The third-order multiculturalism: civil rights, diversity,and equality in Korea’s multicultural education

Joon K. Kim

� Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2014

Abstract This paper examines the politics of South

Korea’s multicultural discourse and locates its recent

development in the context of a broader analytical dis-

cussion about multiculturalism. Utilizing the historical

experience of the USA, this paper identifies the three orders

of multiculturalism. Up until the civil rights movement of

the 1950s and 1960s, the USA exhibited the first-order

multiculturalism where diverse populations coexisted

under discriminatory policies. The post-civil rights era

exemplifies the second-order multiculturalism because it

not only institutionalized the equality discourse in public

spheres, but also provided legal protection against dis-

criminatory practices. Both Korea and the USA, however,

share the challenge of achieving the third-order multicul-

turalism that fosters inter-cultural understanding and

addresses the socially embedded inequalities.

Keywords Multiculturalism � Diversity � Civil Rights �Education � Korea

South Korea’s (hereafter Korea) ‘‘multiculturalism boom’’

is simply remarkable. For one, Korea is not a multicultural

society in the traditional sense, given the foreign-born

population represents about 2 % of the total population

(Hong 2010). Despite this structural reality, the intensity

and volume of multicultural programs, policies, and prac-

tices are impressive even from the standpoint of the tra-

ditional countries of immigration. However, these activities

collectively outpaced the reality of multiculturalism in

Korea (Olneck 2011), and, more importantly, the benevo-

lent approach to multicultural education unintentionally

affirms rather than critiques socially embedded hegemonic

ideas and practices that reproduce social inequality and

cultural hierarchy.

In order to provide a more reflexive critique of multi-

cultural politics in Korea, this paper assesses Korea’s

multicultural dilemma and gauges its status against the

conceptual frameworks. Although the concept of multicul-

turalism varies, it is commonly understood as a set of

philosophical ideas that foster the coexistence of diverse

cultures (Kymlicka 1995) while achieving a sense of unity

through a set of universal ideals (Banks and Banks 1995).

Analytically, the forms of multiculturalism may be divided

into three interdependent priorities: the first-order multi-

culturalism simply describes a physical state of racial and

ethnic diversity; the second-order multiculturalism refers to

the belief and practice of maintaining equality across cul-

tures based on legal protection and rights; and finally, the

third-order multiculturalism signifies not only an active

promotion of inter-ethnic understanding and exchange, but

also a reflexive critique of unequal opportunity structures

and a static treatment of culture.

Because the USA is often considered the multicultural

society par excellence, this paper analyzes the origins of

multicultural discourse and identifies the salient criticisms.

Basically, I argue that the contemporary multicultural

discourse emanated from the civil rights movement of the

1950s and 1960s, providing a basis for the equality dis-

course and establishing a legal framework for institu-

tionalizing nondiscriminatory policies. In this regard, the

USA serves as an important model for Korea in struc-

turing a procedural equality, or the second-order multi-

culturalism. However, both Korea and the USA

conceptually share a common challenge of achieving the

third-order multiculturalism, that is, a more substantive

form of equality.

J. K. Kim (&)

359 Aylesworth Hall SE, Fort Collins, CO, USA

e-mail: Joon.Kim@colostate.edu

123

Asia Pacific Educ. Rev.

DOI 10.1007/s12564-014-9324-y

Plurality of ethnicities in Korea

The Korean society experienced a historic turning point in

mid-2007 when the nation’s foreigner population surpassed

the one-million mark. In just 6 years, as of July 2013, the

foreigner population jumped to 1.5 million persons. The

striking aspect of the recent trend is that the Chinese

nationals account for some 70 % (or 350,000) of the

increase, of whom about 60 % are Korean Chinese. Indeed,

the Chinese population represents 50.2 % of the total for-

eigner population in Korea. The next largest populations of

foreign nationalities include: the USA (144,195), Vietnam

(121,398), the Philippines (45,708), Thailand (46,073), and

Uzbekistan (37,691). The nationality by visa types reflects

several important clusters of the immigrant population. The

top five visa categories are as follows: nonprofessional

employment visa (E-9) accounting for 15.7 % (or

242,894), followed by visitation employment (H-2) con-

stituting 15.4 % (or 237,569), overseas Korean (F-4)

making up 14.0 % (or 215,746), short-term visitation (C-3)

measuring 10.1 % (or 155,452), and marriage immigration

(F-6) comprising 6.8 % (or 105,594) (Ministry of Justice

2013).

