Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Abstract
In the cross-cultural era, examining deep-seated ethnic nationalism is critical to advancing multiculturalism in the interest of creating an equitable society. Teachers’ roles are vital as gatekeepers to shape young minds in terms of dealing with dominant and new cultural values and beliefs. This study discusses South Korean teachers’ perspectives on ethnic nationalism and how to define Koreanness in a society that used to be ethnically, racially and linguistically homogenous but recently has become more diverse. Teachers face challenges when questioning the long-rooted concept of ethnic nationalism, which has been the basis of Korean identity and exploring new definitions of what it means to be Korean. Capturing teachers’ perspectives will inform approaches to teacher education and professional development that address emerging multiculturalism and shed light on how teachers deal with issues and the possibility of more diverse societies.
Keywords
- multiculturalism
- South Korea
- ethnic nationalism
- teacher education
- social studies teachers
1. Introduction
South Korea (hereafter, Korea) has been changing from a homogenous to a multicultural society over the last 20 years due to an influx of foreign workers and an increase in international marriages. While the number of foreigners and naturalized Koreans who were originally born in other countries is still low among the whole population, their rate of representation has been increasing rapidly. The Korean government responded to this change by employing multicultural policies and school curriculum changes. In schools, teachers and administrators have employed multicultural education policies, including those in the curriculum. Financial support and extracurricular activities related to Korean culture and history have been provided to students from racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse backgrounds. Curricula are adjusted by including social change, the introduction of diverse cultures, global citizenship education, human rights and the reduction of bias and prejudice toward people from diverse backgrounds. While the changes in society and schools are mostly welcomed and accepted by mainstream Koreans, explicit and implicit ethnic nationalism, as well as misunderstandings and animosity, can also be found inside and outside schools. Scholars [1, 2, 3] have pointed out that Koreans are experiencing challenges to the deeply rooted concept of ethnic nationalism due to the emerging multicultural society. However, little research—except a few survey-based studies [3]—has examined detailed teachers’ perspectives on ethnic nationalism. As a former social studies teacher and current teacher educator in social studies education, I specifically focus on social studies teachers whose content most directly addresses nationalism in Korean and world history, multiculturalism in social studies and diverse cultures in geography and other subject areas. Examining their views on ethnic nationalism amid rising multiculturalism in Korean society will reveal possibilities, dilemmas and teaching constraints regarding the topic. Through this examination, the study seeks to contribute to more equitable practice in schools for all students.
2. Social and educational context
2.1 Korea’s emerging multiculturalism and long-standing ethnic nationalism
2.1.1 From homogenous to multicultural society
Due to an increase in foreign workers and international marriage since the late 1990s, Koreans have been experiencing the emergence of a multicultural society for about two decades. This unprecedented change in demographics has had a big impact on the historically homogenous Korean society. Koreans have started to use new terms such as Damunhwa (multi-culture) and diversity at unparalleled rates, which is a new social phenomenon. At the same time, Koreans have complex feelings toward the emerging multicultural society because the meaning of multiculturalism challenges the long-held value of Korean identity and their ethnic nationalism, which is rooted in the concept of a pure bloodline [1, 2, 3, 4].
2.1.2 Korea’s ethnic nationalism
Koreans have a deep-rooted concept of a pure-blooded nation due to a long history of linguistic and cultural homogeneity. Specifically, the notion of pure-blooded nationalism was solidified during the Japanese occupation of Korea (1910–1945) and the long period of dictatorship (1960–1987) after Korean independence (1945) and the Korean War [3, 5, 6, 7, 8]. During Japanese colonization, the notion of ethnic nationalism based on a pure bloodline functioned to unify Koreans as they endured the hardship of losing Korean sovereignty and language, and it provided a sense of pride in spite of Koreans being stigmatized as second-class citizens.
After the Korean War (1950–1953), dictators used the concept of the pure bloodline as a political ideology “to justify various types of sacrifices for the sake of modern nation building” [7]. This strong ideology of ethnic nationalism led to an exclusive mindset toward foreigners and justified discrimination against biracial people among Koreans and in the government policies during the dictatorship [3].
