Yeomin Yoon
Professor Emeritus, Seton Hall University
Opinion Columnist, Diaspora

Summary

Using South Korea (a medium-sized country in terms of population) as a case, the article discusses the meaning of successful global education. Before people from any nation can discuss “globalization” with a straight face, they should first learn who they are and what they stand for with dignity. A nation that is properly aware of the world must thus be mindful of itself. A nation – especially, the leaders or elites who represent the nation in the world arena – should understand not only what it is today, and why and how it has become what it is today, but also what will be in the future in a global context. Where there is no self-understanding, the word “globalization” will mean no more than a centrifugal emulation of other nations. Any globally well-educated citizen would not behave like a frog in his little pond when he is elected as president or prime minister. One would not become an academic, senior government official, or professional leader who “knows one thing, but not two.” There is an unkind word, “sophomoric,” that is apt when applied to such a person. Humans are diverse and diversely moral. Nevertheless, I believe globalization – specifically, properly globalized education – will enable humans to become more open to changes in their subjective identities and ethics through a process of adjusting to emerging conditions of worldly existence.

Keywords: centrifugal emulation; ethical respectability; globalization (세계화); human rights; self-glorification; self-objectification; self-respect; universal value

Summary in 한글

인구 규모로 볼 때 중간 정도의 국가인 대한민국을 사례로 삼아, 이 글은, 성공적인 세계시민교육의 의미를 논의한다. 어느 나라 사람이든 ‘세계화’를 논하기에 앞서, 먼저, 자신이 누구이며, 무엇을 지향하는지를, 진지한 태도로, 존엄성을 가지고 이해해야 한다. 따라서 국제 무대에서 국가를 대표하는 지도자나 엘리트들은, 현재 자기 나라가 어떤 모습인지, 어떻게 오늘날과 같은 모습이 되 었는지뿐만 아니라, 세계적 맥락 속에서 미래에 어떤 모습이 될 것인지도 이해해야 한다. 자기 이해가 없는 곳에서 ‘세계화’라는 말은 다른 나라를 맹목적으로 모방하는 원심적 추종 이상의 의미를 갖지 못한다. 진정으로 세계적 소양을 갖춘 시민이라면, 대통령이나 총리로 선출되었을 때, 우물 안 개구리처럼 행동하지 않을 것이다. 또한 ‘하나는 알지만 둘은 모르는’ 학자, 고위 공무원, 또는 전문 지도자가 되지도 않을 것이다. 이러한 사람을 가리킬 때 적절한, 다소 냉정한 표현으로, ‘미숙한(sophomoric)’이라는 말이 있다. 인간은 다양하며, 그들의 도덕성 또한 다양하다. 그럼에도 불구하고 필자는, 올바르게 세계화된 교육을 통해, 세계적 존재 조건의 변화에 적응하는 과정에서, 더 많은 사람들이, 자신의 주관적 정체성과 윤리의 변화에, 더욱 개방적으로 될것이라고 필자는 믿는다.

핵심어: 원심적 모방(centrifugal emulation); 윤리적 품위(ethical respectability); 세계화(globalization); 인권(human rights); 자기미화(self-glorification); 자기 객관화(self-objectification); 자존감(self-respect); 보편적 가치(universal value)

I. Introduction

For the past fifty years, we have heard and read in the mass media and school textbooks that the world was “globalized.” Globalization can be broadly defined as worldwide economic, political, cultural, and ecological integration. The speed may dawdle over some years, as expressions like “slowbalization” (globalization in slow motion) and “globalization in reverse” (caused by geopolitical tensions and international trade problems and consequent protectionism) indicate. Many, however, expect global integration to continue in one way or another. “Hyper-globalization” seems to be over, but I do not expect “deglobalization,” or an end of globalization, to be a reality in the foreseeable future, barring calamities like World War III. For example, we, the human species living on the small planet Earth, are integrated ecologically and will be more severely subject to common problems such as climate change, environmental degradation, and depletion of natural resources. Do we have any choice but to cooperate globally to sustain our civilizations and prevent our demise as a species on Spaceship Earth?

