Neoliberalization and Psychological Ruptures in South Korea

In the aftermath of the Cold War, outside the Korean Peninsula, globalization became equated with the spread of neoliberal capitalism and procedural democracy. This was a real-life example of democracy promoted as a product and brand.

In the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis, the government under Kim Dae-jung, a leading dissident who fought for democracy against the military regimes, was pressured to accept the IMF rescue package and accelerate the neoliberal transformation of Korean society. Despite apparent differences in political orientations, the governments under both Roo Moo-hyun and Lee Myung-bak continued to adopt neoliberal globalization as an established way to pursue economic growth.

Ironically, during the decades of democratization in South Korea, the government controlled by progressive individuals and political camps, who were associated with the democratization movement of the 1970s and 1980s, neoliberalized the society before the conservative government took it further for the next 10 years. Dr. Moon, can you tell us about this, please? Yeah, this is really, in a way, a summary description of what has been happening in South Korea.

And also, in a way, Korean version of the neoliberal transformation that has been taking place in many other countries in the world. So, you know, I wrote this book in response to and also in reflection of this transformation. And I really felt very compelled that we need to really understand what kind of society, what kind of world we are living. And what are the underlying, you know, mechanism and dynamic of the society that we are living?

Most people, you know, very busy with working, you know, paying bills, very pragmatic and practical, you know, the urgency of life cannot really think about this too much. But I think scholars are in a way paid to think about and reflect on this kind of deeper and broader historical political change. So I was really trying to grapple with, you know, this neoliberal transformation.

And as I said in my book, it's not just an economic change or economic restructuring, but it is really a much deeper and fundamental change of how each one of us are being ruled, or how we as citizens of a particular society or even citizens of, you know, the world are being ruled,

how our lives are directed, how are we being motivated? Right. So and the thing about neoliberal transformation is that it took several decades in a way, but a lot of people, I guess, because of the rhetoric and also actual practices of individual autonomy and agency were embracing, you know, this neoliberal rhetoric, right, or being a neoliberal subject that I am my own person. I can really improve myself. I can reinvent myself by getting education or getting certificate.

I can really be, you know, more or less a master of my own life and then use all this market forces and services that we get from market by using my monetary power. Right. With the money that I earn from hard work or a good investment, I can really enrich and enjoy my life. And this sounds really very appealing to, I guess, a lot of young people who grew up with this message. But there are a lot of dark and negative consequences. Some of them intended

others unintended. Right. So I really wanted to write about this transformation. And also by focusing on civic activism, I like to highlight something that is in a way a formative, constructive upbeat, even though not perfect, has its own problems, civic activism in many different forms. And how does this new way of ruling really is related to what we consider, you know, the ideal form of government, i.e. democracy.

And I think the rather long sentences that you read as a beginning, in a way, try to situate this transformation and give readers how this transformation happened. Not seamlessly, but all these different governments that claim to be very different. Of course, you know, one can argue that a lot of political parties in South Korea are not really radically that different. But I guess that's not just in Korea. I guess you can say the same thing to the U.S. and to a large extent.

And, you know, financial times talk about British politics also, how both the conservative and more liberal parties are in a way, you know, not much different in some sense. Right. And they seem to all these different, nominally different parties are really dancing around neoliberal way of life and neoliberal is a measure of ruling. So that's what I was trying to do in this passage. I'm going to ask you something specifically about the Korean politics and the political parties in a second.

But just before that, you mentioned that the fundamental mechanisms and the way of life, how we're controlled, has been changed. And young people, perhaps in their 20s, might not realize it. They might think that this freedom is good. But as I don't know, maybe Jean-Jacques Rousseau said in the Du Contrat social (1762) man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains and Han Byung Chul the philosopher, talks about humans now as a commodity.

I'll get in incredible trouble for this from my mother, but neither of us are in our 20s. We've lived through some things. So what have you seen in terms of this change in in real life, Dr. Moon? So you've talked about these these theories and these structures changing. How have you seen that change in real life, perhaps in your life? My own life. Well, you know, I grew up in South Korea. I was born there. I grew up until I was like 22, almost 23.

And I went to university and also high school, middle school, all under military rule, 70s and then late 70s and then early 80s, mid-1980s. So that generation and younger generation, I would say maybe my children's generation. I don't have a child, but, you know, my students, older people in 20s, my niece. It's very different, right? That first of all, the technology, how both media, cell phone are really dominating their lives and they are extremely skillful at navigating and using it.

Right. So life for them is really happening at their fingertips. Everything, you know, eating, you really need to know how to cook. You can just order something, you know, it is delivered to you, you know, at really just a dial or you subscribe, right? It is application and then everything. And not just food, but like laundry service, you know, anything you need in your life, books, clothes, cosmetics, you name it, right?