However, unprecedented demographic changes have occurred since the late 1990s. People from diverse backgrounds have increased, including children from multicultural families who are not of a single ethnicity and immigrants from foreign countries, and are becoming new Koreans [6, 9, 10, 11, 12]. The explicit makeup of these new Koreans casts a critical question about Korean identity determined by the ideology of a pure bloodline. It is also noteworthy that there have been social conflicts in the workplace where foreigners and immigrants work, as well as conflicts within multicultural families [12, 13, 14]. These conflicts are derived from misunderstandings of cultural differences and discrimination against people who are from different ethnicities or races, as well as those from a low economic status. In spite of the complex reasons for the conflicts, there is no doubt that one of the foundational bases for the social issues lies in the notion of separation between us and them [15], which grows out of the long-held ideology of a single ethnicity [4].
2.2 Teachers’ experiences and perspectives
Changing Korean demographics and rising conflicts made the government engage in educational curriculum reform to change the deep-rooted notion of a single ethnicity, which the K-12 curriculum had been explicitly fostering. The 2007 Curriculum Reform officially removed the term “pure bloodline Koreans” when describing the current makeup Korean society, a change that resulted from pressure from social activists and scholars who had criticized the wide use of the term pure-blooded Koreans in textbooks and formal documents [2]. Thus, government-led multicultural education through curriculum reform and other educational programs has promoted cultural pluralism rather than ethnic nationalism as an official policy in Korean society. Throughout several revisions of the national standards curriculum responding to the changing society, multiculturalism has become a dominant discourse in education and has influenced the social studies curriculum for more than a decade. Even though the government eliminated the expression of pure-blooded Koreans in the national standards curriculum and formal documents, it is not difficult to find public discourse, such as in the media or local institutions and local governments, as well as individuals’ daily lives, reflecting a wide range of understandings of ethnic nationalism—from explicit opposition to vague understandings to strong advocates—given the long history of maintaining the concept in the society. Likewise, studies show that teachers demonstrate ambiguous understandings of the relationship among the concepts of ethnic nationalism, Korean identity and emerging multiculturalism, such as ambivalence or a hybrid identity [3, 16]. Because most previous studies focused mainly on elementary school teachers through survey data, scholars in Refs [3, 17]. have urged further investigations of the teacher perspective on ethnic nationalism and Korean identity and how the perspective eventually affects their teaching [18]. In this regard, this study examines middle and high school social studies teachers’ perspectives by asking a research question: “How do teachers understand the deep-rooted ideology of pure-blooded nationalism and define Korean identity in the changing society?”
3. Research methods
3.1 Critical discourse analysis
This study utilized critical discourse analysis (CDA) as a primary method. CDA is a qualitative method with a strong focus on the nuances of discourse. Discourse refers to “language in use” or “language above the sentence or above the clause” [19]. CDA considers that discourse is governed by and produces broader systems of meaning-making and is shaped by power such as government policies, ideologies, national curriculum and media.
Teachers’ discourses are both shaped by and shape ongoing meaning-making and are varied in their contexts (personal experiences, schools, the school district and Korean society). Hence, analyzing teachers’ discourse in interviews is one way to understand how they understand ethnic nationalism and Korean identity in the changing Korean society.
While various CDA tools are available, two of the most common methods used by educational researchers are drawn from Gee’s and Fairclough’s approaches in [19]. Gee’s main method is to connect language bits to cultural models, situated identities and situated meanings [20]. For instance, when analyzing text (speech, written words, etc.), Gee encourage analysts to pose questions of their data that include, “What sort of grammatical patterns indicated this?”, “What socially situated identities and activities do these social languages enact?” (pp. 77–78) [20]. Gee also encourages analysts to focus on an analysis of
Fairclough provides a wide range of tools that analysts may use to analyze discourse [21]; my study makes use of some of those tools that are most useful to examine teachers’ interviews. One is relational modality in grammar, which asks analysts to consider the speaker’s authority in relation to others. Relational modality is expressed by modal auxiliary verbs like
3.2 Settings and participants
The study is a subset of a larger research project1, which was conducted in one of Korea’s metropolitan areas. The metropolitan city2 with 3 million has 3.9% foreign residents and 2.2% Damunhwa (다문화, multi-culture) students, which means they are racially/ethnically diverse compared to mainstream Koreans. Twenty social studies teachers (9 in middle and 11 in high schools) participated in the study.
