 |
| Courtesy of Korea.Net |
By David A. Tizzard
 |
If people have worked hard to acquire these skills, talents, or abilities, they are even more likely to find value in them and demand, to a certain degree at least, that they be recognized by society.
This week, I ask: How much Korean should one know to comment on Korea, Korean culture, and life in general? Obviously, according to some, the language simply isn't enough ― you have to be born on Dokdo, singing Arirang, and have a tattoo of Tangun emblazoned across on your chest.
But more seriously, it is undeniable that the more Korean one speaks, the more one is able to ascertain what is going on. Words and ideas often seem to mean different things in different places because of the symbiotic webs of culture in which they are enmeshed. So if we find some truth in the idea that different languages produce different ways of seeing the world, we are actually changing our internal processes the more of the language we absorb.
Doing this can give us more sophisticated understandings, first-hand experiences, and a greater insight. But is there more than that?
Jeffrey Roberston recently made an observation about the language skills of North Korean (rather than merely "Korean") watchers. To quote him in full: "So, can you be an expert on North Korea without speaking Korean? Perhaps ― but undoubtedly by learning Korean, you'd be a better expert. All too often, however, the question is largely irrelevant. Debating language competency is often more about establishing a position in the social hierarchy of the North Korea ― watching community than about analytical competency."
I found myself agreeing to some extent. Arguments about linguistic skill are sometimes about people placing themselves above others in a perceived hierarchy of worth or, simultaneously, seeking to place others lower down and reduce their status for whatever reason, rather than about the accuracy of any observations being made.
Moreover, while I agree that we should all be learning as many languages as we can, the focus on linguistic ability is sometimes a little uncomfortable for me.
For example: Imagine a Texan Karen shouting down social media that people who can't speak good English (sic) should shut up and go back home. We've all seen similar things and these images are always disturbing.
People's language use, or lack thereof, has often been a way of ridiculing and belittling people, while also making them unwelcome. Acclimatizing to new languages and cultures can take a lifetime, even longer. But shouldn't we be welcoming of such people and find out what they have to say and offer?
Linguistic ability can be said to exist at the intersection of oppression and privilege. We're all on that scale somewhere. And in a world of diversity, post-colonialism, and decolonization, shouldn't we be supporting multiple ways of seeing the world and embracing all vistas and views?
If a political scientist from Costa Rica has spent decades pouring over the Spanish language sources on Korea, reading peer-reviewed articles, writing books, attending conferences, do we then assume that they have nothing to contribute to a conversation about Korea because they can't speak Korean?
And what about the BTS fans around the world who follow the group religiously, consume all the available media and content, read everything they can, and watch everything on repeat? If their Korean language skill doesn't extend beyond a few basic phrases, do we then suggest that they have nothing to offer to the discussion? The hundreds of thousands of K-drama fans in Indonesia, the BLINKS in Cameroon, the Monbebes in Israel, we discount these, their passion, and their interests because they can't conjugate Korean verbs in all levels of formality?
Again, I would suggest not. If they were fluent in Korean, their ideas would certainly be different ― most likely improved and more nuanced. But that is not to say that they do not have anything of worth to share otherwise.
For the record, I can speak Korean (well or poorly depending on whom you ask), I lecture in Korean, and I have a doctorate in Korean Studies. But these qualifications do not, and should not, determine the validity or legitimacy of my ideas.
I could of course demand that they do and kick the metaphorical ladder out from beneath, demanding that without such qualifications one cannot even consider addressing such topics. But again, as professor Robertson pointed out, that would be about my own position and self-serving interests rather than any actual discussion of the points being made.
Knowing Korean definitely helps. It can make you better. And it should be encouraged. We should also be sure to listen intently to those with insight gained through their linguistic abilities.
Perhaps once this pandemic comes to a head, we might even start considering new cultural ways of doing things around the world, such as bowing replacing the once omnipresent western handshake.
But it's not necessarily the case that we should immediately dismiss, discount, or decry those that don't have the same privilege or opportunities as us in terms of language.
At least not to my Korean speaking mind.
Dr. David A. Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) has a Ph.D. in Korean Studies. He is a social/cultural commentator and musician who has lived in Korea for nearly two decades. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.