The close association between the visa types and the

corresponding nationalities affects the constitution of

diverse ethnic populations in Korea. The E-9 visa is issued

primarily to government-sponsored employment permit

system (EPS) workers who are assigned to mostly small

and mid-size manufacturing employment sites for a short-

term period. According to the Korea Immigration Service,

the Vietnamese workers currently account for about 22 %

of the total EPS workers, followed by Indonesians

(11.1 %), Cambodians (9.7 %), Thais (9.0 %), and Sri

Lankans (8.6 %) (Ministry of Justice 2013). Although the

Chinese, including the Korean Chinese, represents more

than half of all foreigner population in Korea, they only

account for 3.4 % of EPS workers. The significance of EPS

is twofold: first, the Korean government controls and

manages the workers who are ineligible to become per-

manent workers or residents; second, the bilateral agree-

ment with the labor-sending countries allows the Korean

government to recruit particular ethnic workers selectively.

Moreover, the government could cancel or suspend the

bilateral agreements if particular nationalities violate con-

tract terms or overstay their visas. The flexibility of EPS

reflects the government-business cooperation in managing

and subordinating foreign workers.

The next three visa types, H-2 (visitation employment),

F-4 (overseas Korean), and C-3 (short-term visit), have

significantly affected the overseas Korean Chinese popu-

lation. Passed in 2007, the Immigration Control Law pro-

vided several avenues through which overseas Koreans

would be allowed to reside and work in Korea. The

visitation employment visa is exclusively for ‘‘low-skilled’’

occupations, such as manufacturing, agro-livestock indus-

try, and fishery. The overwhelming majority of H-2 visa

holders are identified as Korean Chinese, making up

94.7 % of 237,569 entrants as of July 2013. The F-4 visa

requirement includes the acquisition of specialized educa-

tion or training for employment in technical and profes-

sional fields. Formerly, the F-4 visas were issued only to

highly educated professionals, such as professors, lawyers,

and the members of the press. Clear difficulties exist in

obtaining the occupation-specific visas and transferring

from one visa category to another. For instance, there are

significant numbers of F-4 visa holders among Korean

Chinese who are unable to find employment in specialized

fields, thus many have sought ‘‘low-skilled,’’ often dubbed

3-D or dirty, difficult and dangerous, jobs that require H-2

visas. Both of these visas allow up to 5 years of residence

and work, but for those who are seeking to change from

one visa to another they must renew an extension of their

visas each year. Similarly, numerous Korean Chinese

descendants have applied for the C-3 short-term visitation

visas. Initially, the C-3 visa established only the right of

residency, but the amendment to the law permitted the visa

holders to apply for different visas for longer-term resi-

dence and the right to work in specified fields with

appropriate language and skills training.

Finally, the visa for spouses of Korean nationals has

steadily increased in the last 5 years. The overwhelming

majority of marriage migrants are women (86 %) and lar-

gely either Chinese or Korean Chinese (41.7 %), though

the significant number of Vietnamese women (26.5 %) has

recently accompanied their Korean husbands. One impor-

tant consequence of such marriages is the second-genera-

tion dilemma. According to the Ministry of Security and

Public Administration, the children of mixed or non-Kor-

ean ethnic heritages accounted for 12 % (or 168,583 per-

sons) of the total foreigner population in Korea. These

children are very young: 62.1 % (or 104,694 persons) are

under the age of six, and 23.9 % (or 40,235) represent the

ages between seven and twelve, a significant increase from

the 2008 data that show 15,804 students were enrolled in

elementary school. As mentioned in previous studies (Kim

2011), the impact of mixed-ethnic heritage children on

schools is being felt nationally and its broad implication is

yet to be realized.

Multicultural programs in Korea: an internal critique

In response to the sharp increase in diverse immigrant

populations, the Korean government implemented the

‘‘Basic Law Concerning the Treatment of Foreigners in

Korea’’ (hereafter Basic Law) in July 2007. The law con-

sisted of four policy goals: adopt proactive immigration

J. K. Kim

123

policies, enhance social integration, streamline immigra-

tion administration, and advocate foreigner rights. The

Immigration Policy Commission implemented the basic

plans for immigration policy. The First Basic Plan, cov-

ering the period between 2008 and 2012, sought to ‘‘make

Korea a leader in embracing foreigners’’ by attracting tal-

ented and diverse foreign workers, raising public aware-

ness, providing support for foreign spouses and their

children, and promoting hospitable environment for all

foreigners. The specific action plans included: enforce

immigration laws, secure national borders, enhance natu-

ralization programs, prevent discrimination, and protect

their human rights (Ministry of Justice 2012, p. 12).

The most pronounced outcome of the First Basic Plan is

the visible presence of multicultural support centers.

