INCREASING ETHNIC DIVERSITY IN KOREA: MULTICULTURALISM AS A

REALITY, IDEOLOGY AND POLICY

Andrew Eungi Kim

Division of International Studies
Korea University

1
ABSTRACT
South Korea is rapidly becoming a multicultural society, as more than a million foreigners live in
the country. The increasing ethnic diversity has heralded the widespread use of the concepts of
multicultural society and multiculturalism. However, these terms have often been misused and
misunderstood, as reporters and even scholars have used them indiscriminately and
interchangeably, failing to distinguish between multicultural society as a fact, i.e., ethnic diversity
in Korean society, and multiculturalism as a policy and ideology. In particular, the latter has
been used without an adequate understanding of the multiplicity of its meanings and implications.
This paper aims to redress this problem by tracing the origin of the use of term damunhwa or
“multicultural” and its related terms such as multiculturalism, multicultural family,
multicultural children, and multicultural education. Through this exercise, the paper
attempts to examine process through which these terms came into use and analyze how their
meanings may have changed over the years, albeit their very short history. The paper also
identifies the agents involved in the construction of those meanings and assesses their role in
making these potentially alienating terms more palatable and tolerable. Lastly, the paper
analyzes Korean multiculturalism from multidimensional approaches, discussing the applicability
of the concept as a fact, ideology, policy, and process in the Korean context.

Key words: Korea, multicultural society, multiculturalism, ethnic diversity, multicultural

policy

2
INTRODUCTION
South Korea (henceforth Korea) is rapidly becoming an ethnically diverse society. As of
the end of 2007, the number of registered foreigners totaled 1,066,273, accounting for about
2.2 per cent of the total population. The number of foreigners in Korea jumped 2.75 times
since 1997 when the figure was 386,972. If the current trend continues, it is expected that
the number of foreigners in Korea will reach the 1.5 million mark in 2012, 2.53 million in
2020, and 4.09 million by 2050 or 9.2 per cent of the total population, which would be
similar to the proportion of foreign-born residents in the total population of England (9.7 per
cent) in 2005.
The increasing ethnic diversity has naturally spawned the rise of the concepts of
multicultural society and multiculturalism as important keywords describing contemporary
Korea. Although these terms are being frequently referred to in the media and the academia,
they are often misused and misunderstood, as they are used indiscriminately and interchangeably.
The most serious problem in this regard is the failure to distinguish between multicultural society
as a fact, i.e., ethnic diversity in Korean society, and multiculturalism as a policy and ideology.
In particular, the latter has been used without adequate understanding of the multiplicity of its
meanings and implications.
The question is: When did the discourse of multicultural Korea and multiculturalism
first begin? Why did the discourse of multicultural Korea and multiculturalism become so
popular? Is multiculturalism consistent with Korean values? This paper aims to tackle
these questions by tracing the origin of the use of term damunhwa or “multicultural” and its
related terms such as multiculturalism, multicultural family, multicultural children, and
multicultural education. The paper also attempts to examine the process through which
these terms came into use and to analyze how their meanings may have changed over the
years. In particular, the paper examines the direct and indirect role of the government,
media and academia in promoting multiculturalism as a desirable policy for Korean society.
Lastly, the paper argues that Korean multiculturalism needs to be analyzed from
multidimensional approaches, examining the applicability of the concept as a fact, ideology,
policy, and process in the Korean context, thereby bringing into sharper relief a full range of
cultural, social and political implications of the concept.

THE DISCOURSE OF MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY IN THE NEWS MEDIA

In an ordinary usage, the term damunhwa, literally meaning “multiculture,” is used to refer to
the phenomenon of increasing ethnic diversity in Korea. When literally translated into
English, it is a noun, but it is actually used as an adjective, as in “multicultural.” For
example, in describing Korean society as a multicultural society, the expression used in
Korean is that Korea has become damunhwa hashoe, literally meaning “multiculture
society.”
In trying to trace the first incidents of the use of the term damunhwa, the paper
searched the newspaper archives being provided by Korea’s leading Internet search engine,
Naver (www.naver.com), which has archived articles from three daily newspapers, namely
Kyunghyangshinmun, Dongailbo, and Maeilgyeongje, from 1960 to 1991. The articles
which are indexed under this term have been based on the title and content. Other related
terms such as damunhwasahoe (multicultural society), damunhwajui (multiculturalism),
damunhwagajok (multicultural family), and damunhwagyoyuk (multicultural education) are
automatically indexed by these newspapers because damunhwa is a prefix to these concepts.