Small furniture, everything that ordinary human beings need in their daily lives can be purchased through internet, cell phone. So I think, you know, they tend to think that this convenience and the fastest pace of life is something natural. Yeah. And certainly my generation, you know, people in late 50s, early 60s in Korea, very much adapting to cell phone and social media, but they still have a memory of, you know, all these more non-virtual things.

And they know that things do take human labor, a lot of effort, people toil and sweat to get things done. All this kind of very bodily things are still remembered. And some people still, you know, practice that because that has become their, you know, disposition, right? But young people don't. So I think that's

a huge difference, right? That how human beings with a very specific body that is in a way vulnerable to violence and many other, you know, elements in physical world requires a lot of, you know, way caring and labor, different forms of labor. I think these things are very much not registered among younger generation who are born into this very digitalized world and grew up. And that's the really only reality that

they experienced. And I am deeply worried that how that perception can really generate unintended consequences of probably enormous scale. Right? I guess it's a good thing I can add to that would be young people are also very much interested in environmental issues. Many of them, you know, my own students, many of them are vegans for environmental reasons. So I think they do get, you know, this vulnerability of physical world, including ourselves.

And I think that's a huge difference. But I think a lot of young people also probably majority of them are not fully aware of it. It's because they are so much, you know, in a way embedded in this world. So it's difficult to really get out of that, in a way, universe. And also, in terms of their attitude and perception, more individualistic. Again, here I am certainly in a way doing quite a bit of generalization. Also, you know, people can say a lot of

counter arguments. But as a beginning, I'm just giving you more impressionistic. What I consider meaningful differences between our generation or older generation and our younger generation who were really born after, you know, 1990s. So going along with this discussion of their perception of themselves and society, I think much more in a way individualistic. Not because they want to be, but I think that's very much life circumstances.

You have to get your own education, your own qualification to get a job or any hopefully stable employment. And, you know, no one is out there really helping you too much. Even in Korea, a lot of things were privatized. So, you know, people feel that they really have to rely on themselves. And if they are lucky, maybe their parents, right? So this kind of individualism.

And also, I guess for various reasons, young people, I guess, especially young men, not all of them, but significant minority of them are very much withdrawn. And they are really, you know, very much locked in this virtual reality, communicating through only internet. They are not really engaging with human beings outside, you know, the internet world. And that just to create a lot of

problems. Right. So I think, and then I compare that with, I guess, older generation who, you know, we grew up in a family context neighborhood, very much dealing with other people, whether they like it or not. But nowadays, you know, if you choose not to, you can really stay pretty isolated, you know, in all the times it was not

possible. So I guess I'm talking more this, you know, way generational difference, not in terms of, you know, more like a certain psychological explanation that, oh, they are getting, you know, individualistic. But I'm, I like to highlight how their life circumstances,

right? The economic structure, the technology, you know, the political situation really, in a way, pretty much encourage them to be very much isolated, individualistic, rather than engaged and interacting with the, you know, larger social world. I love the way that you, and I can explain all of these things, Dr. Moon, because it does make a lot of sense. And I think that perhaps we do live in the most convenient society that humans have

ever created. But maybe we don't live in the happiest that humans have ever created. There's a difference there. And I cannot remember where I read it. But somebody said, one of the things that we've lost from society, it might have been Sebastian Jünger in his book Tribe, is that old people before they died would often spend time with their grandchildren in the house, when we would have three

generations under one roof. And I don't mean before they died, that sounds a bit wrong, but you would have three generations in one roof. And there was a biological connection between the eldest and the youngest, and they would pass on their wisdom and the things that they had learned, not in a formalized way, but even simply just by being, by being there at the dinner table and speaking. And that's something that we've definitely seemed to have lost with individualization in these lives.

I would be, I would kick myself if I didn't ask you this question. What was it like as a young woman going to high school and university under military dictatorship in Seoul, in South Korea? I don't think I've ever asked anybody that question is why I'm asking. I, especially high school, I was, you know, back then, there was something

called the, the rotary system. So either you choose your high school in your residential area, or you can choose high school located in something called a common area, which has little to do with your residential location. So I guess maybe this was way to, in a way, give more opportunity for people living in an area where school systems are not necessarily the best. Yeah. So I ended up choosing this common area. And then I, my high school was so far

from where I was living. And it was before all this amazing subway system was constructed. So I had to rely on bus. And then sometimes if I'm lucky, I might get, you know, ride from someone who is traveling to this area. So my family was living in a far eastern part of northern Seoul, north of Han River. And my high school was what is considered now called now the Gangnam area. So it was so far. I mean, distance wise, it is not too far. I guess it's probably

none more than 10, 15 miles. But back then it was like, I had to change the bus twice. And then my mom ended up arranging some kind of a private ride service for me, because especially when I was a senior in high school, she thought that I wouldn't be able to really study with this kind of commuting. She made an arrangement. And then, luckily, my maternal uncle, late 70s, got a new apartment building, you know, in the area, which was really developing. So I actually moved into their apartment.