I want to share my views on whether South Korean leaders — that is, the people in leadership positions in this medium-sized (in terms of population) country, most of whom are university graduates — have gained a real global perspective in their education, and how they would be able to help lead the pace and mode of globalization in constructive directions. Let me hasten to add that I am not presenting a scientific or “scholarly” article or making comments of such nature or caliber. I wish to share my “value-loaded” observations based on the experiences and anecdotes I have accumulated in the past five decades while working in international arenas. I am fully aware that individual experiences and anecdotes are incomplete narratives. But I believe they can serve as a starting point for debate with the readers.

Whenever I think about the global perspective in education needed for the future leaders of South Korea, my brain keeps reminding me of the experiences or anecdotes I acquired in America in the last quarter of the 20th century, when globalization or Segae Wha (세계화) was the buzzword in South Korea. Numerous South Korean political leaders and senior government officials visiting the US highlighted that South Korea was rapidly globalized in all areas of society and stressed that they were determined to maintain, or even speed up, Segae Wha.

Anecdote No. 1:

I received a desk calendar from the Korea Overseas Information Service, a division of the South Korean Ministry of Information. The calendar displayed pictures of Korea’s beautiful scenery and cultural artifacts, so I decided to give the calendar to the president of my university. I was glad that I flipped through and examined each calendar page before having it delivered to the university president. I was dumbfounded and flabbergasted to find a page that described the physical characteristics of Koreans, obviously copied from a typical description used by many British anthropologists to characterize the native people in Africa or Asia. It was no different from a description by a human being of, say, a monkey or a chimpanzee. It is one thing for British or Western anthropologists to describe Koreans as if they described a monkey or a chimpanzee. But it is quite another for the Korean government to copy blindly such an insulting description in a calendar, thousands of copies of which were distributed throughout the world. I wrote a letter protesting to the assistant minister in charge of the Korea Overseas Information Service. Many years have passed since then, but I have not received any response from him – my mailing address has not changed. I sincerely wish the competency or incompetency (unfathomable ignorance, negligence, or stupidity) of this young government official, who happened to be a graduate of a leading university in Korea, did not reflect the quality of Koreans’ global (세계화) education.

Anecdote No. 2:

In my eyes, at least some South Korean elites who often visited America (during the latter half of the 20th century) to represent their country in Washington, DC, or New York, seemed to oscillate between narcissistic nationalism and acute timidity. For instance, a prominent person who headed a delegation of Korean power elites proclaimed in an annual meeting with American counterparts: “You, Americans, do not take us, Koreans, seriously, do you?”, provoking baffled laughter from the American audience. One American participant even ridiculed him by asking sneeringly, “Do you think the world revolves around Korea?” I do not want to dwell upon the fact that the only superpower does not take Korea seriously. But I was puzzled to find that the Korean delegation chief, who should know better, asked such a childish, or puerile, to be exact, question publicly in an international meeting (or semi-publicly, because it was an “invited-only” conference), provoking ridicule and thus harming the image of the country he represents.

Anecdote No. 3:

In 1997/98, a severe financial crisis (the so-called Asian Financial Crisis) broke out in several East and Southeast Asian countries, including South Korea. As a result, Indonesia lost economic growth for one generation while Thailand and South Korea lost it for a decade, respectively. Newspapers displayed, on their front pages, photos of South Korean laborers demonstrating with “I M Fired” (IMF or International Monetary Fund) taped to their foreheads. A few months after the financial crisis broke out, a dozen South Korean power elites visited Washington, D.C. They discussed with American counterparts the causes of the crisis and how to cope with it. I had an opportunity to attend the conference as an “observer.” A Korean governmental organization paid the expenses for the two-day conference “co-organized” by Koreans and Americans, even though the Korean government was practically begging the IMF to extend emergency loans to help save Korea from a deep economic crisis. I expected Korean delegates — former (and future) cabinet ministers, ambassadors, scholars, and journalists — to articulate their positions about the proximate as well as fundamental causes of the financial crisis and what kind of assistance Korea needed from the US Treasury and the IMF. Americans dominated the two-day meeting presided over by two co-chairs, one Korean and one American. The Korean delegates were so bashful and timid, stammering hesitantly when they were supposed to speak up to protect their nation’s interests. It was pathetic to watch the South Korean delegates virtually steamrolled by their American counterparts. The former looked like (in my eyes) the legendary bird who could speak five languages but was devoured because he did not speak up.