3
 From 1960 to 1991, Kyunghyangshinmun and Dongailbo each makes just four
references to those terms, while Maeilgyeongje has none.1 The first ever reference to the
term damunhwa in the newspaper media was made in Korea on October 24, 1964 in an article
in Kyunghyangshinmun (1964). The article describes how the UN was at a turning point
with the rise of the Middle East as a powerful force to reckon with and how the international
political landscape was changing as the traditional allies of the United States are riding on the
multicultural wave (damunhwa mulgyeol) to have a more independent say in diplomatic
relations. The second reference to the term is made in the same newspaper nearly 20 years
later in August 1983. The article recounts the popularity of Jerusalem as a place of
“pilgrimage” for Korean Christians and describes the ancient city as religiously plural
(dajonggyo) and multicultural (Kyunghyangshinmun, 1983). It would be another three years
before the term damnuhwa or damunhwajui is mentioned in any of its articles published in
the newspaper. In the first of the two articles published in 1986 which refers to the concept
reports on a conference involving professors of music education and their claim that music
education in Korea is centered too much on Western classical music and that there is a need
for multiculturalism-centered (damunhwajungsimjui) music education, incorporating musical
traditions of not only the West but also of Korea and Asia (Kyunghyangshinmun, 1986a).
The second article featuring damunhwa in 1986 was a piece written by a columnist for the
newspaper. The column, which was written in time for the 1986 Asian Games, takes note of
the increasing prominence of Asia in the global arena and the region is described as being
characterized by dainjong (multi-races), damunhwa (multi-cultures), daeoneo (multi-
languages), dajonggyo (multi-religions) and daideology (multi-ideologies)
(Kyunghyangshinmun, 1986b).
For Dongailbo, the first article featuring the term damunhwa appeared in January
1983. The article was a contribution by a Hudson Institute researcher who writes about the
role of South Korea in the creation of the Asia-Pacific community, warning against following
the United States model of multiculturalism, which he derides as an amalgamation of assorted
cultures and as a blind openness to any culture (Dongailbo, 1983a). A second article in the
same year is a translation of a commentary which appeared in U.S. News and World Report,
describing the immigrant culture of the United States as no longer being a “melting pot” but
rather a “salad bowl,” which is described as a representative of multicultural society in which
different cultures are allowed to maintain their uniqueness and coexist (Dongailbo, 1983b).
It would be another seven years before an article featuring the term damunhwa would appear
again. The article recounts a cultural performance held at a Korean church on the eve of a
Los Angeles festival celebrating Asia-Pacific cultures and mentions that understanding the
city is impossible without knowing about its cultural diversity (Dongailbo, 1990). The
article also refers to a seminar on multiculturalism and the importance of multi-races in area
cultures and arts. The fourth and last article on damunhwa from 1960 to 1991 in Dongailbo
appears in 1991. It is an account of a visitation to the naval Silk Road, including visits to
Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia, the latter of which is characterized by the writer as being

1
In searching newspaper archives and scholarly works, the meaning of damunhwa (多文化)
as “multicultural” should be distinguished from the meaning of damunhwa (茶文化) as tea
ceremony culture. The latter word derives from dado or the art of ceremonial tea-making.
Many articles in the 1970s and 1980s which featured the term damunhwa were about this tea
ceremony.

4
concerned with creating unity from multi-cultures and multi ethnic groups (daminjok)
(Dongailbo, 1991).
As the above survey shows, the frequency of reference to the term damunhwa in the
three daily newspapers in Korea in the 1960-1991 period was negligible, with the term
making appearances only eight times in total. It is safe to say that other daily newspapers in
Korea, including Chonsunilbo and Joongangilbo, also made very limited references to the
term during the same period. In fact, the same trend continues until the end of the 1990s.
For the daily newspapers in Korea, the frequency of reference to the term damunhwa
has become noticeably higher only since the year 2000, especially after 2006. For example,
Dongailbo, which has comprehensively archived its articles since 2000, has reported on
damunhwa much more frequently, especially since 2006: 11 times in 2000, 15 times in 2001,
8 times in 2002, 6 times in 2003, 10 times in 2004, 16 times in 2005, 60 times in 2006, 100
times in 2007, 298 times in 2008, and 947 times in 2009.
This trend is also evident in two other daily Korean newspapers, namely
Chonsunilbo and Joongangilbo. The following is the frequency of reference to the term
damunhwa in the portal of Chosunilbo (www.chosun.com) in the 1990s and 2000s: the first
and only time in 1993, once in 1994, twice in 1995, 8 times in 1996, 9 times in 1997, 6 times
in 1998, 4 times in 1999, 10 times in 2000, 19 times in 2001, 15 times in 2002, 14 times in
2003, 10 times in 2004, 18 times in 2005, 67 times in 2006, 193 times in 2007, 440 times in
2008, and 797 times in 2009. Joongangilbo shows the same trend, as damunhwa and its
related terms appeared only sporadically in the 1980s and 1990s. For example, the first
reference was made in September 1985, followed by another reference in November 1987
and another one in October 1992.2 From 1994, like Chosunilbo, there had been continuous
references to the term, albeit only a handful or a dozen times annually, until 2005. It is from
2006 that the frequency of reference to the term increases sharply, jumping to the total of 20
in 2006 and 48 in 2007. Like other newspapers, the total of references soars to hundreds in
2008 and 2009.
As can be seen above, damunhwa was a negligible issue in Korean newspaper media
until the end of the 1980s and was not much of an issue in the 1990s and up to the middle of
the 2000s. It is only from the mid-2000s, particularly since 2006, that the newspaper
articles mention damunhwa in the Korean context in earnest and in great frequency, making
references to migrant workers and migrant brides as well as multicultural families in Korea.
Despite the low number of references made to the term, there were some significant
differences in the way it was treated by the Korean newspaper media in the 1980s and 1990s.
Up to the 1980s, references to the concept were largely made to describe cultures of other
countries, particularly the United States. The concept of multicultural society or
multiculturalism up to this period was conceived purely as an external phenomenon,
insinuating its irrelevance to Korean society. In the 1990s, the Korean media began to
portray the term as having relatively greater relevance to Korean society, which was partly
due to a growing emphasis on segehwa or globalization by the Korean government. The
Kim Young-sam administration (1993-1998) adopted it as one of its key guiding policies to
bring about reforms in education and economy to enable the nation to successfully compete
internationally, and the Korean media followed suit, paying more attention to globalization
and its accompanying values, one of which was multiculturalism. For example, the first
reference to the term damunhwa or damunhwajui in Chosunilbo was made in March 1993, in