And because it was very close to my high school, only 15 minutes, something like that. So I guess for me, going to high school was partly dealing with this kind of transportation issues. And then, of course, you know, this kind of very dense, packed bus sometimes can be very dangerous for young women, right? There were certain kind of harassment in a very packed public bus. And then somebody's touching you, but you don't know whose hand it is, right? This

kind of thing. And then also some fun things like meeting some friends in a bus, and then you chat with them. So there were all these mundane pleasures of teenage life. But I guess the main thing was really the pressure to study and enter, you know, reasonably good university, right? So it was really a lot of, in a way, struggle to study, you know, dealing with all the stress, managing your health, academic expectations. So it was a very intense period, really

intense period. If people ask me, do you want to go back to that time? I have to say, no, I don't want to go back. It was very hard time. Very hard time, yes. The French have an expression "plus ca change" in that I think the focus on study and the stress that comes from that the parental devotion to their children study that's still there. The horrible commutes are still there. I'm actually in northeast Seoul right now, around by Hwarangdae and Yooksa, this area, and I have to go to Gangnam

tomorrow. And it still takes a long time. But what has changed perhaps is that we don't bump into people as much unexpectedly anymore because we meet them and we arrange with smartphones and we're always connected. And my wife also said that after taking some prolonged period out of work to give birth to our children and raise them, she started taking the subway again. And she said, now, everybody, there's no hands going anywhere. All the men are very

careful. They're all holding their phones, their hands are all up. And so that has changed for the better, which is nice. We did want to talk a little bit about politics in this first part, Dr. Moon. And one of the things that I underlined in your book when I was reading it is that you made the point on more than one occasion that Neoliberalism was brought into Korea by progressive governments or what we might call progressive governments, certainly on

the left. So this was Kim Dae-jung and then Roh Moo-hyun But then it also continued under the conservative government. So I thought this was kind of interesting in that neoliberalism transcended politics. And while some people might take a very dichotomous Manichean view of South Korean politics, they're the good guys, they're the bad guys, red and blue, which one's your team? That both of the political parties, including the progressives, were instrumental in implementing this

neoliberalism. Could you perhaps say something about that aspect of it, please, Dr. Moon? Yes, I think especially in Korea, you know, where economic growth and development has been such an important ideology. The ruling parties have to, in a way, make sure in their own way, that they are going to address continuous economic growth, while maintaining at least a certain level of economic prosperity.

And so they had to really work with and work around neoliberal economic system, because that was really the global trend, right, that all capitalist economic system very much shifted, especially the so-called developed countries, from manufacturing to finance and high technology.

So they had to, and then before that, I think this is something that I discussed in the book, that how were the trade organization and this global financial institutions came up with new rules of the economic trading and doing business. So, you know, we, unless becoming like, you know, North Korea, okay, we are not really taking part in it, there was really not much choice in terms of, you know, small country like South Korea.

They want to maintain global trade, economic growth, or a certain level of prosperity without getting involved and dealing with neoliberal economic system and institutions, right? So I think, in a way, and then I guess this is also something I talked about in the book, I think so-called progressive or liberal political parties in Korea, very much associated neoliberalism emphasizing market economy with democracy.

So this is, in a way, very much, you know, this idea of my borrowing of Gabriel Recueille's idea of democracy as a product or brand, right? And this brand has been spreading all over the world, I would argue, since the end of the World War II. So very much American interpretation of democracy, right? That you have a multi-party system and periodic election, and then you have a market economy with private property intact. And I think a lot of Koreans, even liberal party members, very much adopt

this idea, embrace this idea. And I guess it has gained even more intensity in Korean context because of South Korea's confrontation with North Korea as a communist country. So, you know, pursuing democracy means free market and sanctity of private property and anything other than this economic system, trying to take care of sort of collective needs of vulnerable population, oftentimes misconstrued as communism.

So I think the, and also in Korea, as you know, being labeled communist is obviously a dangerous thing politically. So I think even liberal political parties try to distance themselves from more, in a way, communally oriented economic system, which in fact, some countries in the world adopt, even though they are liberal democracies and capitalist societies. Korean context, that doesn't sit very well. So I think that in a way, push both political parties to embrace neoliberalism.