According to one study (Kim, Yang and Lee 2009), they

identified a total of 705 centers with significant presence in

the following provinces and metropolitan areas: Kyung-

sang (122), Cheonla (112), Seoul (107), Chungcheong (98),

and Kyunggi-do (93). Although the capacity and the vari-

ety of services vary, the programs generally fall under the

three categories. These include: education (e.g., Korean

language, interpretation, computer skills), social welfare

services (legal counseling, medical, childcare), and cultural

experiences and spaces (multicultural fairs, Korean cultural

experience, global villages). The authors conclude that

while the sheer number of multicultural support centers is

impressive, these centers fall short of providing meaningful

cultural exchange between Koreans and non-Koreans.

Rather than perceiving the centers as intrinsically multi-

cultural, they posit that these are instead support centers for

providing multicultural services. ‘‘In order to implement

education rooted in multiculturalism,’’ the authors claim,

‘‘it must seek to eliminate prejudicial mindset, respect

diversity of cultures, and bring about the coexistence and

equality of cultures’’ (p. 266). Moreover, they argue that

the focus of multicultural programs is selective because the

majority of the programs’ target population is either mul-

ticultural families or foreign workers. In addressing the

shortcomings of the programs, they suggest ‘‘amending and

implementing laws and policies, with the consent of the

general public, in a step-by-step way’’ (p. 267).

Building on these important observations, numerous

scholars and practitioners in Korea proffered sober criti-

cisms of the state-led multicultural programs. In order to

overcome the surface manifestation of multiculturalism, K.

S. Han (2008) calls for ‘‘critical multiculturalism’’ through

which the Korean society may secure cultural diversity and

bolster inter-cultural exchange and understanding. To do

so, he advances a praxis-oriented cultural principle that

transcends effort to utilize culture as a tool of difference

politics, liberates culture from rigid ethnic borders, and

fosters the creation of a new culture through the process of

reciprocal cultural osmosis (p. 138). ‘‘Multiculturalism,’’

K. G. Han (2008) similarly argues, ‘‘is the belief in

embracing diverse cultural entities that occupy equal cul-

tural and political positions in a modern society.’’ Toward

this end, Yoon (2012) advocates multicultural education

that fosters the principles of democracy, equality, human

rights, and social justice. In advancing these ideals in the

context of cultural pluralism, Yoon exhorts the public to

embrace the idea of global citizenship that respects cultural

diversity and works collectively toward a peaceful coex-

istence. In short, the global citizenship education requires a

fundamental change in values and attitude, an acquisition

of new knowledge and technique, and praxis-oriented

teaching.

The second-order multiculturalism: civil rights

movement and a triumph of the equality discourse

in the USA

In the USA, the Latin phrase, E Pluribus Unum, engraved

in its national seal, captures the dilemma of achieving unity

out of diversity. Although its equality principle is also

enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the history of

race-based laws and practices vitiated the principle of

equality. From slavery and genocide of native Americans

to selective immigration and citizenship laws, the USA

allowed the plurality of cultures and races to coexist but

under the tight reign of racist laws. The doctrine of ‘‘sep-

arate but equal,’’ established in the Plessy v. Ferguson

(1896) case, which institutionalized the Jim Crow racial

segregation, served as a legal cover for treating races and

ethnicities differently without seemingly violating the lib-

eral democratic values. In short, the US history reflects the

first-order multiculturalism, with clear differences in

practical application of universal laws.

The glaring contradiction between law and practice

provided both ethical and legal basis for challenging the de

jure racial segregation. At its core, the civil rights move-

ment attempted to restore the principle of equality and its

fair application primarily to minority ethnic and racial

populations. The basic ideology of the civil rights move-

ment may be captured in the famous speech by Dr. Martin

Luther King, Jr., whose eloquent words echoed throughout

the world as he spoke: ‘‘I have a dream that my four little

children will one day live in a nation where they will not be

judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their

character.’’ This simple but profoundly important idea

resonated deeply across the nation, and it served as a moral,

philosophical, and constitutional basis for resistance,

struggle, and change. It also helped to breakdown the racial

barriers to legal equality, created policies and programs to

The third-order multiculturalism

123

expand opportunities for minorities, and inspired a gener-

ation of people to take the idea of equality seriously.

Furthermore, the civil rights movement sparked a host of

other ‘‘rights-based’’ movements and brought suits against

institutions. Collectively, the foundational idea of equality

reached all areas of public life and laid the building blocks

for creating today’s multiculturalism in American society.

Civil rights, diversity, and equal education

The success of the civil rights movement is immeasurable,

but several key events and court decisions helped to narrow

the gap between theory and practice and contributed to the

development of the second-order multiculturalism in the

USA. These include: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the

Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, the Bilingual

Education Act of 1968 and the Lau v. Nichols (1974) US

Supreme Court decision, the founding of ethnic studies in

1969, and the implementation of affirmative action in

higher education in the late-1960s.