2
The number of references to damunhwa in Joongangilbo is as follows: 1 in 1985, 1 in 1987,
1 in 1992, 4 in 1994, 5 in 1995, 6 in 1996, 10 in 1997, 3 in 1998, 9 in 1999, 6 in 2000, 9 in
2001, 21 in 2002, 9 in 2003, 13 in 2004, 11 in 2005, 20 in 2006, and 48 in 2007.
5
time for the start of Venice Biennale in June 1993. The theme of the 1993 Biennale, which
is an art exhibition of contemporary art from all around the world, was multiculturalism,
highlighting how art is a channel through which people of different cultures are brought
together and allows a dialogue for peaceful coexistence among different cultures
(Chosunilbo, 1993). The second reference to the concept was made in the newspaper in
January 1994 in view of one of the watershed events of economic globalization, namely the
Uruguay Round (1986-1994). The article, written by the Korean Ambassador to UNESCO,
argued that the upcoming ratification of the Uruguay Round meant not only a greater
integration of the Korean economy into globalized economy but also the need for Korea to
become more cognizant of, and open to, diverse cultures outside of Korea, particularly
multicultural societies (Chosunilbo, 1994).
Continuing with the globalization-multiculturalism nexus, Chosunilbo reported on
the 1996 International Advertising Association Festival in Korea (Chosunilbo, 1996).
Regarding the festival, several articles highlighted the increasing prominence of multicultural
dimension in advertisement in the era of globalization. Also, one of the earliest mentioning
of multiculturalism as a philosophy and social policy was made by Chaibong Ham, the then
professor of political science at Yonsei University, when he wrote a column for the
newspaper in January 1997, describing his impression of a book entitled Multiculturalism
written by Charles Taylor and introducing the reader to the basic essence of the debate
revolving around the issue (Chosunilbo, 1997a). Furthermore, in his review of two books
translated into Korean, namely Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and Edward
Said’s Culture and Imperialism, Jeongin Kang argues that scholars like Said and Jacques
Derrida see multiculturalism and multilateralism as ways, a third alternative way, to
overcome Eurocentric worldviews and practices (Chosunilbo, 1997b).
Many articles in the 1990s thus covered international events which were tinged with
meanings of globalization, such as international trade agreements, international art
exhibitions and conventions of international advertisers, all of which empathized the
increasing importance of the cognition of multicultural elements in everyday life, be it
economy or art. Reviews of books written by authors from multicultural societies or books
dealing with characters living in multicultural setting also brought up references to
damunhwa and damunhwajui. Also, the United States was mentioned often as a society of
multi-cultures, especially in light of Korean immigrants living in that country. Charles
Taylor’s book entitled Multiculturalism and his lecture in Korea also received some media
attention, presaging a key social change that will grip Korea in the near future.
Capturing the essence of the use of term ‘multicultural’ in the 1990s was the term
damunhwasidae (a multicultural era), that we are living in an era of globalization, in which
many, disparate cultures come in contact, potentially causing conflicts, and in which there is
greater competition in the economic sphere. The term also implied that Korea was
increasingly being integrated into the globalizing world and that the country was increasingly
being exposed to, and influenced by, the diverse cultures of the outside world. In view of
such change, Korean media began to emphasize how Korea needed to globalize, in order to
keep abreast of rapid changes happening around the world, so that the country does not fall
behind. Still, up to the early 2000s, the idea of multicultural society was mentioned as an
external phenomenon, a social reality limited to the outside world, especially such immigrant
societies as the United States, Canada and Australia. There was still no earnest illumination
of Korea as potentially becoming a multicultural society. And multiculturalism was referred
to very superficially as an antonym of unilateralism, prejudice, alienation of minorities,
intolerance, ignorance, injustice and close-mindedness. The concept was also perceived as a
synonym of multilateralism, worldliness, openness, tolerance, and justice. Multiculturalism

6
was never used in reference to a government policy, but more as minority groups having
more say in the politics of in immigrant societies.3

THE DISCOURSE OF MULTICULTURALISM IN THE ACADEMIA

One of the best ways to ascertain research trends in the academia is to check the data base of
the National Assembly Library, which keeps the most comprehensive information on books
and journal articles published in Korean as well as master’s theses and doctoral dissertations.4
A perusal of its website provides a wealth of information on the meteoric rise of the research
topic of damunhwa in Korea.
Like in newspaper articles, it is from 2006 that damunhwa becomes one of the most
popular topics of research. Up to 1990, there was not a single book published on the topic
(to be more specific, there was not a single book that bore the word damunhwa in its title),
nor was there any master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation devoted to the topic. However,
there were four journal articles published in the 1980s which examined either multicultural
education or the issue of multicultural reality in other societies (Japan and Canada).5 In the
1990s, there was still no published book about multicultural Korea, although there was a
dozen imported Japanese books on the nature of multicultural Japan. Less than ten master
theses bore the title damunhwa during the same period, but they were mostly on multicultural
education, with very little attention given to the Korean context. During the same period,
nearly 50 journal articles bore the word damunhwa in their titles, with a large majority
devoted to multicultural education in general.
Between 2000 and 2005, about a dozen books, imported books in Japanese,
translated books, and unpublished reports on damunhwa were made available, but the focus
was generally on multicultural education, although one book was devoted to general
discussions of life in a multicultural era, as in Damunhwasidaeui hangukin (Koreans in an
Era of Multicultural Era) by Sunggon Kim (2002). However, there is one unpublished
report that is likely to be the first book-length manuscript on the multicultural reality of
Korea, namely “Gukjegyeolhon ijuyeoseongui eoneo mit munhwa jeokeung siltae yeongu:
Chollabukdo imsilgun (mit sunchanggun·namwonsi) ilwon sare bogoseo” (A Research on the
Language and Cultural Adjustment of International Marriage Migrant Women: A Case Study
of Imsil, Sunchang, and Namwon, North Cholla Province), which was written by Hanseok
Wang, Geon-Su Han and Myeonghui Yang in 2005 for the National Institute of the Korean
Language.
As for master theses and doctoral dissertations, around 50 were written on the topic
during the same period, but most of them focused on multicultural education, while several
theses did examine the nature of multiculturalism in Canada and Australia. As for journal

