Racism in the global era: Analysis of Korean media discourse around migrants,1990

Abstract

Racism has taken on subtle forms that are hard to notice unless given careful attention. In the era of globalization, interpreting racism becomes more complicated in that globalization intensifies both racist and anti-racist reactions. This article examines how racism in the global age has evolved into a subtler form. Using both frame analysis and critical discourse analysis, I examine the Korean media’s discourse around migrants in the past two decades (1990–2009). Findings show that the dominant attitude taken by the Korean media toward migrants has been positive, which is counter-intuitive considering Korea’s notorious ethnocentrism. However, a critical discursive approach reveals that these positive discourses have a variety of effects: they ironically ‘victimize’ and ‘objectify’ migrants, overlook the question of how to empower migrants, and reveal misunderstandings over what it means to embrace diversity. I conclude that in Korea, where the tension between globalization and nationalism is intense, racial prejudice becomes more disguised under the cliché of political correctness, such as the rhetoric of multiculturalism and diversity.

Keywords

Critical discourse analysis globalization media racism South Korea

Introduction

Racism evolves. In the contemporary world, blatant forms of racism, such as physical and verbal abuse against ethnic minorities, are disappearing. Instead, racism has taken on subtle forms that are hard to notice unless given careful attention. This latent nature of racism has been variously termed ‘symbolic racism’ (Kinder and Sears, 1981; Sears, 1988), ‘everyday racism’ (Essed, 1991), ‘modern racism’ (McConahay, 1983), ‘laissez-faire racism’ (Bobo and Smith, 1998), and so on – names which are often subsumed under the general term ‘new racism’ (Barker, 1981). These studies find that the new racism overshadows the effects of racism with race-neutral – if not negative – language and behavior toward ethnic minorities.

While the theoretical and methodological details of the new racism thesis came under criticism (see e.g. Sneiderman et al., 1991), its overall point – that interpreting racism has become more complicated than it may appear – warrants attention. In the era of globalization, this complicated aspect of racism is further intensified. On the one hand, a strengthened global norm of racial equality inspires more people to care about racial discrimination. Neoliberalism embedded in globalization projects a post-racist world of freedom and opportunity. However, this by no means signals the ‘end of racism’ (D’Souza, 1996). Barlow (2003) notes that as globalization proceeds, the increased mobility of human beings intensifies racist reactions, while at the same time revitalizing anti-racist movements through the diffusion of global norms. These mixed effects of globalization hint at the notion that racism will increase, but will do so in a more subtly nuanced manner. As Macedo and Gounari (2006) claim, globalization ‘supposedly invites everybody to drink from a fountain of equal opportunity, [but] ignores the lines of … race’ (p. 13), thereby ‘unleashing new racism’ (p. 3).

This article examines how racism in the global age has evolved into subtler forms, which mobilize not only race-neutral but even positive language toward ethnic minorities. Specifically, I analyze the media discourse around migrants in South Korea (henceforth Korea), which has recently emerged as a new destination for the migration rush from poorer Asian countries. Given the fact that Korea is a rare case of a mono-ethnic society that has long maintained strong ethnic nationalism (Shin, 2006), it is considered one of the least likely countries to welcome ethnic diversity into society. However, this study reveals that the Korean media’s discourse on migrants has been overwhelmingly positive. Even the conservative media, which is anti-immigrant by nature, mostly sympathizes with the migrants. This counter-intuitive phenomenon calls for an explanation.

By analyzing 20 years’ worth (1990–2009) of editorials and columns from two Korean newspapers, I show that positive discourses ironically reproduce negative images of migrants by ‘victimizing’ and ‘objectifying’ migrants, avoiding discussions about how to improve migrants’ status, and revealing misunderstandings of what it means to embrace diversity. I use both frame analysis and discourse analysis, which elucidates the gap between macro- and micro-patterns of racism represented in the media. From the findings, I conclude that in Korea, where the tension between two political forces – globalization and nationalism – is dramatic, and where accordingly public attitudes toward migrants are driven in opposite directions, racial prejudice becomes more disguised under the cliché of political correctness, such as the rhetoric of multiculturalism and diversity.

Background

Korea is one of the few states to maintain ethnic homogeneity. According to the CIA World Factbook, among 267 world entities, only Iceland, Portugal, and Korea (North and South) are described as ethnically ‘homogeneous’.¹ Indeed, Koreans have long been afraid of ‘muddying Korean purity’ and their obsession around ‘purity of blood’ has often led to racism and xenophobia (Han and Han, 2007; Kim, 2008; Seol, 2007). For example, in 2003, an actress who is half Korean and half Hispanic-American ‘confessed’ in a press conference that she was not ‘pure’ Korean. Since her debut, the Korean media had repeatedly raised a ‘doubt’ (ŭihok) that she might be ‘mixed-blooded’ (honhyŏl) because of her outward appearance, but she consistently denied it. In the conference, she shed endless tears, saying ‘I apologize that I lied, but I was afraid of negative prejudice against the mixed-blooded people’ (Yang, 2003). This anecdote encapsulates how the notion of ethnic purity generated racial discrimination in Korea.

Affected by strong ethnic nationalism, Korean society did not allow immigration throughout most of the modern period. Rather, it has been a net sender of international migrants, which consequently created a huge diaspora worldwide of over seven million people as of 2010. Due to rapid economic growth and a continued labor shortage in small-scale industries, the Korean government started to import migrant workers in the early 1990s. Rapid industrialization had also brought about an increase in the number of (mostly female) marriage immigrants. The expansion of light assembly in the 1970s that intensely utilized female labor stimulated a massive internal migration of women from rural to urban areas. Against this backdrop, rural men, who could not find native-born brides, married immigrant women mostly from poorer countries. As of 2010, the total number of resident foreigners – including 557,941 migrant workers and 141,654 marriage migrants – accounted for 2.6% of the whole population.

As the number of international migrants increased, they started to appear in the mass media, and Korean scholars have paid attention to how they are portrayed (Baek, 2006; Han, 2003; Lee D, 2006; Lee K, 2006; Ryu, 2002). D Lee (2006) finds that Korean TV programs ignore the cultural identity of female immigrants and treat them merely as a subject of assimilation. Ryu (2002) also notes that the Korean media reproduces the anti-migrant conservative viewpoints of the social majority, ignoring human rights issues. Han (2003) finds that migrant workers are depicted in the Korean media as ‘slaves’, as ‘the lowest class’, or even as ‘something filthy and polluted’ that should be ostracized from society.

