See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288173241

Which multiculturalism? Discourse of the incorporation of

immigrants into Korean society

Article  in  Korea Observer · December 2010

CITATIONS READS
15 922

1 author:

Dong-Hoon Seol
Chonbuk National University
35 PUBLICATIONS   492 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dong-Hoon Seol on 17 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 593

Which Multiculturalism?
Discourse of the Incorporation
of Immigrants into Korean Society*

Dong-Hoon Seol**

Multiculturalism is one of the most popular academic topics in the

Republic of Korea (henceforth “Korea”) today, as many journal
articles bear the word in their titles. However, the existence of
many different definitions and interpretations of “multicultural-
ism” is the cause of serious confusion. In this paper, I attempt to
find the characteristics of ethnic minorities in Korea, social incorpo-
ration policies of the Korean government, and the different usages
of “multiculturalism” by leading scholars of migration and “multi-
cultural” studies. I also assess the relevance of this concept to con-
temporary Korean society and Korea’s immigration policies.

Key Words: Multiculturalism, Developmental State, Globalization,

Immigration Policies, Assimilation, Interculturalism

** An earlier version of this paper was presented at the International Conference

on Identity and Diversity of the East Asian World from a Historical Perspective,
organized by the Forum for the Study of East Asian History and the Northeast
Asian History Foundation, November 6-7, 2009.
** Dong-Hoon Seol is Professor of Sociology at Chonbuk National University, Korea.
His major research interests are international migration, immigration policies, and
the sociology of labor market. His recent publication includes “The Employment
Permit Program for Foreigners in Korea, 2004-2010: Issues and Prospects” (2010),
“Why Is There So Little Migrant Settlement in East Asia?” (2009), and “Ethnic
Return Migration and Hierarchical Nationhood: Korean Chinese Foreign Workers
in South Korea” (2009). E-mail: dhseol@chonbuk.ac.kr.

KOREA OBSERVER, Vol. 41, No. 4, Winter 2010, pp. 593-614.

© 2010 by THE INSTITUTE OF KOREAN STUDIES.
594 Dong-Hoon Seol

I. Introduction: Transformation of Korea

into a Multicultural Society

K orea has long been considered an ethnically homogenous society.

The World Factbook (2010), published by the United States Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), calls Korea “ethnically homogeneous
(except for about 20,000 Chinese).” According to this publication,
countries with a low ratio of ethnic minorities are North and South
Korea, Portugal, Iceland, and Japan. Among these countries, North
and South Korea are the most homogeneous.
Korean society, which has for a long time maintained the myth of
an ethnically homogeneous nation, has recently undergone a sudden
transformation into a multicultural society (Republic of Korea, 2006).
The cause of this transition is the arrival of foreigners. Foreign work-
ers started to arrive in Korea in the late 1980s, followed by immigrants
through marriage, who started to arrive in the early 1990s (A. Kim,
2009). Ethnic groups other than Hwagyo (overseas ethnic Chinese),
who have resided in Korea since the end of the nineteenth century,
are continuing to increase.
According to data released by the Ministry of Public Administra-
tion and Security, the number of foreigners residing in Korea totaled
1,122,850 as of January 1, 2010. The number represents 2.26 percent of
the Korean population. While Korea is not yet a flourishing multicul-
tural society, it can be said that it is on the verge of becoming one.
However, in terms of the share of foreign-born population or immi-
grants, the number is estimated to be among the lowest in the world
(see Table 1). The share of permanent settlers, including permanent
residents and naturalized citizens, is particularly low and the remain-
ing majority of the foreigner population is comprised of temporary
migrant workers and short-term visitors (Seol and Skrentny, 2009a).
Most of these permanent settlers are immigrants by marriage to Kore-
an citizens (H. Lee, 2008). Some of these permanent settlers are
Hwagyo with Taiwanese citizenship, and are descendants of immi-
grants from the Shandong Province of China (Yang and Lee, 2004).
 Which Multiculturalism? 595

Table 1. Foreign-born and Foreign Populations, 2007

(%)
Countries Foreign-born Population Foreign Population
Luxembourg 36.2 43.2
Australia 25.0 7.7
Switzerland 24.9 20.8
New Zealand 21.6 –
Canada 20.1 6.0
Ireland 15.7 6.3
Austria 14.2 10.1
United States 13.6 7.4
Spain 13.4 11.6
Sweden 13.4 5.7
Belgium 13.0 9.1
Germany 12.5 8.2
Netherlands 10.7 4.2
Greece 10.3 5.7
United Kingdom 10.2 6.5
Norway 9.5 5.7
France 8.5 5.6
Denmark 6.9 5.5
Slovak Republic 6.8 0.8
Czech Republic 6.2 3.8
Portugal 6.1 4.2
Finland 3.8 2.5
Hungary 3.8 1.7
Italy 2.5 5.8
Turkey 1.9 –
Poland 1.6 0.2
Mexico 0.4 –
Japan – 1.7
Korea – 1.7
** Sources: OECD (2010: 23); ([http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/823651035743]).
** Note: As a percentage of total population, 2007 or latest available year. Data on December 31.

