Another illustration of the same problem [of referring to natives of another country as foreigners in that country] occurred in a Korean restaurant in San Francisco, where I was eating dinner with a young Korean man doing graduate studies at Berkeley. Pointing to a group of non-Asian diners at a nearby table, he remarked, "A lot of foreigners come to this restaurant." It was all I could do to continue chewing my 냉면 without blurting out, "You're absolutely right, Mr. Kim, and you're one of them!" Apparently there is a dissonance between the English word, foreigner, and the Korean conceptual model.
In English, the word refers to an abstract relationsihp, not an intrinstic attribute. Nobody is inherently a foreigner; anyone can become on simply by crossing a national border. Foreignness is a question of context, not essence. Ms. Kwon in Canada and Mr. Kim in San Francisco, for example, fit the English meaning of foreigner, as would a Canadian missionary in Taejon or an American pursuing graduate studies in Seoul National University.
But the Korean-English sense of foreigner is clearly different. It is a category in which neither Ms. Kwon not Mr. Kim could ever be included. It is a category in which a Canadian naturally belongs, as he sits reading a newspaper in his own house in his native town in Alberta. Membership in this category is defined at birth, is completely context-free and is absolutely permanent. One group of people, including Ms. Kwon and Mr. Kim, can never, under any circumstances, belong to the Korean-English category, foreigner, whereas the members of another group are born as foreigners, will die as foreigners and will always be foreigners, no matter where they are. More remarkable still, this second group includes something like ninety-eight percent of the human race.
The article continues with the common practicing of attributing uniform likes and dislikes to all foreigners. For example, I've heard that foreigners can't eat spicy food, that foreigners don't like coffee, and that foreigners don't like to travel. In the context of Korea, of course, but it's always bizarre to hear that six billion people do or do not do a certain thing, or that all Koreans tend to the exact opposite. Because I can't select and copy the text of the article, it's quite tedious to type all the good parts out, so just read the rest on your own. I'll include another interesting passage:
This notion of foreigners as a distinct group sharing a common set of qualities, attitudes, and so forth was very much in evidence just before and during the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul. The long build-up for the great event involved a great deal of pull-your-socks-up hectoring about what foreigners like, what foreigners expect, and how foreigners behave. And in local coverage of the event itself, the media focused on the issue of in what ways and to what extent the foreigners were impressed by what they saw in Our Country. Implicit in all this were all manner of assumptions about the uniform characteristics of foreigners.
16 comments:
I'm a white guy. If I'm in Itaewon and point out to a Korean friend that a lot of foreigners come to Itaewon, that doesn't mean that I think I'm not one of them.
If a Korean living in America, mentions to me while eating dinner that a lot of foreigners come there, I will think it is a general statement about foreingers including the Korean.
That little sentence the author used to make his point does not support his thesis because there is no way to know from that utterance if the Korean really saw himself as separate from the other foreigners or if the author of the piece simply interpreted it to mean that.
Ah, but it does not explain the comments directed at natives to that country.
In Switzerland, while waiting in line to reserve my train tickets, 4 Korean girls were in line within earshot. They were arguing over who will reserve the tickets because they were embarrassed to talk to foreigners. The foreigner in question, of course, is the native Swiss woman in the ticket booth.
I was tempted to suggest to them that the Swiss woman was Swiss and that THEY were the foreigners in Switzerland. I bit my tongue. The point would have been lost on them.
I don't suppose it's possible that the Korean definition is implied to mean, native to a country other than the speaker's. For example, if a, let's say, guy from Argentina is in Korea, speaking Korean, and he referred to a Korean person as "foreigner" ("oykwukin"), would it be considered inappropriate or unusual?
It's simple: waegukin doesn't mean "foreigner" at all. It means "non-korean".
In the Korean world, there are two groups: Hangukin and Waegukin. Every subset fits into either of these groups: even gyopo fall into the hangukin category (whether they want to or not) on account of their ethnicity.