These results are in line with Western scholars’ findings that the mass media tends to promote, rather than challenge, racial prejudices. Earlier studies on media discourse regarding racism found that the media perpetuated or even reinforced negative stereotypes of ethnic minorities (Braham, 1982; Gordon and Rosenberg, 1989; Hartmann and Husband, 1974). Also, a growing number of recent studies show how the media builds a consensus against the settlement of immigrants into the host society (Teo, 2000; Ter Wal, 1996; Tsuda, 2003). Scholars from the critical discourse analysis school point out the covert characteristics of racism reflected in the media discussion on immigrants. Most notably, Van Dijk (1987, 1991, 1992, 1994, 2000) has focused specifically on the reproduction, communication, and maintenance of racism in Western democracies. He argues that to disentangle the racism encoded in news reports, we should study not only the contents but also the complex structures and strategies – and their relations to the social context as well.

From these works, I can infer that, at least in terms of race and ethnic issues, the media tends to play the role of a servant – not a watchdog – of the dominant ideologies of elite groups. While these studies provide insights into how the media frames the issues of migrants, they are not without limitations. Existing studies in many cases focus on a specific event that created national and international headlines, such as the British riots in 1985 (Van Dijk, 1989), the Balkan conflict in 1997 (Khosravinik, 2009), the French riots in 2005 (Snow et al., 2007), the Australian riots in 2004 and 2005 (Simmons and Lecouteur, 2008), and so on. In times of racial conflict, negative images of ethnic minorities tend to be overrepresented, and thus research solely of these events may produce biased outcomes.

My study attempts to overcome this limitation by integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches with the data covering two decades. First, my dataset covers the media discourse not only in times of conflict, but also in ordinary times, which gives us a more balanced understanding of changes over time in media attitudes toward migrants. Also, my dataset quantifies the tone and frames presented in the media discourse on migrants, which enables us to see at a glance what discursive patterns have been dominant. While quantitative research can tap into large-scale features of social life, it is relatively less effective at addressing small-scale features. To complement the macro-nature of quantitative analysis, I also qualitatively analyze the contents of media discourse from a critical discursive perspective. Employing both quantitative and qualitative methods may bridge, or at least clarify, the macro–micro gulf.

Data

Source

Since the Korean news media is sharply divided according to ideological leanings, examining a particular Korean media outlet may reflect only one side of a given issue (Shin, 2010). Thus, I selected the Chosun Daily (henceforth CSN) and the Hankyeoreh Daily (henceforth HKR) as representations of conservative and progressive views, respectively. CSN is the most widely circulated newspaper in Korea, boasting 1.8 million copies daily as of 2010, and HKR is considered the most influential progressive newspaper. Analyses of newspapers at both ends of the ideological spectrum enable us to see the influence of the media’s ideological orientation on the portrayal of migrants.

Sampling criteria

Using a keyword search, I retrieved 558 unsigned editorials and opinion columns from online archives that covered issues of migrant workers and marriage migrants – the two largest migrant groups in Korea (see the Appendix for the list of keywords). For both substantive and practical reasons, I examine only columns and editorials. First, the data volume becomes unmanageably large if I use news reports. More importantly, since this study explores the media’s active role in framing migrant-related issues, I pay more attention to ‘news as we would like it to be’ (i.e. editorials and columns) than ‘news as it is’ (i.e. news reports) (Braham, 1982). The time span of the dataset is 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2009, which covers the period during which the influx of migrants began and accelerated. Table 1 summarizes the number of articles by type and subject in each newspaper.

Table 1.

Number of articles.

Subject/Type	CSN		HKR		Total
Subject/Type	Freq.	Perc.	Freq.	Perc.	Freq.	Perc.
Migrant workers	147	77.4	304	82.6	451	80.8
Columns	113	59.5	187	50.8	300	53.8
Editorials	34	17.9	117	31.8	151	27.0
Marriage migrants	43	22.6	64	17.4	107	19.2
Columns	35	18.4	43	11.7	78	14.0
Editorials	8	4.2	21	5.7	29	5.2
Total articles	190	100.0	368	100.0	558	100.0

Note: Freq. = Frequency; Perc. = Percentage.

Data validity

As one way to assess the validity of the data, I investigated whether the data corresponds closely to the actual patterns in which well-known events have occurred. In particular, there are two major events that I expected would have generated a large volume of media coverage: the introduction of the Employment Permit System (EPS) in 2003, and Hines Ward’s visit to Korea in 2006. First, the EPS, which was enacted in 2003 and took effect in 2004, sparked heated debates. The progressives, including migrant support groups, welcomed the system since it was to nullify the existing exploitative guest-worker program. However, the conservatives, including employers’ associations, opposed it, claiming that the new system would bring the decline of the Korean economy.

Second, Hines Ward, a half-Korean and half-African American football player, visited Korea in 2006 after he was named Most Valuable Player (MVP) in Super Bowl XL. His success story ignited a media frenzy of transplanted national pride, and also highlighted the deep-rooted problems that mixed-race Koreans confront in racially homogenous Korean society. Within a month of his visit, then president Roh Moo Hyun, who also invited Ward to a welcoming luncheon, declared that ‘the trend toward a multicultural society is irresistible’, and thus ‘it is time to adopt multicultural policies’. Since then, a series of governmental support measures for migrants have been announced. Korean scholars generally see Ward’s visit as a critical watershed that marked the beginning of the government-backed multiculturalism drive (Kim, 2010).

Figure 1 shows the yearly count of editorials and columns during the study period. Overall, the two events appear to be well represented in the data. The peak in 2003 is related to the EPS, and the peak in 2007 is related to the government’s drive toward multiculturalism. One additional point to note is the fall in 1998. In late 1997, the Korean economy was hit hard by a financial crisis. A large number of migrant workers lost their jobs without being properly paid. However, their misfortune rarely drew media attention because the massive unemployment of domestic workers was in more urgent need of care. At that time, not only migrant issues but also many other issues were underrepresented.

Figure 1.

Number of editorials and columns concerning migrants (1990–2009).

Methods

Frame analysis

Frame analysis is a multi-disciplinary social science research method used to analyze how people interpret situations and activities. The concept is generally attributed to the work of Erving Goffman and his 1974 book Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Goffman defines a frame as a ‘schemata of interpretation’ that allows individuals or groups ‘to locate, perceive, identify, and label’ events and occurrences, thus rendering meaning, organizing experiences, and guiding actions (1974: 21). Framing effects occur when different presentations of an issue generate different reactions among those who are exposed to that issue. Therefore, communicators act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted in a particular manner by others (Kuypers, 2009).

For the frame analysis, I first analyze the tone of the media discourse on migrants, which roughly ‘sketches’ how migrants’ issues are viewed in Korea. I coded each article’s attitude toward migrants as positive, negative, mixed, or neutral. A positive (or negative) attitude is defined as the support for (or concern about) the integration of migrants and the expansion of their rights (respectively). ‘Mixed-tone’ is assigned to articles expressing both positive and negative attitudes, and ‘neutral’ to those articles simply mentioning migrants but adding no opinion. I also analyze each article’s diagnostic and prognostic framing strategies (Snow and Benford, 1988). Diagnostic framing identifies what the problem is and who is blamed for it. Prognostic framing suggests ways to solve the problem.