3.3 Data collection
Twenty participants were selected as convenient and purposeful samples using the researcher’s professional network3 first and participants’ nominations for others [22]. The three questions below were asked:
(a) What did you learn about Korean identity from schools or your family? (b) How would you teach or address the concept of ethnic nationalism or single ethnicity in class, if you have any thoughts? (c) How would you guide students or approach Korean identity in class in a multicultural society? Subsequent questions were added during interviews as needed.
3.4 Data analysis
Reiterative reading and comparison of interview data across participants were employed during the analysis [22]. Based on CDA, I analyzed patterns and themes of interview content in simultaneity with noted tones of each response, choice of words, repetition of words and participants’ facial expressions. After analyzing the interview data, three main themes were categorized as (a) opposition to single ethnicity and ethnic nationalism, (b) approach to ethnic nationalism as a current issue and (c) (dis)connecting to Korean identity.
4. Results
4.1 Opposition to single ethnicity and ethnic nationalism
When social studies teachers were asked about the long-held ideology of ethnic nationalism based on a pure bloodline, they strongly rejected the concept. Their oppositions stemmed from two different perceptions. One is teachers’ knowledge about historical facts related to the concept, which makes them regard it as a fallacy or illusion. The other is teachers’ views on the irrelevancy of the concept in a multicultural society.
4.1.1 Fallacy of ethnic nationalism based on pure bloodline
Teachers strongly opposed the concept of ethnic nationalism based on the concept of a pure bloodline because they knew it was not based on historical facts. Most teachers said that they learned the concept of a single ethnicity as a basis of Korean identity and carried the belief until they learned different aspects of Korean history. Soojee Lim’s perspective demonstrates a concise summary of most teachers’ interviews. She shared what she learned and how she perceived her education on this matter:
Another middle school history teacher Kahee Ju, asserted that “I think it’s a
A novice history teacher Kyoungjin Hong even questioned the concept of race/ethnicity as the reason for opposition:
His facial expression was firm, and his voice tone was strong during the interview. These can be interpreted as the teacher taking the concept seriously and signifying what he may work on in his class. Younghee Na, as a history teacher, also firmly expressed her perspective by pointing out the historical fact that foreign workers had been doing the work that Koreans disliked over our long history.
As such, these teachers had a strong tone when discussing the deep-rooted concept of ethnic nationalism based on their subject knowledge and personal experiences of schooling. These social studies teachers are well aware of how the concept was created and contributed to historic events in Korean history and have insights into the negative impacts on Koreans’ mindsets and actions. Knowing not only how social studies teachers perceive the concept but also why they express strong opposition through the interviews with these teachers elaborates and expands on previous studies on this matter such as Chang’s study, which only showed survey results [3].
4.1.2 Irrelevancy in multicultural society
A group of teachers expressed their opposition to the way their views have been influenced by the current societal change. The view of change set a different tone from the strong opposition of the concept itself. They said that the idea is not just suitable for a multicultural and global society due to the risk of the notion of exclusivity. Inyoung Hong’s case is one of many responses among the interviewees. She said:
Many teachers like Eunsoon Lim resonated Inyoung Hong’s view saying, “I would tell my students that the days of talking only about blood or a single ethnicity are gone, and we should move on for the changing time.”
In this case, the concept of a single ethnicity for Korean identity or ethnic nationalism is not viewed as fallacy or illusion, rather it is not suitable for the changing society. Sunhwa Yoon understood why people advocate single nationalism saying “they might want to have a sense of belonging, a sense of community and superiority. But I think that their thought might have some risks.”