The definition of “homogeneity” in the World Factbook is not

incorrect. If we define ethnic minorities as entities that are not easily
integrated into mainstream society and that share a common identity
(Wirth, 1945), the share of ethnic minorities in the Korean population
in 2010 is only 0.04 percent.1 Thus, while the Korean government and

1. Since immigrants by marriage are easily integrated into the host society, they
596 Dong-Hoon Seol

civic organizations emphasize preparation for and the arrival of a

“multicultural” society (see H. R. Kim, 2009), this change is merely
based on comparisons with Korea’s past and is nearly incomparable
with other countries, where the share of immigrants is high.

II. Vision and Strategy of a Multicultural Society

The concept of multiculturalism has been debated in academic

circles and in the media since the 1990s (Seol, 1999). In 2006, it became
a way of describing government policy (PCSI, 2006); in 2009, “multi-
cultural family” was assigned the status of a legal term.2 The Ministry
of Health, Welfare and Family established the Department of Multi-
cultural Families in 2008,3 and some colleges have newly launched
institutes or departments for multicultural studies.
Central and local governments have outsourced many research
projects, and many government-funded research institutions, such as
the Korean Women’s Development Institute (KWDI), the Korean
Educational Development Institute (KEDI), the National Youth Policy
Institute (NYPI), the Korea Legislation Research Institute (KLRI), and
the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs (KIHASA), have con-
ducted various research projects. The number of reports on multicul-
tural society by these institutions has totaled at least 40 in the last five
years (see Table 2). Moreover, research institutions funded by local
governments, including the Gyeonggido Family and Women’s
Research Institute (GFWRI), have produced research reports. Further-
more, the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) and the

are oftentimes not included in the discourse of ethnic minorities. Milton Gordon
(1964, 1978) presented the “straight-line” theory of racial and ethnic assimila-
tion. He argued that interracial or interethnic marriage is the final stage of accul-
turation and assimilation.
2. The Support for Multicultural Families Act (Act No. 8937, March 21, 2008). There
are 25 laws containing the terms “multiculture” or “multicultural” in 2010 (see
C. Lee, 2010: 73).
3. The department moved to the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family on
March 19, 2010.
 Which Multiculturalism? 597

Korea Foundation (KF) have provided research funds to Korean and

international scholars for research projects related to multicultural
society.

Table 2. Number of Reports on Multicultural Society Conducted

by Research Institutions Funded by the Government, 2006-2010

Number of Years of
Research Institutions
Reports Research
Korean Women’s Development Institute (KWDI) 15 2007-2009
Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI) 9 2007-2010
National Youth Policy Institute (NYPI) 4 2007-2009
Korea Legislation Research Institute (KLRI) 4 2006-2009
Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs (KIHASA) 3 2008-2010
Korea Labor Institute (KLI) 1 2007
Korea Rural Economic Institute (KREI) 1 2008
Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (KRIHS) 1 2009
Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training (KRIVET) 1 2009
Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE) 1 2009
Total 40 –
* Source: NRCS (2010: 103-104).

This has resulted in an abundance of research in Korea on multi-

cultural society. The number of academic papers that contain
“damunhwa” (multiculture or multicultural) as a key word or title
word is 810 at DBpia ([http://www.dbpia.co.kr]) (which provides a
database of all the major academic publications in Korea) and 458 at
Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS, [http://kiss.kstudy
.com]).4 In the news media as well, the number of articles on multicul-
tural society has soared over the years (see Table 3). In summary, the
discourse on multicultural society is flourishing in Korea.

4. Statistics as on November 21, 2010.

598 Dong-Hoon Seol

Table 3. Number of Articles Containing the Word of “Damunhwa”

Year Number of Articles

1990-1999 343
2000 137
2001 105
2002 126
2003 134
2004 143
2005 209
2006 511
2007 1,684
2008 7,301
2009 14,437
October 2010 15,268
Total 40,398
* Source: Korean Integrated Newspaper Database System (2010).

Damunhwa (multiculture) has become a key term in describing

contemporary Korean society, much like the key slogans of the devel-
opment period, such as “geundaehwa” (modernization), “saneophwa”
(industrialization), “jeongbohwa” (informatization) and “segyehwa”
(globalization). The concept of damunhwa stands in contrast to homo-
geneous, identical culture and describes a state of the coexistence of
different cultures. The Korean government has been actively pursuing
policies for a multicultural society in recent years. Koreans, who had
provided undivided support for the government’s pursuit of industri-
alization, informatization, and globalization as developmental strate-
gies for the country, have also embraced damunhwa with little resis-
tance. It seems that when discourses of multicultural society became
dominant, Koreans came to accept foreigners as a symbol of “seonjin-
hwa” (advancement) and of Korea now being a developed country.
In 2003, when the International Social Survey Program (ISSP)
conducted a sample survey in 19 countries on “national identity” (see
Seok et al., 2005), Korean citizens showed highly open attitudes
towards immigrants. The percentage of Korean respondents who
agreed that “immigrants are generally good for Korea’s economy”
ranked third highest, following Canada and New Zealand. The per-
 Which Multiculturalism? 599