3
One interesting development in the Korean news media is the use of an expression that is
rather uniquely Korean: the use of the expression “multicultural children” to refer to children
born to interracial or interethnic couples. In the west, terms like biracial, biethnic or
multiracial children are used. Similarly, the expression “multicultural family” is used in
Korea instead of interracial or interethnic family as in the West.
4
Another useful source is the Korean Education and Research Information Service (KERIS),
but upon comparison with the National Assembly Library, KERIS was found to be slightly
less comprehensive.
5
To avoid arbitrariness, only the books, articles, master’s theses and doctoral dissertations
that bore damunhwa in their titles were counted.

7
articles, nearly a hundred of them bore the word damunhwa in their title. What is
noteworthy about these articles is that many of them dealt with case studies of other
multicultural societies, including Sweden, Singapore, Thailand, Jordan, Turkey, Vietnam,
Japan, Canada, and Australia. Another notable fact is that multiculturalism was the focus of
many articles, although all but one of them dealt with the nature of the concept in other
countries. In fact, the article on Korea, namely “Korea: Hangukeseoui damunhwajui
mosaek” (Korea: An Examination of Multiculturalism for the Country), is one of the earliest
works on Korean multiculturalism. Published in Minjokyeongu (Research in Ethnic Studies)
in 2003, Jaejung Lee (2003) examines the concept of multiculturalism in view of government
policies toward foreigner settlements in Korea. Minjokyeongu did publish several articles
about foreigners in Korea prior to Lee’s article, but they were surveys of their migration to
Korean society, rather than framing their presence in a multicultural framework.
Like in the newspaper media, it is from 2006 that damunhwa has become a very
popular topic in the academia, with more than 200 original books, translated books and
unpublished reports becoming available. Books and reports written in Korean typically deal
with the nature of multicultural society in Korea, while translated books typically deal with
case studies of other multicultural societies, theories of multiculturalism or multicultural
education. Master’s theses and doctoral dissertations as well as journal articles show similar
trends, as hundreds of them have been written since 2006, covering as diverse topics as
education, family, immigration, citizenship, laws, counseling, religion and welfare.6

THE KOREAN GOVERNMENT AS A KEY AGENT OF MULTICULTURALISM

So what happened in the mid-2000s, especially since 2006? What brought about the
heightened attention given to damunhwa and damunhwajui by the media and the academia?
Has Korean society, known for having strong pride in ethnic homogeneity, all of a sudden
become cosmopolitan in outlook and become tolerant of the people of diverse cultures? The
catalyst for all of these changes has been the Korean government. The government policy
regarding foreigners until the mid-2000s has been one of exclusion and control. Indeed, the
Korean government prior to the Roh Moo-hyun administration (2003-2008) saw foreigners
purely in terms of utilitarian purposes, allowing them to come to Korea only to fill jobs
shunned by Koreans and leave after a year or two. Accordingly, various labor importation
schemes were implemented to bring in unskilled migrant workers, and these workers, many
of whom were labeled as “trainees,” were excluded from the protection and rights their
Korean counterparts enjoyed. Permanent settlement was out of the question, as residency in
Korea was strictly temporary (even family reunions were not allowed). Human rights’
violations in the treatment of unskilled migrant workers were rampant and they were
subjected to poor working conditions, long work hours, physical and verbal abuse, and delay
of pay.
All of this changed during the Roh Moo-hyun Administration, as its policy on
migrant workers and foreigners changed from exclusion to inclusion, fairness and
institutional legitimacy. In effect, policy regarding foreigners made a transition from
“immigrant control” to “immigrant integration” during the Roh administration. The Roh
administration went to great lengths to improve the living and working conditions of
unskilled migrant workers while trying to create incentives for high-skilled workers to come
to Korea. Also, “multiculturalism” became an important part of policy dealing with

6
Keeping abreast of this rising trend in research focus on damunhwa is the increasing
number of research institutes which are devoted to multicultural issues in Korea.