II. Learning who we are and what we are is the first step in successful global education

As a member of the Korean diaspora¹, I fervently wished (even prayed) that South Korean education and understanding of the world, worldview, mentality, and mode of operations of the leaders had substantially “evolved” (i.e., changed for the better) since the time of the above anecdotes. Several years ago, the South Korean president apparently confused a state dinner with a karaoke party. I felt it would take a much longer time to fulfill my wish. I was flummoxed when one of my outspoken American academic colleagues, who watched together on TV the scenes of the state dinner held at White House, uttered sarcastically and bluntly: “Like imperial rulers in history, American presidents know how to handle the heads of colonies, tributaries, or allied territories, like lapdogs, if not monkeys or chimpanzees.”

1. About eighty-three million Koreans and their descendants are living and working throughout the world.

As one of the eight million Koreans living and working overseas, I sincerely hope that my native country and fellow countrymen and women receive respect from other nations and people in all aspects of human life, including culture, politics, and economics. I believe such respect toward the Korean nation starts from educating its people, especially young people, to cultivate self-respect for themselves and their nation. Only self-respecting people and nations know how to respect other people and nations regardless of whether they are rich or poor, powerful or weak. Self-respecting people and nations neither invade other nations with an imperial design nor tolerate such invasion from them. By self-respect, I should stress that I do not mean narcissistic nationalism that has unfortunately permeated into the ruling elites of both the superpower and superpower wannabe nations. Narcissism, whether of an individual or a nation, is self-indulgence that refuses to recognize the other. The proper self-respect of a nation is a reflective and critical understanding of its history and culture and the values they exemplify.

This has the following cultural implications. Any nation has a culture to be sure – language, literature, arts, thought, faith, and institutions. However, a nation existing globally should create a culture that is not only creative (like Hallyu music, dance, and arts) but also reflective. This means it should develop a discourse in which its cultural creations are discussed, interpreted, and vigorously examined in a conscious reflection on their universal value. Such reflectivity requires a nation as much identification with and immersion in its culture as its objectification. A nation that indulges in a mythical self-glorification² (like Korea’s big neighbor) not only fails to create a fine culture but is ill-prepared to become a congenial member of a global community of nations. Self-objectification is a critical endeavor to see one’s own culture from the viewpoints of other cultures. This endeavor is aided by exposure to, and an understanding of, other cultures with an open mind.

In plainer language, a nation existing globally respects other nations, and minds and appropriates their perceptions of it. The element that a nation should want to see the most in an international image of itself is recognition and respect. A nation recognizes and respects another only if the latter is perceived to have self-identity, autonomy, and creativity. In addition, there is an ethical criterion. The criteria of respect for nations, no doubt, are historically and culturally variant. There is one that has become universal: respect for human rights. How the government of a nation treats its people and how the people treat one another has become a measure of the nation’s respectability. A nation may be powerful and hence feared or depended upon; a nation may be rich and favored as a trade partner. However, neither power nor utility will elicit respect without corresponding ethical respectability. Simply speaking, respect for human rights is not an implication of a newly created theory or ideology but a distillation of humankind’s chastening historical experience.

2. An example of self-glorifying narratives: “China is a civilizational state, arguably the world’s only one since it is the only country in the world with a history of unified statehood for over 2,000 years. It is also the world’s only civilization to last continuously for over 5,000 years, now coalesced in a huge modern nation. Any such country is bound to be unique. China today is an amalgam of four factors, namely, a super-large population, a super-sized territory, super-long traditions and a super-rich culture.” (“How China Made It: The political philosophy behind the world’s most remarkable success story,” Being Review, March 22, 2018.)