Emboldened by the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education

decision, which struck down racial segregation in public

accommodations, President John F. Kennedy and the civil

rights leaders worked together to send the historic civil

rights legislation to Congress. Unable to witness the pas-

sage of the bill, President Kennedy’s assassination

prompted his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, to complete

the work by first addressing a joint session of Congress.

Shortly thereafter, with strong support from the bipartisan

majorities, President Johnson signed the bill into law on

July 2, 1964, and it ushered in a new era of equal rights

discourse and practice. At the heart of the 1964 Civil

Rights Act laid several provisions that institutionalized the

comprehensive anti-discrimination principle, including

prohibition of discrimination in voting procedures and

requirements, in public facilities and schools, and by

government agencies. Title VII of the Act also established

the Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity

(EEOC), the federal law enforcement agency that monitors

employment discrimination based on color, race, sex,

national origin, or religion.

The legal and practical ramifications of the Civil Rights

Act have been far reaching. Numerous civil rights cases

reached the US Supreme Court and successively struck

down barriers to equal opportunity and access for minori-

ties. In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co (1968), the Court ruled

against private and government entities practicing racial

discrimination in housing. Three years later, in Swann v.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), the

Court permitted busing in school districts that illegally

segregate students. In the same year, the Court ruled

against a corporation that indirectly screens out African–

American job applicants (Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 1971).

The application of this Act extended beyond the scope of

race to cover other disadvantaged groups. In 1967, Age

Discrimination in Employment Act was passed, followed

by the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. In 1972, Title IX

of the Education Amendments of 1972 stipulated that ‘‘no

person in the USA shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded

from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

subjected to discrimination under any education program

or activity receiving federal financial assistance.’’

The equality principle of the Civil Rights Act also

impacted the immigration and citizenship criteria. The

passage of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act

signified a major departure from the exclusive immigration

history. Contrary to popular perception, the US immigra-

tion history is replete with discriminatory laws that targeted

specific ethnic and racial groups, including, inter alia, the

Chinese (1882 Chinese Exclusion Act), Japanese (1907

Gentlemen’s Agreement), South Asians (Immigration Act

of 1917), Filipinos (1934 Tydings-McDuffie Act), Mexi-

cans (Repatriation Program of the 1930s), and Southern

and Eastern Europeans (1924 National Origins Act). Con-

sistent with the principle of equality, the immigration

portion of the 1965 Act struck down ethnicity-based quota

immigration act of 1924, which not only sought to curtail

the number of Southern and Eastern Europeans to a trickle,

but also forbade those who were ineligible to naturalized

citizenship from entering the USA. The naturalization part

of the Act, simultaneously, reversed the 1790 Naturaliza-

tion Act, which only allowed ‘‘free white persons’’ from

becoming naturalized, and expanded the 1870 Naturaliza-

tion Act, which permitted naturalization to persons of

‘‘African nativity and descent’’ to include other racial

groups. The consequence of 1965 Immigration and Natu-

ralization Act has been immense; today’s ethnic and racial

diversity of US society and its citizenry would not have

been possible without this act.

Although the civil rights movement began primarily as a

struggle between black and white races, the civil rights

discourse concomitantly shaped multicultural discourse in

other arenas. Nowhere was this more apparent and im-

pactful than in education. The idea of multiculturalism

pervaded college campuses and precollege public educa-

tional institutions in three important ways: the implemen-

tation of affirmative action policies in college admissions,

the establishment of ethnic studies colleges and depart-

ments, and the US Supreme Court ruling on bilingual

education. The phrase ‘‘affirmative action’’ was first used

in President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925, compel-

ling government contractors to ‘‘take affirmative action to

ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are

treated during employment, without regard to their race,

creed, color, or national origin.’’ The heightening racial

tensions in the mid-1960s, however, prompted President

J. K. Kim

123

Johnson to markedly bolster the concept of equal oppor-

tunity. Speaking before predominantly black graduates at

Howard University in 1965, President Johnson declar-

ed: ‘‘It is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity.

All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those

gates… We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek

not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a

right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a

result’’ (Public Papers 1966, 637).

Two months after President Johnson’s impassioned

speech, the largest riot of the decade occurred in Watts,

California. During the ‘‘long hot summer of 1967,’’ cities

across America were once again ablaze, totaling 159 riots,

from Buffalo, New York and Tampa, Florida to Detroit,

Michigan and Houston, Texas. In this political climate,

minority students on college campuses banded together to

lead their own protests. Constituting a campus coalition of

multicultural students from San Francisco State University

and the University of California at Berkeley, the Third

World Liberation Front (TWLF) demanded a more inclu-

sive representation of the people of color experiences and

histories by establishing an autonomous unit within the

university system. The founding of ethnic studies in 1969

led to the development of hundreds of multicultural pro-

grams, centers, and curricula throughout the country in the

following decades. The common denominator of concerns

centered on the inclusion of diverse historical, cultural, and

racial experiences.