8
foreigners in Korea, particularly focusing on measures to help multicultural families and their
children. The reason for emphasizing multiculturalism seems to have been the desire to
counter the consequences of Korea’s rapidly aging population, which is largely caused by
record-low fertility rate, by creating a social milieu in which foreigners, especially migrant
brides, and interethnic children feel welcomed. Another reason for embracing
multiculturalism seems to have been the wish to make Korean society more tolerant of
foreigners, so that it can invite more foreigners to come to Korea and replenish potentially
dwindling human resources. The changing government policy was reflected in the way it
took more responsibility for planning and implementing foreign labor policies, greatly
undermining the role of private agencies. Accordingly, the government launched the
Employment Permit System (EPS) in August 2003 to provide for migrant workers the same
rights as Korean workers in regard to working hours, bonus, and welfare benefits.
More importantly, a policy that marks a turning point in the government policy in
dealing with foreigners and a policy that prompted the media and the academia to pay great
attention to the issues of multicultural Korea is the “Grand Plan.” The Grand Plan was
announced after President Roh met with heads of 14 branches of government ministries and
agencies in April 2006. The Plan designated the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family
(MGEF) to coordinate policies for migrant brides and multicultural families, while other
ministries including the Ministries of Labor, Justice, and Social Welfare and Health as well as
central and local government agencies had to participate. The stated vision of the Grand
Plan is “a social integration of foreign wives and an attainment of a multicultural society” and
its major policies include:
1. regulation of international marriage agencies by improving the transparency of their
practices; and protection of migrant brides before entry to Korea by requiring brokers
to provide them with unadulterated information on potential husbands;
2. support for victims of domestic violence by providing more shelters and emergency
hotlines;
3. enacting a new law to protect foreign wives from becoming undocumented
immigrants in case of divorce;
4. provision of support, including various Korean language and cultural programs, for
newly arriving migrant brides;
5. provision of support for multicultural children in schools through the implementation
of programs to prevent racism and a revision of contents in textbooks which are
insensitive to racial issues;
6. provision of social welfare, including medical care, to foreign wives who are married
to poor Korean men;
7. raising social awareness of multicultural issues among the public and implementing
measures to become a successful multicultural society; terms implying racial
discrimination such as “mixed blood” and “biracial” will be replaced with more
politically correct terms; and consideration of a law banning prejudice against
multicultural and immigrant children; and
8. building a strong network among government agencies and opening more
government centers to not only keep abreast of the changing situations of
multicultural families but also to offer the above services more effectively.

There are both external and internal factors which galvanized the government to take
such swift action in launching the Grand Plan (Lee, 2006). Externally, there had been a
series of media reports from the Philippines, Vietnam and Cambodia about “human-
trafficking” by international marriage agencies and the plight of migrant brides in Korea.

9
These reports highlighted sensational cases in which Korean husbands abused their foreign
wives and in which the latter’s human rights were violated. Another external factor which
contributed to the making of the Grand Plan was the racial riot in France which took place in
November 2005. As Korea had been a migrant-receiving country for almost 20 years, there
were a significant number of migrants living in the country by the mid-2000s and the
government wanted to take preventative measures against a potential racial conflict.
Internally, women’s associations and migrant advocacy NGOs as well as migrant
brides’ self-help organizations pressured the government to take actions against heartless
international marriage agencies that arranged marriages based purely on commercial motives,
often resorting to measure that amounted to human trafficking. One such practice that was
resented by women’s groups was a “bride guarantee,” a promise made by a marriage agency
to replace the bride if she runs away after a wedding. A second internal factor had to do
with the visit of Hines Ward to Seoul in April 2006. His visit was received with a media
hoopla which raised awareness about the plight of mixed-race children in Korea. Ward,
who left Seoul as a toddler, was born in Seoul to a Korean mother and an African-American
father who was a U.S. serviceman. He became an instant star in Korea after winning the
MVP at the Super Bowl. The story of Ward and his mother, who overcame many
difficulties to raise him in the United States, fascinated Koreans and made the pair instant
celebrities. Local media had closely covered the run-up to Ward’s visit and cable news
channel YTN broadcast their arrival live. During their 10-day stay, Ward and his mother
met with President Roh and received honorary citizenship for the city of Seoul. Ward’s visit
sparked a broad reexamination of social prejudices against children of mixed parentage in
Korea. Newspaper editorials called for more tolerant attitudes toward mixed-race Koreans,
while the news media reported on egregious cases of discrimination against them.
These internal factors seem to have galvanized the Roh administration to implement
the Grand Plan, a natural outcome since the former president Roh Moo-hyun and many of his
cabinet members had been activists in pro-human rights movements (Lee, 2006:19). It is
also likely that the Roh administration became concerned with the record-low fertility rate in
Korea and it wanted to implement policies to provide assistance to foreign wives and their
families to encourage larger families.
The Grand Plan was followed by laws which provided an institutional framework for
supporting foreigners and enhancing the rights of foreigners in Korea. For example, the
“Basic Law Regarding the Better Treatment of Foreign Residents in Korea” was enforced in
July 2007 to promote an integration of foreign residents as members of Korean society.
Also, the “Multicultural Families Act” was enacted in September 2008 to help them improve
their quality of life as well as to provide information and education support to such families.
The law also requires the Ministry of Welfare to conduct a survey every three years to stem
discrimination and prejudice and to nurture a social milieu which recognizes the diversity of
people living in Korea.
The Lee Myung-bak Administration has followed suit, especially to encourage the
immigration of high-skilled workers, including IT-personnel, to Korea. In 2008, the “First
Basic Plan for Immigration Policy” was announced, which is designed to enhance national
competitiveness through an open-door policy for foreigners with professional skills to settle
in Korea and to develop Korea into a more mature, multicultural society. Other proposed
changes include: allowing high-skilled workers to request for an extension of their stay
without limits; permitting foreign students who graduate from Korean universities to accept
jobs immediately after graduation; and opening government jobs to foreigners.