Did you have any hesitation in exploring these ideas? Because like you said, the associations with communism and considering the continuing confrontation between North and South Korea, I have some friends that are very far on the left of the political spectrum, and they would see the Minjudang (Democratic Party) as conservative, you know, to them. They are neoliberal and they don't

support them. When you were going through this, because I can feel when I was reading it from my personal interpretation, you were torn between criticizing neoliberalism for the pressures that it puts on the individual, while also trying to acknowledge the liberation that it sometimes provides to some people and some groups, particularly women. Did you have any fear about exploring ideas that might be considered dangerous communist socialist in the Korean

context? Or were you quite free in approaching these documents? I have awareness of how certain things can be misconstrued, especially certain passages are taken out of context. But I guess maybe my own positionality of being here in the US and living here or working here, does give me some perhaps more room to maneuver, perhaps. Yes, that's my sense. And also, I think maybe I can be

misread as acknowledging neoliberalism. I guess in a way, yes, I am acknowledging how in an immediate or relatively short timeframe, it can enable certain social groups, right. But I think my critique in the book about neoliberalism and democracy, how they are intertwined, has more to do with how democracy has been promoted and practiced. So very much I am taking issue, I am taking more, I am taking more issue with this, in a way, American branding of

democracy than neoliberalism. In a way, neoliberalism became very powerful, precisely, or at least because how democracy was branded and promoted, right. This equating democracy with private property and free market, in a very narrow sense. In a way, lends itself to neoliberalism, because there is a certain continuity between neoliberalism and a liberal version of democracy, right?

That neoliberalism is really, in my view, very much financializing and then also intensifying certain pre-existing mechanism of liberal democracy and free market. So I think that's, in a way, a deeper critique I was hoping to deliver. It's good that you make that clear. Would you consider South Korea democratic then in that sense, or has democracy been

overrun by neoliberalism? Because democracy, I think you're pointing out, and you might have written down that now we equate democracy with going to the polls once every five years and choosing a color. And as long as we can have thousands of shampoos and deodorants and perfumes and washing detergents to choose from, then we have democracy. So the rise of neoliberalism is suffocating democracy in a way? Well, again, I would say, again, there are different versions of democracy,

right. That in a way, democracy, like happiness or liberty, very much, it's a meta-word that a lot of people have more or less positive feelings. So I think different social groups and political groups are appropriating, right, for rhetorical purposes. They want to deliver certain message and gain attention or appeal to a wide range of people. And they have to come up with certain keywords that really rings or somehow catch the attention, right.

And I think democracy, happiness, or freedom, human rights, I guess all these meta-words, those keywords, and different people use for different reasons. And the specific meanings really changes. It's not fixed meaning, right. And that's why I think I felt, you know, we need to talk about the relationship between democracy and neoliberalism because the meanings are not really something fixed. It really changes and different interpretations, it's being modified, right.

So in this sense, I think Korea is a democracy if we are talking about, you know, at the level of political forms or procedures, right. That yeah, it has a, you know, there are fairly overall rule of law. Of course, I mean, there are a lot of people above the law, but many people would agree that there are rule of law or, you know, they are trying to. There are elections, or there are, I mean, usually two parties because of the certain kind of voting system in South

Korea. You know, minority parties really cannot break into the institutional system. But we have all the trappings of, you know, what is considered democracy, you know, I guess more political science sense, right. But then if we are really talking about democracy, you know, as value and there are again different versions. If you are talking about substantial democracy in which really marginalized social groups also have more or less, you know, equal voice, we don't.

And I would say, you know, a similar critique in the US with probably a certain degree of differences, right. So I think the question of do they have democracy or not, depending upon what do we mean by that democracy and what is the context that we are really posing this question. Now I understand the way you're laying out politically in terms of that infrastructure. Yes, there is democracy.

And even when I go and vote, the people at the polling stations, they don't batter an eyelid when a waygookin (foreigner) walks in. They, you know, they asked me and that's quite nice, I think. But you mentioned in terms of representation, in terms of marginalized voices, also perhaps in terms of cultural power or social status or how people move through society that the habitus or even in Korea, their appearance.

So maybe if we turn this to some of those organizations or some of those groups, because I would also perhaps suggest that minorities or areas of discrimination are different in different countries. And sometimes we see them through a North American lens and here in Korea, it's a little bit different. If I can, Dr. Moon, I'll read what you said about citizens organizations in Korea. And then maybe we'll go to

multiculturalism after that. You said of citizens organizations in Korea, and I quote from your book. In forging their independent identity from the government against the persistent legacy of authoritarian rule, citizens’ organizations aspired to be equal partners with the government. I cannot over emphasize the importance of this shift in the history of state-society relations in the Korean peninsula.

Throughout the twentieth century, Japanese colonial rule, the U.S. military occupation, the Korean War, and authoritarian rule during the Cold War established and maintained the state's strong position in relation to society. Hence the state was able to dominate and dictate to the populace and mobilize them for projects through the ideologies of nationalism, anti-communism and economic development and modernization.

By using political openings generated by neoliberal governments, citizens organizations tried to establish democratic relations with the government. So here we're getting cleavages between the state and society in the framework of the Cold War. Citizens organizations and civic activism, these emerging groups. Can you perhaps try to bring them to life for us, Dr. Moon? Tell us what you learned or the people you saw and what you've written about.