centage of Koreans who disagreed that “immigrants take jobs away

from people who were born in Korea” ranked sixth highest, following
Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, and France. Further, Korea
ranked fourth highest in the percentage of people who disagreed with
the statement that “immigrants increase crime rates,” following Cana-
da, the Unites States, and New Zealand.
Similar results were found in a survey by the Pew Research Center
in 2007, which asked respondents from 47 countries about their atti-
tude toward immigrants. According to the survey, Koreans oppose
strict measures of entry control against immigrants,5 and among the
countries surveyed, Korea had the most open attitude. A majority in
every country polled said that their countries should restrict immigra-
tion more than they do now (Pew Research Center, 2007: 26). Since
Koreans have almost no experience of living with immigrants, it can
be said that they are likely to emphasize accepting human capital for
economic development than to focus on the problems and inconve-
niences of living with immigrants.
It is not just Korean citizens that demonstrate a favorable atti-
tude toward immigrants: government policies, as indicated above, are
welcoming as well. According to the 2005 Global Visa Services Survey
by PricewaterhouseCoopers (2005), which asked executives of 131
international corporations in 23 countries about government policies
regarding entry, departure, and work authorization, Korea ranked
second highest after Taiwan in having favorable policies toward for-
eigners.
In Korea, therefore, becoming a multicultural society seems to
have become synonymous with greater societal advancement. If so,
what are the strategies of the Korean government implemented to
facilitate transition to a multicultural society? In December 2008, the
government launched the Foreigners’ Policy Committee under the
Prime Minister for the deliberation and coordination of matters con-

5. Only 25 percent of Korean respondents agreed with the following statement:

“We should restrict and control entry of people into our country more than we
do now” (Pew Research Center, 2007: 25-26).
600 Dong-Hoon Seol

cerning policies on foreigners. The Committee reviewed and adopted

the First Basic Plan for Policy on Foreigners 2008-2012. The policy, which
is akin to the series of Five-Year Plans for Economic and Social Devel-
opment between 1962 and 1996, is a national plan that seeks to pursue
the individual policies of various ministries with regard to foreigners
in a more comprehensive and systematic manner.
With the vision of becoming a “world leader in partnership with
foreigners,” the Basic Plan includes four policy goals: (1) increasing
national competitiveness through active admission of foreigners, (2)
high quality social incorporation, (3) enacting ordered immigration
administration, and (4) support for the human rights of foreigners.
The Basic Plan also has 13 main tasks; these include, among others,
gaining growth potential through the recruitment of high quality
human capital, providing support for multicultural families, and
protecting the rights of foreigners (Foreigners’ Policy Committee,
2008: 13).

III. Government Policies for Multicultural Society

To avoid using the technical term immigration policies, the Korean

government has opted to use the rhetoric of Foreigners’ Policy or Policy
for Multicultural Society (see Yoo et al., 2005; H. S. Kim, 2008; N. H.
Kim, 2008; Y. C. Kim, 2008; B. Lee, 2009).6 Immigration policies are
comprised of three parts: (1) border control; (2) management of for-
eigners’ stay; and (3) social incorporation of immigrants. This is paral-
lel to the process of a foreigner entering, dwelling, and settling in a
country.
With respect to border control, Korea regulates the activities of

6. In Korean, imin means emigration or immigration, depending on the context.

The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has tried to introduce the term “iminjeongchaek”
(immigration policies), but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MOFAT),
which is in charge of emigration and overseas Koreans, has strongly opposed it.
The MOFAT has used the term of imin implying only emigration (interview
with an anonymous former MOJ official, June 2010).
 Which Multiculturalism? 601

foreigners by issuing visas through the Departures and Arrivals Control

Act. Whereas many European countries focus on regulating the activi-
ties of foreigners through residence and work permits rather than
through border control, countries such as the United States and Cana-
da, as well as Korea, regulate entry by foreigners through visas. Since
European countries share borders with neighboring countries on all
sides, making it is impossible to control the entry of foreigners, they
allow free entry but regulate residence or work activities. The United
States and Canada, however, only partially share borders with one or
two neighboring countries; the immigration offices at the borders con-
duct entry reviews, through which their policies of border control are
implemented. That is, island or semi-island countries use the visa sys-
tem as a central measure of border control. Since it is impossible for
island countries to exchange human resources with their neighboring
countries by land, it is relatively easy to control borders, and visa sys-
tems are thus implemented to control the entry of foreigners.
Second, to control the stay of foreigners, particularly migrant
workers, the Korean government stresses rotation rather than encour-
aging these foreigners to settle in Korea (Seol and Skrentny, 2009a).
Korea has experienced a labor shortage since the late 1980s (Seol,
1999). However, considering the possibility of settlement by immi-
grants, Korea has pursued policies that allow entry only to migrant
workers who pledge to return to their home countries after a certain
period of time, based on the rotation principle. The government
stressed that the population density of Korea is one of the highest in
the world. The fact that the problem of unemployment is always
deemed more serious than that of labor shortage is another reason
why the government has insisted on the rotation principle. Another
concern is that the domestic labor market will be negatively affected if
permanent immigrants are accepted (Yoo et al., 2005).
In accepting migrant workers, the government thought it better
to recruit descendants of overseas Koreans, in the belief that there
would be less cultural conflicts. The government has been granting
entry to Joseonjok (ethnic Koreans from China) and Goryeoin (ethnic
Koreans from the former Soviet Union) through the Visit and Employ-
602 Dong-Hoon Seol

