials for the 1st council on policy for foreign population.

Prime Ministerial Committee on Policy for Foreign population. (2011). Action plan of central government for the 1st basic plan for foreign population (2008-2012) in 2011. Seoul: Korea Immigration Service.

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)

114 OMNES : The Journal of Multicultural Society｜2015. Vol.5 No.2

Seol, D-H. (2010). The present condition and task of multicultural families. Monthly Welfare Trend, 138, 13-17.

Vertovec, S., & Wessendorf, S. (2010). Introduction: Assessing the backlash against multiculturalism in Europe. In S. Vertovec & S. Wessendorf (Eds.), The Multiculturalism backlash:European discourses, policies and practices (pp. 1-31). Oxon: Taylor & Francis.

Wood, P. (2010). Intercultural cities-towards a model for intercultural integration. Council of Europe.

Biographical Note Lee, Yong Seung (Ph.D.) studied Politics at Korea University and the topic of his doctoral dissertation was on Multiculturalism and Multicultural Policies of Canada and the U.S. He is currently conducting a study with funding received from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) at the Catholic University of Daegu, South Korea. His research interests are in the areas of International Migration, Social Integration, Rights of Migrants, and Change of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. He plans to examine these issues continuously. [email protected]

Date of the submission of the article: November 30, 2014

Date of the peer-review: January 5, 2015

Date of the confirmation of the publication: January 5, 2015

University of California, Los Angeles(유씨엘에이) | IP: 128.97.244.*** | Accessed 2017/05/30 00:42(KST)