Sunhee Oh articulated her view on the concept, stressing the necessary discussion of its origin and its significant roles in the past as well as its outdated meaning in the current time:
Unlike strong oppositions to nationalism based on a single ethnicity, these three teachers acknowledged the importance of the concept of ethnic nationalism, which originated from the unique Korean history, but pointed out the current negative impacts on the emerging multicultural society due to its exclusivity. To express this, they used quite cautious voices, and the words: “it sounds exclusive…now I’m concerned about it,” “might have some risks,” “it’s not desirable to emphasize excessively” and “we have to think again because it has side effects.”
In the same vein, the history teacher Hoonjun Na frequently used “now” that clearly demonstrated the urgency of not using the concept of the single ethnicity in the multicultural society whether he personally acknowledged the fallacy of the concept or not:
The repeated use of “now” is an indicator that the teacher sees an imminent necessity of changing views along with societal change.
As a whole, social studies teachers strongly demonstrate their objections to ethnic nationalism based on a pure bloodline due to their knowledge of Korean history or the notion’s unsuitability in a multicultural society. These social studies teachers show no confusion or ambiguity on this matter.
4.2 Approach to ethnic nationalism as current issue: minor to dangerous
While teachers’ opposition to the concept of ethnic nationalism based on a pure bloodline is assertive regardless of different reasons, attitudes toward the concept as a social issue are diversified. In other words, there are different levels of teachers’ perceptions about the seriousness of the concept related current issues, which could have implications for their teaching. When I asked what teachers thought about controversial issues and protests in the news related to the concept of a pure bloodline or ethnic nationalism4, teachers’ views varied. The history teacher Hoonjun Na saw the issue as a natural phenomenon in a transitional era and showed little concern:
Then, he showed his caution in expressing a certain opinion on the issue in the school environment stating, “the difficulty is that there’s a variety of people who have different ideas, and each teacher has different ideas, so you do not know what you are going to get because you are talking about your own opinions.” He said that issues such as the news need to be avoided due to their controversial nature. When he demonstrated his opinion, his facial expression was confident, and his voice was assertive. It is noteworthy that his view is quite different from reasons normally cited for avoiding controversial issues due to lack of confidence in teaching methods, time constraints from workloads and heavy pressure of high-stake test preparations [7, 24]. His perspective highlights the importance of differentiating teachers’ awareness between exclusion and neutrality in regard to sensitive and controversial issues. Some teachers in the interview believe that neutrality can be exercised by having students discuss controversial issues in social studies classrooms without showing a teacher’s opinions, which is different from excluding issues that contemporarily arise.
Another teacher, Hyeonsoo Kim, who has a deeper understanding of multiculturalism in theory and active roles in applying global education to his extracurricular activities such as leading the UNESCO Club, questioned the seriousness of the concept saying “are there many people in our country who hold the view of single, pure-blood nationalism? I do not think that’s a lot… I do not think that’s going to be a problem because that’s a very small number.” He regarded the concept of ethnic nationalism as a minor issue in Korea.
Thus, these teachers see no need for discussions on the currently emerging issue because they think the existence of ethnic nationalism in the changing society is natural or is a minor issue. Two things are implied from these perspectives: (1) The “minor” event caused by the concept of pure-blooded Koreanness may make
In contrast, a group of teachers demonstrated the importance of engaging in issues related to ethnic nationalism/single ethnicity and brought up ideas of retraining teachers and having conversations in class with students. The high school geography teacher Soojee Lim pointed out ethnic nationalism could be considered a hidden curriculum. She said “I think a hidden curriculum is very scary. If you feel a problem with such nationalism in society, I think teachers should be retrained as soon as possible so that students will get educated.” The words she used such as “as soon as possible,” and “very scary” are in contrast with the previous perspectives of Hyeonsoo Kim and Hoonjun Na using “natural” or “not… a problem.” Soojee Lim sees the issue as urgent and points out the importance of teachers being retrained because teachers’ views eventually affect students’ learning.