Right. The citizens organization in Korean (시민단체) I guess their history is getting longer and longer now. You know, the one *PSPD (참여연대) became, they just celebrated, I think, 30 years anniversary. So they are getting, in a way, more mature and older. And the reason why I focused this sector of Korean societies precisely what I said here, that they are really something historically significant.

That, you know, Korea really had an organization that was really monitoring the state business, the big economic organizations and tried to really bring about change in this life. I mean, in some sense, it's a bit like, you know, secular religion almost, right? That people always had a dream about better life or freedom from suffering and pain. And in all the times, religion was really fulfilling this kind of desire, of any much existential desire.

With, I guess, secularization, relative decline of monotheistic religion and emphasis on afterlife, you know, political movement or revolution or civic activism became very much of a secular vehicle to address this kind of existential desire. That there are a lot of suffering in the world, a lot of pain that human beings have to go through. We like to have less of that or hopefully end it all together and then somehow try to, you know, act together to work toward that goal.

So I see civic activism and this particularly a citizen's organization in Korea in that context. And that's something I know that many Koreans are now very much disillusioned by citizen's organization for good reasons. But it's not, I don't want to throw baby with baby water. So I like to maintain, I hope people maintain this kind of institutional model of people coming together and working to really change, improve or eliminate certain problems.

Right. And there are numerous citizen's organizations in Korea that have spring, since, that has been growing since 1990s. And I just chose four of them in terms of how they are influential and well known and also in some sense representative and also distinct in their approach and issues that they are focusing on. So, yes, I chose, you know, this PSPD, 참여연대 which is really the best known citizen's organization in Korea.

And then two branches of relatively well known feminist organization, but not, you know, in any way, comparable to PSPD. But I wanted to focus on sort of a local women who are mostly married, housewives, or, you know, group of people, or many people consider not really political or social agent.

Right. So something that is usually not paid attention, but bring to light and give people the opportunity to think about, or at least learn about what some of these women who are just ordinary middle class housewives with children taking care of home. But they also get out of their mold and try to, you know, reinvent themselves. And then really tiny organization, essentially run by a couple of people with online supporters and members.

So certainly, you know, it is not statistical sample, you know, with random representation. But I think it really conveys, I hope these four organizations convey, you know, in a way complexity and the range of citizen's organizations in South Korea. And I also didn't want to idealize, romanticize these groups. But also I didn't want to convey one dimensional caricature that often conservative critics portray them to be.

So acknowledging certain problems that they have, but do not completely dismiss because of that. Right. So I was trying to make a bit difficult balance between the complex reality in a way pretty messy. They are not, you know, religious saint, how they are not martyrs. They are human beings with their own ambitions and interests. But then they also are committed to lofty goals. So these things, you know, where you coexist.

I think you did that exceptionally well in your book, Dr. Moon, because there were lots of passages from interviews and stories and they were some of the things that I underlined most when you had a young woman that was teaching Vietnamese and visitors to the country. And when they lose touch with them and you realize that they're they're doing these acts of service to people that they struggle to communicate with. But that's what civic activism is.

There was there was there was another story about children's lunches in schools and somebody said that we should only give children's lunches to the more needy children. We shouldn't give them to the yangban (aristocracy) or the people that work for the chaebol. They don't need it. But then there was a there was a line in there from somebody you interviewed that said there are no poor children and rich children. There are only poor and rich parents and children shouldn't be discriminated.

And those that took me back. I underlined that and thought about it quite deeply. And I think you did really well in putting those stories in there and not drowning the book in data and statistics. I know we have a job to do as professors, but I love those stories. We're relieved to hear that. We'll speak a little bit maybe how neoliberalism is changing civic activism. But can I ask you something very quickly about religion because you talked about the secularization of society.

Korea had this strange thing in that it got richer as it got more religious. And we generally find as a global trend, it goes the other way in Korea. It went that way. Now we're seeing a decrease in religious religiosity. Fewer people are going to churches and temples and such forth, although it's still quite visible. In Korea.

Yes, yeah. So I'm just curious, how does religion, how does purpose and I'm not talking about one in particular, I mean, Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning and other people have done this, they say if a person has a why they can bear any what if they have a meaning. How does religion tie into this, the framework of neoliberalism and democracy? Yeah, actually, that's something really an important topic, but I don't address

religion at all. In a way, it would be a good study to be done how certain religious groups are very much involved in civic activism. And I have actually a partner companion, my life companion, who is an ordained United Methodist deacon. And I am not religious myself. So this is something really, in a way, unexpected that I am paired up with somebody who is deeply religious and, you know, he feels this sense of calling.

And this is something anyhow. So but his approach to religion is very much as a form of social engagement and activism, like going back to, you know, the Jesus Christ, who were really always, you know, working with and interacting with people who are most downtrodden. So he hold on to that tradition. And I'm

okay with that kind of religion. I guess I am troubled by religion that is really focusing on certain doctrinal purity and dictate everybody's life, according to that doctrinal purity, which is just one interpretation of a particular, you know, scripture.

