hankyoreh

Lee Ju-hee

By Lee Ju-hee, sociology professor at Ewha Womans University

Over 30 years ago, the authoritarian regime in South Korea came to a close with the June 29 Declaration of 1987.

The democracy that it ushered in was incomplete. The New York Times sarcastically noted that the hard-won election resulted in a new president who probably would have been elected anyway without so much resistance or amendment of the Constitution.

This was made possible by the participation and solidarity of the middle class — people referred to as the “necktie brigade.” As the big beneficiaries of the dictatorship era’s economic growth, they quickly pulled their support for more fundamental reforms.

Because of that, we’ve periodically had to contend with presidents who have carried on the legacy and forms of authoritarian regimes ever since. The impeachment of one of those presidents was a momentous incident that opened the door toward leaving behind the limitations of the “’87 system.”

When the legitimacy of that impeachment was recognized by the new People Power Party (PPP) leader — after all the party’s opposition in the past — it was a striking change that signaled an imminent end to the incomplete “’87 system.”

The problem is that the “meritocracy” advocated by that leader is a major obstacle to completely resolving the “’87 system” legacy.

This meritocracy — which should rightly be called a “test score-based hierarchy” — is seen as a defining characteristic of the generation of South Koreans who have spent their entire lives amid the rough winds of neoliberalism ushered in by the Asian financial crisis. However, in reality, it has been widespread throughout South Korean society, affecting people of every generation and status.

If we hope to see the “’87 system” off into history, we need to move beyond our test score-based hierarchy. One of the reasons South Korea’s labor-management relations are so conflicted and prone to getting bogged down is because of a state of affairs where parents have to spend huge amounts of money on education to prepare their children for the tests that will instantly decide their class for the rest of their life.

One reason women have remained relatively reluctant to pursue careers is because of a combination of no public childcare, regressive organization culture, and the need for a “mother’s” full support for children to prepare for their entrance exam.

Having made these kinds of sacrifices, parents and children inevitably come to want more in return — even if it means slighting, scorning, and stabbing in the back the others who were less successful.

Given the two-tiered structure of the economy, the number of groups that stand to benefit from calls for test score-based hierarchy are limited.

Why do people support a system like this — an endlessly unfolding “World Cup” of life that leaves only a tiny few winners, while the majority have no shot at victory no matter how hard they work? How can they condone all the many cases in which all the hours of experience and dedication come to nothing over a moment’s test-taking performance in a field bearing no real connection to a student’s future duties?

The reason is that they don’t have any different societal order to hope for. When no alternatives exist, you must find answers within reality. They have no choice but to honor the pecking order by giving back the same pain and scorn that they received, heaping it onto those who are worse off than them — or those they perceive as worse off.

In discussions of fairness, we often hear people talking about Rawls’ theory of justice, but that argument is not sufficiently just. According to Rawls, social inequality based on differential rules can be condoned when it benefits a minimum of people.

In his critique, Gerald Cohen asks the question: When capable people choose not to engage in productive labor because they are not compensated well enough, is it because the labor is impossible, or because they are unwilling to work for that compensation? In a more equal society, the capable would have been able to make productive contributions even for less compensation than in an unequal society, and the gains for a minimum number of beneficiaries would have been that much greater.

A true meritocracy is created when all citizens are guaranteed universal welfare and a basic income so that they can all start out in a similar place while being provided with fair opportunities to build their own capabilities over their lifetime. Moreover, the principle of “choosing the most capable” does not justify the kinds of severe compensation disparities that we see.

Jobs that demand high levels of skill are often more stable and provide opportunities for self-improvement. That is an enormous form of compensation in itself.

The advantage of democracy is that we can choose the leaders who appeal to us. The disadvantage of democracy is that we can’t have leaders whose level exceeds our own — but that can also be an advantage. It means we have to come up with our new visions and be better people ourselves if we want to have a better president.

My hope is that this “fairness” zeitgeist takes shape within an ethos of equality.

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]