ment (H-2) visa since 2007 (see Seol and Skrentny, 2009b).However,
out of humanitarian concerns, the Korean government does not
impose any limitation on visa issuance for spouses of Korean citizens.
In the visa-review process, the embassies and consulates overseas
only screen for possible forged marriage certificates and do not
attempt to screen for people who are likely to take advantage of the
welfare system, especially public assistance programs (Seol et al.,
2006).7 It turns out that a great majority of marriage migrants are
potential recipients of public assistance (Seol et al., 2005),8 and, in the
case of foreign spouses, only those who raise children that are under
the age of 20 are allowed access to public assistance programs.
Third, the social incorporation of immigrants is of highest impor-
tance. Migration scholars usually divide policies for the social incor-
poration of immigrants into the host society into four types: assimila-
tion, intercultural, multicultural, and segregation models (IOM, 2004;
Watt, 2006; Castles and Miller, 2009; Rodriguez-Garcia, 2010). The
question is, which type best represents the Korean government’s poli-
cy? To find the answer, it is necessary to first take a look at the charac-
teristics of the four policy models.
Assimilation policies are adopted by countries like France and Ger-
many, where immigrants are required to learn the language and cul-
tural traditions of the host society. Assimilation means that immi-
grants are to be incorporated into society by adopting the customs
and attitudes of the prevailing culture, with the goal of achieving
monocultural unity (see IOM, 2004). The saying “When in Rome, do
as the Romans do (or suffer the consequences)” succinctly summa-
rizes the core of assimilation policies. The best case of assimilation
policies is France’s “republican model.” The French republican model
is based on the concept of the nation as a political community of
equals and a secular state with universal rights, with an implicit

7. In most advanced welfare states, including the United States, Canada, the United
Kingdom, and Germany, spouse visas are issued only to those new immigrants
who provide proof that they have the means to live without welfare benefits.
8. The income for more than half (52.9 percent) of households with foreign wives
was less than the minimum cost of living in 2005 (Seol et al., 2005: 192).
 Which Multiculturalism? 603

assumption of cultural uniformity and of what it means to be French.

Policies of interculturalism suggest that not only immigrants adapt
to their host society but also that mainstream society adapt to the
change in circumstances caused by the arrival of immigrants. This is
based on mutual adjustment by migrants and their new host society
and asks both immigrants and the host society to adapt to each other.9
It aims to preserve the cultural heritage of the host country while
embracing diversity through new immigrants, thus creating a com-
mon culture together. To do so, it is necessary for the government to
make efforts to modify those aspects of domestic culture that are hos-
tile toward immigrants. The Irish government and some provincial
governments of Canada adopt interculturalist policies (DGI, 2005;
Watt, 2006; Rodríguez-García, 2010).
Policies of multiculturalism originate from Canada, and aim at
encouraging and supporting many subcultures instead of focusing on
one dominant cultural tradition (Kymlicka, 1995, 2003; Shachar, 1999;
Vertovec, 2007; Grillo, 2007). This multiculturalist approach, also
called the salad bowl or rainbow coalition approach, celebrates diversity.
Respect for the cultural autonomy of ethnic minorities lies at the core
of multiculturalist policies. Multiculturalism is also applied to new
immigrants; rather than trying to incorporate immigrants as soon as
possible, the Canadian government encourages immigrants to preserve
their cultural identity. Multiculturalism thus means the encourage-
ment and promotion of many cultures within a society (Kymlicka,
1995, 2003).10

9. Rodríguez-García (2010: 260-261) summarize the characteristics of intercultural-

ist policies as follows: “Interculturalism can be understood as the interactive
process of living together in diversity, with the full participation and civic
engagement of, and social exchange between, all members of society beyond
that of mere recognition and coexistence, in turn forming a cohesive and plural
civic community. Interculturalism has the merit of focusing on the negotiation
and conflict-resolution process, rather than solely on the problem, and of
emphasizing the changing nature of cultures and societies.”
10. The United States and the United Kingdom have their own policies of multi-
culturalism. Their policies are neutral toward immigrant cultures. Anglo-
American multiculturalism is called laissez-faire multiculturalism, whereas its
604 Dong-Hoon Seol

Segregation is defined as the act or policy of separating various

groups according to race, ethnicity, class, or occupation. In the segre-
gation model, the monocultural value system of the host society
remains untouched and unaffected while migrants are required to do
an absolute minimum of adjustment (IOM, 2004). Social participation
or exercise of rights by immigrants is strictly limited.
Assimilation, intercultural, and multicultural policies are ideal
types drawn from the incorporation policies of specific countries; in
reality, actual policies show highly similar characteristics in terms of
state regulations (Freeman, 2004; Kastoryano, 2004; Y. C. Kim, 2008).
For example, in all three models, governments stress the need for
immigrants to learn the language of the host society, and allocate a
significant amount of resources for that purpose.
To return to the original question, which policy type is represen-
tative of Korea’s social incorporation policy? Of the three approaches,
Korea’s social incorporation policy seems to be closest to the assimila-
tion approach. However, a closer look reveals that there is a funda-
mental difference between Korea and the countries that practice
assimilation policies, i.e., France and Germany. A key part of assimila-
tion is that the host society allows immigrants to settle there perma-
nently. France started to receive permanent immigrants as far back as
a hundred years ago, while Germany has been also accepting perma-
nent immigrants from other EU countries. However, except for immi-
grants by marriage, Korea has not been open to any permanent immi-
gration (Seol and Skrentny, 2009a). In light of these facts, it is ridicu-
lous to suggest that Korea is akin to France and Germany in imple-
menting assimilation policies of social incorporation.
Korea’s immigration policies as of now resemble those of Ger-
many in the past. Until the turn of the twenty-first century, Germany
too resorted to the principle of rotation and the principle of supple-
menting the domestic labor market, authorizing only temporary
migrant workers or guest workers to work in sectors with a serious labor

