-
6. Toward an Ethics of Difference
- University of Minnesota Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
95 6 Toward an Ethics of Difference NorthandSouthneedtovieweachotheras“theotherwithinoneself.” —songdu -yul , Toredefineitsrelationstoothers,aconstituencymustalsomodifythe shapeofitsownidentity. —williame.connolly, Drawing attention to the contradictions and problems of normalization , as I did in chapters 4 and 5, is not to oppose engagement or to eschew democratic values. Quite the contrary. An active engagement policy is badly needed on the peninsula, but in order to overcome some of the most difficult existing security dilemmas, the policy must integrate an understanding and appreciation of difference . Democracy is crucial to this endeavor too, for in its essence a democratic ethos is all about finding ways of appreciating and redeeming difference. In this chapter I will outline the contours of an ethics of difference. An ethics of difference demonstrates why and how an alternative to present insecurity politics would have to be based on a concept of justice that subsumes, at its core, a fundamentally different conception of the relationship between self and other. An articulation of an adequate security policy must combine the ongoing and encouraging search for dialogue with a new and more radical willingness to accept that the other’s sense of identity and politics may be inherently 96 · towardanethicsofdifference incommensurable with one’s own. Expressed in other words, a peaceful rapprochement can occur only if a multitude of identity practices are recognized as legitimate and, indeed, as essential to laying the foundation for what one day may be a truly unified, or at least peaceful , peninsula. In this chapter I will illustrate the requirements for and potential of such an approach through a variety of examples, most notably the relationship between the remembrance of things past and the possibilities for reconciliation. The trauma of the Korean War continues to haunt the peninsula, not least because North and South Korean historical interpretations are closely intertwined with the antagonistic identity practices that have shaped the present climate of confrontation and fear. I argue that a more tolerant and peaceful future can be constructed only once the notion of a single historical narrative gives way to multiple visions of the past and the future. The ethical challenge, then, consists of finding dialogical agreements on certain historical “truth” claims, without necessarily embedding them in a single interpretative modality. THESPECTEROFWARANDTHESPECTEROFCOLLAPSE Before outlining what an ethics of difference entails, I will demonstrate that such an approach is essential for two reasons: to deal with the specter of war and the specter of a North Korean collapse. Earlier in the book, most notably in chapter 3, I dealt in detail with the danger of a military escalation. Taking the rhetoric of evil of the Bush administration as an example, I have shown how a refusal to accept difference, or an attempt to erase it, only perpetuates existing security dilemmas. By contrast, the dangers of a military confrontation can be substantially reduced if decision makers and defense analysts make an attempt to understand how threats are perceived from the other side and how these perceptions are part of an interactive security dynamic in which all actors are implicated, including the United States and South Korea. A second major source of instability and violence on the peninsula is the possibility of a North Korean collapse. Most political commentators , but also most key decision makers, acknowledge that an uncontrolled collapse of North Korea could be highly problematic, precipitating anything from a civil war to a major refugee crisis. The soft landing scenario, which is accepted in one way or another by all [54.198.37.250] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 19:45 GMT) towardanethicsofdifference · 97 great powers involved in the Korean peninsula, is geared precisely toward avoiding an uncontrolled collapse of the North. Whether the soft landing approach can actually prevent a sudden disintegration of the North Korean system is an entirely different question. So far, predictions of an imminent collapse have been proved wrong, although some scholars and politicians regularly warn that the system “shows explicit signs of impending implosion,”1 that “we may now be approaching the end game in the Korean peninsula ’s division.”2 But most observers portray North Korea as relatively stable, despite famine conditions and a highly anachronistic political and economic ideology. The same opinion is shared by many defectors , even former elites who...