In a similar tone, Yoora Hyeon immediately responded in a strong voice when I asked about the ethnic nationalism in the news of what the mayor said about
Further, a few teachers who regarded the issue of the ethnic nationalism as serious, gave me specific examples of what they did in class. For instance, Kahee Ju talked about the connection of ethnic nationalism to historical facts in her world history class such as “since the subject I’m teaching these days is nationalism in world history, there’s a lot of talk about ethnic conflict, holocaust, ethnic cleansing and so on.” Another teacher Suhee Kim, elaborately explained what she did in relation to conservative nationalism:
She tried to address unsaid and shameful facts that are mostly missing in Korean history textbooks and classroom discussions in regard to the issues of Korean ethnic nationalism.
A middle school teacher, Sunhwa Yoon, told me she approached the issue using a question “I asked them what the benefit of it would be.” I would argue that this type of inquiry sounds basic but is an important first step to fostering students’ critical thinking in social studies classrooms according to guidelines of College, Career and Civic Life (C3) framework for social studies state standards in the National Council for Social Studies [25].
Seojee Kim shared the way she intervened in her class when her students used derogatory terms toward an opponent country in an international soccer game. She said:
The discourses of three teachers (Kahee Ju, Suhee Kim and Sunhwa Yoon) used here “I am teaching…a lot of talk,” “I asked them,” “I told them” and “I usually make a point” represent strong oppositions with visible actions about the concept of ethnic nationalism and its influence on the society. The teachers demonstrate exemplary methods of social studies education such as connecting historical facts with current issues, utilizing an inquiry method and seeing students’ negative attitudes as a teaching moment. These teachers’ intervention is an indicator of exercising their agency to disturb socially dominant discourse such as a single ethnicity and ethnic nationalism.
Now, this study took the next inquiry based on an understanding of teachers’ perspectives on ethnic nationalism. The subsequent step is to investigate how social studies teachers define Korean identity in the time of acknowledging the multicultural society and denying the single ethnicity that has historically been used to define Korean identity. An examination of teachers’ perspectives on Korean identity follows.
4.3 (dis)connecting to Korean identity
Studies show that teachers hold ambiguous and confusing views on the relationship among ethnic nationalism, Korean identity and multiculturalism [3, 17]. Further, defining Korean identity based on the concept of a pure bloodline has been challenged more than ever and needs to be examined beyond that definition [1, 3]. As teachers in this study showed their strong opposition to ethnic nationalism derived from the notion of a single ethnicity, questions emerged such as “how do teachers define Korean identity, how do they approach their new Korean students based on their understandings of Korean identity?”
First of all, not many answers to the questions were obtained during the interviews. Most teachers said that they never thought about how to define Korean identity in the emerging multicultural society. For example, high school ethics teacher Hyeonsoo Kim said “I’ve never thought deeply about how Koreans are defined.” Teachers have not thought about how Koreans would be defined in the changing society, even though they are against the concept of ethnic nationalism based on one single ethnicity. A few teachers shared their thoughts on this inquiry. Eunsoon Lim, a middle school social studies teacher, said that “I thought about Korean identity, but I cannot find the answer to that. My thoughts are not organized yet. In fact, I need to find it, but I’m
The rare answers of how to define Korean identity in a multicultural society imply that teachers are standing in ambiguous and confusing positions in search of a new Korean identity beyond what they were given in the past. Given the transitional time that Koreans are facing, the unanswered or vaguely answered questions need to be navigated because “what is not said” is as significant as “what is said [20]” to identify configurations of Korean multiculturalism that teachers are constructing.
