Under the Gaze of the American Other
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Under the Gaze of the American Other Joo Eunwoo Abstract This paper addresses Korean perceptions of America using Lacanian psychoanalysis. Throughout modern Korean history, an idealized image of America has played the role of Korea’s ego-ideal. While the U.S. has provided South Korea with its form of government and the foundation of a capitalist economy, it has also defined the trajectory of many aspects of modern Korean history since Liberation in 1945. Fur- thermore, a series of historical experiences have caused significant changes in America’s image. Today, the U.S. appears even as the obscene superego, the other side of the Other. These aspects of America correspond to the three father figures presented by Lacan: the idealized imaginary father, the symbolic father, and the obscene and violent real father. Shifting views of America as the Other have been reflected in Korean films. In Spring in My Hometown and Phantom: The Subma- rine, the oppressive aspect of the American Other takes the figure of the obscene real father. In Joint Security Area, the split between the Ameri- can Other and the Other of a unified Korean national community is far more manifest. Today, Korean subjects are still not free from the gaze of the American Other and the determining power of the U.S. Keywords: America, the Other, fantasy, father, Lacan, psychoanaly- sis, film Joo Eunwoo (Ju, Eun-u) is Senior Researcher at the Institute for Gender Research, Seoul National University. He received his Ph.D. in Sociology from Seoul National Uni- versity. His publications include Sigak-gwa hyeondaeseong (Vision and Modernity) (2003) and “19-20 segi jeonhwan-gi jayeon punggyeong-gwa miguk-ui gukga jeongche- seong” (Natural Landscape and American National Identity at the Turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries) (2003). E-mail: [email protected]. 200 KOREA JOURNAL / SPRING 2004 I Throughout modern Korean history, America has been represented by compressed images of an idealized advanced country. For the last one hundred years, and specifically the last several decades, the Unit- ed States has dominated the Korean imagination as an ideal model— a country that achieved not only material affluence, but also stood for political and social virtues. Assuming this, I think it is safe to assert that America has played the role of the Other to Korea in the sense of a Lacanian psychoanalysis, especially since its national liber- ation in 1945. The image of the U.S. as an ideal model country firmly ingrained in Korea’s conscious and subconscious has been at the place of the ideal self-image, i.e., the ego-ideal, with which we Kore- ans unconsciously identify when forming our collective identity. The America that Korea has aspired to become and depended upon is not merely an object toward which Korea projects its desire to fill what it considers to be lacking. It is also the cause that forces Korea to define itself as a “lacking being.” However, saying that America has played the role of the Other does not mean that we can confine America to a mere object of iden- tification on the level of the Imaginary, nor to an image as a passive object. The ego-ideal is not simply an image similar to the self that is associated with the formation of the ideal ego, but an image that is different from the self, a socially idealized image, and above all, a signifier. In this sense, identification with the ego-ideal is a symbolic identification that surpasses imaginary identification.1 Therefore, the image of the Other as the ego-ideal stands at the site of the master signifier, and the field of the Other is the Symbolic, namely a symbol- ic reality. The Other thus outlines the reality itself that is meaningful to us. In this sense, America is Korea’s Other both in name and in fact. 1. For further discussion on this, see Ziˇ zekˇ (1989, 105-110). For Lacan’s discussion of the ideal ego, the ego-ideal and two kinds of Narcissism, see Lacan (1991a, 1991b). Under the Gaze of the American Other 201 The U.S. bestowed Korea with a form of state and a political system of liberal democracy by establishing military government in South Korea just after liberation and dispatching troops soon after the Kore- an War broke out. The U.S. also facilitated Korea’s launch of a mod- ern capitalist economy by handing out aid. In a word, the United States was a kind of father who, for better or worse, gave birth to South Korea (the U.S. even drew up the 38th parallel). Furthermore, the U.S. has “helped” Korea politically, economically, and militarily after the cease-fire and intervened both visibly and invisibly in Kore- an affairs at critical junctures in its modern history, including the April Revolution (1960) and the military coup of May 16 (1961); the end of President Park Chung-hee’s Yusin regime (1979) and the short-lived Seoul Spring (1980); the December 12 coup (1979) and the Gwangju massacre of May (1980); the June 10 Struggle for Democracy and June 29 Declaration (1987); and the IMF financial cri- sis (1997).2 More recently, as the North Korean nuclear crisis has brought the Korean peninsula to the verge of war several times, the U.S. wields an almost free hand over the destiny of the Korean peo- ple. In a word, the progression of modern history of Korea has been continuously constrained by American influence. Rarely have Kore- ans voiced their opinions to the U.S. Korea has had to be attentive to the policy lines of the U.S. government, and Korean leaders have begged their people for restraint and silence in all spheres, including politics, economy and society. So indeed, as Lacan said, the dis- course of the subject is always the discourse of the Other, and desire is always the desire of the Other. II Dialectics between the ideal ego and the ego-ideal and between imag- inary identification and symbolic identification are deployed under 2. For a well-organized study of the incidents, see Kang (2000a, 53-77, 145-180; 2000b). 202 KOREA JOURNAL / SPRING 2004 the domination of the former by the latter. Therefore, the identity for- mation of the subject or identification is always carried out under the gaze of the Other.3 Being subject to the gaze of the Other means that an individual or group takes the point of view of the Other and then internalizes the way the Other looks at that individual or group. Thus, the way Korea looks at the U.S. as a model country and the way the U.S. in the Real looks at Korea are not symmetrical by any means. Moreover, a gaze is not an ideal image, but only a small frag- ment of the Real, or a real void in the Symbolic, in the Lacanian sense. Gaze does not respond to one’s desire, and if confronted, threatens one’s survival as a subject, because one is degraded and reduced to the object of the gaze. Said’s discussion of Orientalism has many implications in this regard. According to Said, Orientalism, the Western European view of and discourse on the East, refers to the way European Christianity, for the purpose of setting up its own identity, created the East as the Other, imposed a rule upon the East, and took the control of the East. It is a long-established system of accumulating and reproducing knowledge. In this system, the East cannot exist, nor can it speak for itself; it only speaks from the perspective of the West. The U.S. has adopted this viewpoint with regard to Islam and the rest of Asia. With its imperial hegemony in the twentieth century, the U.S. has created a similar kind of discipline in the name of regional studies, while the United Kingdom and France did through bibliographical study during the nineteenth century.4 This approach was vital to the U.S. because without a feudal history and tradition it had to “confirm its identity by regarding the external world and its enemies as the other and negating it.”5 This tradition has been stronger perhaps in the U.S. than in any other country. The gaze of the Other that observes, examines, and imposes itself on its others is cruel. It classi- 3. For a detailed description, see Joo (2003, 59-96). 4. On the United States, see Section 3, Chapter 4 of Said (1991). The translator’s long, poignant postscript lets us think about the contemporary Korean society more deeply (see Said 1991, 525-587). 5. Kwon (2003, 27-28). Under the Gaze of the American Other 203 fies and controls its objects of observation and forces them to inter- nalize its perspective. The subject, in relation to the Other, is the product of this process (subjectification as subordination). Fanon, who has greatly influenced Said, argues that Africans are stripped of their individuality and fixed as a “fossilized” race of the Black under the gaze of white people, which is “the only existing eyes looking at them in reality.”6 How different are Koreans from Africans in their relationship to the U.S.? And what is nature of the national modern- ization for the sake of which Koreans have exerted such in the last thirty to forty years? Modernization theory takes the U.S. as its model and believes that modernization, industrialization, and Westerniza- tion are one and the same. It regards the ambiguous concept of tradi- tion as an obstacle to development and something that must be over- come.