Korean Studies Internet Discussion List KOREAN STUDIES REVIEW
Sheena Choi, Gender, Ethnicity, Market Forces, and College Choices: Observations of Ethnic Chinese in Korea. New York: Routledge, 2001. 148 pages. ISBN 0-8153-4030-3.
Reviewed by Hyaeweol Choi
Arizona State University
Korea has often been described as one of the most homogeneous societies in terms of its racial, linguistic and cultural background. Modern discourse on tanil minjok (one nation) or uri minjok (our nation) as a pureblooded people has indeed perpetuated Koreans' belief in one pure race that originated from Tan'gun, the mythological founder of the Korean nation. In the face of Western and Japanese imperialism at the turn of the 20th century, nationalist discourse was constructed to promote the unity of the nation. After independence in 1945, a series of oppressive political regimes justified their dictatorship in the name of national prosperity and solidarity, using rhetoric that called for unity, discipline, and cohesion. Advocating national unity from a different ideological standpoint, anti-government movements also heavily relied on the idea of one pureblooded nation with a uniquely Korean culture and tradition. However, as recent studies demonstrate, racial purity was not always an integral part of Korean national identity in Korean history (Duncan 2000; Moon 1998; Pai and Tangherlini, 1998). The claim of racial purity is now further challenged as South Korea has experienced an influx of foreign workers in the 1990s and must face the issues of ethnic minorities for the first time in modern history. Thus, a set of critical questions needs to be posed, including what constitutes Korean national identity, what exactly "Koreanness" is, and how the seemingly homogeneous society would deal with issues related to the increasing population of ethnic minorities in Korea in this rapidly globalizing world.
While there is a body of literature on Koreans as a minority in other countries, very few studies have focused on ethnic minorities within Korea. The book, Gender, Ethnicity, Market Forces, and College Choices: Observations of Ethnic Chinese in Korea by Sheena Choi is, therefore, timely since it examines the ethnic Chinese population known as Huaqiaos, who constitute 0.5 percent of the South Korean population as of 1996 (xv; 4). Choi characterizes "Korean Huaqiaos" as a group of ethnic Chinese living in Korea who mostly have Taiwanese citizenship and maintain a strong political and educational affiliation with Taiwan (39-41). The central focus of the present book is a shift in educational choice among the ethnic Chinese students in Korea from a predominant preference for Taiwanese universities in the past to a current preference for Korean universities (xv). In order to explain why this shift in university preference occurred, beginning in the early 1990s, Choi considers the effect of the Huaqiaos' precarious citizenship status in Korea, the changing economic and political reality of Korean society, the ethnic identity of Chinese students and gender effects on college choice.
According to Choi, the first Huaqiao school was founded in Inchon in 1902 (on another page, however, she says it was founded in 1912. See 83). Inchon was a logical place to open the first school for Chinese children because of its geographical proximity to Shantung, which is the place of origin for 93.4 percent of Huaqiao students, according to a 1997 survey (51). At present, there are 28 elementary schools and four high schools for Huaqiao students (52; 75). Choi describes Huaqiao education in Korea as "ill-defined and laissez faire" because Huaqiao schools exist "outside the parameter of Korean educational law but they still function as schools" (74). Huaqiao schools are not considered regular schools but rather private organizations operated by the Chinese ethnic community with funding largely from Taiwan. It is interesting that, despite the lack of legal status for these schools, the degrees conferred by them are recognized, and when graduates from Huaqiao high schools enter Korean universities, they are given the status of "study abroad" (78). The author suggests that the Huaqiao community chose to keep their schools separate from the Korean educational system in order to avoid any interference from the Korean government and to provide their students with ethnic knowledge and culture.
This isolated existence of Huaqiao schools began to change in the late 1980s (5). In 1992, Seoul Overseas Chinese High School (SOCHS), the institution that is the main focus of this study and the author's alma mater, created two academic tracks-one for Taiwanese universities and the other for Korean universities-and began to hire teachers trained at Korean universities to prepare students for both Taiwanese and Korean universities. Prior to 1992, SOCHS had a single track, focused only on Taiwanese universities. Her survey shows that there has been steady growth in the number of Huaqiao students who study in the Korean university track. Since 1993, the number of students who are in the Korean university track has outnumbered those in the Taiwanese university track. Choi identifies several major factors that resulted in this shift of preference. The booming Korean economy, especially after the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games, broadened the Huaqiaos' employment opportunities. In the past, Huaqiaos' occupations were concentrated in the restaurant business (77% in 1972, 65); however, their opportunities have expanded in recent times into diverse occupational choices including white-collar jobs. These broadened opportunities have gotten even better since the normalization of diplomatic relations between Korea and China in 1992. Korean society has had an increasing need for Chinese speakers and experts in Chinese culture because of the new diplomatic ties with China. The changed political and cultural milieu is now seen among Huaqiaos in Korea as providing new and greater opportunities for them. As a result, a Korean university education is perceived as more appropriate because it will prepare them for entrance into mainstream Korean society. Choi also emphasizes generational change as an important factor in the shift of preference. She claims that Chinese ethnic identity has eroded in the third and fourth generations, who identify more with Koreans than Chinese/Taiwanese. In addition, there has been greater intermarriage between Huaqiaos and Koreans. Many young Huaqiaos have Korean mothers, who tend to raise their children in Korean culture rather than Chinese.