In many cases, the emerging multicultural realities in teachers’ daily lives have not reached the need for critically examining their Korean identity. The disconnection means that teachers’ need to explore new directions in how to conceptualize multiculturalism and define what it means to be Korean in a multicultural society. These social studies teachers are in the beginning stage of the critical moment of searching for meaning. Critically investigating Korean identity has not been a topic in social studies, but it is imperative to attend to the topic in class to foster students’ understanding of inclusivity and a just multicultural society. This investigation should start with the teachers themselves. In fact, I met a few teachers who had a critical question about the necessity of defining Korean identity. When the private high school geography teacher Minyoung Lee said “I’ve never thought about it [on purpose]” she meant that defining the strict scope of Koreanness was not the direction she wanted to see. She explained “I do not want to emphasize to my current students what Koreans are like or about Koreans. These days, I live without thinking what it means to be Korean.” She went on why she did not emphasize the concept of Korean identity:
She sees a new Korean identity as an expansion to the concept of global citizenship, which suggests that defining what it means to be Korean should be approached from a different angle. Specifically, the new definition of Korean identity is not an alternative choice of A or B to overcome the old definition, but it should be a flexible and even different frame for defining who we are. It means that defining Korean identity does not depend on a strict adoption from our single nationality. Soojee Lim’s perspective is an example of a different frame of approaching Korean identity:
What Soojee Lim sees as “who I am” is an identity not based on one nationality but on how we think about ourselves in this multicultural and globalized time. Her view for a different frame to define Korean identity can be interpreted as multiple “identities” [26] or “transnational identities” [27]. Hall [26] argued that cultural identities have multiple components in the era of globalization, and Abu El Haj [27] found that Muslim youth in the United States have flexible belongings across the globe between US citizens and Muslim countries where their cultures originated. As people move around within and beyond the boundaries of a country more than ever, people form a sense of multiple belongings beyond their formal nationality and multiple cultural identities [26, 27, 28, 29].
Likewise, Korean identity based on one single ethnicity needs to be rethought in the emerging multicultural time. Switching a frame from a single ethnicity to multiple ethnicities for defining identities may be revolutionary to most Koreans, but it might be happening, which is evident in what the teacher Soojee Lim said.
Having a sense of a “community” is another idea of being Korean for the majority and new Koreans. Some teachers provided this idea in the interview. Inyoung Hong, said “I think… birthright citizenship5 is going to be the right direction… and I think we should lead our Korean identity toward the community we live together.” While she displayed an unclear and hesitant attitude by using “I think” repeatedly with frequent pauses, she brought up the idea of “community” living in the same area to define who is considered Korean. Her idea of being in the same community may have been drawn from her teaching geography such as cultural landscape of place and/or personal experiences of having a Muslim friend and traveling overseas. Even though she said that she never thought about it before the interview, Inyoung Hong did not seem to have difficulties bringing up the idea. She just needed to have time and opportunities to articulate and develop her thoughts. I also observed similar moments from other teachers I interviewed. Soojee Lim and Heesu Lim were among these teachers:
The culture is not necessarily a traditional classical culture but a culture that can be shared as it is today. These teachers developed their thoughts on what might be possible for Koreans in the emerging multicultural society in order to build a new sense of Koreanness through the medium of the interview. These three teachers’ cases serve as an example of the importance of having a space for teachers to share concerns and develop ideas about how to better prepare in a multicultural society.
It is imperative that teachers in Korea in this changing time have opportunities to critically examine what they had thought about Korean identity and articulate what it means to be Korean beyond the concept of a single ethnicity or any type of the previous perspectives. In that way, teachers will have a positive impact on students’ learning in class rather than avoid discussions of Korean identity and ethnic nationalism.
5. Discussion and conclusion
Previous studies have showed that ethnic nationalism based on a single ethnicity has permeated Korean society, and that this have been used as a main criterion for Korean identity [2, 3, 5, 7, 8]; it has also challenged and shaped the meaning of multiculturalism in the Korean context [30, 31]. However, few studies have examined teachers’ perspectives on this ideology and its implications for Korean multicultural education. This study responded to the need to understand teachers’ detailed experiences and perspectives regarding the topics.
In the findings, most teachers clearly demonstrate their strong opposition to the concept of ethnic nationalism based on a pure bloodline. This is in accordance with their understandings of the nature of multiculturalism and its emergence in Korea based on their knowledge gained through teaching social studies. In the meantime, teachers’ responses varied about how serious ethnic nationalism is as a current social issue and whether they engage with it in their teaching. There are largely two types of responses: A few teachers promptly explain what they said in class or how they would approach the concept of ethnic nationalism, which signals their readiness to address such a topic. However, some teachers evaluate the concept as minor or natural as society becomes more multicultural and see no urgent need to address it in class.