Critical discourse analysis

While frame analysis helps identify the overall patterns of how a social phenomenon is interpreted in a given society, it is relatively less well suited to discovering why a particular interpretation is produced. To complement this shortcoming, I use a critical discursive approach, focusing on the role of discourse in the construction, consolidation, and reproduction of the reality (Fairclough, 1992, 1995; Van Dijk, 1993, 1996). Critical discourse analysts have paid attention not only to discourse itself, but also to the larger social context, such as the power structures and ideological struggles that produce such discourse (Blommaert, 2005; Fairclough, 1992; Van Dijk, 1993; Wodak, 1989). They attempt to unpack the ideological underpinnings of discourse that have become so deeply embedded in social institutions and the (un-)consciousness of individuals that they are taken for granted as natural features of discourse (Fairclough, 1989; Teo, 2000). Adopting this ‘critical’ perspective would enable us to ‘make clear social determinations and effects of discourse which are characteristically opaque to participants’ (Fairclough, 1985).

In this study, I explore how positive discourses that have been commonly accepted as legitimate justifications for pro-immigrant claims in fact obfuscate the reality of the subtle, subversive, and often hidden forms that racism takes. I focus my analysis on the following argumentative strategies that lie behind positive (or at least seemingly positive) discourse: (1) victimizing migrants by portraying them as helpless, (2) objectifying migrants by suggesting they are easily manipulated, (3) avoiding concrete discussion of how to empower migrants, and (4) using positive rhetoric (such as that of globalization, multiculturalism, diversity) with contradictory implications. Unfortunately, a detailed discourse analysis of 558 editorials and columns is beyond the scope of this article. Instead, I use a selection of excerpts and investigate how various linguistic and rhetorical features – such as lexical choices, metaphors, agency, and attribution, etc. – are mobilized to implement the aforementioned argumentative strategies. In the following section, I will present the results of frame analysis and discourse analysis in a way that elucidates the contrast between discourse ‘on the surface’ (i.e. macro-level frames and tones) and discourse ‘beneath the surface’ (i.e. micro-level discursive features).

Results

Discourse ‘on the surface’

Predominantly positive in tone

The most notable finding from the frame analysis is that, overall, the Korean media depicts migrants in a positive manner. Table 2 shows that 413 out of 558 (74%) articles were favorable toward migrants. Only a small number of articles (31 out of 558, or 5.6%) were negative. Even CSN, which is often criticized as ‘ultra-conservative’ or ‘extremely right-wing’ among the younger generation, posted many more positive articles than negative ones. This result conflicts with the findings of previous studies that the media contributes to reproducing negative images of migrants. It is also counter-intuitive considering that Korean society has long maintained strong ethnic nationalism.

Table 2.

Article tone by media.

Subject/Tone	CSN		HKR		Total
Subject/Tone	Freq.	Perc.	Freq.	Perc.	Freq.	Perc.
Migrant workers	147	100.0	304	100.0	451	100.0
Positive	82	55.8	244	80.3	326	72.3
Negative	21	14.3	10	3.2	31	6.8
Mixed	13	8.8	13	4.3	26	5.8
Neutral	31	21.1	37	12.2	68	15.1
Marriage migrants	43	100.0	64	100.0	107	100.0
Positive	37	86.1	50	78.1	87	81.3
Negative	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
Mixed	0	0.0	2	3.1	2	1.9
Neutral	6	13.9	12	18.8	18	16.8

Figure 2 shows how the media tone has changed over time. I assigned a score of 1 to positive articles, –1 to negative articles, and 0 to mixed-tone and neutral articles. I calculated the scores and then averaged them out by the yearly count of the articles. In the graph, 1 signifies that all articles are positive in a given year, while –1 signifies that all are negative. Except for the early 1990s, the average tone was always on the positive side. Interestingly, negative viewpoints in the earlier days came from the progressive media, not the conservative media. In the early 1990s, HKR articles were mostly unfavorable toward migrant workers, who they viewed as a threat to the job security of domestic workers.

Figure 2.

Average media tone toward migrants (1990–2009).

Another interesting finding is the ideological divide in attitudes toward migrants. Table 3 captures the different attitudes toward migrant workers and marriage migrants and shows how this difference varies according to the media. CSN is less positive toward migrants than HKR (0.52 versus 0.77). While HKR was consistent in its attitudes toward the two migrant groups (0.77 for migrant workers and 0.78 for marriage migrants), CSN clearly showed a difference (0.41 for migrant workers and 0.86 for marriage migrants). It is interesting that the conservative media was even more positive toward marriage migrants than the progressive media was. This result suggests that a social consensus exists with respect to the attitudes that are considered proper and sensible toward migrants: social pressure might prevent even the conservatives from expressing negative sentiment toward migrants.

Table 3.

Average media tone toward migrant groups by media.

Subject	CSN	HKR	Total
Migrant workers	0.41	0.77	0.66
Marriage migrants	0.86	0.78	0.81
Total	0.52	0.77	0.68

Discourse ‘beneath the surface’

In the previous section, a broad overview of the Korean media’s attitude toward migrants revealed that the editorials and columns under analysis have been mostly favorable toward migrants. What follows is a more detailed discourse analysis of how these positive discourses are constructed. Editorials and columns (that were coded as) showing positive attitudes toward migrants are generally structured in three parts. First, authors diagnose what the problem is (e.g. ‘Foreign laborers are working in dehumanizing conditions’). Second, they justify why we should care about migrants (‘Foreign laborers contribute to Korea’s national economy’). Finally, they suggest solutions for the problem identified (‘The Korean government should take measures to enhance foreign laborers’ working conditions’). On the surface, this argumentative structure seems to flawlessly deliver positive messages about migrants. However, these positive articles, intentionally or unintentionally, reaffirm negative prejudices against migrants in the following ways.

Negative stereotyping I: Portraying migrants as helpless victims

Each article provides reasons for its attitudes toward migrants. As seen in Table 4, the most frequently cited reason for positive attitudes is ‘sympathy’. This sympathetic discourse describes migrants as victims of racism, discrimination, physical/verbal violence, etc. Migrants are portrayed as being ‘wounded, raped, exploited, and even killed’ in Korean society (HKR, 28 June 2000) – significantly, they are mostly described in the passive voice. These articles tend to use emotionally charged language, criticizing Korean society as ‘ugly’, ‘shameful’, and ‘inhumane’, while portraying migrants as ‘poor’ and ‘miserable’. To further awaken readers’ sympathies, they provide detailed information on how harshly migrants are treated. For example:

He [a Nepalese migrant worker] went back home with his body and soul completely destroyed. During the four years he stayed in Korea, he was haunted by the label ‘illegal’, and his finger was cut off in an industrial accident … A few days ago, there was also a media report that a Nepalese woman was mistakenly locked up in a mental hospital for six years. The police and the hospital explained that they misunderstood her as being mentally ill because her Korean language was strange and slow, which does not make sense at all. (CSN, 6 April 2000)

Last July, Huan Mai, a 19-year-old Vietnamese bride, was found as a cold corpse in her small room. Her 18 rib bones were broken. The culprit was her 46-year-old Korean husband. They got married on the first day they were introduced to each other by a broker agency in 2006. She came to Korea dreaming of a happy family life but her dream was soon shattered. Her husband was a drunkard, and regularly beat her. She couldn’t communicate with him. She decided to go back home but her husband, thinking that he was fake-married, beat her to death. (CSN, 14 March 2008)

Table 4.