Finally, the increasing diversity of ethnicities and

nationalities in the USA impacted the precollege public

education system. In particular, the passage of the Bilin-

gual Education Act of 1968 provided resources for limited

English proficiency (LEP) students by awarding federal

grants to fund resources for educational programs, train

staff and teachers, and develop teaching curricula in ele-

mentary and secondary schools (Stewner-Manzanares

1988). However, the lack of clear guidelines hampered its

enforcement and led to ad hoc efforts to deliver bilingual

education programs. Six years later, a landmark US

Supreme Court decision, known as Lau et al. v. Nichols

et al. (1974), involving 13 LEP Chinese immigrant stu-

dents in the San Francisco Unified School District, insti-

tutionalized the bilingual education system across the USA.

Delivering the unanimous opinion of the Court, Justice

Douglas argued that, given English is the ‘‘basic language

of instruction in all school,’’ these students ‘‘find their

classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no

way meaningful.’’ The Court added that ‘‘there was no

equality of treatment even if students were provided with

the same teachers, textbooks, curriculum, and facilities,’’

thus violating Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

that prohibits discrimination based on race, class, or

national origin (Kim 1992, p. 65).

Duality of multiculturalism: backlash, re-articulation,

and critiques

Despite the successes of the civil rights movement and the

championing of the equality discourse in public education,

the US society continues to debate the merits of multicul-

turalism. On the conservative side, multiculturalism is

perceived to be creating divisions based on ethnic or other

group membership (Glazer 1987), leading to mistrust

between groups (Putnam 2007), and providing ‘‘preferen-

tial or compensatory treatment’’ for minorities (Sowell

1984, p. 38). In contrast, the liberal perspective argues that

the present form of multiculturalism and multicultural

education demonstrates ‘‘inappropriate conceptualization’’

(Sleeter 1996) and inadequate focus on ‘‘justice and

equity’’ (Gilroy 1998) by neglecting to ‘‘challenge hege-

monic practices’’ (Olneck 2011) and inculcating ‘‘diversity

without difference’’ (Wells 2007). Despite the dissensions,

the generalized notion of multiculturalism is structurally

embedded in private and public institutions.

A neoconservative view

The neoconservative political thinkers waged a series of

challenges against the government and university effort to

promote multiculturalism. However, the philosophical

basis of their objection was not rooted in explicitly racist

language but premised on the core American values such as

‘‘equality, fairness, and justice’’ (Kim 2005, p. 12). The

principal target was the affirmative action programs in the

public education system. Thomas Sowell (1984, p. 37),

reflecting the conservative think tank at Hoover Institution,

wrote: ‘‘Many Americans who supported the initial thrust

of civil rights … decision … later felt betrayed as the

original concept of equal individual opportunity evolved

toward the concept of equal group results.’’ In higher

education, Steele (1997, p. 134) surmised that affirmative

action is tantamount to ‘‘social engineering,’’ allowing

Whites to attain ‘‘a new racial innocence.’’ Representing

perhaps the most important criticism, Nathan Glazer not

only warned against the persistence of ethnic group con-

sciousness (Glazer and Moynihan 1963), but also spear-

headed an ideological blitzkrieg against affirmative action

(Glazer 1987). ‘‘The error arises,’’ Glazer (1983, p. 161)

argued, ‘‘because the term ‘‘affirmative action’’ covers both

color-conscious policies and statistical goal-achievement

policies’’. He designated such programs as a form of

‘‘affirmative discrimination’’ (p. 161).

The controversy renewed the debate about what con-

stitutes equality in educational context. The neoconserva-

tive scholars critiqued the government for establishing

statistical goals or quotas and violating the sanctity of

equality by promoting presumably the divisiveness of color

The third-order multiculturalism

123

consciousness. In June 1978, the US Supreme Court ren-

dered its first affirmative action case in higher education,

known as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

Representing the majority opinion, Justice Powell affirmed

the neoconservative argument that ‘‘special admissions

program,’’ which set aside 16 out of 100 slots for minori-

ties, was unconstitutional. However, the Court simulta-

neously argued in favor of utilizing race as one of many

considerations for admission because diversity is a per-

missible goal under the First Amendment’s ‘‘special con-

cern for academic freedom’’ (Bakke 1978, p. 2759).

Twenty-five years hence, the US Supreme Court decided

on the second affirmative action case, Grutter v. Bollinger

(2003). Justice Sandra Day O’Connor affirmed the Sixth

Circuit decision that the University of Michigan’s Law

School did not practice ‘‘racial balancing,’’ which is

‘‘patently unconstitutional’’ (Grutter 2003, p. 2339), but

‘‘used race in a narrowly tailored manner consistent with

Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke’’ (Kim 2005, p. 17). In

short, the highest court in the USA twice-supported public

education institution to consider race as a plus factor

‘‘without insulating the individual from comparison with

all other candidates’’ (Grutter 2003, p. 2342) and affirmed

diversity as a compelling state interest.