The differentiated responses imply that teacher education and professional development for in-service teachers in social studies education need to delve into the relationship between ethnic nationalism and multiculturalism and its implications for classroom teaching. And in-service teachers and pre-service teachers need to reflect on their own perspectives on the topic, and need to listen to students from diverse backgrounds in terms of how they feel when ethnic nationalism is addressed in the media and/or in their daily lives. Along with the reflection and discussion, teachers need to understand how their roles as gatekeepers influence students’ learning and perspectives toward the topics [32]. Regardless of teachers’ personal evaluation of its urgency, the connection between the history of ethnic nationalism and emerging multiculturalism to current issues needs to be addressed as a teachable moment so that
Another main component of this study is parsing out teachers’ perspectives on how Koreanness is defined in the emerging multiculturalism. Since the deep-rooted concept of ethnic nationalism has been a major component for many decades, it is necessary to investigate teachers’ understanding of Korean identity. In the findings, few teachers define the new Korean identity in an emerging multicultural society where a single ethnicity is no longer valid; this is in contrast to most teachers’ strong opposition to ethnic nationalism. The
The findings will be informative to scholarship and educators in Asian countries where similar competing concepts of ethnic nationalism and multiculturalism have been developing. For instance, Japan has undergone similar experiences of emerging multiculturalism with its prevalent discourse of Japanese ethnic nationalism [34]. Many countries in Asia still have mostly ethnically homogenous demographics and strong government roles in education, and they need to organically adopt policies along with programs of teacher education and professional development where pre-service and in-service teachers constantly reflect how rapid changes affect their practices. In this sense, the study has implications for contextualized ethnic nationalism and multicultural education in Asian countries.
Acknowledgments
I acknowledge my husband, Dr. John Christopher Carpenter, for his insightful comments and work when I was editing this paper.
References
- 1.
Jin S. A theoretical approach to Korean multicultural education in primary and secondary school: Problems and suggestions. International Politics Studies. 2012; 15 (1):129-156 - 2.
Ha K. The role and limitations of social studies in Korean multicultural education. Social Studies Education Research. 2015; 22 (1):49-61 - 3.
Chang Y. Teachers’ perspectives: Making sense of ethnic nationalism, ethnic identity and multicultural education in South Korea. International Journal of Education. 2015; 7 (1):17-36 - 4.
Watson I. Paradoxical multiculturalism in South Korea. Asian Politics & Policy. 2012; 4 (2):233-258 - 5.
Lee J. Ethic nationalism and multiculturalism in Korea. Multicultural Education Studies. 2012; 5 (1):199-215 - 6.
Lee S, Kang H. Due to Not Fluent Korean, Being Social Outcasted… Damunhwa Students Are Leaving Schools. Korea: Yonhop News; 2018. Available from: https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20180615124100797 - 7.
Cha Y, Kim S, Ham S. Multicultural education and Asian immigrants in Korea: Current status and evolving issues. Multicultural Education Studies. 2013; 6 (1):105-126 - 8.
Lie J. Multiethnic Korea?: Multiculturalism, Migration, and Peoplehood Diversity in Contemporary South Korea. USA: Institute of East Asian Studies: University of California, Berkeley; 2014 - 9.
Kim J. Field experts’ awareness of integrating Korean multicultural family policies: Focusing on how to integrate multicultural family support centers and health family support centers. Multicultural Education Studies. 2017; 10 (2):89-124 - 10.
Kim S. The multicultural citizenship on the national standard curriculum for social studies in South Korea. Social Studies Education Research. 2013; 20 (3):55-68 - 11.
Kim Y. The changing directions of social studies multicultural education in global age. Social Studies Education. 2010; 49 (1):47-56 - 12.
Jo H. A study on major issues of multicultural education in Korea: Based on needs of migrants. Multicultural Education Studies. 2013; 6 (4):1-25 - 13.
Lee J. Exploring the direction of multicultural education policy in the future Korean society. Study of Education and Culture. 2018; 24 (1):549-567 - 14.
