The last six months have provided Americans with an
unexpected journey of redefinition, where they are forced to reexamine their
lexicon and the way semantics are used to further agendas. Words such as “climate”
and “weather,” heretofore innocuous enough, are now weapons hurled across the
partisan divide, with billions of dollars and lives at stake.
But it is not my
intention to venture into that minefield with this post. Instead, I think a
more immediate concern is the way language represents cultural and social
constructs, and how the Trump administration and Kim Jong-un have given us a
perfect example of intercultural misunderstanding perpetuated by intemperate
language.
Ignorance of Islam and the cultures of the Middle East led the US into the quagmires of Iraq and
Syria, as well as an impending conflict with Iran. Now we confront an adversary
whose background is East Asian, and whose premises and perspectives are
radically different from those of the United States. North Korea’s concept of nationalism ,
defined as an “historically formed social unit ...based on commonness of blood,
language, and territory,” (Kwon, 2016, p. 149), differs markedly from the western
version of “civic nationalism,” which places a political institution—the nation-state—as
the primary bond connecting citizens. North Koreans are taught that their
nation is delineated by the distinctness of language and blood. Americans on
the other hand, use their plurality and democratic political system to define
themselves-- being an American is an inclusive concept, whereas being a North
Korean is exclusive.
These perceptions of uniqueness and separateness are fundamental
to North Korean unity. Kwon (2016) suggested that N Korea has reintroduced the
Josean dynastic model (“dynastic totalitarianism”) where one family resides at
the pinnacle of cultural and political power. This “romantic nationalism” is a rejection of modern definitions emphasizing
personal and civic liberty, refocusing instead on neo-Confucian ideals of loyalty
to the king, filial obedience and gender differentiation. Identifying with the
Korean “race” and emphasizing its separateness from others (even other East
Asian peoples) has served to isolate the North Korean people and create a
strong “us versus them” mindset.
What we have, then, is an opposition of two completely
different social constructs. A pluralistic society that has, over the decades, infiltrated
cultural frameworks with its emphasis on capitalism, neo-liberalism, and democratic
governance is now confronting an insular state whose ideas of governance and national
identity are rooted in race, culture, and history. Both leaders feel the need to project power;
Kim Jong-un to preserve his dynastic claim, Trump to sustain his image as a
tough negotiator who can preserve the American ethos of predominance and
exceptionalism. The confrontation, for Kim Jong-un, is more than braggadocio
and chest-thumping—it is a defense of his birthright, his dynastic legitimacy,
and his authority to direct North Korean destiny. If he shows any weakness, he stands to lose
everything. President Trump, however, actually stands to gain by
being conciliatory and using moderate, respectful language. Trump has access to
advisers who can help him navigate this cultural divide, should he choose to
listen. Kim Jong-un, on the other hand, is surrounded by acolytes who will
support the definitions that distinguish their society. The semantic warfare
that has characterized their interactions to date is not reassuring, since it
represents cultural misunderstandings that have led to violence and prolonged
conflict in the past.
References
Kwon, S (2016). A critical evaluation on the cultural
nationalism of the two Koreas. The Journal of East Asian Affairs 30 (2) Fall/Winter
133-161