Positive attitude by reasons.

Reasons	Migrant workers		Marriage migrants		Total
Reasons	Freq.	Perc.	Freq.	Perc.	Freq.	Perc.
Sympathy	324	92.0	82	92.1	406	92.1
Economic contribution	80	22.7	2	2.2	82	18.6
National image	46	13.1	12	13.5	58	13.2
Co-ethnicity	19	5.4	1	1.1	20	4.5
Demographic contribution	14	4.0	12	13.5	26	5.9
Other	5	1.4	1	1.1	6	1.4
Total positive articles	352	100.0	89	100.0	441	100.0

Whether in reality migrants are more victimized than natives is controversial. On the one hand, a study shows that migrant workers are more likely to experience industrial accidents than are domestic workers (Lee et al., 2008). On the other hand, despite the extensive media coverage of domestic violence in international marriages, a national survey shows that female marriage migrants experience such violence less than native-born women (Korean Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (KMOGEF), 2010). Commentators raise concerns that the media’s consistent portrayal of migrants as victims produces negative stereotypes of them. According to one column: ‘Female marriage migrants are in many cases portrayed as passive victims … and Korean husbands are as violent perpetrators … This viewpoint creates an image of marriage migrants as “inferior others”’ (HKR, 20 February 2007).

While the victimization rhetoric helps migrants call for collective action in terms of the rights they have been denied, this framing strategy has the unintended consequence of keeping migrants in the mode of victim and preventing them from growing to a place of empowerment. The ‘victim schema model’, developed by Rosen et al. (2007), suggests that those with victimization experiences implicitly associate themselves with being a victim in times of conflict, thereby developing a ‘victim schema’. This negative self-understanding impedes their ability to effectively handle conflict, which puts them at greater risk of victimization. Commentators thus claim that the victimization perspective should be replaced by an empowerment perspective, which casts migrants not as victims but as possible agents of change (Borak, 2005; Briones, 2009; Courville and Piper, 2004; Ertürk, 2008).

Negative stereotyping II: Portraying migrants as manipulable objects

Unlike the ‘sympathy’ rhetoric, other reasons, such as migrants’ economic and demographic contributions, are more specific justifications for the positive attitudes in the media. The language used is more logical than emotional, and the focus is on how migrants contribute to Korean society rather than on how they are victimized by it. Typical examples are: ‘We [Koreans] should be thankful to migrant workers for taking up the hard jobs that Koreans avoid’ (CSN, 20 November 2003); ‘Ethnic Koreans from China are mostly the descendants of independent movement activists during Japanese colonial rule. We should respect their contribution to Korean history by treating their descendants nicely’ (HKR, 13 March 2000); ‘Korean women avoid marrying rural Korean men; foreign brides are filling this demographic gap’ (CSN, 16 April 2007).

While these articles emphasize migrants’ positive influence on Korean society, they tend to describe migrants as commodities that are mobilized to maximize Korea’s national interests. Migrants are ‘imported’, ‘brought’, and ‘bought’ to meet various national demands – this is the common language used to describe the influx of migrants. One column claims that ‘importing migrant workers is not a matter of choice but a must to handle the population decline’ (CSN, 10 August 2007, emphasis added). Another column opines: ‘We [Koreans] should stop buying foreign brides’ (CSN, 18 June 2007, emphasis added). Marriage migrants are even called ‘imported brides’ (CSN, 28 June 2005, emphasis added). These expressions imply that migrants are allowed to stay in Korea because Korean society needs them to serve a function, not because migrants have the right to freely move and choose a place to stay.

This objectification of migrants is also found in patterns of how migrant issues are problematized. In Table 5, one interesting finding is that almost all the frames attribute the problem to Koreans (government, employers, brokers, etc.), not to migrants: only four columns criticize migrants for asking for too many benefits from the government, or for disrupting the social order. Even anti-immigrant frames, which are supposed to blame migrants for the troubles they (are believed to) make, do not directly criticize migrants, but rather, the Korean government and employers that do not do enough to regulate migrants. Migrants are described as, at most, ‘becoming’ or ‘leading to’ problems – not ‘causing’ problems, which implicitly underestimates their agency. For example:

The Korean government recently announced that it would adopt the Employment Permit System to decrease the number of illegal migrants, meet the labor demand from industry, and protect the human rights of migrant workers. However, adopting the EPS will not solve the current problems. Rather, it will impose greater financial burdens on small firms thereby decreasing their economic competitiveness. Also, migrant workers might bring their families and permanently settle down in Korea, which leads to social burdens as well. (CSN, 8 February 2003)

Table 5.

Diagnostic frames and problem attribution.

Diagnostic frames (problem attribution)	Migrant workers		Marriage migrants		Total
Diagnostic frames (problem attribution)	Freq.	Perc.	Freq.	Perc.	Freq.	Perc.
Violence (employers/husbands)	49	10.9	20	18.7	69	12.4
Racism/nationalism (society as a whole)	109	24.2	47	43.9	156	28.0
Poor working conditions (employers)	117	25.9	0	0.0	117	21.0
Violent raids and deportation (gov’t)	61	13.5	0	0.0	61	10.9
Recruiting fraud (brokers)	16	3.5	0	0.0	16	2.9
Inhumane couple-matching practices (brokers)	0	0.0	24	22.4	24	4.3
Imperfect crackdown on illegal migrants (gov’t)	10	2.2	0	0.0	10	1.8
Employment of migrants (employers)	35	7.8	0	0.0	35	6.3
Being too generous to migrant workers (gov’t)	10	2.2	0	0.0	10	1.8
No consideration for small businesses (gov’t)	6	1.3	0	0.0	6	1.1
Crime and social disruption (migrants)	2	0.4	0	0.0	2	0.4
Asking for too much (migrants)	2	0.4	0	0.0	2	0.4
Other	44	9.8	16	15.0	60	10.8
No criticism mentioned	130	28.8	32	29.9	162	29.0
Total number of articles	451	100.0	107	100.0	558	100.0

Note: While the types of criticism that appeared in less than five articles were categorized into ‘Other’, I included these two modes of criticism in the table to show that the number of articles that directly criticize migrants is small.