I am one of the Koreans who believe that Rhee Syngman (이승만), the first president of the Republic of Korea, made a severe misjudgment and political/ethical error by incorporating the so-called “pro-Japan” forces (친일파 세력), or what I call “부附일파 세력” who were subservient or kowtowing to the Empire of Japan — en masse into practically all essential sectors of South Korean society just liberated from the harsh Japanese colonial rule – judiciary, police, military, educational institutions, government ministries, state-owned corporations, and so on. Rhee’s grossly misguided policy pushed the young republic in an iniquitous direction by creating rampant corruption and upending Koreans’ human values, eventually hampering South Korea’s globalization (세계화) in the true sense of the word.

For example, Rhee encouraged appointing numerous former (Korean) military officers of the Empire of Japan as colonels and generals of the newly formed South Korean military. Moreover, Rhee kicked out the former officers of the Korean Independence Army from leadership positions in the new South Korean armed forces. On the other hand, the former officers of Imperial Japan’s military were massively recruited into the armed forces and promoted rapidly. Park Chung Hee (박정희), who was eventually promoted to a two-star army general, was a salient example. He was a loyal junior army officer of the Empire of Japan before Korea’s liberation from Japan’s colonial rule. Known as Lieutenant Takagi Masao, Park was a firm believer in the “everlasting” Empire of Japan. When he was a cadet at Japan’s army military academy, its superintendent general proclaimed at a morning assembly of cadets: “Cadet Takagi Masao’s loyalty to our Emperor far exceeds yours! Learn from him!” His Japanese classmates nicknamed him the “special-class Japanese” (特級日本人). Toward the end of the Pacific War, Park assumed another Japanese name, Okamoto Minoru, as an intelligence officer of the Japanese army stationed in Manchuria. His task was to hunt down the Korean Independence Army soldiers.

The reason why I refer to a sad (and shameful) aspect of Korean history is this: Before Koreans can even talk about globalization with a straight face, we should first learn who we are and what we are with dignity. Not a small number of present-day Koreans seem to suffer from a mix of intolerable ignorance and misunderstanding of Korean history and soul-selling centrifugality. I feel sad when my brain sees the images of the South Korean people who were calling for establishing monumental statues to honor the late worshiper of the Empire of Japan, who had grabbed South Korea’s political power with a military coup in 1961 and violated the human rights of numerous young and old and male and female citizens during his 18-year-long iron-fisted rule. In my brain, these images juxtapose those of mis-phonemicized foreign store signs in Seoul and young men and women with faces remade by plastic surgery to look Caucasian and their hair dyed blonde.

III. A nation that is properly aware of the world must thus be aware of itself

A nation’s awareness of the world signifies an understanding of the network of nations to which it belongs. As in the case of an individual, so is the case of a nation; the quality of understanding rises with increasing reflectivity. A nation that is properly aware of the world must thus be aware of itself. A nation’s self-awareness must include a comprehension of its history and culture and an understanding of its present situation illuminated by its historical self-comprehension. Such self-awareness is not merely factual or even theoretical but also evaluative and conative. A nation — particularly, the leaders or elites who represent the nation in the world arena –– should understand not only what it is today, and why and how it has become what it is today, but also what it will be in the future in a global context. Where there is no self-understanding, the word “globalization” will mean no more than a centrifugal emulation of other nations.

So, the basic consideration of education for future leaders of the nation in the context of globalization is to produce individuals who have stalwart spines and are competent enough to keep their nation’s self-identity, autonomy, and self-respect in the world without becoming either a victim or an offender in a game of domination. Such globally educated individuals (or leaders) should be able to articulate their nation’s points of view on the issues of international relations and conflicts (geo-political, military, trade, or ecological problems) while defending the integrity of their nation’s interests ethically and legally.

VI. Character building is the most important component of education

Education essentially is a process of character building. Greeks called it paideia, meaning “child-rearing.” Germans call it bildung, meaning “character building.” Korean educators should remember and teach their students that Koreans have had a similar tradition. But they seem to have forgotten it nowadays in their everyday “rat race” for a highly unequal, “neoliberalized” economy.