10
MULTIPLE MEANINGS OF MULTICULTURALISM: AN ASSESSMENT OF
THEIR RELEVANCE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR KOREA

It is clear that the government has played a major role in making multiculturalism a popular
news item and a trendy topic of research in the academia. And the government, the media
and the academia seem to have come to the conclusion that Korea has become a multicultural
society7 and that multiculturalism is a way to go for Korea. However, this paper argues that
while many ideas regarding multiculturalism have been mentioned and articulated in policies,
articles and books, they generally lack comprehensive understanding of its multiple
meanings, implications and practical problems.
Multiculturalism refers to a set of ideas and policies advocating the acceptance,
mutual recognition and promotion of the cultures of various ethnic groups as equals within a
society (see Goldberg, 2009; Laden and Owen, 2007). The eminent philosopher Charles
Taylor (1994) identified multiculturalism as the “politics of recognition” as well as the
“politics of equal dignity” and the “politics of equal respect.” Taylor (1994:37) argues that
we now live in an era dominated by “a politics of universalism, emphasizing the equal dignity
of all citizens” and “the equalization of rights and entitlements.” Taylor (1994:36) writes:
The importance of recognition is now universally acknowledged in one form or
another…..On the social plane, we have a continuing politics of equal
recognition…..the understanding that identities are formed in open dialogue,
unshaped by a predefined social script, has made the politics of equal recognition
more central and stressful. It has, in fact, considerably raised the stakes. Equal
recognition is not just the appropriate mode for a healthy democratic society. Its
refusal can inflict damage on those who are denied it…..The projection of an inferior
or demeaning image on another can actually distort and oppress, to the extent that the
image is internalized. Not only contemporary feminism but also race relations and
discussions of multiculturalism are undergirded by the premise that the withholding
of recognition can be a form of oppression.

Based on the Canadian experience of multiculturalism, Harold Troper (1999:997)

further conceptualizes multiculturalism as being comprised of three components: “the
demographic reality of a….population made up of peoples and groups representing a plurality
of ethnocultural traditions and racial origins; a social ideal or value that accepts cultural
pluralism as a positive and distinctive feature of….society; and government policy initiatives
designed to recognize, support….and manage cultural and racial pluralism” (see Isajiw, 1997;
Lewycky, 1999; Fleras and Elliott, 2002). Similarly, Augie Fleras and Jean Leonard Elliott
(1992) argue that multiculturalism is a multidimensional phenomenon that should be
analyzed in several, different ways. Specifically, they argue that multiculturalism must be
viewed as a fact, ideology, policy, and process. Multiculturalism as a fact refers to
empirical description of ethnic diversity, i.e., the existence of multiple cultural groups who
are different in terms of beliefs and behavior. Multiculturalism as an ideology refers to

7
Is Korea a multicultural society, as in the same sense as Canada, Australia, and the United
States, where foreign-born permanent residents account for 20-30 percent of the total
population? The question is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is worth noting that less
than one-fifth of the total of 1.2 million foreigners in Korea are permanent residents. A
large majority of foreigners in Korea are migrant workers who are staying in Korea for a
short-term period. There is also the issue of Joseonjok (ethnic Koreans from China). Does
their presence, numbering close to 400,000, represent an increasing ethnic diversity in Korea?
11
prescriptive, normative statement of “what ‘ought to be’” (Fleras and Elliott, 1996:326) —a
set of ideals that exalt the virtues of tolerance and mutual respect as well as the benefit of
ethnoracial diversity. Multiculturalism as a state policy refers to the accommodation and
management of diversity through the launch of state initiatives to promote cultural
preservation and intercultural sharing as well as the attainment of social integration through
removal of discriminatory barriers (Fleras and Elliott, 1992:68). Finally, multiculturalism as
a process refers to how political sectors react to the changing dynamics of multicultural
reality. Multiculturalism in this regard may be seen as being manipulated by both
political parties and ethnic groups to promote their own agenda. The state, for example, can
become supportive of multiculturalism for a political reason, in pursuit of “peace, order, and
good government” (Fleras and Elliott, 1992:92). Political parties may view
multiculturalism as crucial for re-election. Ethnic groups may also turn to
multiculturalism in an effort to take advantage of entitlements and benefits they can enjoy.
All of this shows the multidimensionality of multiculturalism, imparting “a distinctive
perspective on the ‘what,’ ‘why,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and ‘how’ of multiculturalism” in a given
society (Fleras and Elliott, 1992:92).
Of particular importance in understanding multiculturalism is its policy
implications. As Kymlicka (2005:73) argues, there are several variables or categories with
which we can assess the extent of multiculturalism in a given society: constitutional affirmation
of multiculturalism; recognition of dual citizenship; adoption of multiculturalism in school
curricula; provision of funding for ethnic organizations to support cultural activities; and ethnic
representation in the media. Also, government multicultural policies may include, but not
limited to:
1. recognition of dual or multiple citizenships
2. government support for newspapers and radio and television programs in minority
languages
3. support for multicultural education in which funding for minority language education
is provided
4. adoption of multiculturalism in school curricula
5. support for minority festivals, celebrations, and holidays
6. support for music and arts of minority cultures
7. acceptance of traditional and religious dress and other accessories in schools, the
military, and society in general
8. programs to encourage ethnic representation in politics and media
9. programs to encourage ethnic representation in education, science, engineering, and
the work force in general (see Modood, 2007; Parekh, 2006; Wood, 2006).