While this column portrays migrants as a burden on society, the criticism is mostly leveled against the Korean government that would adopt the EPS, which the author believes is far too generous to migrant workers and jeopardizes small businesses. The problem is attributed not to their specific actions, but simply to their presence itself or to institutions that allow their presence.

These discourses of migrants as a resource and as a burden marginalize and objectify them as ‘others’ that can be managed for the national interest (Cohen, 1994; Kearney, 1997; Vélez-Ibáñez, 1996). While migration has existed throughout human history, Menz (2009) notes that today’s immigration phenomenon is distinguished by its ‘managerial, economic, and restrictive’ characteristics, ‘focusing on the potential economic and social contributions by immigrants to the host societies’ (p. 2). This ‘managerial’ discourse constructs migrants as an investment and assesses them in terms of their productivity (Tsirogianni and Andreouli, 2011). It does not recognize the migrants’ perspective, but instead categorizes them according to a dichotomy: those who can and those who cannot be trusted to contribute to the national interests. This perspective leaves little room for the social recognition or agency of migrants.

Avoiding concrete discussion on how to empower migrants

Another interesting aspect of the positive discourses around migrants is that they use more abstract than concrete terms in discussing how to solve problems. For the analysis, I categorized solutions into cultural or institutional suggestions. Cultural suggestions mainly address individuals’ mindset, ideology, and attitudes, while institutional suggestions more often engage with government policy and legal issues. Cultural suggestions tend to be more abstract, general, and longer-term solutions than institutional ones (Snow et al., 2007).

As seen in Table 6, cultural suggestions are predominantly more common than institutional ones, meaning that media discourses rely on individual efforts rather than government-led initiatives in addressing migrant issues. ‘Treating migrants kindly’, the most frequent suggestion, is related to the aforementioned ‘sympathy for victims’ rhetoric. The argument goes that Koreans should treat migrants kindly since they are victims. These articles, however, do not provide specific suggestions on what should be done to treat them kindly. For example:

All the migrant workers that I encountered at the Seoul World Cup Stadium said that they supported the Korean national soccer team. Behind this unanimous answer lies their anxiety as foreigners who always felt alienated … Considering how poorly and coldly migrant workers have been treated, their love for our country [Korea] makes me feel ashamed … We [Koreans] should warmly embrace these migrant workers. Zinedine Zidane, who led France to World Cup glory in 1998, is himself the son of an Algerian migrant worker. (HKR, 12 June 2002)

Table 6.

Prognostic frames.

Prognostic frames	Migrant workers		Marriage migrants		Total
Prognostic frames	Freq.	Perc.	Freq.	Perc.	Freq.	Perc.
Cultural suggestion	290	64.3	81	75.7	371	66.5
Treat migrants kindly (w/ no other suggestion)	174	38.6	12	11.2	186	33.3
Break down racism/nationalism	54	12.0	32	29.9	86	15.4
Embrace cultural diversity	10	2.2	24	22.4	34	6.1
Help migrants’ adaptation to Korea	4	0.9	23	21.5	27	4.8
Be generous to co-ethnic Koreans	13	2.9	1	1.0	14	2.5
Do not hire migrants	12	2.7	0	0.0	12	2.2
Other	2	0.4	0	0.0	2	0.4
Institutional suggestion	117	25.9	25	23.4	142	25.4
Take legal measures (w/ no other suggestion)	21	4.7	11	10.3	32	5.7
Abolish the ITS	30	6.7	0	0.0	30	5.4
Introduce the EPS	25	5.5	0	0.0	25	4.5
Strengthen small firms’ competitiveness	14	3.1	0	0.0	14	2.5
Step up crackdown on illegal migrants	19	4.2	0	0.0	19	3.4
Abolish (don’t allow) the EPS	11	2.4	0	0.0	11	2.0
Tighten control over marriage broker industry	0	0.0	10	9.3	10	1.8
Other	19	4.2	4	3.7	23	4.1
No suggestion	76	16.9	17	15.9	93	16.7
Total number of articles	451	100.0	107	100.0	558	100.0

Note: ITS = International Trainee System; EPS = Employment Permit System.

As seen in the example, ‘warmly embracing migrant workers’ sounds idealized but undeveloped. No further explanations are given. Other cultural suggestions, such as ‘break down racism’ and ‘embrace cultural diversity’, are not specific either: detailed discussions on how are still missing. This is also the case in institutional suggestions. Authors simply say that something should be done on the part of the government, but do not specify what it is. For example:

Migrant workers, who have come to Korea with ‘the Korean Dream’, are returning to their countries with their arms and legs cut off in industrial accidents. This is an ongoing problem and will continue to be until concrete prevention measures are taken. Korea has been criticized for human rights abuses … Migrant workers do the 3D [difficult, dirty, and dangerous] jobs that domestic workers mostly shun, but their average payment is less than one third of domestic workers’. In order to avoid the criticism that Korea is an anti-human rights country, the government should take measures to handle this issue. (HKR, 19 October 1999)

While some editorials and columns mention particular names of policies and suggest specific actions to be taken by the government, these suggestions are mostly to constrain, not liberalize, the inflow of migrants (e.g. ‘don’t allow the EPS’, ‘strengthen small firms’ competitiveness’, or ‘step up crackdown on illegal migrants’). Simply put, anti-immigrant suggestions are detailed and concrete, while pro-immigrant suggestions are abstract.

As Foucault notes in The Archaeology of Knowledge (1972), ‘everything is never said’ (p. 118), and it is thus vital to consider what is not said in order to determine the legitimate boundaries of acceptable utterance. In the same vein, the Korean media do talk about diversity and tolerance, but avoid discussing structural power inequality when talking about race issues. Andersen labels this way of talking about race – avoiding ‘uncomfortable’ topics regarding racism and focusing only on cultural diversity – ‘diversity without oppression’ (1999: 13). Her point implies that analyses based simply on what is reported in the media are likely to produce biased outcomes. On the surface, the media’s discourse may seem to promote social consensus on embracing diversity. However, the fact that specific action plans to implement diversity are rarely discussed reflects the reality that people are indeed afraid of allowing too many rights to migrants.

Misinterpreting positive rhetoric I: Globalization

Globalization is one of the frames most frequently mobilized by the Korean media in discussing migrant-related issues. By my definition, an article uses globalization rhetoric if it mentions (1) the term ‘globalization’ (segyehwa), (2) how the global community is responding to Korea’s current immigration situation, and (3) international conventions regarding migrants’ rights. In the research, 135 out of 558 (24.2%) editorials and columns used this framing strategy to justify their positive attitudes toward migrants. The argument generally goes that granting migrants more rights is a global trend; to avoid criticism from the global community, Korean society should break down racism and adopt migrants. One editorial notes that ‘if Korea does not break down the myth of mono-ethnicity, it will be branded as a racist country and be ostracized from the global community’ (CSN, 20 May 2003).