The author uses interview data to bring out the "voices" of the Huaqiaos, who are invisible in Korean society (9). These voices help us understand Chinese perceptions of Korean society and culture and their ethnic identity in an "extremely homogeneous and monocultural" Korean society (128). The interviewees often speak about the extreme difficulties in getting Korean citizenship, the discriminatory legal practices of the Korean government, and the very limited job opportunities for the ethnic Chinese in Korea. Choi also points out that the Huaqiaos take pride in their origin in the "middle kingdom." She suggests that this ethnocentric attitude contributed to the maladjustment of Huaqiao children to the larger Korean society. Another interesting finding in the book is that the majority of female Chinese students tends to choose Taiwanese universities, while the majority of male students chooses Korean universities. For female students, the main reason for their choice is to find suitable marriage partners in Taiwan because male Huaqiaos in Korea are perceived as being poor prospects for social and occupational mobility in Korea. In addition, female students think a "female's status in Taiwan is better than in Korea," and "Taiwanese men are gentle, most couples work together, and there is no obligation to in-laws as in Korea" (108). Despite the major shift in preference in the choice of universities, the author concludes that female students have remained unchanged in their preference for Taiwanese universities, largely due to their view of a proper future spouse.
Having said that the book is timely and offers interesting insights about the ethnic Chinese community in Korea, I feel obligated to mention some problems as well. The book is obviously based on the author's dissertation, and judging from the format, it is clear that the author did not revise it thoroughly for publication as a book. But the most serious problem is extremely frequent errors in references and inaccurate or inconsistent information throughout the book. These frequent errors distract the reader, and it leaves the impression that the author and/or the editor at Routledge, the book's publisher, gave little attention to editing the manuscript. For example, in "Problem Statement" (1-7), the author draws extensively from two books but fails to include them in the references at the end of the book. On page 103, the author refers to Sorensen's work, but no information is provided in the bibliography. Further, the date provided in the text for the Sorensen reference is 1986, but Clark Sorensen's article on South Korean education was published in 1994. This pattern of mistakes is repeated frequently throughout the book.
Regarding methodology, Choi combines a survey method with a semi-structured interview method, but the way she uses her data is inconsistent and insubstantial. It is not clear what kind of questions Choi asked in the survey except the questions related to ethnic identity, i.e. "How do you best describe yourself?" and "Why do you feel that way?" (99). A reader might have expected to see more detailed information about the 176 respondents to the survey in terms of the length of stay in Korea, language skills, or family background. For the data coming from the 37 interviews, the author often says, "according to an interviewee," and occasionally refers to "Mr. Z" or "Mr. R" but without providing background information as to who they are. Choi's interviewees include not only students but also parents, teachers, community leaders, and alumni, and thus it is crucial to identify whose voice she is representing. The use of pseudonyms is very common to preserve confidentiality when interview data are used. If necessary, the category of each interviewee is also indicated. The author of this book fails to follow this basic convention and uses her interview data in a random and journalistic way.
The title of the book, Gender, Ethnicity, Market Forces, and College Choices, is greatly misleading. The book devotes only seven pages out of 147 to explain "gender effects." Even within this limited space, she simply lists segments of interview data without any solid analysis. Not a single book or article that focuses on gender relations in China, Taiwan, or Korea is referred to. When the author quotes her interviewees' perception about Korean and Taiwanese men, there is no attempt to either support or challenge the interview data through reference to previous research. I also think that, since the book mainly focuses on ethnicity, it would have been interesting if it had analyzed the issues of the ethnic Chinese population in Korea in relation to other ethnic minorities, mainly recently arrived foreign workers. The case of Huaqiaos, who have lived in Korea for generations, could provide significant insights into the Korean government's policies toward growing minority populations and the organized activities of these populations to protect their human rights and economic opportunities in Korea.
In sum, the book raises important issues and includes some significant data. However, the analysis offered in the book remains shallow and is sometimes inconsistent. Furthermore, the carelessness in editing and problems in citing references diminish its contributions. Information that should be present is often missing. And therefore, the book's ability to function as a resource is undermined. Given the significance of the topic, a major revision of the book would be useful.
References
Duncan, John, "Hyanghwain: Migration and Assimilation in Chosôn Korea," Acta Koreana, vol. 3 (2000), 99-113.
Moon, Seungsook, "Begetting the Nation: The Androcentric Discourse of National History and Tradition in South Korea," in Dangerous Women: Gender and Korean Nationalism, edited by Elaine H. Kim and Chungmoo Choi (New York: Routledge, 1998), 33-66.
Pai, Hyung Il and Timothy R. Tangherlini, eds., Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity (Instititute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1998).
Sorensen, Clark, "Success and Education in South Korea," Comparative Education Review, vol. 38, no. 1 (1994), 10-35.
Citation:
Choi, Hyaeweol 2002
Review of Gender, Ethnicity, Market Forces, and College Choices: Observations of Ethnic Chinese in Korea, by Sheena Choi (2001)
Korean Studies Review 2002, no. 3
Electronic file: http://koreanstudies.com/ks/ksr/ksr02-03.htm
Return to Index of Reviews
Return to Entry Page