Canadian counterpart is called state-intervened multiculturalism. Generally, the

two subtypes make up what we know as multiculturalism.
 Which Multiculturalism? 605

shortage (Seol, 2005). Based on the fact that Germany’s foreign labor
policies in the twentieth century were aimed at not permitting settled
immigrants, Castles and Miller (2009: 247) refer to it as the differential
exclusion model.11 In a country that pursued policies requiring foreign
workers to return to their home countries after a given period of time,
there was no need to focus on the social integration of guest workers.
Since the turn of the millennium, however, Germany has depart-
ed from its differential exclusion model and is now pursuing immi-
gration policies that aim to incorporate immigrants through full
acceptance and integration. The Immigration Act of 2005 implies that
Germany is de facto a country of immigration.12 Accordingly, Ger-
many’s basic principle of immigration policy has shifted from differ-
ential exclusion or segregation to that of assimilation (see Brubaker,
2001).
Using this conceptual framework, it is evident that Korea’s immi-
gration policies follow the differential exclusion model in accepting
immigrants; also, with respect to the social incorporation of a minimal
number of immigrants (mostly immigrants by marriage with Korean
citizens), Korea adheres to the assimilation model. There is almost no
effort by mainstream society to adapt to changing circumstances
brought on by immigrant settlers.

IV. Problems of Discourse on Multiculturalism

Many scholars are engaged in debates on multiculture, multicul-

tural society, and multiculturalism. Since definitions vary, however,
communication has become highly difficult. In certain academic cir-
cles, the term “multicultural society” is used to describe the increase

11. “The “guestworker” model can be described as differential exclusion: migrants

were to be temporarily incorporated into certain areas of society, above all the
labor market, but denied access to others, especially citizenship and political
participation (Castles and Miller, 2009: 247).
12. [http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/WillkommeninD/EinreiseUnd
Aufenthalt/Zuwanderungsrecht.html])
606 Dong-Hoon Seol

of foreigners and immigrants, and thereby diversity. Multiculturalism

is also taken to refer to government policies of social incorporation
(Yoo et al., 2005; C. Lee, 2010); in others, multicultural society is
deduced from multiculturalism (B. Kim, 2007; N. K. Kim, 2008; H. M.
Kim, 2008). The former understand multiculturalism as a subcategory
of immigration policies and position it in contrast to policies of assimi-
lation, interculturalism, or segregation. Scholars who adhere to the
latter interpretation have a tendency to read multiculturalism as a
universal concept, particularly in relation to the citizenship of minori-
ty groups (Park, 2008). That is, while the former group of scholars
views Korea as a country that pursues immigration policies that are
different from multiculturalism, the latter understands it as “Korean-
style multiculturalism” (see G. Han, 2007a; N. H. Kim, 2007; Yoon,
2008). Considering the fact that there are various theoretical perspec-
tives in different academic disciplines, scholars are at liberty to use
whatever concept they see fit, and their choice should be respected.
However, there are certain perspectives that are controversial.
One such view pertains to the concept of multiculturalism as intro-
duced by the Canadian political theorist Will Kymlicka (1995, 2003).
In response to the social isolation that women, blacks, aborigines, and
homosexuals experience in relation to the dominant majority, he sug-
gests the concept of “multicultural citizenship” based on cultural
diversity. Similarly, the French political scientist Marco Martinello
(1997) emphasizes the importance of multicultural policies in place of
assimilation policies. Accepting the proposition that “multicultural-
ism is the key principle of multicultural society,” some scholars
understand multicultural society through the lens of multicultural-
ism, as recommended by Kymlicka and Martiniello.
The latter group of scholars uses multiculturalism as a universal
concept applicable to all societies citing Kymlicka and Martiniello, as
in the case of democracy (see H. M. Kim, 2008; Park, 2008). This is simi-
lar to suggesting that if some democratic elements exist, it is a democ-
racy, and that democracy is a value to be pursued by all societies.
They boldly suggest that the multiculturalism model is good and
that the assimilation model is evil. Although the assimilation model is
 Which Multiculturalism? 607

different from ethnocentrism and is rather compatible with cultural

relativism, as can be seen in France and Germany, the assimilation
model itself is distorted.
Proponents of Kymlicka and Martiniello even go as far as to say
that “it goes against multiculturalism to not pardon longtime illegal
immigrants” (Y. O. Kim, 2009). However, even in countries such as
Germany and Japan, which emphasize the importance of citizens’
respect for the legal order, granting amnesty to illegal foreigners is
unheard of. Even in the United States, where there have been cases of
amnesty for undocumented migrants, the country has never been
linked to multiculturalism.
To understand Korea’s policies for the social incorporation of
immigrants as “government-led muliculturalism” (N. H. Kim, 2007) is
in itself a conceptual mistake (see H. S. Kim, 2008). Since the govern-
ment implements policies for the social incorporation of immigrants,
it is only natural that these efforts are government led.
To sum up, multiculturalism is a concept that originated in Cana-
da, where the conflict between ethnic minorities and the dominant
majority was serious. It is thus highly problematic to apply it to Kore-
an society where the existence of ethnic minorities itself is meager.