While this rhetoric seems to reflect the widely held view that globalization affects the way in which nation-states control immigration, the core idea behind this rhetoric is ironically motivated by a nationalist concern that, by not conforming to global norms, the nation may harm its own interests. According to this logic, treating migrants well (or badly) enhances (or tarnishes) national images of Korea in the global community, which in turn affects national interests. For example:

Migrant workers are complaining that they have been exploited by the Korean government and kicked out of the country when they became of no use … To have a bad reputation in the global community will negatively affect the national economy in the long run. Thus, if the government fails to take proper measures to address the sufferings of migrant workers, it will eventually harm national interests as well. (HKR, 27 November 2003)

As of 2001, Korea is the 13th largest economy in the world. Korea is a country that has survived through international trade. From this global economic perspective, Korean society should be more open [toward foreigners] than any other society. However, the reality is actually the opposite. Foreign investors and migrant workers find it very hard to settle down in Korea. It is said that the first Korean words that migrant workers learn are ‘don’t beat me’. This eloquently shows Korea’s current level of globalization … Losing credibility in the global community will lead to a devastating end. Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist, argued that the Suharto regime collapsed because the US doubted Indonesia’s credibility and stopped giving financial aid. The global community might conclude the same about Korea. (CSN, 8 February 2003)

Some articles describe the global community as a profitable ‘market’, and warn that bad images created by cases of human rights violations against migrant workers will potentially harm the national economy. For example:

There are a lot of reported cases of migrant workers who were wounded in dangerous working environments. The Korean government is exploiting their labor forces, paying them less than the minimum wage … It is shameful that these incidents are happening in a developed country like Korea, which targets the world as its market … Needless to say these cases tarnish Korea’s national image … Korea will be ostracized from the global community if it keeps treating migrant workers harshly and looks down upon them simply because they are cheap labor. (HKR, 12 January 2006)

Migrants are even portrayed as potential ‘customers’ who will introduce and buy Korean cultural products in the world market. One editorial states:

We [Koreans] still maintain racially discriminatory viewpoints toward migrant workers, and are indifferent to their human rights. However, they are indeed our valued ‘customers’. When they go back to their home countries … they will introduce our pop-culture products … They will help improve Korea’s national image in the global society … The government, employers, and the society as a whole should take good care of these customers. (HKR, 7 March 2005)

These examples do not necessarily mean that the authors are unconcerned with migrants’ human rights, but they put more emphasis on the reputation of Korea in the global community because it is both directly and indirectly related to national interests (especially in economic terms).

It is ironic that the obsession with global opinion is indeed motivated by nationalist concerns. To understand this contradiction, I need to briefly explain how globalization is conceptualized in Korean society. In fact, the Korean government took the initiative to promote globalization (segyehwa) in the early 1990s with its nationalist intention to enhance Korea’s development in order to reach the most advanced level in the world. In the Korean context, globalization has been ‘a strategic principle, a mobilizing slogan, a hegemonic ideology or a new national-identity badge for a state aspiring to advanced world-class status’ (Kim, 2000). Ironically, the rhetoric of globalization evokes nationalist sentiment for Koreans, ‘calling for national unity in order to survive and gain leadership in the international community’ (Park, 1996). Considering this specific context, it is understandable Korean commentators are so concerned with national images on the global stage. For Koreans, pursuing globalization eventually translates into pursuing national interests – and the portrayal of migrants is not irrelevant to this Korean-specific context.

Misinterpreting positive rhetoric II: Multiculturalism

In the Korean media, multiculturalism has recently emerged as a buzzword that frames migrant-related issues. In the dataset, 63 out of 558 articles (11.3%) mentioned the term ‘multiculture’ (tamunhwa) and its derivatives, such as ‘multicultural society’. Although the absolute number of articles is small, all but one appeared after 2006 when the Korean government officially announced the plan for multicultural policies.

In general, the term multiculturalism is used in three different contexts: multiculturalism as a fact, as a policy, and as a value. First, multiculturalism as a fact refers to the demographic description of a society, indicating the presence of diverse races and ethnicities within a single polity. Second, multiculturalism as a policy refers to government programs that officially endorse cultural diversity in institutional settings. Third, multiculturalism as a value refers to an ideology or a belief system that recognizes not only ethnic diversity, but also the right to preserve cultural diversity (for a summary, see Bloemraad et al., 2008).

I assert that the Korean media has interpreted multiculturalism broadly in four different contexts. First, multiculturalism refers to the ‘multi-ethnic/multi-racial’ element of a society. In this case, the term is used as an adjective modifying a certain demographic situation. The second usage is related to the first one, but is more specific. ‘Multicultural family’ is a legal term that applies to families consisting of one Korean national and a foreign spouse (and their children). This term is widely used in government publications, the media, and everyday discourse.

Third, multiculturalism also refers to government policies on migrants. While a multicultural policy generally means that government programs officially recognize diverse cultures in an institutional setting (such as Canada’s bilingual policy), the Korean media uses it as a broader term that encompasses any policy relevant to migrants. Last, multiculturalism refers to an ideology – followed by individuals or the government – that ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity should be embraced. As summarized in Table 7, multiculturalism is more commonly used as a description for population diversity than as a policy or a value.

Table 7.

Various meanings of multiculturalism in the Korean media.

Meanings	Freq.	Perc.
Multi-ethnicity as a demographic term	38	60.3
Specific type of family	21	33.3
Policy on migrants	10	15.9
Cultural diversity as a value	13	20.6
Total articles mentioning multiculturalism	63	100.0

In fact, multiculturalism is a very loosely defined term in Korea, and the media’s usage reflects this vague conceptualization. The term is frequently used without an explanation of its exact meaning. Moreover, it is often wildly misinterpreted: a notable example of this tendency is the way in which multiculturalism is conflated with migrants’ cultural adaptation. For example:

Multiculturalism implies a two-way communication of different cultures. While personally meeting with foreign brides and their Korean families, I realized that government policies should not stop short of superficial discussions. They [Korean families who live with foreign brides] are globalized in their practical living experiences. We [Koreans] will get one step closer to a multicultural society when Maria [a female marriage migrant mentioned in the text] makes a more aggressive effort to learn about Korea. (CSN, 5 April 2006)

It is evident that in the era of globalization, it is impossible to live only among Koreans. If we [Koreans] want our children to live a peaceful life in this multi-racial, multicultural era, we should teach them how to live with others. One way [to make Korean society a better place to live in for both Koreans and foreigners] is to help migrant workers, female marriage migrants, and their children to adapt well to Korean society. (CSN, 27 March 2007)

