[KS] Re: KSR 1998.08: _Troubled Tiger: Businessmen, Bureaucrats,

[Yuh Ji-Yeon]

just a few points regarding james west's critique of timothy lim's review
of clifford's book:

>Lim:
>
>One might argue, instead, that Clifford's unwillingness to
>>acknowledge the social cost associated with "liberalization" is the real
>>problem. One could also argue that Clifford's condemnation of Korea is
>>extremely unfair: after all, few countries in history - including the
>>United States - have readily freed themselves of neo-mercantilist practices
>>as they moved from developing to developed status. Indeed, even advanced
>>industrial democracies have recurrent problems regarding "free trade" and
>>open borders - witness the hysterical backlash against Mexican immigrants
>>in the United States. In addition, can one forget the sledgehammering of
>>Japanese imported cars in the 1980s by American autoworkers? Was this the
>>"mature" response to liberalization that Clifford implies the West has
>>taken?

West:
>We see now that the social cost of NOT liberalizing at the right time is
>turning out to be far higher than anyone expected.  Lim's argument is wide
>of the mark -- Clifford never set the US up as a paradigm to be followed.
>Now Chrysler is merging with Daimler-Benz and GM has labor trouble, but in
>Korea we have Kia being auctioned off and Hyundai facing labor strife over
>massive layoffs which stem from excess capacity as well as slackened
>domestic demand.     It is nonsense to suggest that Clifford is crucifying
>Korea in an ahistorical, exceptionalistic tirade.  

i don't think lim was saying that clifford set the u.s. up as a paradigm to
be followed. his first point is that criticism of korea for being unwilling
to "liberalize" is unfair given the historical background of the
international powers, like the u.s., that are clamoring for that
liberalization and making those criticisms. as lim points out, countries
like the u.s., great britain, etc., protected their markets when they were
developing nations and this protection was a major factor in helping those
economies grow and become the big players they are today. (the university
of pennsylvania has a course, taught sporadically, on this very topic.)
his second point is that given the contemporary context of recurrent
protectionism, nativism, etc. on the part of developed countries like the
u.s., it is unfair to criticize korea as if it were not properly following
an international model of liberalization happily followed by everyone else.

Lim:
>>In his zeal to stereotype Koreans, Clifford even engages in a bit of
>>oxymoronic foolishness - he asserts, for example, that "Koreans too often
>>have a greediness, a sense of atomistic individualism that makes common
>>cause only with others with whom one has an existing connection, such as
>>the family, schoolmates, or coworkers" (342). How one can be atomistically
>>individualist and oriented toward larger social groups at the same time is
>>certainly beyond me.

West:
>While the expression "atomistic individualism" was perhaps unhappy, Lim's
>"reductio ad absurdum" is disingenuous.   This relation-centered,
>network-based characteristic of Korean culture has been remarked at length
>by many Korean academics and pundits -- are they also racist?  
>

my reading of the review does not suggest that lim was accusing clifford of
racism for noting a relation-centered, network-based characteristice of
korean society, but rather was faulting clifford for  1) flattening out
that academic observation into an absolute ("makes common cause only with
...") rather than the nuanced interpretation one finds among academics; and
2) juxtaposing this with "atomistic individualism," which clearly is in
contradiction with an orientation toward larger social groups. i think
lim's point is that clifford stereotypes koreans so readily that he mixes
together contradictory stereotypes, which, i might add, is a well-known
feature of racist and otherwise biased stereotyping that has been regularly
noted by academics and pundits. so in answer to west's question: no, those
who have commented on the relation-centered nature of korean society are
not all racist and lim is not implying that they are.

my own reading, or rather, quick skimming, of the book leads me to agree
with lim that toward the later chapters clifford does tend to stereotype
koreans and their behavior as if koreans were a monolithic entity and
without consideration for their points of view. the fact that such
stereotyping is commonly engaged in by some (perhaps many) westerners and
other non-koreans, and with considerable vigor, whenever korea and koreans
behave in a fashion other than they wish, i.e., whenever korea does
something that non-koreans cannot understand or do not like, has lent
credence to such charges of stereotyping. this sort of stereotyping has
been analyzed as a feature of racism, particularly the sort that is a
legacy of western imperialism and neo-imperialism. it seems to me that this
is the context in which lim suggests (very very tentatively) that perhaps
clifford veers toward racism in the last chapters of the book.

>Also, Mr. Lim seems predisposed to assuage the
>wounded pride of (fellow?) Koreans, as if Clifford were kicking them when
>they are down. Actually, that is impossible, for he wrote the book five
>years ago and finished this revised edition (only the last chapter is new)
>before the IMF crisis broke.  Clifford saw the writing on the wall five
>years ago, unlike those who were congratulating Korea on its "miraculaous"
>elevation to the promised land of the OECD.  

as the following quote from the review shows, it is clear that lim is aware
that the book was written before the current crisis emerged:

> Clifford- who was a
>correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review from 1987 to 1992 and who
>now works as the Asia Correspondent for Businessweek - seems particularly
>prescient: Troubled Tiger was originally published well before the
>country's recent string of economic disasters, including the failure of two
>large business groups (Kia and Hanbo) and the still-current and quite
>serious financial crisis. 

it is also interesting that while west criticizes lim for suggesting that
clifford is biased with an anglo-american perspective and is perhaps racist
in his characterizations of koreans, west then suggests that lim is
ethnocentric and therefore biased in his review. lim's review, however, is
balanced: it takes pains to point out the value of clifford's work and his
observations, but is also critical of the book's weak points, internal
inconsistencies, and its near-obliviousness regarding its own analytical
perspective or lack thereof.

the book, although it does not contain a clear analytical framework (very
typical of books written by journalists, by the way; it seems that only
academia explicity demands such frameworks), does approach the issue of
korea's economy with liberal or neo-liberal assumptions about free trade,
the free market, protectionism, and other economic matters. these ideals of
free trade and the free market are most vigorously championed by the united
states and great britain. in effect, these ideals constitute clifford's
unspoken but very present analytical framework, for his observations of the
korean economy are based on these assumptions.  i assumed that that is what
lim referred to when he said that clifford's book is deeply colored by a
neo-liberal and anglo-american bias.

but perhaps taking the time out from other more immediate concerns to
respond to west's post has been a waste of energy, and i am in for
accusations of coming to the defense of a fellow korean in an effort to
assuage wounded ethnic/national pride. i certainly hope not. we on this
list surely have better things to do than make and be witness to those
kinds of accusations, insults which are quite detrimental to open dialogue
and mutually respectful debate.

take care,
ji-yeon


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%