The US Supreme Court’s ruling not only fostered the

development of multicultural curriculum and advocacy

centers on college campuses, but also provided a platform

for discrediting such programs. In his book, The Disuniting

of America, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (1998, p. 80) charged

that the ‘‘motives’’ of cultural pluralists ‘‘go beyond the

desire for a more honest representation of the past.’’ ‘‘The

cult of ethnicity,’’ he advanced, ‘‘exaggerates differences,

intensifies resentments and antagonisms, and drives ever

deeper the awful wedges between races and nationalities.

The end game is self-pity and self-ghettoization’’ (p. 106).

As an ‘‘ideology and a mystique,’’ Schlesinger argued,

multiculturalism ‘‘opposes the idea of a common culture,

rejects the goals of assimilation and integration, and cele-

brates the immutability of diverse and separate ethnic and

racial communities’’ (p. 150). Just as he believed in

working toward common cultural values, Schlesinger

argued that the ‘‘common language is an essential bond of

cohesion in so heterogeneous a nation as America’’ (p.

115). The sudden spike in the number of multicultural

programs in the early 1990s prompted a younger genera-

tion of conservative scholars to discredit multiculturalism.

Dinesh D’Souza (1992, p. 17) observed: ‘‘Diversity, tol-

erance, multiculturalism, pluralism—these phrases are

perennially on the lips of university administrators.’’ And,

he concluded: ‘‘They are the principles and slogans of the

victim’s revolution.’’ In short, the neoconservatives viewed

multiculturalism as an ‘‘attack on America’s culture, which

seeks to reject the natural/moral law, biblical values, and

Christian symbols’’ (Schmidt 1997, p. 175). It is not simply

an attack on ‘‘the nation’s longstanding morality but also

on its soul’’ (p. 175).

A liberal view

The popularity of multicultural programs ironically has

come under scrutiny and criticism from the very scholars

and intellectuals who supported the effort decades earlier.

Unlike their ideological counterpart, the critics on the left

argue that these programs do not go far enough in cri-

tiquing the pervasiveness of race discrimination. The

challenge rests on three main ideas: first, the tenuous

connection to broader social movements (Sleeter 1996), the

trivialization of culture (Banks 2009), and the lack of

engaged learning for democracy and justice (May 2009;

Nagada et al. 2006). In short, the critical multiculturalists

exhort that the central issue is not cultural recognition but

social inequality (Kim 2011; Wieviorka 1998).

As a long-time advocate of multicultural education and

the president of the National Association of Multicultural

Education (NAME), Christine Sleeter (1996, p. 239) posits

that the excesses of multicultural education produced

educators who have ‘‘never been involved in social

movements’’ and who ‘‘want to simply improve their

teaching effectiveness.’’ ‘‘Filtering its meaning through

their own ideas about difference and inequality,’’ multi-

cultural education is often viewed as a ‘‘therapy for pre-

judice and stereotyping’’ ‘‘completely disconnected from

political engagement’’ (p. 240). Consequently, they often

introduce artifacts and customs that exoticize difference,

which amounts to tourist curricula, disengaged from a

broader political goal of multicultural education. ‘‘The

social movement metaphor,’’ she proposes, requires as its

aim the effort to ‘‘redistribute power and resources by

confronting power relations in which a dominant group has

attained the power to define the society for the masses, to

construct an ideology in which that definition makes sense,

and to get most people to view that ideology as natural’’ (p.

241). The constituency of such movement is not the edu-

cators but the ‘‘children of oppressed groups, their parents,

their communities, and their grassroots advocacy organi-

zations’’ (p. 242).

Other liberal thinkers add new dimensions to the cri-

tique. Karen Wells (2007) argues that ‘‘the neoliberal self

is taught to manage difference by simultaneously recog-

nizing it as a valuable good…and denying the complex

symmetries,’’ thus ‘‘diversity without difference’’ has the

effect of ‘‘expelling [racism] from the system without race

itself being dispelled’’ (p. 272). Similarly, ‘‘the culturalism

of multiculturalism,’’ Newfield and Gordon contend (1996

p. 79), ‘‘threatens to shift attention from racialization to

J. K. Kim

123

culture and in so doing to treat racialized groups as one of

many diverse and interesting cultures.’’ In order to move

away from ‘‘ethnotourism’’ (Cruz 1996, p. 19), the politics

of multiculturalism must begin with the recognition that

social identities are constructed within the ‘‘shifting field of

historically constituted social relations’’ where ‘‘differ-

ence’’ is mediated through ‘‘socially embedded transac-

tions’’ (p. 25). Thus, the starting points of intergroup

negotiations must begin by ‘‘address[ing] racism promi-

nently,’’ with a focus on ‘‘equity as a primary principle’’

(Newfield and Gordon 1996, p. 108).

