Why South Korea is Unfit for Freedom
Courtesy of Katelyn Cui
By JINMIN LEE ‘26
On Friday, April 28, South Korea’s President Yoon Suk Yeol gave a speech at the Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government after his visit to the White House a few days prior. There, Yoon and President Biden discussed plans for improving South Korea-U.S. relations; most importantly, they agreed that both countries would become stronger allies in their joint quest to solve the North Korean denuclearization issue. In his speech at Harvard, which I was very lucky to attend, President Yoon declared the importance of liberty in modern society. He stated that freedom must be protected and stressed its global importance. Yoon also discussed how the U.S. was the trailblazer in establishing and protecting freedom and strongly implied that other countries should emulate its emphasis on free will. However, as a South Korean, I found myself questioning whether imposing more freedom in South Korean society would actually work. South Korea’s radically meritocratic system and seemingly perpetually stressed citizens are both not indicators of strong liberty. In order to embrace freedom, both issues need to be addressed first.
If quasi-idealistic meritocracy could ever be portrayed by one single nation, South Korea would easily come to people’s minds. Although this radical form of meritocracy has driven Korea’s economy in the last 70 years, it will not permit the spread of liberty. South Korea’s meritocracy lies in many of its systems, but most notably in its education. In South Korea, most children have the exact same objective: get good grades on tests and thus go to one of its top three colleges: Seoul National University, Yonsei University, or Korea University. Each university accepts around 4000 students, and competition thus inflames. So, with the same goal, almost every single student studies for hours and hours a day. The “official school day” ends around 1 p.m., but students can be found going to extracurricular academies, Hakwons, to study until 10 p.m.. One could argue that this system is not a “true meritocracy” because certain students from wealthier families can afford better Hakwons and be more successful in their studies. However, I would argue that Korea is close to a perfect meritocracy because most students attend the few famous Hakwons, no matter the monetary burden. In fact, most middle-class families are known to use “debt accounts” in their bank accounts to count the amount of money they are indebted to because of the exorbitant spending on Hakwons. Another reason why this system portrays perfect meritocracy is that there is one standardized test that everyone takes for college at the end of high school. In South Korea, students are not necessarily evaluated by colleges for their “character” or “activities” but more on this score alone. The reason why this toxic culture of education exists, however, is not because students want to study and change the world. It is because they want to land a “good job” at a big corporation and the only way to do so is by attending a good college. In such a culture, liberty cannot thrive because people are implicitly bound to competition. Attaining “free will” to pursue personal wills and whims will ultimately achieve nothing because one who rejects meritocracy will be seen as “incompetent” or “lazy” and completely shunned from society. This radical form of meritocracy punishes individuals who do not comply with starvation and public shaming, under the illusion that they are working for themselves. In order for South Korean citizens to experience and embrace actual liberty, they must first be unbridled from this culture.
Coming from this exhaustive version of capitalism, people are perennially stressed from work. The anger generated by this stress leads many to opt for lives of hedonism, irrationality, and depression: all of which clash with freedom. From severe work hours for adults to the pressures of getting good grades for students, the population of Korea is deeply wounded from within. However, interestingly, perfect social order is maintained: theft rates are near zero percent and people leave their mobile phones to reserve seats at restaurants without any worry that they will get stolen. Criminal activity is so low, in fact, that police officers do not possess guns. This peacefulness is sharply contrasted, nevertheless, by how Koreans act in private. When Koreans know that they are concealed from everyone else in society, they find ways to unleash their stress. Many people opt for blatant hedonism or escapism, often drinking in their free time. Schools also have a major issue with smoking and drinking. Other ways that this stress manifests is through school bullying, sexual assault, and domestic violence. Once most Koreans realize that their crimes may go unnoticed, they have no qualms about committing them. This is why South Korea is notorious for having a cyberbullying issue too. For instance, the flooding of hate comments prompts many celebrities to commit suicide every year. The only thing that prevents Koreans from committing such actions in public is the implicit social order that is firmly established in Korean culture. There is a strong emphasis on “not bothering others” or “being loud and disruptive in public.” My concern about granting powerful liberty to Korean citizens in the status quo is that it might undo the social order and allow people to easily bring their trapped anger into the public; crime rates and even worse forms of hedonism could exponentially rise. Of course, this does not mean that the current issues happening in private should not be ignored, but I believe that current society is prepared to embrace a culture of freedom as social order prevents egregious actions.
I agree with President Yoon that we must approach liberty; people who are free are often happier and more ambitious, by their own will, to make positive changes in society. Liberty is often credited to have brought such success to the United States. However, liberty itself has its own precursors that must be fulfilled before it can be obtained. In Korea, the culture of radical meritocracy circumscribes the benefits of liberty. As for the ubiquitous stress of the individuals, liberty might actually undo the social order that currently protects individuals from the wrath of others. In order for liberty to be attained in Korea, these two issues must be addressed first.