So I think it would be really fascinating to study how in Korean context religion, particularly Christianity, is very much intertwined with social and political activism for, in a way, promoting democracy, rather than promoting, you know, donations to church, and then they can build a larger cathedral, things like that. So, oh, and then going back to my book, even though I don't talk about religion at all, maybe just some fleeting reference here and there.

Like, for example, when I talk about how market, underlying ethos of market, really popularize this ethos of fun and pleasure as a legitimate source of motivation, right? You are not for the sake of nation or some kind of patriotism or, you know, collective ideology. But just simply as an individual, you love doing something you enjoy, and you are getting pleasure out of it. And that becomes the legitimate source of motivation, right, in modern, postmodern life.

So in that context, I talk about how even religion was very much, in a way, shaped by this ethos, that religion, you know, a lot of joy and fun has to be there in order to really draw people to churches. So I think civic activism, the activists

really grappling with this issue. How do we make civic activism not something that people consider too serious and too above their head so they don't want to deal with it, but something really fun, something enjoyable, something in a way exciting and exhilarating. So I think this emotional turn, you know, in a way, brings civic activism and religion, possibly or potentially, you know, converging in a way. I mean, it's not happening in a very

noticeable way yet. But I think a lot of activists who are really, you know, working out there dealing with these issues. I know, for example, this feminist organization, especially the headquarters of that organization directing or focusing on a younger generation or a single woman for employed. They are really trying to make their gathering fundraising really fun and, you know, enjoyable event. Right.

So and I guess so that's more like how civic activism and then even religion, religious practice, potentially converging as a result of this power of market ethos. Right. But I think another connection between civic activism and religion would be I think in a way they are delimited, as I mentioned earlier, this underlying or existential need or desire among human beings. Right. That people do experience and see suffering, destruction, pain, brutality.

All these are in human lives all the time, I guess, depending upon where we are located. We are exposed to less or more of it, but it's there. And what what do we do with that reality that is given to us? You know, there are multiple responses, right? Some traditional cultures, they use art to, in a way, sublimate. They mourn by singing or dancing in a

certain way. Or they try to elevate themselves beyond this physical reality, which Buddhism did very much try to enlighten yourself getting out of this reality of senses. Right. That, you know, we condition all of us to all these different kinds of suffering that we can feel. So I think, you know, civic activism is OK. We don't have to really just give up or mourn over or lament. But perhaps we can come together and make

some change in real life. Right. So in religion, or at least the version that I'm familiar with, monotheistic religion, a lot of focus on afterlife. Right. That, OK, you suffer here, but when you die, you will be rewarded, you know, in the heaven. So, you know, that's sort of in a way promise. Right. That's another way of dealing with the reality of suffering. So I see civic activism in that framework. This is, you know, not something above your head.

But it is actually a very secular and pragmatic response to what to do with this enduring and, in a way, inevitable problems of human life. And is there any way we can somehow a little bit lessen it? So I guess that connects to civic activism to religion in a different way. It does very well. I might perhaps throw a couple of ideas out here for you and just see if any of them resonate.

As I was reading through the passages in your book, I discovered that many people going into civic activism were discouraged because it wasn't fun and because it wasn't enjoyable and they were left doing menial tasks. But when you join an organization, you have to start on the bottom rung and you're not meant to be given lots of power. And then in our lives, even as professors or as educators, religion now has to be fun. The university classroom has to be fun.

The the 동아리 (group) or the club, the organization that you join has to be fun. Your marriage or your lifetime partner. This is the brand that we're given. And yet. And yet when I spoke to Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, who does some very interesting work, he told me happiness is not the meaning of life. We've got it completely twisted. We keep repeating, like you said, perhaps a product or a brand or a meme that's coming through a Gramscian control of media and mass culture.

But he said the meaning of life is service. And that's where and I know in my own life, this doesn't just mean religious service. I know in my own life that the things that are best for me, they suck. This is the exercise. This is the study. This is the taking time out of my life to help other people. All the things that I do for other people or for the betterment of certain things. The focus is not on happiness. The focus is not on enjoyment or fun.

It's on it's on something else. When I was looking at the statistics for mental health in South Korea, this ties just a little bit back to religion. I noticed that people of religious disposition, particularly in Christian religions, were far less prone to suicide.

And the reasons it gave in these studies was not because of the truth or untruth of whether there's a person in the sky, etc. But it was because these people had a community because every Sunday they met each other and they had coffee and they sang songs together. They talked about, is your child going to school? How's he doing? Is he getting

married? And that human togetherness, that connection was what gave people some kind of meaning or togetherness or some touch and it reduced the isolation in them in a way. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. I mean, your comments made me think about profound irony of individualism. Right. That as modern, postmodern beings, I think many of us want to have individual autonomy. And we want to have choice. We want to do

what we like to do. All these things are something that in a way liberal democracy very much is celebrated and acknowledges. Right. And the basic things about civil rights, that why right to the freedom of thought and expression are so important because it really gives how we can express ourselves and pursue the idea or what kind of things that we want to do. Right. So all these things are extremely important and I value that, you know, especially as a woman of color here, I really value that.

