One Man's Walk...

Review of: Korea, A Walk Through the Land of Miracles (ISBN 0-06-075044-8)

Harper Perennial (May 31, 2005)

First of all, this is not a new book and in fact had its first publication date in 1988 obviously to conicide with The 1988 Seoul Olympics cashing in as many writers often do on global events which bring whatever brief attention to areas of uncommon interest as which may be found "here, there or everywhere" as one Dr. Seuss once claimed. Funny things are everywhere from his perspective and even here in Korea things which reveal paradoxical cultural examples of dualism in economic or social development are often from an outside observer's perspective up for critical observation and whimisical portrayal. That which makes cultures cross-comparative or cross-contrastive often robs them of any superiority one over the other. Many readers claim Winchester did not provide a very informative or balanced description of Korea, that his writing was in a way derogatory, that his descriptions of a walk from the south to the DMZ were too anecdotal and that his recounting was overly concerned with the opinions and ideas of foreigners in Korea rather than Koreans themselves.

Seeing as today is Korea's annual Liberation Day, one might observe that sixty-two years of liberation has seen many developments in Korean culture, society, economic growth, and future challenges for development, some of which are commented upon by Winchester as of 1989 in a book which reveals a considerable degree of research and historical accuracy. However in the complete text of President Roh's address to mark this special event in 2007, nowhere in the text were any thanks extended to the liberators of Korea from the yoke of Japanese imperialists. Namely, the US Armed Forces and by extension their allies in the Pacific are missing for the credit they may deserve and the assistance they extended to forment Korean Liberation. This is not a serious indicator of a lack of appreciation for US involvement in Korea's liberation. An equally omissive lack of credit was extended to Canada during the post 9/11 speech of George W. Bush which could easily be explained by a comfortable reliance and trust in support of friendly allies.

Winchester made a personal account of a historically researched book out of his walk through Korea in the 1980s and it is interesting to note that many of the places he visits along the way are places I have been. Out of an unwillingness to take too many accounts of the Korean experience seriously I have perhaps avoided reading these types of books simply because enough of what is said is often common enough experience for any foreigner in Korea to relate to. However the focus of his text is related to the distinct experiences and encounters he has made along a mapped route and brief forays into local areas off the track of progress which he made through his own journey here. In addition, the courtesies extended to him by those he encountered, either through conversation, lodgings or sharing of meals were built through the support of a Korean context of networking and it seems unfair to presume that the people he met and talked with should be in any way arranged to present some ideal of balanced accounting beyond those who would extend the courtesies he enjoyed here.

Through extension it is easy to formulate generalisations of entire communities and social groups as in Korea. There are to some degrees continued forms of social hierarchy here and in many other nations which permit gross stereotypes of social status to be displayed whether these are exemplified by narrow definitions of success in education, marriage partnerships, or real estate acquisitions or choices of investment. So too due to such a small comparative number of foreigners taking up residence here and interacting with Koreans on a daily basis or in other homogenous nations, misinterpretations and misunderstandings of the diginity and value of communitarian versus individualistic definitions of self-determinism or public comment or debate may easily be experienced. The representation of information and the dissemination of critical, enlightening and relevant cultural information is often thus highly biased towards the communal strain of consciousness often ascribed to by Koreans often at the cost of logical or research-based assessments of data which perhaps casts events or reflections upon social mores in a more critical light. Ethnocentrism is after all a fairly natural first "knee-jerk" response of anyone not fairly globalized. The challenges of differing opinions on common issues and the resulting display of forethought, consideration, and degrees of conscious tolerances for the thoughts and feelings of others not sharing a similar perspective are often absent here as contrasted to nations such as Australia where as many as 25% of the citizenry can claim birth in a foreign nation. Thus individualism is often fortified within a shared and expected culture of openess and a required sense of tolerance for those of other nations and cultural viewpoints. Many Koreans or even many cultures considered in many ways homogenous might have difficulty understanding, validating, or appeciating the opinions of informed, educated, and diffuse experiences which deviate from the generally considered local ones.

It is here that one must discuss Winchester's style. In some instances the colour and nuance of his writing may appear grossly unappreciative of Korea and Koreans. However even in terms of cross-cultural dealings many advocate an adjustment of behaviour, ettiquette, or social behaviour to attune to the needs of one's business connections. In many ways what Winchester has written has indicated that he had obeyed certain practical courtesies to Koreans which he encountered himself in person. What appears to be up for question is his treatment in writing of several Korean cultural tendancies, beliefs and traditions. It is difficult to generalize on cultures withoutt offending many and perhaps some of the criticism of his style is well deserved. However, a writer's style and the opinions, reflections, and discourses he might offer are a highly difficult facet of the freedom of expression to which so many writers have been attuned to over the entirety of their reading and writing existence. Turns of phrase, nuance, tone, and self-deprecation are often enough displayed to suggest that Winchester spared himself no less. There are countless misrepresentiations of Korean culture and Korean social characteristics which more often than not stem from an assumption that Korean culture is not solid or mature enough to accept critical observations made either through reasoned expression or evidence-based debate. Yet again, a best measure of Winchester's style rather than dismiss it entirely as a hateful description of his experiences in Korea would be to enter into further reading of his considerable list of published works to gain a wider understanding of what does or does not indicate a particular bias in this book or a general lack of reverential treatment of any or all manner of topics and lines of thought. To which may be added reading in a general rather than specific fashion often enough out of enjoyment remains an enriching past-time which I hope only to encourage. Winchester wrote so many other books.

What I am writing here is opinion-based and thus exemplifies the point I am trying to make. If it is a man's style which is considered the problem then really there is little that can be done regarding Winchester's work on Korea. One must expect and accept that various writers on the topic will take various opinions and styles which may or may not more strenuously attempt to satisfy the perceived reader as audience. In Winchester's case it is my opinion that the imagined reader of his book, thus the target reader that the writer might have had in mind at the time is a westerner with little prior knowledge or understanding of Korea or Koreans. Thus by default it should not be difficult to understand that the opinions of other foreigners in their experiences and dealings with Korea and Koreans should be considered of interest to the reader. It would seem that also is the point. Koreans should perhaps have more care for and concern over what visitors to the nation have to say about their experiences here in terms of realizing the benefits of gaining perspectives on cultures and societies who represent the end user of their increasingly globalized products and services. Such a concern should be perhaps measured by an extension of awareness and an appreciation of the profits which may come not only from listening to a diversity of opinions, often frank, at times negative, but often enough giving credit to those which in many ways demonstrate inclusiveness, diversity, and global-thinking all means to securing greater growth in innovation and creativity.

In my mind, my understanding of such people includes many Koreans.