The Dearth of Korean-American Public Intellectuals

Kichoon Yang
Dean, College of Natural Sciences
Professor of Mathematics
University of Northern Iowa
An Editor of SKAS

It is a fact that Korean-Americans are abundant in academe, yet the invisibility of Korean-American scholars as public intellectuals in media and politics is also a well-observed fact. This is a lamentable state of affairs - for both Korean-Americans and non-Korean-Americans - in that an unequal participation by any one ethnic group in public
discourse skews the public policy making process, and can lead to social fragmentation. Public intellectuals contribute
to policy making by visibly engaging in public discourse; their views and opinions carry weight, owing to a combination
of academic expertise and professional experience. With this rather cursory definition of a public intellectual, the
question I would like to pose is,"Why the dearth of public intellectuals among Korean-Americans in this
country?"

An utter lack of Korean-American intellectuals in the national media and politics is in contrast to the increasing and large (relative to their population size) number of Korean-American scientists and other professionals. If we were to include
several other Asian ethnic groups, the statistics are overwhelming. For instance, the National Science Foundation
data reveal that by 1999, 27 percent of all doctorate holders in science and engineering in the U.S. were foreign-born,
and that China, India, Taiwan, Korea accounted for nearly 50% of these scientists and engineers. Also, the dearth of Korean-American university administrators parallels that of Korean-American public intellectuals elsewhere - there is
a recent survey by the Society of Korean-American Scholars (www.skas.org).

One obvious, most often heard, explanation to the above question is that the qualities of a public intellectual are not
very consistent with the traditional oriental notions of a "virtuous" person: Taoist, Confucian, Buddhist, and Hindu nomenclature clearly equate avoidance of conflict with virtue, and infuse the quality of aloofness in their descriptions
of wisdom.  This somewhat pedestrian explanation, in my view, is in part true, and it offers an easy-to-understand
cultural explanation at the risk of stereo-typifying Korean and other Asian cultures. Homogeneity, or a lack of
cultural diversity, in the Korean culture sometimes translates into a bifurcative public behavior, a sense of ambivalence, towards the role of confrontation in public discourse: many individuals tend to avoid open confrontations, and at the
same time groups of individuals often would actively seek confrontations - student street demonstrations may be an
example here. This dichotomy in the minds of many Koreans regarding the role of confrontation in public discourse is
an interesting cultural phenomenon, perhaps not present to the same degree in other cultures.

Skilled and experienced public intellectuals (or any public figure for that matter) often use confrontation as a ploy to
bring to public's attention an issue that might otherwise go unnoticed - there is no need to mention the plethora of social
issues and their champions, where such use of confrontation is evident in the national media. One can legitimately argue
that the social agenda in this country is often driven by a relatively small number of outspoken public figures, among
which a fair number are intellectuals.

There are several possible explanations for the general lack of Korean-American public intellectuals, whether it be in
elective politics, media, or higher education administration: There is the usual cultural explanation, which was mentioned earlier. Or perhaps, simply more time is needed. Also, it is interesting to contrast, or draw an analogy with, the
situation African-Americans have faced, and still face to a large extent, in professional sports. It would be interesting to
see to what extent the analogy - predominance of African-American professional athletes coupled with a lack of African-Americans at the managerial ranks and a relatively high and growing presence of Korean-American scholars
and professionals coupled with a lack of Korean-American public figures - is valid. It is conceivable that (I have no
data to support this) the level of "public" ambition and aspirations among Korean-American scholars and professionals
is relatively low; if so, it would provide a benign explanation for the phenomenon, which is not to say that such state
of affairs is desirable.

There is an overall sense that Korean-Americans in this country do well, whether as academics, engineers, doctors,
lawyers, or small business owners; that as individuals Korean-Americans by and large succeed in pursuing the
American dream. At the same time, relative to by now fairly substantial immigration history (100 years and counting)
and the large number of Korean-Americans there is a strong sense that Korean-Americans do not participate in public discourse in a commensurate fashion, nor do they exert political influence proportional to their population size and level
of success. Explanations for this asymmetry are complex, ranging from cultural to demographic. Still, the asymmetry is particularly worrisome in that proportional participation in public discourse and proportional political representation
and influence are the cornerstones of the American democracy.

A vast majority of Korean-Americans maintain strong cultural ties to Korea. The degree to which Korean-Americans maintain their cultural identity is far greater than that you see in many other ethnic groups, although not unique. The cause
and effect of this cultural adherence are, in my view, both myriad and complex. Homogeneity of the race and a long and proud history dating back some four thousand years certainly have something to do with this. Relatively recent history of immigration may be a factor as well. Suffice it to say that the strong cultural identity has been a double-edged sword for
Korean-Americans: tightly bound Korean-American communities in L.A., New York, Chicago and elsewhere have
been invaluable resources to many recent immigrants; these communities at the same time may have slowed integration
of second and third generation Korean-Americans into the mainstream society.  My own sense is that on balance the
strong cultural identity has served many Korean-Americans well. In the final analysis however, the future of
Korean-Americans and the future of this country are inextricably bound together in a very real sense.