All of these are important dimensions and characteristics of multiculturalism, but the
current discourse of multiculturalism in Korea has paid a very little attention to them. There
seems to be a lack of understanding about the nature, purpose, and properties of
multiculturalism in the discourse of multiculturalism in Korea. In fact, multiculturalism is
often mentioned and discussed without a full understanding of its multiple meanings and
implications. Also, the categories and policy issues of multiculturalism discussed above
certainly do not yet apply to Korean society, for it has never shown any interest in promoting
the culture or identity of newly emerging ethnic groups in ways other multicultural societies
have done. Even if the Korean government were to adopt multiculturalism as an “official”
public policy, the ideal of encouraging people to maintain their own ethnic cultures in Korea
will be very difficult to maintain. Without their own school system, media supports, and
sustainable cultural environment, ethnic groups in Korea will be bombarded with cultural

12
influences emanating from the Korea-centric media, schools, and working world. Also, not
all cultures will ever be of “equal” value in Korea. In reality, ethnic groups are under great
pressure to Koreanize and conform to the Korean majority. The so-called multicultural
policy in Korea is predominantly aimed at producing Korean-conformity and there has been
widespread discrimination against non-Koreans, in whatever forms and nature, especially
toward other Asians.
Then, is multiculturalism consistent with Korean values? The answer is no.
Koreans take great pride in sharing “one pure blood” as descendants of one common ancestor,
and in a “unique, continuous culture” from the birth of the nation, both of which imply the
superiority of Korean ethnicity and culture. This sense of Korea-centered supremacy or
ethnocentrism fosters Koreans’ shunning of and discrimination against foreigners, especially
unskilled migrant workers from other parts of Asia. Koreans cast all foreigners as strangers
(nam) whose “strangeness” or “otherness” does not allow for smooth social interaction, which
creates an exclusive and “closed” society to which foreigners find it difficult to adapt. Shunning
as “different” even extends to racially- or ethnically-mixed Koreans, characterized as honyeola,
literally “offspring of mixed blood.”
The emphasis on ethnic homogeneity based on the notion of Koreans being the
descendents of one, common ancestor is now being challenged by a new emphasis on
harmonious race relations and tolerance in the face of multicultural reality. This new
emphasis has not yet led to the elimination of ethnocentrism and discrimination against
foreigners, but it nonetheless marks a significant departure from the proverbial image of
Korean identity and nationalism centered on the ideology of ethnic homogeneity. Still,
many Koreans generally view multiculturalism as a threat, because its supposed assumption
that all cultures are of equal value challenges the country’s efforts to maintain its cultural
continuity in the face of the onslaught of western culture. The Korean government must be
aware of this, as it still largely promotes the ideology of ethnic homogeneity in public
education even to this day. Multiculturalism, as advanced by the Korean government, then
seems to represent a type of image-framing by the government, which seeks to give the
impression of interethnic harmony while minimizing ethnic conflicts. Like in most
multicultural societies, the Korean government as a whole has encouraged the preservation of
certain aspects of ethnic cultures, such as ethnic folk dances, cuisine, and arts. This may
give the minorities the illusion of preserving their ethnic identity, while at the same time
ensuring Korean-conformity. However, the nurturing of particular aspects of culture is not
the same as the preservation of a whole, complete culture. When multiculturalism is
represented by the preservation of select cultural practices which have more nostalgic
meaning than importance in daily life, as is the case in Korea, what we have is symbolic
ethnicity or fragmented ethnicity (see Roberts and Clifton, 1982). While the individual’s
life is mostly de-ethnicized, as in education, occupation and daily social interactions, in some
aspects, such as kinship, friendship, language, and cuisine, he or she may retain links to
ethnic heritage. This pattern of “affective ethnicity”—a superficial way of rendering ethnic
distinctiveness to individual identity in a society dominated by pressure to conform to
mainstream society—is dominant in Korean society and is probably what Korean society
wants. What this shows is that Korean perception of multiculturalism should be understood
as a form of interculturalism, which stresses intercultural understanding and appreciation
rather than intercultural equality. It could also be that the aim of multiculturalism in Korea
is psychological. To members of ethnic groups, multiculturalism instills pride and
confidence in their own identity and culture; to Koreans, multiculturalism makes them feel
good about their openness and tolerance.

13
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has examined the genealogy of the concept of multiculturalism in Korea. As Korea
rapidly became a multicultural society, there has been a widespread use of the concepts of
multicultural society and multiculturalism. However, these terms have often been used
interchangeably and indiscriminately, failing to recognize the multidimensionality of the
meanings of multiculturalism. This paper attempted to redress this problem by tracing the
origin of the use of term damunhwa or “multicultural” and its related terms such as
multiculturalism, multicultural family, multicultural children, and multicultural education.
What the paper finds is that the government has played a major role in promoting
multiculturalism as a policy and ideology, although it has largely failed to fully understand
the meanings and implications of the controversial policy. The paper also shows that
multiculturalism as a policy is largely inconsistent with Korean values.
Given that the increasing ethnic diversity in Korea is inevitable and irreversible, the
Korean government should closely examine the policies and programs related to ethnic and racial
issues in such immigrant societies as the United States, Canada, Australia and European countries
to learn from their experiences. In this way, it can learn the most effective ways of promoting
social peace and tolerance while preventing or minimizing ethnic/racial conflicts. The
government can also learn not to make the same mistakes those countries had made. The
Korean government should also seriously consider more open policies toward immigration, not
only for skilled professionals but also unskilled migrant workers, as Korean society is expected to
suffer from a serious labor shortage from 2020 or so. It is one way to address the chronic labor
shortage Korea is destined to face due to record-low fertility rates. With increased immigration,
more secure supply of laborers can be assured.