V. Conclusion

We must refrain from using, without discretion, imported theo-

ries of multiculturalism to explain Korean policies of multicultural
society. We must recognize that every country has different historical,
cultural, and social contexts and that applying a theory to a society
requires a careful consideration of these unique conditions.
There is little doubt that Korea is becoming more ethnically
diverse and it is worth noting that this new reality has both pros and
cons. The positive aspects of this change are that foreign migrant
workers have filled the void in the domestic labor market and have
enabled continued economic growth, while marriage migrants have
revitalized rural communities. There are also aspects that are less pos-
608 Dong-Hoon Seol

itive, however. In some industries, such as construction and personal

services, indigenous workers have come to compete with migrant
workers, and in areas with dense illegal alien populations, an increased
crime rate has become a problem.
Multicultural society is not just a given. It is important to make
efforts to maximize the positive effects and to minimize the negative.
It is not the sole task of the government to make preparations for a
multicultural society. The attitude and behavior of citizens must
change according to the needs of a multicultural age. Survey results
reveal that most Koreans have a positive attitude toward immigrants,
but we can never be sure that they will not become hostile in the
future. Further, Koreans and immigrants living in a multicultural age
have the task of adapting to each other. They have to accomplish the
mission of living together despite their ethnic and cultural differences.

References

Alba, Richard D. and Victor Nee, “The Assimilation of Immigrant

Groups: Concept, Theory, and Evidence,” International Migra-
tion Review, Vol. 31, No. 4 (1997).
Brubaker, Rogers, “The Return of Assimilation? Changing Perspec-
tives on Immigration and Its Sequels in France, Germany, and
the United States,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (2001).
Castles, Stephen and Mark J. Miller, The Age of Migration: International
Population Movements in the Modern World, 4th Edition (London:
The Guilford Press, 2009).
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The World Factbook (Washington,
D.C.: CIA, 2010).
Coates, David and Japan Pacific Resource Network (eds.), Shattering
the Myth of the Homogeneous Society: Minority Issues and Move-
ments in Japan (Berkeley: Japan Pacific Resource Network,
1990).
Department Government of Ireland (DGI), National Action Plan against
Racism (Dublin: DGI, 2005).
 Which Multiculturalism? 609

Foreigners’ Policy Committee, Je1cha Oeigukin Jeongchaek Gibon Gye-

hoek 2008-2012 [The 1st Basic Plan for Policy on Foreigners 2008-
2012] (Gwacheon: Korea Immigration Service, 2008).
Freeman, Gary P., “Immigrant Incorporation in Western Democra-
cies,” International Migration Review, Vol. 38, No. 3 (2004).
Giddens, Anthony, “Misunderstanding Multiculturalism,” The Guardian,
October 14, 2006.
Gordon, Milton M., Human Nature, Class and Ethnicity (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1978).
________, Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and
National Origins (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964).
Grillo, Ralph, “An Excess of Alterity? Debating Difference in a Multi-
cultural Society,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 30, No. 6 (2007).
Han, Geon-Soo, “Bipanjeok Damunhwajueui” [Critical Multicultural-
ism: Anthropological Reflection for Korean-style Multicultural-
ism], in Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International
Understanding (ed.), Damunhwa Sahoe eui Yihae [Understand-
ing Multicultural Society] (Seoul: Dongnyeok, 2007a).
________, “Multicultural Korea: Celebration or Challenge of Multieth-
nic Shift in Contemporary Korea?” Korea Journal, Vol. 47, No. 4
(2007b).
Han, Kyung-Koo, “Damunhwa Sahoeran Mueotinga?” [What Is a
Multicultural Society?], in Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for
International Understanding (ed.), Damunhwa Sahoe eui Yihae
[Understanding Multicultural Society] (Seoul: Dongnyeok,
2007a).
________, “The Archaeology of the Ethnically Homogeneous Nation-
State and Multiculturalism in Korea,” Korea Journal, Vol. 47, No.
4 (2007b).
International Organization for Migration (IOM), Essentials of Migration
Management: A Guide for Policy Makers and Practitioners, Volume
Three: Managing Migration (Geneva: IOM, 2004).
Kastoryano, Riva, “Religion and Incorporation: Islam in France and
Germany,” International Migration Review, Vol. 38, No. 3 (2004).
Kim, Andrew Eungi, “Global Migration and South Korea: Foreign
610 Dong-Hoon Seol