While the authors of these two exemplary columns admit that multiculturalism implies the mutual recognition of different cultures, they seem to contradict this by suggesting that efforts should be made on the part of migrants to adapt to Korean society (or Koreans should help them to adapt). In fact, the recommendations for realizing a multicultural society reveal an inconsistent interpretation of multiculturalism. The language used in these suggestions is significant: Koreans should ‘adopt’ and ‘integrate’ migrants into ‘our’ society (and ‘our’ family and neighbors), and Koreans should help their adaptation efforts by providing Korean language and cultural learning programs. An editorial proposes:

[The Korean government] should promote the values of a multicultural society, in which multi-ethnic and multi-racial people live together harmoniously, and also change school curricula accordingly. It would be short-sighted if the government heavily regulates the process of nationality acquisition merely to prevent fraudulent marriages. To adopt foreign brides as our new family members, [the government] should provide them with extensive Korean language courses and allow them various social benefits. We [Koreans] should not leave foreigner brides and their children as strangers for long. (CSN, 28 April 2008)

Furthermore, there is no media discussion on structural issues such as how to empower the migrant voice in institutional settings. Typical debates, such as a discussion on whether multicultural policies will decrease social cohesion, do not exist in the media discourse. Simply knowing about migrants’ traditional culture – such as traditional costumes and food – is regarded as what Koreans should do to adopt multiculturalism. Bell and Hartmann (2007) call this abstract discussion of diversity ‘happy talk’. Their interviews with avoidant supporters of multiculturalism show that in everyday discourse, people talk extensively about diversity but do not provide examples of lived multiculturalism. In an analogous case, the Korean media enjoys talking about multiculturalism and diversity, but knows little about what it takes to become a multicultural and diverse society.

Conclusion and discussions

In this study, I investigated how the Korean media portrayed migrants and framed their issues. Overall, the media articles are predominantly positive toward migrants. Negative perspectives, such as asserting that migrants disrupt social order, are limited to a small number. However, a critical discursive analysis reveals that the positive perspective indeed perpetuates the portrayal of migrants as victims, and marginalizes them as ‘others’ who can be manipulated only for ‘our’ interests. While discourses about global norms and diversity sound politically correct, their meanings are often not discussed and are misunderstood.

These positive but negative, globalist but nationalist, multiculturalist but assimilative discourses attest to Korean society’s ‘decoupled’ response to the immigration phenomenon. ‘Decoupling’ is a concept developed by Meyer and Rowan (1977), describing the creation and maintenance of gaps between symbolically adopted formal policies and actual organizational practices. While this concept was originally invented to explain organizational behaviors, it also has implications for the study of racism in that it fundamentally explores the disjuncture between rhetoric and reality. As I found, sympathetic discourse about migrants lacks any real discussion of how to empower migrants: suggestions are idealized but undeveloped; globalization and multiculturalism are promoted, but from contradictory motives. Conducting both frame analysis and critical discourse analysis elucidates how discourses that seem anti-racist and pro-immigrant at the macro-level are decoupled from racist discourses at the micro-level.

Korea is one of the fastest globalizing countries in the world, especially in economic terms. Only half a century ago, Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world, and yet, as of 2008, it has grown to become the 12th largest exporter and the 10th largest importer.² On the other hand, in political terms, Korea still maintains a strong ethnic nationalism. Most Koreans highly value the ethnic homogeneity of their nation (Shin, 2006). This paradoxical situation is accurately reflected in media discourses around migrants. As globalization proceeds, global norms such as human rights are introduced and gradually affect the way people ‘talk’ about race issues. However, it takes a much longer time to change the way people really ‘think’ about the issues, which creates a gap between how people talk and what people think. The Korean case reveals how this gap works: anti-racism exists as rhetoric in conversations about migrants, while the real perception of migrants still marginalizes them. I do not mean that global norms will never bring about any change in people’s thoughts and actions, but, rather, that the change will come very slowly, almost always lagging behind changes in rhetorical gestures. By this mechanism, racism becomes more subtle and hidden in the era of globalization.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix:

Keywords used for data collection

Migrant workers		Marriage migrants
Korean	English translation	Korean	English translation
외국인노동자	Foreign laborer	결혼이민자	Marriage immigrant
외국인근로자	Foreign worker	결혼이주자	Marriage migrant
이주노동자	Migrant worker	외국인신부	Foreign bride
노동이민	Labor migration	베트남신부	Vietnamese bride^a
산업연수생	Industrial trainee	국제결혼	International marriage
고용허가제	Employment Permit System	이주여성	Migrant women

Note: ^a Since the Vietnamese are a popular ethnic group of marriage migrants in Korea, ‘Vietnamese bride’ (betŭnam sinbu) is often used as a common noun referring to foreign brides in general.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Author biography

Sookyung Kim is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology at Stanford University. Her major research interests focus on the relationship between globalization and nationalism, especially on how immigration impacts on the national identity of South Korea. She is currently completing her dissertation, which examines how Korean society manipulates immigration issues to serve its competing needs of securing national identity, while simultaneously conforming to global norms.

References

Andersen

(1999) Diversity without oppression: Race, ethnicity, identity and power. In: Tai

Kenyatta

(eds) Critical Ethnicity: Countering the Waves of Identity Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 5–20.

Baek

(2006) Hanguk ŏllonŭi sosuja yakcha podo kyŏnghyanggwa sahoemunhwajŏk hamch’uk ŭimi [Korean media’s news reports on minorities and their socio-cultural implications]. In: The annual conference of the Korean Association for Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, Cheju-do, South Korea, 2–3 June.

Barker

(1981) The New Racism. London: Junction Books.

Barlow

(2003) Between Fear and Hope: Globalization and Race in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bell

Hartmann

(2007) Diversity in everyday discourse: The cultural ambiguities and consequences of ‘happy talk’. American Sociological Review 72(6): 895–914.

Bloemraad

Korteweg

Yurdakul

(2008) Citizenship and immigration: Multiculturalism, assimilation, and challenges to the nation-state. Annual Review of Sociology 34: 153–179.

Blommaert

(2005) Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bobo

Smith

(1998) From Jim Crow racism to laissez-faire racism: The transformation of racial attitudes. In: Katkin

Landsman

Tyree

(eds) Beyond Pluralism: The Conception of Groups and Group Identities in America. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 182–220.

Borak

(2005) Women migrant workers: Embracing empowerment over victimization. In: IWPR’s eighth international women’s policy research conference, Washington, DC, USA, 19–21 June.

10.

Braham

(1982) How the media report race. In: Gurevitch

Bennett

Curran

. (eds) Culture, Society, and the Media. London and New York: Methuen, pp. 265–284.

11.

Briones

(2009) Empowering Migrant Women: Why Agency and Rights Are Not Enough. Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

12.

Cohen

(1994) Frontiers of Identity: The British and the Others. London and New York: Longman.

13.

Courville

Piper

(2004) Harnessing hope through NGO activism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 592: 39–61.

14.

D’Souza

(1996) The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society. New York: Free Press.