But then ironically, when we focus on the self, myself, right, what am I going to get as a result of this? What am I going to gain? Am I going to get ahead? If whenever we are really focusing exclusively on what we are going to gain and better off and acquire, the result is usually not good. But it really gives this sense of frustration, anxiety, nervousness, rather than sense of gratitude

and fulfillment. Right. So I guess it in a way sounds a bit like a cliche, but I am observing that very much in my own life as well as many people that I know that I can observe their lives. Right. So this is really interesting that we do want to have, you know, bodily autonomy, freedom of our ideas, our, you know, movement. But then when we focus on ourselves and our individual happiness or achievement, the result is not usually good.

And as you mentioned, what I'm observing, people who are very religious, they consider themselves as more like a vehicle. Right. You are just a vehicle for, you know, this higher being using you. You are just being used by this, you know, larger entity. And, you know, they seem to have a better life. So that's something really quite fascinating.

Bernardo Kastrup said in his conversation to me and he was quoting someone else, one of his friends, he said, we are but a violin and we should allow ourselves to be played by nature. If we try to play ourselves, we make a screeching discordant, an awful noise. But if we just allow ourselves to be played and used and something that I sometimes say in my lectures is, I forget the origin right now, forgive me, society prospers when people plant trees under whose shade they will not sit.

Now it's hard work to plant a tree and you do it even though you're not going to get the benefits of it, but maybe two or three generations later, people will enjoy that tree. And sometimes at the end of my semester, students will write letters or leave notes and they put that one in there. And I'm like, everything that I taught you, that's the one that seems to stick to young people. You mentioned yourself as a person of color. I'm hearing career with my two

children as well. Maybe just as we come towards the end, if we could say something about multiculturalism because I thought some of those passages, they really moved me when I was reading them. Dr Moon, I'm just going to quote a little bit here from you what you wrote about multiculturalism.

From your book and I quote, as South Korea moved from a country sending out its people as cheap laborers to one receiving foreign migrants, many civil society organizations were developed to deal with issues concerning migrant workers. A majority of these organizations focus on providing charitable services in accordance with the frame of assimilation, or what the government ironically named multiculturalism.

But FOA has tried to create a social space in which native Koreans and foreign migrants interact and build solidarity as equal members of society, but beyond the provision of urgent services. Could you perhaps say what you learned, you discovered what you found? Yeah, I mean, this is an organization that I met initially 2009. You know, a scholar actually was also a foreigner, naturalized Korean. And he was working with and for this organization. He introduced me to this

organization. And over time, I learned that how they were in a way distinct in their approach. That they were always envisioning this ideal of Korean, native Koreans and foreign migrant workers as fellow members. And certainly they are not right, but they always have that vision and always under that vision. Okay, if when we teach Korean to them, that's the vision and how should we approach it rather than, okay, you came to Korea, so you better learn our language.

And, you know, it's fun to teach Korean language to non Koreans. So it's more than that, right? And they have been really maintaining this position. But they were, as I discussed in the last chapter, chapter six, financially, they have been really struggling, you know, really shrinking and then maintaining sort of really more internet based activities. So it just shows, you know, this kind of idealism does come with a practical cost,

not easy to maintain. But, you know, they are still, they still exist, you know, they have been, they were created in 2002. So yeah, it's more than now 20 years. Yes. And those human stories were wonderful to read and they're still as important as ever. Just to bring this towards the end, Dr. Moon, because we agreed on the time before we started. Your book's main argument, I mean, let's talk about the future. I'll put the main argument at the start of this podcast for you. But is there a future?

There is no alternative, the end of ideology. We just live the 90s until they just keep buffering or what happens going forward? Are you an optimist out of all this? Does, does neoliberalism ever retreat from spaces of? Yes, I think it will retreat. You know, like any powerful mode of ruling, any powerful mode of ideology, there is always, you know, this kind of, I guess, cycle of rising, becoming very dominant and hegemony and declining.

I don't know whether it will decline very soon, especially given how artificial intelligence and all this computer technology can really, in a way, out do, you know, multitude of human beings. And people who are really benefiting from this neoliberal ruling are also in control of AI and, you know, finance. So that's, in a way, something scary. But I like to be optimistic. I like to be optimistic.

