Analyses of P'ansori Contradicting Gi Wook-Shin's Paradox of Korean Globalism

Contrary to Melanie, I actually found it even more difficult to agree with Gi-Wook Shin’s The Paradox of Korean Globalization after reading Im Kwon-Taek. Shin’s argument is basically that Korea’s desire to globalize goes hand-in-hand with Korean nationalism. Shin’s point on “nationalist appropriation of globalization” discusses how nations aim to globalize is, in Social Darwinist terms, a way of ensuring well-being of the nation… meaning that these opposite ideas are both goals of the same journey. Yet the two ideas are such polar opposites that it is not paradox but impossibility... It makes sense, yes, but it just seems far-fetched. It’s like saying, “I do not enjoy tobacco. I will rid the world of tobacco by smoking all the cigarettes in the world until there are none left.” (Excuse my lack of a better analogy…) Is Shin arguing that the two concepts of globalization and nationalism can be one in the same? Because I can still only think of the two different entities as black and white with no grey area in between.

In Chapter 5 of the reading in Im Kwon-Taek, we learn a little more about the movie and its plot in more detail, beyond the short clip we’ve seen in class--which shows the boy and girl being trained by their father. We learn that the boy leaves home because he sees p’ansori as financially unbeneficial and a way of the past, while the daughter/father remain faithful to the art. The boy holds the mindset of those in favor of globalization in a gradually westernizing society. In a sense, the boy can represent globalization as a whole while the girl represents nationalism--sticking to her roots and traditions. The two are separate, conflicting entities.

The movie then follows with the brother’s search for his sister again… After having been torn from his roots (the nationalism symbolized by the girl), perhaps he understands that there is something missing from his life, a part of him he left behind when he left his family. On a larger scale, it means that with globalism, it is inevitable for a piece of one’s national identity to be lost in the process. Yet in the end of the movie, the brother and sister part without even knowing one another’s identity… in the end, they are not united even after the brother’s search for her. It is a strange ending, yes, but it makes sense in this interpretation. Ultimately, the brother and sister cannot live an existence together… their values, their beliefs, their beings are too different. They cannot coexist.

I do, however, understand and agree Shin’s argument that “globalization can also awake people to their own local/national culture” (Shin, 9), as in the case with Im Kwon-Taek’s film. The boy’s search for his sister is a result of his decision to sacrifice his past way of life in order to start a new “modern” one. But can anything be done about it after the deed is done? Indeed “National identity becomes more important as globalization proceeds” (Shin, 9). This argument is legitimate, and even confirmed by what we have read from this week’s reading of Im Kwon-Taek. However, my interpretation of this relationship between the two ideas differ. While Shin argues that Globalization can promote Nationalism, the only way I can see that happening is if people realize how detrimental the former can be to the latter, leading to an attempt to counter the process of globalization as a whole to return to one’s roots. In this case, the two ideas are still contradictory… they may share a cause-and-effect relationship, but never a unified, mutual relationship.