Sociocultural Aspects of Political Participation in Rural Korea

Sociocultural Aspects of Political Participation in Rural Korea VINCENT S. R. BRANDT INTRODUCTION Do rural villagers really participate in the South Korean governmental process to any significant extent—is there anything to write about? Obviously, the answer depends on how participation is defined, and it therefore seems worthwhile at the outset to examine from an anthropological perspective some of the theoretical concepts underlying a study of this nature. Because Koreans of low socioeconomic status are only marginally involved, if at all, in political decision making, the term participation will be used here in a rather broad sense. With regard to behavior it will include not only voting and the petitioning of officials, but also participation in administrative affairs, that is, an individual's ordinary involvement with officials. In addition, "mobilized" participation is important, including both willing compliance with government directives of a political nature, as well as the compliance that results from coercive pressures. To make this latter distinction, it is obviously necessary to go beyond observed acts and include speculation about popular perceptions and attitudes. This paper will therefore attempt to deal with the relationship of popular ideas and beliefs to the political system. While recognizing the importance of common definitions and an agreed upon conceptual framework to facilitate discussion, I find that as an anthropologist I need to work within a congenial theoretical scheme, instead of trying to adapt my ideas to fit the dominant concerns of political scientists or sociologists. In part this involves merely changes in jargon, but there are also differences in emphasis and in Eieoretical perspective. Instead of explaining participation by means of sociological and psychological "determinants," I tend to look 205 206Journal of Korean Studies at political behavior as a form of adaptation—as the efforts of individuals to achieve their goals and cope with their environment, given (1) their socialization in a particular cultural tradition; (2) the pressures exerted on them by economic and political institutions; and (3) the continuing influence of interpersonal relationships within their local communities. Also, I have approached the issue of complex social diversity and individual variation by conceiving of individuals both as members of actual social groups and subcultures and as manipulators of personal networks, rather man by attempting to classify them according to demographic or other background information. It has become fashionable in recent years to point out that valuefree analysis is impossible. It does not follow, however, mat indiscriminate editorializing by social scientists improves their work. At any rate as an anthropologist I am still committed to the objective of scrutinizing and eliminating or playing down my own moral preconceptions wherever possible, while attempting to interpret the behavior of Koreans in terms of their own beliefs, goals, and standards —to the extent that I can apprehend them. Accordingly, it seems inacceptable to start out with the assumption that "genuine" participation must be based on individual demands or the efforts of individuals to influence policy, in pejorative contrast to the situation in "manipulative " regimes where "compliant" or "submissive" behavior is the norm. More is involved here than just objective semantic differences among such words as participation, manipulative, and submissive. The distinction usually carries a heavy load of moral judgment as well. This approach together with its corollary, that development or modernization inevitably involves a shift from compliant to genuine or participant political behavior, amounts to a declaration of Western political values and aspirations, which in my opinion tends to interfere with an evenhanded analysis of political behavior in Korea today. The problem remains one of confusing our own political ideology based on individualism and representative governmental institutions with universal, self-evident truth and morality. Possibly the sophisticated comparativist will groan at hearing about cultural relativism once again, but the issue is whether enough sophistication is demonstrated in the writing on political issues in South Korea. For example, it has become almost standard practice to interpret voting patterns in terms of the distinction between two 1. L. W. Milbrath, Political Participation (Chicago: Rand McNaIIy Sc Co., 1965), p. 1 ; G. A. Almond and S. Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Actions in Five Nations (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1963), p. 4. Political Participation: Brandt207 categories of Koreans...