Toward the third-order multiculturalism in Korea:

a view from the USA

Korea and the USA obviously differ in many respects,

which make comparisons difficult idem-per-idem. One

has measurably longer history of ethnic and racial

diversities than the other; the historical memory pertain-

ing to race and ethnicity is specific to each; the differ-

ences in the magnitude and the variety of institutional

practices also impact the constitution of particular social

relations. However, both countries share a similar ques-

tion: how to establish multicultural policies based on the

relative modern interpretation of the liberal democratic

ideas of equality, fairness, and justice. Although founded

upon these ideals, the US civil rights movement exposed

the contradiction and frailty of procedural equality and

provided an impetus for social change toward substantive

equality. The idea of substantive equality in regards to

the diversity dilemma is simultaneously captured in

actualizing the third-order multiculturalism. That is, the

aim of a multiethnic and multiracial society to peacefully

coexist and actively promote intercultural understanding,

respect, and deference, without losing sight of justice and

equality.

The challenge for Korea, then, is not so much about the

specific contents of multicultural programs and education.

Rather, it must be focused on achieving substantive

equality and justice, of which multicultural programs

constitute a component part. Thomas Nagel (2003, p. 82),

quoting his mentor, John Rawls, the leading American

moral and political philosopher, wrote: ‘‘Justice as fair-

ness…would certainly be seriously defective should they

lack the resources to articulate the political values essential

to justify the legal and social institutions needed to secure

the equality of women and minorities.’’ The US civil rights

movement represents a societal effort to transform legal

and social institutions toward a more just and fair society.

The historic legal actions, court decisions, and student

protests profoundly impacted the US society. First, the

notion of equality has become a social fact whereby the

general public no longer accepts racism in the public

sphere (Pitcher 2009). Second, the institutionalization of

the equality discourse brought into existence institutional

support for monitoring, adjudicating, and educating the

public concerning the principles of anti-discrimination and

equal opportunity. The establishment of the Office of Equal

Opportunity, the federally mandated bilingual education

programs for LEP students, and the rapid development of

multicultural education and ethnic studies curricular across

college campuses and teacher education programs all speak

to the institutionalization of support systems toward

achieving substantive equality. Regardless of the differ-

ences in political positions concerning diversity politics,

even the most conservative critic of multiculturalism in the

USA recognizes that ‘‘we are all multiculturalists now’’

(Glazer 1997).

Despite these sweeping changes, the continuing strug-

gle over multiculturalism in the USA provides us with

another lesson. The road to third-order multiculturalism

perhaps requires an analysis concerning the nature of

prejudice. Blumer (2000), a noted American sociologist,

wrote that ‘‘race prejudice exists basically in a sense of

group position rather than in a set of feelings’’ (2000,

p. 196). Thus, for Blumer, racial or cultural conception of

self and other inherently involves a collective process

whereby the social institutions promulgate stratified feel-

ings of ‘‘superiority’’ and ‘‘inferiority,’’ a ‘‘feeling of

proprietary claim to certain areas of privilege and

advantage,’’ and ‘‘a fear and suspicion that the subordi-

nate race harbors designs on the prerogatives of the

dominant race’’ (p. 198). In this regard, neither the

structuration of the equality principle in institutions, nor

the anti-racist struggle at the level of individuals would

effectively address the process of abstract imaging of the

subordinate groups. In the context of Korea and the USA,

some liberal minded multicultural educators tend to

‘‘flatten out’’ differences in the interest of promoting

equality of cultures (May 2009, p. 41). The sense of

group position, however, informs us that identities are not

evenly acquired but mediated through and structured by

unequal power relations and social inequality. To assume

and emphasize the equality of cultures without simulta-

neously critiquing the hegemonic forms of dominant

knowledge inevitably reinforces paternalistic, albeit

benevolent in appearance, multicultural education. The

result is a form of social plumage whereby the minority

cultures simply serve as a fetish toward which the dom-

inant group extends its paternalistic attitude, exotic fas-

cination, and voyeuristic glance. Viewed this way,

multiculturalism is not a problem to be solved but one of

many responses in achieving just burdens and fair

opportunities in a society.

The third-order multiculturalism

123

References

Banks, J. A. (2009). The Routledge international companion to

multicultural education. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.

Blumer, H. (2000). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. In S.

M. Lyman & A. J. Vidich (Eds.), Selected works of Herbert

Blumer: A public philosophy for mass society (pp. 196–207).

Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Cruz, J. (1996). From farce to tragedy: Reflections on the reification

of race at century’s end. In A. F. Gordon & C. Newfield (Eds.),

Mapping multiculturalism (pp. 19–39). Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press.

D’Souza, D. (1992). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex

on campus. New York: Vintage Books.

Gilroy, P. (1998). Race ends here. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(5),

838–847.

Glazer, N. (1983). Ethnic dilemmas: 1964–1982. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Glazer, N. (1987). Affirmative discrimination: Ethnic inequality and

public policy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Glazer, N. (1997).We are all multiculturalists now. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Glazer, N., & Moynihan, D. P. (1963). Beyond the melting pot: The

negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York

City. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971). 401 U.S. 424.

Grutter v. Bollinger. (2003). 123 S.Ct. 2325.

Han, K. G. (2008). Damunhwa sahoeran mooutinga? [What is

multicultural society?]. In D. Kang (Ed.), Damunhwa Sahoeui

Ihae [Understanding Multicultural Society] (pp. 86–134). Paju,

Korea: Dongnyok.

Han, K. S. (2008). Bipanjeok damunhwa jooui [Critical multicultur-

alism]. In D. Kang (Ed.), Damunhwa Sahoeui Ihae [Under-

standing Multicultural Society] (pp. 135–165). Paju, Korea:

Dongnyok.

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968). 392 U.S. 409.

Kim, H.-C. (1992). Asian Americans and the Supreme Court: A

documentary history. New York: Greenwood Press.

Kim, J. K. (2005). From Bakke to Grutter: Rearticulating diversity

and affirmative action in higher education. Multicultural Per-

spectives, 7(2), 12–19.

Kim, J. K. (2011). The politics of culture in multicultural Korea.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(10), 1583–1604.

Kim, E. M., Yang, O. K., & Lee, H. Y. (2009). Multicultural society

of Korea. Kyunggi-do: Nanam Inc.

Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of

minority rights. New York: Clarendon Press.

Lau v. Nichols. (1974). 414 U.S. 563.

May, S. (2009). Critical multiculturalism and education. In J. Banks

(Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural

education (pp. 33–48). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Ministry of Justice. Immigration Policy Commission. (2012). The 2nd

basic plan for immigration policy: 2013–2017. Ministry of

Justice: Korea Immigration Service.

Ministry of Justice. Immigration Policy Commission. (2013). Immi-

gration and foreigner policy monthly statistical report. Seoul:

Ministry of Justice.

Nagada, B., Gurin, P. & Lopez, G. E. (2003). Transformative

pegagogy for democracy and social justice. Race, Ethnicity and

Education, 6(2), 165–191.

Nagel, T. (2003). John Rawls and affirmative action. The Journal of

Blacks in Higher Education, 39(spring), 82–84.

Newfield, C., & Gordon, A. F. (1996). Multiculturalism’s unfinished

business. In A. F. Gordon & C. Newfield (Eds.), Mapping

multiculturalism (pp. 76–115). Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Olneck, M. R. (2011). Facing multiculturalism’s challenges in Korean

education and society. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(4),

675–690.

Pitcher, B. (2009). The global politics of multiculturalism. Develop-

ment, 52(4), 456–459.

Plessy v. Ferguson. (1896). 163 U.S. 537.

Public papers of the presidents of the United States: Lyndon B.

Johnson, 1965. (1966). Volume II, entry 301 (pp. 635–640).

Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.

Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in

the twenty-first century—The 2006 Johan Skytte prize. Scandi-

navian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. (1978). 98 S.Ct.

2733.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. (1971). 402

U.S. 1.

Schlesinger, A, Jr. (1998). The disuniting of America: Reflections of a

multicultural society. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Schmidt, A. (1997). The menace of multiculturalism: Trojan horse in

America. Westport: Praeger.

Sleeter, C. E. (1996). Multicultural education as a social movement.

Theory into Practice, 35(4), 239–247.

Sowell, T. (1984). Civil rights: Rhetoric or reality. New York:

William Morrow and Co.

Steele, S. (1997). Affirmative action: The price of preference. In F.

J. Beckwith & T. E. Jones (Eds.), Affirmative action: Social

justice or reverse discrimination (pp. 132–141). Amherst:

Prometheus.

Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). The Bilingual Education Act:

Twenty years later. The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual.

Education, 6(fall), 1–10.

Wells, K. (2007). Diversity without difference: Modelling ‘the real’ in

the social aesthetic of a London multicultural school. Visual

Studies, 22(3), 270–282.

Wieviorka, M. (1998). Is multiculturalism the solution? Ethnic &

Racial Studies, 21(5), 881–910.

Yoon, I. J. (2012).Multicultural education toward global citizenship

education. The Sae jeonbuk Shinmun. May 30.

J. K. Kim

123