[Kim Seong-kon] Gangnam leftists vs. Gangbuk rightists

These days, the newly-coined term, “Gangnam left wing,” is quite fashionable in Korea. The term, which refers to leftist activists who reside in the rich district of South Seoul, is similar to the pejorative American term, “limousine leftists.” The British sarcastically call such people “chardonnay socialists” or “Champagne socialists,” and the French call them “caviar leftists.” In the Netherlands, they are called “salon socialists,” and in Japan, “botchan sayoku.” All of these are derogatory terms for leftists from rich families who are naive about the real world of the poor.

These depreciatory terms refer to hypocritical leftists who emphasize the importance of public education while they clandestinely send their children to private schools, who ostensibly support the use of public transportation while they enjoy limousines, and who relentlessly condemn capitalism while they relish all the benefits of capitalism. These nominal leftists are also stout anti-American activists, and yet they secretly send their children to the United States for a better education, and proudly flash their academic degrees from American universities.

Since these caviar and limousine leftists have never experienced poverty and hunger, critics point out that the policies they support are doomed to be foolish, far from mitigating the harsh realities of the poor. Critics also maintain that these Champagne socialists are concerned not so much about the miserable predicament of the lower classes as they are about their own fashionable stance and hollow rhetoric. These aristocratic or bourgeois leftists are not interested in charity either, for they think charity is a capitalist’s duty, not theirs. Besides, they think charity is a capitalist campaign that keeps the poor dependent upon the rich. That is why, ironically, it is always capitalists, not Marxists, who donate to the less fortunate.

The so-called Korean Gangnam leftists may also not be free from similar criticisms. They flourish on the Korean people’s unique sentiment that everybody should be equal in social status, financial conditions, and even intellectual ability. We tend not to tolerate the differences among us; if someone is better off than us, we disparage him by assuming that he had special privileges, connections, or clandestine means of succeeding. According to the Irish writer Michael Foley, author of “The Age of Absurdity: Why Modern Life Makes It Hard to be Happy,” however, such a resentful sentiment may stem from “avarice,” which makes us feel always unhappy and miserable. Indeed, happiness comes from our acceptance of who we are and what we are, not from money or glittering gold.

Nevertheless, the emergence of the Gangnam leftists is a healthy sign for our ideologically-torn society in the sense that it defies the conventional boundaries between left and right, haves and have-nots, and radicals and conservatives. Now we can understand that there is no crystal-clear boundary between the two seemingly antagonistic groups and that crossover is possible. We now come to acknowledge that leftists can live in Gangnam and rightists in Gangbuk. By the same token, we have learned that young men can be conservatives, while old men can become liberals. At last, we come to realize that we now live in an age when all boundaries are collapsing and even political ideologies are blending.

The recent National Assembly elections illustrate well the phenomenon that is taking place in our society. In Bundang, a well-known town for right-wing conservatives, for example, Sohn Hak-kyu, a member of the radical Democratic Party was elected. On the contrary, in Gimhae, the birthplace of the late President Ro Moo-hyun, Kim Tae-ho from the conservative Grand National Party was elected. Some people may argue that such confusing phenomena happened because Koreans voted for celebrities rather than a political ideology. Others may contend that both Sohn and Kim are so-called border politicians, who defy conventional boundaries and are ready to cross over. And yet, it is undeniable that Korean society is experiencing unprecedented social change.

Perhaps the Gangnam leftists can play a role of buffering and moderating the polarity between the left and the right in our society. For example, they can initiate non-violent, peaceful leftist campaigns and turn the current belligerent ideological warfare into a truly liberal movement. Surely leftist intellectuals can lead the masses in the correct direction. By the same token, the Gangbuk rightists can also show that conservatives do not always have to be rich or old-fashioned. They can prove that conservatism is not so bad or obsolete after all, contrary to the popular belief in Korea, and in fact, that Marxism can be much more old-fashioned.

If only we had this dual perspective, we could declare an end to the ideological warfare that has devastated our society since the liberation. Then Korea could become a truly advanced country, transcending the boundaries between the ones and the zeroes, as Thomas Pynchon suggests, and explore the possibilities that exist between the two polarities. So we heartily welcome both the Gangnam leftists and Gangbuk rightists, or both Bundang’s choice of a liberal candidate and Gimhae’s choice of a conservative candidate. We have some much-needed diversity at last.

By Kim Seong-kon

Kim Seong-kon, a professor of English at Seoul National University, is editor of the literary quarterly “21st Century Literature.” ― Ed.