Americanism Essay
The dynamism of the Korean peninsula is ever increasing as it plummets its way through the 21st Century. At first glance, today's Korea, host to numerous Fortune-500 companies, bustling metropolises, tourism, consumer culture, high fashion and fine dining, seems to be on a course of obliterating its remnants of existential threat in its quest to enter post-modernity. Young students wear vintage clothing while drinking imported spirits in hopes to attract one of the many beautiful, young girls at the lively night scenes in Gangnam or Apgujung. In the midst of this indulgent bliss, the presence of foreign soldiers on national land, and the world's most heavily guarded border at the 38th parallel serve as stern reminders of the suffering once present in a history not so long past. On the contrary, they serve as warnings of instability that still plague the East Asian region and an indication that a land of homogenous people is forlornly split in the present from a war with numerous foreign origins.
On his death bed, my uncle, a decorated veteran of the Korean War, one of the first Korean international students to America, and a brilliant man of worldly success, told me, “The history of Korea is marked by sadness. Korea is like a field of wheat. It was repeatedly trampled over by foreign armies. However, each time Korea was pushed down it grew back stronger, and it will continue to grow stronger in the future.”
For the sake of Korea and Korean people, I hope that my uncle's last statement will prove true. Albeit, one cannot forget the Korean peninsula's special geographical position; a shrimp wedged between giants. Accordingly, the former part of my uncle's statement is manifest throughout the annals of Korean history.
Though Korean relations with Chinese dynasties were relatively benign (in comparison to Korean relations with other foreign powers), and arguably offered more benefits to Korea than to China, Korea faced many powerful non-Chinese forces like the Khitan, Jurchen and Mongols (10th to 13th Centuries), the Japanese (late 16th century), and the Manchus (mid 17th century), when powerful Chinese dynasties declined. However, unlike the Chinese dynasties, these invasions did not result in the overthrow of Korean dynasties despite destruction and the serious loss of life. Nevertheless, these series of invasions were followed by the humiliating and brutal Japanese occupation in the early 20th century that stripped Korea of agency, and the Korean conflict in the early 50s, that left the Korean peninsula completely decimated. Thus, following Rhee Syngman's stabilization, the Park regime pursued its state-sponsored modernization process under its “Korea First” mentality with the ultimate goal of self-strengthening so as to never fall under similar circumstances. As a result, from 1962 to 2005, Korea's Gross National Product increased from US$2.3 billion to US$786.8 billion, with its per capita GNP increasing from $87 to about $16,291.
Was my uncle right? Economic stability is a compulsory precursor to military modernization and the South Korean economy currently ranks number eleven in world. Or is the last part of his statement still unfolding as I write? Despite South Korea's enjoyment of American “hamburger culture,” South Korea still retains backlashes of its compressed modernity and the so-called “386” generation questions the faculty of Korea's current political direction within the international arena. The question of Korean agency, an existential question, a proverbial flower, a necessary condition to post-modernity is the locus of the current Roh administration and its benefactors and is furthered with the current administrations push to obtain Wartime Operational Control from United States military control.
It seems to be, that under the current political climate in the Republic of Korea, obtaining Wartime Operational Control is a necessary condition to obtaining agency. Furthermore, under the objectives of the Roh Administration, agency is equivocal to utility. Thus, the question that remains when critiquing this specific direction of the Roh administration is: Does obtaining Wartime Operation control promote Utility for the Korean Body Politic? Through analyzing Korean history, as well as the current regional order and Korea's relation to it, this paper ultimately argues that the current Korean direction is not an act of utility.
Before delving into historical particulars, it is important to outline my terms and the philosophical structure of this inquiry. However, the purpose of this section is not to engage in serious debate over the a priori and a posteriori notions of specific schools of ethical theory in order to promote the undeniable “validity” of one at the expense the other's demise. The battle between consequentialists and deontologists is left to the discretion of the consequentialist and deontological actors and remains tangential to the scope of this paper and unnecessary for the framework that I will later apply to the Korean case
The writings of the existential thinkers foster deliberations over the importance of the proverbial flower, agency. Agency may be defined as an actors' ability to make free choices without barriers of constraint. Actors on the micro-level are individuals or groups of individuals with the same intent for mutual ends, whereas actors on the macro-level are governing parties of the body politic (though the following arguments concerning agency may be reciprocally applied to both the micro and the macro level). From this position, concerning the direction of the paper, the next questions that may arise in regards to my definition of agency are: What is constraint? What is free choice?” When delving on constraint, it is important to investigate notions of involuntary action, and when establishing what involuntary action is, one may define agency from its negation. Through reductio ad absurdum, the following arguments concerning constraint and involuntary actions will lay out four parameters.
An action may be said to be involuntary if it is performed out of inclusive ignorance to the particulars surrounding the action. This reflection is maintained by Aristotle and in the Nichomachean Ethics he argues complete knowledge of particulars coupled with rationality is a necessary condition to voluntary action, the reversal of which is an involuntary action:
It is ignorance of the particulars and the issues involved in the action which constitute the circumstances and the issues involved in the action. It is on these that pity and pardon depends, for a person who acts in ignorance of a particular circumstance acts involuntarily.”