Workers, Foreign Brides and the Making of a Multicultural

Society,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2009).
Kim, Bi Hwan, “Hanguk Sahoe eui Munhwajeok Dayanghwa wa
Sahoe Tonghap” [Cultural Diversification and Social Integra-
tion in Korea], Beopcheolhak Yeongu, Vol. 10, No. 2 (2007).
Kim, Hye-Soon, “Gyeolhon Yiju Yeoseong gwa Hanguk eui Damunhwa
Sahoe Silheom” [Migrant Brides and Making of a Multicultural
Society - Sociological Approach to Recent Discourse on Multi-
cultural Korea], Hanguk Sahoehak, Vol. 42, No. 2 (2008).
Kim, Hyuk-Rae, “Contested Governance in the Making of Multicul-
tural Societies: Labor Migration and International Marriages in
South Korea,” Korea Observer, Vol. 40, No. 2 (2009).
Kim, Hyun Mee, “Yijuja wa Damuhwajueui” [Migrants and Multicul-
turalism], Hyundae Sahoe wa Munhwa, No. 26 (2008).
Kim, Nam-Kook, “Hanguk eseo Damunhwajueui Noneui euiJeongae
wa Suyong” [Development and Acceptance of Discourses of
Multiculturalism in Korea], Gyeongje wa Sahoe, No. 80 (2008).
Kim, Nora Hui-Jung, “Korean Immigration Policy Changes and the
Political Liberals’ Dilemma,” International Migration Review,
Vol. 42, No. 3 (2008).
________, “Hanguk eui GwanJudohyeong Damunhwajueui” [Gov-
ernment-led Multiculturalismin Korea: Theories of Multicultur-
alism and Their Application to Korean Society], Hanguk eseoeui
Damunhwajueui [Multiculturalismin South Korea: A Critical
Review] (Seoul: Hanul, 2007).
Kim, Yong Chan, “Seo Europe Gukga Yijumin Tonghap Jeongchaek
eui Suryeom Gyeonghyang e gwanhan Yeongu” [Study on the
Convergence of Immigrant incorporation Policy in Western
European Countries: Study on France, Germany and the Unit-
ed Kingdom Cases], Daehan Jeongchi Hakhoebo, Vol. 16, No. 1
(2008).
Kim, Young-Ok, “Damunhwajueui reul geoseulreo Damunh wa
Sahoe reul Mandeuneun geot eun Ganeunghanga?” [Is It Pos-
sible to Construct a Multicultural Society Against Multicultur-
alism?], in the Forum for the Study of East Asian History
 Which Multiculturalism? 611

(FSEAH) and the Northeast Asian History Foundation (NAHF)

(eds.), Yeoksajeok Gwanjeom eseo bon Dong Asia Segye eui Identity
wa Dayangseong [Identity and Diversity of the East Asian World
from a Historical Perspective], Vol. 1 (Seoul: NAHF, 2009).
Kymlicka, Will, “Immigration, Citizenship, Multiculturalism: Explor-
ing the Links,” in Sarah Spencer (ed.), The Politics of Migration:
Managing Opportunity, Conflict and Change (Oxford: Blackwell,
2003).
________, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1995).
Lee, Byoungha, “The Development of Korea’s Immigration Policies:
Security, Accumulation, Fairness, and Institutional Legitima-
cy,” Korea Observer, Vol. 40, No. 4 (2009).
Lee, Chul-Woo, “Damunhwajueui, Minjokjueui, Sosok eui Beopje-
hwa” [Multiculturalism, Nationalism, and and the Legalization
of Belongings], Jisik eui Jipyeong, No. 6 (2010).
Lee, Hye-kyung, “International Marriage and the State in South
Korea: Focusing on Governmental Policy,” Citizenship Studies,
Vol. 12, No. 1 (2008).
Martiniello, Marco, Sortir des Ghettos Culturels (Paris: Presses des Sci-
ences Politiques, 1997).
Ministry of Public Administration and Security (MPAS), Statistics of
Residents of Foreign Origin by Local Governments 2010 (Seoul:
MPAS, 2010).
National Research Council for Economics, Humanities and Social Sci-
ences (NRCS), “Damunhwa Gwanryeon Yeongu Bogoseo
Mokrok” [List of the Research Report for Multicultural Soci-
ety], Mirae Jeongchaek Focus, Vol. 8 (2010).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
OECD Factbook 2010: Economic, Environmental and Social Statis-
tics (Paris: OECD, 2010).
Park, Hyun Ok, “Segyehwa: Globalization and Nationalism in
Korea,” Journal of the International Institute, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1996).
Park, Kyung-Tae, Sosuja wa Hanguk Sahoe [Minorities and Korean
Society] (Seoul: Humanitas, 2008).
612 Dong-Hoon Seol