Ahn J. Global migration and the racial project in transition: Institutionalizing racial difference through the discourse of multiculturalism in South Korea. Journal of Multicultural Discourse. 2013; 8 (1):29-47 - 15.
Said E. Orientalism. New York: Vintage; 1994 - 16.
Watson L, Park C, Lee H. Pre-service teachers’ awareness and attitudes on South Korea’s increasing cultural and ethnic diversity and the role of multicultural education in K-12 schools. International Journal of Education. 2011; 3 (2):1-19. DOI: 10.5296/ije.v3i2.709 - 17.
Kim J. Exploring trends and future directions of teacher-related research in multicultural education. Multicultural Education Studies. 2014; 7 (4):81-100 - 18.
Yeo R. South Korean teachers’ beliefs about diversity: The impact on practice of multicultural education [thesis]. USA: Portland State University; 2016. Available from: https://search-proquest-com.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/docview/1839274676/?pq-origsite=primo - 19.
Rogers R. An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. London: Routledge; 2004 - 20.
Gee P. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge; 2004 - 21.
Fairclough N. Language and Power. 3rd ed. London: Routledge; 2005 - 22.
Patton Q. Qualitative Research and Education Method. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2002 - 23.
Park L. Mixed Blood Strong (Tendency)… Iksan Mayor’s Disparaging Words toward Multicultural Families. Korea: Hankyoreh Newspaper; 2019. Available from: http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/area/honam/899207.html - 24.
Misco T. “We are only looking for the right answers”: The challenges of controversial issue instruction in South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 2016; 36 (3):332-349 - 25.
National Council for the Social Studies. College, Career, Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards. Available from: https://www.socialstudies.org/standards/c3 - 26.
Hall S. Thinking the diaspora: Home-thoughts from abroad. Small Axe. 1999; 6 :1-18 - 27.
Abu El Haj T. “I was born here, but my home, it’s not here”: Educating for democratic citizenship in an era of transnational migration and global conflict. Harvard Educational Review. 2007; 77 (3):285-316 - 28.
Bauman Z. Globalization: The Human Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press; 1998 - 29.
Myers J. ‘To benefit the world by whatever means possible’: Adolescents’ constructed meanings for global citizenship. British Educational Research Journal. 2010; 36 (3):483-502 - 30.
Hess D. Controversies about controversial issues in democratic education. Political Science and Politics. 2004; 37 (2):257-261 - 31.
King H, Nomikou E. Fostering critical teacher agency: The impact of a science capital pedagogical approach. Pedagogy, Culture and Society. 2018; 26 (1):87-103. DOI: 10.1080/14681366.2017.1353539 - 32.
Misco T, Tseng H. “I will not mention controversial issues unless they are in the textbook”: An exploration of curriculum instructional gatekeeping in Taiwan. The Journal of Social Studies Research. 2018; 42 (1):1-10 - 33.
Biesta G, Tedder M. Agency and learning in the life course: Towards and ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults. 2007; 39 (2):132-149. DOI: 10.1080/02660830.2007.1166154 - 34.
Burgess C. Maintaining identities: Discourses of homogeneity in a rapidly globalizing Japan. [Internet]. 2012. Available from: www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/Burgess.html?pagewanted=all
Notes
- The data was drawn from a part of the researcher’s doctoral dissertation.
- The Metropolitan city where the research worked is presented anonymously to protect teachers’ identities.
- I worked as a social studies teacher in the Metropolitan city, Korea before becoming a teacher educator in the US. I started interviews with my coworkers in social studies group.
- Coincidently, Damunhwa families protested against one city mayor who used a derogatory word Japjong meaning “mixed blood of species” which is a worse connotation than Honhyeol (mixed blood) to indicate Damunhwa children when I was interviewing teachers in June 2019. His words were derived from the concept of a single ethnicity. http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/area/honam/899207.html [23]
- Korea basically follows Jus Sanguinis, which means people obtain their citizenship based on nationality. The opposite is Jus Soli, territory principle. Inyoung Hong’s remark meant the territory principle for people’s citizenship.