Which explains why a Korean will happily call big-noses waegukin overseas.
My own favorite experience: when I was walking along the great wall of china a kid yelled out "waegukin" and pointed at me.
I pointed out in my best korean that we were in china, and that therefore he was a waegukin too. He and his parents were clearly confused by this line of reasoning.
I asked my wife and daughter about this, and they insist, as native speakers of Korean, that 외국인 can refer to Koreans, too.
Some Koreans might have intellectual difficulties with this concept of Koreans as 외국인, but I admit to calling various Europeans 'foreigners' while I was in Europe -- usually, but not always, as a joke.
I think that this is more an issue of provincialism than of semantics, for if my wife and daughter are correct, then 외국인 can refer to a Korean outside of Korea.
Perhaps we need to ask more Koreans about this.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Hi there. Your blog was nominated for an award for the best Korea blogs of 2008, at The Hub Of Sparkle. Go check it out if you like.
http://www.koreasparkle.com/2009/01/the-golden-klog-awards-survey-is-up-go-vote/#content
Etymologically, it breaks down thusly:
外/외/wei/outside (same as in 외출: outing and 외도: go astray/wrong course)
國/국/guk/country
人/인/in/person
ㅆhe question is whether the 國 component should be seen as possessive, as "my country" in reference to the speaker. In that case, then yes, calling all non-Koreans "foreigner" would be the correct way to use this word. However, I'm inclined to agree with HJH in that this use is unthinking and provincial, and not intrinsic. There are Koreans who are linguistically cautious and avoid using the word indiscriminately, and then there are Koreans for whom it works for any non-Korean, anywhere, anytime.
In my example above, the girls were not speaking Korean. They were speaking English. In such a case, their use of "foreigner" is incorrect.
Had they used the Korean word 우국인 (ie. non-Korean), I would have had no argument.
It's the same argument for Konglish words/expressions... as long as they are used when speaking Korean, they are being used correctly. Use the same word in English, and they are being used INcorrectly.
Personally, it's not the word they use, but how they use it. Obviously I'm not Korean and since I'm in Korea, being called a foreigner in everyday conversation doesn't bother me so much. What gets my goat, is when I'm walking down the street and some kid loudly proclaims "Mom! Look! There's a foreigner!". My immediate reaction is to turn around, point, and just as loudly proclaim in Korean, "Oh my! A Korean person!"
The kid then usually hides behind mommy and mommy gives the nervous Korean laugh. Children aren't born racist, they are taught that by their parents and society and I have to admit that I get a certain amount of satisfaction from causing them some embarrassment by pointing out the obvious.
Recently I was in Vancouver and a bunch of Korean high school kids were hanging out at the mall doing what teenagers do. Speaking Korean, I asked if they would do the same thing in Korea, and with a look of shock that a "foreigner" was speaking Korean to them, they said that they would not do such things in Korea, but because they were in a foreign country it was okay. I pointed out that in Canada, they were the foreigners and they were making Koreans look bad, and maybe they shouldn't be so quick to judge non-Koreans when they went back home to Korea.
I asked my wife and daughter about this, and they insist, as native speakers of Korean, that 외국인 can refer to Koreans, too.
Your wife and daughter are correct that the dictionary definition allows for this usage, but I have only ever heard or read Koreans using the words 외국인 and 외국사람 to refer to non-Koreans. Even ethnic Korean residents and citizens of foreign countries are usually distinguished as 한인, 한국계, 교포, and 동포.
Unlike English speakers, Koreans will refer to a non-Korean as a "foreigner" even when the nationality is known. While retelling experiences abroad, Koreans have called Australians, Canadians, and Americans "foreigners." The Koreans knew these people were locals. An English speaker would refer to a German, a Japanese, or a Mexican as such and never use the word "foreigner" to refer to specific person of a specific nationality. Koreans will, too, but they will also call specific persons of a specific known nationality "foreigners."