Pew Research Center, The Pew Global Attitudes Project 2007: World
Publics Welcome Global Trade - But Not Immigration (Washington,
D.C.: Pew Research Center, 2007).
Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou, “The New Second Generation: Seg-
mented Assimilation and Its Variants,” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, No. 530 (1993).
Presidential Committee on Social Inclusion (PCSI), YeoseongGyeolhon
Yiminja Gajok mit Honhyeolin Yijuja eui SahoeTonghap Jiwon Ban-
gan [The Support Plan for Social Incorporation of Women Mar-
riage-Based Immigrants and Their Families, the Mixed-Blood
People, and Migrants] (Seoul: PCSI, 2006).
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC), The 2005 Global Visa Services Survey
(Singapore: PwC, 2005).
Republic of Korea, “Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article
9 of the Convention: Fourteenth Periodic Reports of State Par-
ties due in 2006, Addendum,” CERD/C/KOR/14, August 18,
2006.
Rodríguez-García, Dan, “Beyond Assimilation and Multiculturalism:
A Critical Review of the Debate on Managing Diversity,” Jour-
nal of International Migration and Integration, Vol. 11, No. 3
(2010).
Shachar, Ayelet, “The Paradox of Multicultural Vulnerability: Individ-
ual Rights, Identity Groups, and the State,” in Christian Joppke
and Stephen Lukes (eds.), Multicultural Questions (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999).
Seok, Hyun-Ho, Yong-Kap Moon, Hye-Ran Koo, Sang-Wook Kim,
Jae-On Kim, Ki-Soo Eun, Myung-Jin Lee, Yun-Seok Lee, Yeong-
Kyu Yim, Ki-Seon Chung, and Mun-Kyung Choi, Hanguk Jong-
hap Sahoe Josa 2003 [Korean General Social Survey 2003] (Seoul:
Sungkyunkwan University Press, 2005).
Seol, Dong-Hoon, “Oeigukin Goyong Heogaje eui Jaengjeom gwa
Jeonmang” [The Employment Permit Program for Foreigners
in Korea, 2004-2010: Issues and Prospects], Hanguk Yiminhak,
Vol. 1, No. 1 (2010).
________, “Global Dimensions in Mapping the Foreign Labor Policies
 Which Multiculturalism? 613

of Korea: A Comparative and Functional Analysis,” Develop-

ment and Society, Vol. 34, No. 1 (2005).
________, Oigukin Nodongja wa Hanguk Sahoe [Foreign Workers in
Korean Society, 1987-1998] (Seoul: Seoul National University
Press, 1999).
Seol, Dong-Hoon and John D. Skrentny, “Why is There So Little
Migrant Settlement in East Asia?” International Migration
Review, Vol. 43, No. 3 (2009a).
________, “Ethnic Return Migration and Hierarchical Nationhood:
Korean Chinese Foreign Workers in South Korea,” Ethnicities,
Vol. 9, No. 2 (2009b).
Seol, Dong-Hoon, Hye-kyug Lee, and Sung-Nam Cho, Gyeolhon Yim-
inja Gajok Siltaejosa mit Jungjanggi Jiwon JeongchaekBangan
Yeongu [Marriage-Based Immigrants and Their Families in
Korea: Current Status and Policy Measures] (Seoul: Ministry of
Gender Equality and Family, 2006).
Seol, Dong-Hoon, Yun-Tae Kim, Hyun Mee Kim, Hong Sik Yoon, Hye-
kyung Lee, Kyung Taek Yim, Ki Seon Chung, Youngsu Ju, and
Geon-Soo Han, Gukjegyeolhon Yijuyeoseong Siltaejosa mit Bogeon-
bokji Jiwon Jeongchaek Bangan [Foreign Wives’ Life in Korea:
Focusing on the Policy of Welfare and Health] (Gwacheon: Min-
istry of Health and Welfare, 2005).
Vertovec, Steven, “Introduction: New Directions in the Anthropology
of Migration and Multiculturalism,” Ethnic and Racial Studies,
Vol. 30, No. 6 (2007).
Waters, Mary C., Van C. Tran, Philip Kasinitz, and John H. Mol-
lenkopf, “Segmented Assimilation Revisited: Types of Accul-
turation and Socioeconomic Mobility in Young Adulthood,”
Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 33, No. 7 (2010).
Watt, Philip, “An Intercultural Approach to Integration,” Transloca-
tions: The Irish Migration, Race and Social Transformation Review,
Vol. 1, No. 1 (2006).
Williams, J. Allen and Suzanne T. Ortega, “Dimensions of Ethnic
Assimilation: An Empirical Appraisal of Gordon’s Typology,”
Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 4 (1990).
 614 Dong-Hoon Seol

Wirth, Louis. “The Problem of Minority Groups,” in Ralph Linton

(ed.), The Science of Man in the World Crisis (New York: Colum-
bia University Press, 1945).
Woo-Cumings, Meredith (ed.), The Developmental State (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1999).
Yang, Pil-Seung and Jeong-Hee Lee, Chinatown eopneun Nara [A Coun-
try Without Chinatown: Past and Future of the Overseas Chi-
nese Economy] (Seoul: Samsung Economy Research Institute,
2004).
Yoo, Kil-Sang, Kyu-Yong Lee, Dong-HoonSeol, and Seong-Jae Park,
YiminJeongchaek e gwanhan Yeongu [A Study of Immigration
Policies] (Seoul: Presidential Committee on Ageing and Future,
2005).
Yoon, In-Jin, “Hangukjeok Damunhwajueui eui Jeongae wa Teuk-
seong” [The Development and Characteristics of Multicultural-
ism in South Korea: With a Focus on the Relationship of the
State and Civil Society], Hanguk Sahoehak, Vol. 42, No. 2 (2008).
Zhou, Min, “Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and
Recent Research on the New Second Generation,” International
Migration Review, Vol. 31, No. 4 (1997).

View publication stats