And because I guess it's optimism is actually not choice, I feel, that if you are living and not optimistic, you have to end your life, really, to say bluntly. Because why? Why, when something is so bad and not really any room for betterment, is it worth continuing? So, I mean, in this sense, I think, in a way, you know, people ending their lives, actually, for me, making a lot of sense. I don't know, maybe this sounds weird, but it's just. So I think for me, being optimistic is

not really a choice. But you have to, you have to, and we have to try. And I think that generates, in a way, positive energy. Right. And especially if it's with other people coming together, that is really, in a way, a form of a form of identity. So I think it's more like creating a positive and constructive dynamic. It's a, I would say precondition rather than choice. Precondition for our existence rather than choice.

So, yes, I think there has been, you know, a good deal of damage really done by neoliberal economy and also neoliberal ruling. And a lot of people are very much affected. And that also partly largely explains the rise of a certain kind of authoritarianism, right? Or right wing or ultra-riving politics. So, yes, actually, that also both in some sense, not very positively, that people

can go, you know, wrong direction. But there are a good deal of discontent out there that has to be really channeled positively and constructively. And I am very, in a way, moving from Korea to the U.S. because last night was the beginning of a democratic national convention. And of course, it's very much

performance. But, you know, a lot of this energy enthusiasm around a relatively younger generation, you know, candidate, you know, women of color, and also, you know, the vice president, you know, yes, white men, but also some women actually commented that he reminded all of us of, you know, this positive, good masculinity, you know, the uncle that we lost to MAGA

movement, right? So maybe, you know, through this kind of both institutional but outside institution, you know, collective engagement, you know, things can be better, I think. I can feel the positivity coming through the screen, Dr. Moon, and I share it in general. I have great hope, not only for the youth of today, I think they're capable of great things, but of the future as well. I think the future will be all right. We've come through much

more difficult times. And we said sometimes that, you know, it's the hard things in life that are most rewarding and enjoyable. And sometimes the harder things in life are going out and touching people and meeting them and seeing them and being in the same physical space because it's much easier to stay at home and sit on a computer and let time go. And so doing those things, I think, yeah, we will get there. This has been a

fabulous conversation, Dr. Moon. I could ask you more and more questions, but we are going to leave it here before you go. A book, a movie, a song, a drama, anything. Do you have any recommendations for us, Dr. Moon? Yes, right. A book I am thinking about, Celebrity Society. That's the title, Celebrity Society, and subtitle is The Struggle for Attention. The author is

Robert van Krieken. K-R-I-E-K-E-N. And I think this is a really fascinating book that can help a lot of people to understand what kind of society we are living and how we are really directed by underlying dynamic of what he calls celebrity society. So now the struggle is not struggle for material things, although they still exist. But this new thing added is struggle for attention. There are so many things that are happening all the time so fast.

So the attention, being able to grab attention of people became a new, in a way, not new anymore, but he identifies, right? And this model of celebrity worship, celebrity influence are really spreading all over the, all areas in our lives. Politics are very much following the celebrity model. Economics, right? Even CEOs and the executives, they are now very much a celebrity. They are commanding attention or try to do so.

So like really top of the politics and economy and culture all the way down to very mundane micro celebrity among influencers, right? They are also trying to grab attention among their actual potential subscribers. So we live in a society where people are really struggling to get attention and all the underlying dynamics. So I really recommend the book. It's a bit theoretical in a way, but I think it really illuminates so many things in our everyday life. So I think that's my recommendation.

And the other book would be Makers and Takers. The subtitle is The Rise of Finance and the Fall of American Business. So this is more about America, but it's again very much about the economic history of how our world, the 21st century, were really made, right? The author is Rana Foroohar F-O-R-O-O-H-A-R. This is a journalist. This is more engaging in some sense, yes, than celebrity society. One scholar, the other one journalist. So those two books, I think would be really fabulous to read.

Thank you very much. It was said in the 1960s, it might have been Andy Warhol, In the Future Everybody Will Be Famous for Five Minutes. And that was later changed to In the Future Everybody Will Be Famous to 15 People. Because we have our sort of Facebook or our Insta or Twitter. Everybody has a collection of people online and we have to maintain our image and our posts and our personality. We all have that. Just before you go, Dr. Moon, have you read any Han Byung-chul?

Not recently. Yes, if you recommend any book, I would love to read. Just a couple of days ago, I read his latest one published this year. It's called The Crisis of Narration. The Crisis of Immigration? No, The Crisis of Narration. Narration. Yes, in the sense that we have so much information, but no narrative, no story. And you finish it in a day. It's a very good book. Thank you very much for your time today,

Dr. Moon. I really enjoy your warmth. I encourage everybody that's listening to please have a look for civic activism in South Korea. This book here, I'll link it in all the show notes and try to draw people's attention to the work that you do. And I wish you all the best in the future. Thank you again very much. And hopefully to meet you in person when I visit Korea. We'll have some positive conversations over some coffee when you get here. Yes, right. Okay, so take good care.

Have a nice day, Dr. Moon. Bye bye. Thank you. Yes.