In example, if an actor uses a controlled substance in full knowledge that its use will result in addiction which may lead to a poor economic state, possible incarceration and perhaps death, what results is a voluntary action. If the opposite occurs and an actor uses a controlled substance ignorant of its possible ramifications, the actor performs an involuntary action. Through a third scenario, Aristotle argues that if a person uses a controlled substance without knowledge of particulars, and does not realize the choice was poor, the person performs a non-voluntary action. Realization separates the latter dichotomy, nevertheless, the argument of realization is inconsequential to the scope of this paper, and therefore there is no need to probe this issue further. What is imperative is that both cases of involuntary and non voluntary action deliver constraint.
Provided an actor exerts no control over external circumstances concerning the actor the actor suffers constraint and consequently acts involuntarily. Aristotle writes, “It appears, thus, that an act done under constraint is one in which the initiative or source of motion comes from without, and to which the person compelled contributes nothing.” This example of constraint is commonly seen within the Dionysian playground of Nietzschean nihilism. Simple speaking, an actor who is abducted while walking from point A to point B does not voluntarily bend to the wishes of the abducting thugs. Even in the case where an actor walks from point A to point B, is kidnapped, and later prefers to stay with the captors; one cannot deny an initial involuntary factor with external origins.
Though constraint may also arise from coercion, for Aristotle, this is a borderline case. Coercion is split into a positive/ negative dichotomy, the first of which is incentive, for example, offering money to an individual in return for a deed in which the outcome does not negatively affect the individual (though Aristotle argues that positive coercion should never be considered constrained and consequently is voluntary, I argue a different position and state my case later in this paper). The second of which, negative coercion, may arise from a “fear of greater evil,” as Aristotle offers an example of a tyrant taking a man's parents and children hostage while “ordering him to commit a base deed, making their survival or death depend on his compliance or refusal.” However, Aristotle argues that though the situation in itself is involuntary, though in respect to time, the person acts voluntarily:
In the cases just mentioned, the agent acts voluntarily because the initiative in moving the parts of the body which act as instruments rests with the agent himself; and where the source of motion is within oneself, it is in one's power to act or not to act. Such actions, then, are voluntary, although in themselves they are perhaps involuntary, since nobody would choose to do any one of them for its own sake.
This position is furthered by Jean-Paul Sartre who writes, “If I am mobilized in a war, this war is my war; it is in my image and I deserve it. I deserve it first because I could always get out of it by suicide or by desertion…For lack of getting out of it, I have chosen it,” and adopted by Marilyn Frye who states, “All slaves who have not risen up and killed their masters or committed suicide have freely chosen their lots as slaves.”
Philosophically, though they use different examples, these three thinkers posit that, despite constrained backgrounds, the existence of ultimate choice, albeit, they all neglect undeniable biological precursors as they underestimate or simply neglect the existence of loving bonds that humans hold for one another. The bond between parent and child, between family and friends, et cetera (nonetheless, in some cases is non-existent) seems biologically significant and is observed commonly with human relations and even with members of the lower animal kingdoms. Arguing that the situation is voluntary in respect to time says little to the overall situation, and in this case because loving bonds do exist, the person who is coerced is left with extremely little choice. This situation is similar to the argument that one who is robbed of autonomy is not a slave because he or she was never purchased through an exchange of currency; though, in itself it has involuntary premises. Although I cannot completely disprove Aristotle, Sartre or Frye, it is apparent, metaphysical arguments aside, that human beings like other animals have natural instincts, amongst which is a natural instinct to avoid harm, whether mental or physical, in order to survive. Suicide or some other negative consequence is an attack on and in direct contradiction to these biological instincts. Though this anti-Nietzschean position may be the weakest point of my paper, and is questionable under serious philosophical debate, it is a philosophical position that I assume, and is an assumption on which my arguments rest (rewrite section for more clarity)
Despite Aristotelian conviction, positive coercion where an actor has limited choice may also be argued to have involuntary tendencies. In the case where an individual suffers serious economic difficulty and needs to raise funds in order to rear a child, support oneself or family, and has no options but to perform a heinous deed in order to earn money, an actor is constrained and performs an involuntary action despite positive coercion. The actor is trapped under one's circumstances and similar to the actor who exerts no control over external circumstances; and as Aristotle writes, no one would want this situation to occur in the first place. In order for personal survival or the survival of loved ones the actor has little choice but to perform the heinous deed.
All of these situations may be summed up into four categories of involuntariness and consequently a lack of agency. To combat and defeat these barriers is to sup on Olympian ambrosia and dance with Dionysian nymphs in a saturnalia of autonomy:
(1) An actor is completely ignorant of the particulars.
(2) An actor is constrained to perform the actions due to outside forces.
(3) An actor is delivered an ultimatum of great extremity, which in itself is involuntary.
(4) An actor is left with little options of great extremity, which in themselves are involuntary.