14
REFERENCES
Chosunilbo. 1993. “93Venice Bienelle/byeoldo hangukgwan noryeok” (93 Venice
Biennele/Attempt at Creating Korea’s Own Exhibition Space). March 4.
_____. 1994. “Segyemunhwaleul hoheuphaja” (Let’s Take In World Cultures). January 17
[Sangsik Park].
_____. 1996. “Segyegwanggodaehoi ‘new mediagwanggo’ jeolmeun balgil julieo”
(International Advertising Association Festival’s New Media Advertisement is
Attracting Young Audience). June 11 [Junghyun Park].
_____. 1997a. “Multiculturalism.” January 25 [Hahm Chaibong].
_____. 1997b. “Naengjeonboda deo naenghokhan jeonjaeng, munhwa-injong galdeung”
(More Cruel than the Cold War are Cultural-Ethnic Conflicts). October 10 [Jeongin
Kang].
Dongailbo. 1983a. “Taepyeongyang gongdongche chusin hanguki gajang jeokgyeok,
hangukui gwajewa jangre” (“Korea is Most Appropriate for Pursuing the Asia-
Pacific Community, Korea’s Task and Future). January 5, p. 9 [Thomas Pepper].
_____. 1983b. “Miguke ggotpineun iminmunhwa” (The Blossoming of Immigrant Culture in
the U.S.). March 17, p. 4.
_____. 1990. “LAseo hanguk beompae barachum hanmadang” (The Performance of Buddhist
Music and Dance in LA). August 18, p. 11 [Seungeuk Kim].
_____. 1991. “Haesang silkroad daetamsa unesco jugwan indo-taeguk routereul gada”
(Expedition of the Naval Silk Road between India and Thailand). March 18, p. 16
[Byeongwon Lee].
Fleras, Augie and Jean Leonard Elliott. 1992. Multiculturalism in Canada: The Challenge of
Diversity. Toronto: Nelson Canada.
_____. 1996. An Introduction to Race, Ethnic and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada, 2nded.
Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall Canada.
_____. 2002. Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada. Scarborough: Nelson.
Goldberg, David Theo. 2009. Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader. New York: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Isajiw, W. W., ed. 1997. Multiculturalism in North America and Europe. Toronto:
Canadian Scholars Press.
Lewycky, Laverne. 1999. “Multiculturalism in the 1990's and Into the 21st Century.” In Vic
Satzewich (ed.), Deconstructing a Nation: Immigration, Multiculturalism, and
Racism in 90's Canada. Toronto: Fernwood Books.
Kim, Seonggon. 2002. Damunhwasidaeui hangukin (Koreans in an Era of Multicultural Era).
Seoul: Yeoleumsa.
Kymlicka, Will. 1998. Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in
Canada. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kyunghyangshinmun. 1964. “Jeonhwanjeome seol UN, seonggyeokbyeonjilgwa jungdongui
jinchul” (The UN at a Turning Point, its Change in the Face of the Rise of the Middle
East). October 24, p. 4.
_____. 1983. “Gidokgyo yujeok tambanggi (2)” (Expedition Journal of the Historic Sites of
Christianity, 2). August 8, p. 7 [Seokheung Park].
_____. 1986a. “Gukakgyoyuk gukgyottaebuteo” (Traditional Music Education Should Start
from Elementary School). June 17 [Yeonjae Lee].
_____. 1986b. “Asiasidaeui judoguk” (A Leading Country in the Era of Asia). September 24,
p. 3 [Sangcheol Yun].
Laden, Anthony Simon and David Owen, eds. 2007. Multiculturalism and Political Theory.

15
 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, Hye-Kyung. 2006. International Marriage and the State in South Korea.” Paper
presented at the 2006 Asian Cultural Forum (Conference theme: “Transformation &
Prospect toward Multiethnic, Multiracial & Multicultural Society: Enhancing
Intercultural Communication,” Ministry of Culture, Sports & Tourism, October 26-
19, Gwangju.
Lee, Jaejung. 2003. “Korea: Hangukeseoui damunhwajui mosaek” (Korea: An Examination
of Multiculturalism for the Country). Minjokyeongu (Ethnic Studies), 11:103-116.
Modood, Tariq. 2007. Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Polity.
Parekh, Bhikhu. 2006. Rethinking Multiculturalism, 2nded. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Roberts, Lance W. and Rodney A. Clifton. 1982. “Explaining the Ideology of Canadian
Multiculturalism.” Canadian Public Policy 8: 88-94.
Taylor, Charles. 1994. Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Troper, Harold. 1999. “Multiculturalism.” In Paul Robert Magocsci (ed), Encyclopedia of
Canada’s Peoples, pp. 997-1006. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Wang, Hanseok, Geon-Su Han and Myeonghui Yang. 2005. “Gukjegyeolhon ijuyeoseongui
eoneo mit munhwa jeokeung siltae yeongu: Chollabukdo imsilgun (mit
sunchanggun·namwonsi) ilwon sare bogoseo” (A Research on the Language and
Cultural Adjustment of International Marriage Migrant Women: A Case Study of
Imsil, Sunchang, and Namwon, North Cholla Province). Unpublished report. Seoul:
National Institute of the Korean Language.
Wood, Peter. 2006. Diversity: The Invention of a Concept. New York: Encounter Books.

16