The educator is a historically and culturally situated teacher, institution, society, or nation. To be situated is to exemplify a character shaped by differentiating factors. An essential function of education is transmitting to the younger generation the legacy the educator has received from the past. It would be a grave mistake to think that in a globalized world, the value, content, and method of education should be uniform across space. Unfortunately, not a few Korean educators seem to harbor such a misconception, in my opinion.

In concrete curricular terms, Korean students should be thoroughly educated in Korean history and culture – the Korean language, philosophy, religion, and arts. I believe that mathematics, logic, philosophy, geography, natural science, and information technology skills should be taught continuously, with a schedule of phased advancement, from the first grade through the sophomore year of college, to generate literacy in these areas.

University graduates who aspire to represent their country in international arenas should have acquired reading, speaking, and writing knowledge of a foreign language, with in-depth historical and cultural comprehension of the linguistic region. For instance, English has become the Lingua Mundi, or “world language,” regardless of whether one likes it or not. Notwithstanding an obsession with learning English and the money spent to learn it, few domestic Koreans can use the de facto global language decently. Throughout the 20th century and in the early years of the 21st century, Korean diplomats were allegedly among the poorest speakers of foreign tongues. I hope they are doing far better today. [Note: “Most Koreans under 60 can read English more or less. But only about 10 percent speak some English with broken grammar. Many young Korean students, especially the ones who have lived and studied abroad, can speak reasonable English … Less than 1 percent may be fluent.” See Jaekeun Cho, Understanding the Importance of English Education in South Korea and Exploring the Reasons Why South Korean Students Come to a University in the Midwest, Lincoln Digital Commons@University of Nebraska.]

For more than three decades, I have taught at three universities: Seton Hall University in New Jersey, the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing, and Seoul National University in South Korea. I have told my American, Chinese, and Korean students the following seemingly unsurprising statement: The English language, more specifically, American English, has become the global language whether one likes it or not. But being born in America (or Britain) does not guarantee competence in English, which many language experts regard as the second-most tricky language after Chinese.

I have also been telling my students that, “To prosper professionally in America and the globalized world, even if you were born with the language, you must keep teaching yourself to acquire and improve your English language skills throughout your career. One precaution! If you want to climb the societal ladder, teach yourself educated English, not the cowboy English that many uneducated or miseducated Americans tend to speak and write. No matter which profession you choose after college, you will find that leaders or senior executives in both private and public sectors will evaluate you by the words you choose and how you pronounce them.”

IV. Concluding remarks

I believe that competent university graduates should have acquired some basic knowledge in world history, comparative politics, and economics (with extra attention on Bioeconomics, in connection with the issues of “degrowth,” “décroissance” (degrowth) in France, or “decrescita” in Italy³), international law, and history and rules of diplomacy, so that they do not become academics, senior government officials, other professional leaders, who “know one thing, but not two.” There is an unkind word, “sophomoric,” that is apt when applied to them. I am willing to wager that any globally well-educated citizen would not behave like a frog in his/her little pond when he/she is elected as president or prime minister or appointed as a senior official. At the least, such a well-educated person would not be confused over a state dinner and a karaoke party when he/she represents his/her country in international arenas. [THE END]

3. The Italian term ‘la descrescita’ means “river going back to its normal flow after a disastrous flood.” Degrowth aims to reshape society away from its current trends of environmental damage, alienation, and inequality towards a society that promotes harmony, respect for the environment, and extension of local democracy by enabling labor to hire capital rather than capital to hire labor.

Author’s biographical information

Yeomin Yoon, Ph.D., is a professor emeritus at Seton Hall University and an opinion columnist for Diaspora, the Journal of the Korean Professionals International (KPI). After spending fourteen years as a senior economist and general manager of international joint ventures at one of the largest American corporations, he taught global business and engaging the world (a multi-disciplinary course) and international finance for thirty-three years at Seton Hall’s Stillman School of Business until January 2022. Yoon also served as a visiting professor at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing and Seoul National University in South Korea. As a corporate finance advisor to a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) program, he taught corporate finance and international finance to the economics faculty of eight universities in the former Yugoslavia. Additionally, Yoon served eight years as a senior special fellow and academic advisor of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) for a program designed to train diplomats and other government officials of the U.N. member states on global economy and finance.