Editorial

A tale of two multicultural limbos: Damunhwa in South Korea and Zainichi Koreans in Japan

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair …… (Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities)

In this issue, the four articles display both bright and dark sides of two societies (South Korea and Japan) that are moving towards multiculturalism. South Korea has encountered a new diversity shaped by a dramatic growth of immigrants over the last 20 years. According to the Ministry of Education in South Korea, as of 2016, there were 116,000 children aged 0–6 years and 99,186 K-12 school age children from interracial/ethnic marriage couples or foreign residents. Although these children represent a small minority of South Korea’s 51 million population, an upward trend in growth is clear. During the period between 2011 and 2016 alone, there was a twofold increase in such populations, whereas, the overall number of school age children in South Korea nationwide has continuously decreased over the last decade. In this changing environment, Korean civil society and the government have captured the rise of the new diversity by the term damunhwa (which literally means ‘multi-culture’ or ‘many cultures’). The first three articles shed light on some of the key features of multiculturalism and related educational policies and practices in South Korea.

Specifically, based on content analysis of Internet news stories, Joon Kim and colleagues reveal how ‘seemingly benevolent acts’ toward damunhwa populations inadvertently reinforce cultural stereotypes (e.g. damunhwa as at-risk or culturally deficit populations) which, paradoxically, reproduce cultural hierarchies in South Korea. Kim et al. capture this phenomenon as ‘internal Orientalism’ referring to ‘the condition and process of not only marginalizing and devaluing of minority cultures within a single nation-state, but also enhancing the current hierarchical relationship between the minority and dominant cultures that naturalize the system of inequality.’ Similar to Kim et al.’s findings, in his discourse analysis of a major policy text on immigration (i.e. 2012 Second Basic Plan for Immigration), Peter Ghazarian reports that damunhwa populations tend to be portrayed as vulnerable and culturally deprived populations. Damunhwa populations are also presented as a cause of social problems and, therefore, as people who require policy interventions, such as Korean language support programmes. Overall, Ghazarian is critical of the policy text, given that it is deeply rooted in ‘the cultural deprivation paradigm’ and that the meaning and vision of multiculturalism remain unclear. At the same time, however, he acknowledges that there are a few advancements in the policy text such as the articulation (albeit policy rhetoric) of the importance of building a legal framework and infrastructure in supporting immigrants. Jaran Shin provides empirical evidence that contradicts one of the major stereotypes of damunhwa children – i.e. language deficit – reported by media and policy texts. Based on her ethnography, Shin reports that deficit perspectives on damunhwa adolescents’ Korean language ability are not necessarily valid, given that most participations did not have difficulty in communication in their everyday life. Instead, she emphasizes that damunhwa adolescents’ academic vocabulary mastery is part and parcel of their academic success.

Audrey Osler’s article illuminates the lived experience of a third-generation zainichi Korean residing in Japan. In some respects, the research context of Osler’s article (a zainichi Korean residing in Japan) stands in contrast to the first three articles in this issue (immigrants living in Korea). Japan, similar to South Korea, has witnessed a steady increase of immigrant workers over the last two decades (Green, 2017). Whereas the South Korean Government has been actively involved in multiculturalism (whether or not it is policy rhetoric, politicized agenda, or institutionalized paternalism), the Japanese Government has appeared to be lukewarm about multiculturalism. The substantive presence of ethnic minorities, such as indigenous Ainu and zainichi Koreans, in addition to the growth of immigrant workforce in Japan, complicates multiculturalism in Japan. Nevertheless, multiculturalism seems to be almost absent in public discourses, government policies and school systems (cf. Multiculturalism Policy Index (n.d.) by Queen’s University). This situation implies that there may be a multitude of challenges and issues facing minority populations in their everyday life in Japan. Osler discusses one of the challenging aspects by delving deeply into a zainichi Korean teacher’s life and practice. Notably, she highlights the importance of teachers’ reflection on their political and ethical responsibilities for students’ learning about justice and equality, given the recent rise of (ethnic) hate speech in Japan. Osler describes vividly how the zainichi Korean teacher challenges persistent discriminations such as hate speech through teaching and curriculum. Osler’s article reminds us of the importance of ethical and political contribution of teachers to the school life of ethnic minority students, especially in this globalized time, when academic achievement in the form of standardized test scores is privileged too much over justice, tolerance and equity as the values of schooling.

We believe that the four articles in this issue well document important issues of multicultural education conceptually and empirically. We hope the articles published in this issue can act as a platform for future research on minoritized populations such as damunhwa students and zainichi teachers who live in a ‘multicultural limbo’ like South Korea and Japan.

Moosung Lee
Yun-Kyung Cha