The general Korean worldview can be thought of as a Venn diagram. In one circle are ethnic Koreans with Korean citizenship. In the other, are non-ethnic Koreans with foreign citizenship. In the middle are ethnic Koreans with foreign citizenship and Korean citizens with partial or non-Korean ancestry. Because your wife and children are part of a multicultural family, their worldview is probably not representative or typical of Koreans.
I've now posted a blog entry on this same question (and have borrowed a lot from this entry here on Brian's blog).
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
It's true, Koreans (South Koreans) in China for business or study don't see themselves as Waegukin. And they always refer to other non-Koreans (except Chinese) as waegukins.
Chinese do the same thing when they are in or outside China. They basically call anyone non-asian as Laowai (老外）. I called them on that one time and they understood and thought it was funny.
This is an fascinating post. I think there are two things going on here: Linguistically, 외국인 is used to refer to any non-Korean. But there's also something deeper rooted in the culture that gives Korea an "us and them" mentality. A lot of it has to do with being colonized by other countries A lot of it also has to do with the fact that they consider their country to be ethnically homogenous.
I don't live in Korea anymore. I absolutely loved my time there, but I know I could never move there permanently. The fact is, I could be 90 years old, married to a Korean man, speak Korean fluently, raise kids and grandkids who lived in Korea and went through the normal Korean school system, and I would STILL be a 외국인.
I like your blog, by the way. If it's all right, I'd like to post a link to it from my own.
This korean think this, that one thinks that? OK Whatever.
Isn't it high time for a "Brian's Super Bowl Preview" post?
HERE WE GO STEELERS! Number SIX...I can feel it (fingers crossed, and knock on wood)
I have always had a problem with the word foreigner, as in Britain it's something that people only use carefully, or if they're a racist...
In Korea, however, the language doesn't allow for subtlety. Terms like 외국인 are all that can be used, and are used constantly.
For example, if I walk into a shop I will hear the people behind the counter immediately say 'blah blah 외국인 blah blah 외국인 blah blah 외국인 blah blah ...' (I do actually speak a little Korean, but the conversations vary...)
Aside from the fact that I find it rude that they're talking about me, I don't like being referred to as 'foreigner', even if I am.
If I saw a Korean person back in Scotland I'd call them a Korean, or an Asian, at least. Saying 'foreigner' is simply a way of denoting them as other, and yourself as the centre of the world. It also robs a person of their being and dignity.
In my example above, the girls were not speaking Korean. They were speaking English. In such a case, their use of "foreigner" is incorrect.
I'm a little late to this discussion, but color me incredulous.
That these four Korean girls from Korea were having this lengthy exchange in English, for starters, and then all four of those same lengthy-exchange-in-English-capable girls were saying they were embarrassed to speak English?
If their entire conversation were mostly in Korean, I would believe it (having seen a similar thing many times).
In Italy (at a train station near Venezia, I think) a Korean woman traveling alone was telling me (in Korean) that she wasn't too nervous about traveling alone, but all the oegugin staring at her made her nervous. (It wasn't just Italians, but others as well. Had it just been Italians, she might have said "Italians" instead of oegugin.)
Anyway, as several have noted here, oegugin refers to people from an outside country, and since the speaker is using Korean language, that outside country tends to be a country other than Korea. This has long been extended to usage of the word itself outside Korea (Koreans have been merchants around East Asia and even to the Middle East going back centuries.)
Ideally, the word oegugin should never be simplistically translated as "foreigner." The target meaning may overlap in many cases, but they are so different in their usage that this L1 transfer is an oversimplification (one that can offend, in fact).
And surely the fact that some Koreans "get it" and some Koreans don't, is yet another indication that Koreans do NOT all think alike. ;)
Anyway, this race/ethnicity-based us-versus-them thing is hardly unique to Korea. Why, just yesterday there was this. Even a long-established multi-cultural society like the US has its share of "Dave Crows" but at least as many "Jim Radcliffes."
Post a Comment