15.

Ertürk

(2008) Violence against women: From victimization to empowerment. In: Forum on ‘Where is the Power in Women’s Empowerment?’, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, 4 August.

16.

Essed

(1991) Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

17.

Fairclough

(1985) Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 739–763.

18.

Fairclough

(1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.

19.

Fairclough

(1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

20.

Fairclough

(1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: Papers in the Critical Study of Language. New York: Longman.

21.

Foucault

(1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.

22.

Goffman

(1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

23.

Gordon

Rosenberg

(1989) Daily Racism: The Press and Black People in Britain. London: The Runnymede Trust.

24.

Han

(2003) T’ajamandŭlgi: Hanguksahoewa ijunodongjaŭi chaehyŏn [Making other: Representation of foreign migrant workers in Korea]. Pigyomunhwayŏn’gu [Cross-cultural Studies] 9(2): 157–193.

25.

Han

(2007) Hangukchŏk tamunhwa sahoeŭi isanggwa hyŏnsil: Sunhyŏljuŭiwa munmyŏngronjŏk ch’abyŏrŭl nŏmŏ [Ideal and reality of Korean style multicultural society: Beyond pure blood ideology and discrimination]. In: The Korean Sociological Association (ed.) Hangukchŏk Tamunhwajuŭiŭi Ironhwa [Theorizing Multiculturalism of Korean Style]. Seoul, South Korea: Presidential Committee on Northeast Asian Cooperation Initiative, pp. 71–116.

26.

Hartmann

Husband

(1974) Racism and the Mass Media: A Study of the Role of the Mass Media in the Formation of White Beliefs and Attitudes in Britain. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

27.

Kearney

(1997) Borders and boundaries of state and self at the end of empire. In: Altamirano

Hirabayashi

(eds) Migrants, Regional Identities and Latin American Cities. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association, pp. 151–168.

28.

Khosravinik

(2009) The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers during the Balkan conflict (1999) and the British General Election (2005). Discourse & Society 20(4): 477–498.

29.

Kim

(2010) Korean multiculturalism: The genealogy of the concept, shifting meanings, issues and implications. Journal of Asiatic Studies 53(2): 102–129.

30.

Kim

(2008) Kyŏlhonijuyŏsŏnggwa hangugŭi tamunhwa silhŏm: Ch’oegŭn tamuhwadamronŭi sahoehak [Migrant brides and making of a multicultural society: Sociological approach to discourse on ‘multicultural Korea’]. Hanguksahoehak [Korean Journal of Sociology] 42(2): 36–71.

31.

Kim

(2000) South Korea’s globalization drive. Available at: http://www.fathom.com/feature/121551/1615_globalizationss.pdf (accessed 5 March 2012).

32.

Kinder

Sears

(1981) Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40(3): 414–431.

33.

Korean Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (KMOGEF) (2010) 2010nyŏn chŏnguk kajŏngp’ong’nyŏk siltaejosa [National survey on domestic violence]. Available at: http://www.mogef.go.kr/korea/view/news/news03_01.jsp?func=view&;currentPage=48&key_type=&key=&search_start_date=&search_end_date=&class_id=0&idx=609258 (accessed 5 March 2012).

34.

Kuypers

(2009) Framing analysis. In: Kuypers

(ed.) Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action. Lanham, MD: Lexington Press, pp. 181–204.

35.

Lee

(2006) Telebijŏni chaehyŏnhanŭn asia: Urianŭi asia, asia anŭi uri [Korean TV’s imagery of Asia]. Pangsongmunhwayŏn’gu [Broadcasting Culture Research] 18(1): 9–35.

36.

Lee

(2006) Honjongjŏk riŏlliti pŭrograeme p’osŏptoen ‘isanin’ŭi chŏngch’aesŏng: ‘Robŭ in asia’ŭi tekst punsŏk [The ‘diaspora’ identity represented in the hybrid reality program: The textual analysis of ‘Love in Asia’]. Hangukpangsonghakpo [Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies] 20(3): 239–276.

37.

Lee

Kim

(2008) Ijunodongjawa kungnae hanguginnodongjaŭi sanŏpchaehaehyŏnhwang mit t’ŭksŏng pigyo [The status and characteristics of industrial accidents for migrant workers in Korea compared with native workers]. Taehanjigŏphwangyŏng’ŭihakhoe [Korean Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine] 20(4): 351–361.

38.

McConahay

(1983) Modern racism and modern discrimination: The effects of race, racial attitudes, and context on simulated hiring decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 9(4): 551–558.

39.

Macedo

Gounari

(2006) Globalization and the unleashing of new racism: An introduction. In: Macedo

Gounari

(eds) The Globalization of Racism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, pp. 3–35.

40.

Menz

(2009) The Political Economy of Managed Migration: Nonstate Actors, Europeanization and the Politics of Designing Migration Policies. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

41.

Meyer

Rowan

(1977) Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–363.

42.

Park

(1996) Segyehwa: Globalization and nationalism in Korea. Journal of the International Institute 4(1). Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.4750978.0004.105 (accessed 5 March 2012).

43.

Rosen

Milch

Hamilton

(2007) Victims of their own cognitions: Implicit social cognitions, chronic peer victimization, and the victim schema model. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 28(3): 211–226.

44.

Ryu

(2002) Ŏnronbodowa ingwon: Ŏnron soge tŭrŏnan ingwonŭisik [Media reports and human rights: Human rights consciousness represented in the media]. In: The Korea Human Rights Foundation (ed.) Hanbandoŭi Pyŏnghwawa Ingwon [Peace and Human Rights in the Korean Peninsula]. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Human Rights Foundation, pp. 325–349.

45.

Sears

(1988) Symbolic racism. In: Katz

Taylor

(eds) Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy. New York: Plenum, pp. 53–84.

46.

Seol

(2007) Honhyŏrinŭi sahoehak: Hanguginŭi wigyejŏk minjoksŏng [Sociology of the mixed-blooded: Hierarchical nationhood of the Koreans]. Inmunyŏn’guso [Journal of the Humanities] 25: 125–160.

47.

Shin

(2006) Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

48.

Shin

(2010) One Alliance, Two Lenses: US–Korea Relations in a New Era. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

49.

Simmons

Lecouteur

(2008) Modern racism in the media: Constructions of ‘the possibility of change’ in accounts of two Australian ‘riots’. Discourse & Society 19(5): 667–687.

50.

Sneiderman

Brody

Tetlock

(1991) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Snow

Benford

(1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research 1: 197–217.

52.

Snow

Vliegenthart

Corrigall-Brown

(2007) Framing the French riot: A comparative study of frame variation. Social Forces 86(2): 385–415.

53.

Teo

(2000) Racism in the news: A critical discourse analysis of news reporting in two Australian newspapers. Discourse & Society 11(1): 7–49.

54.

Ter Wal

(1996) The social representation of immigrants: The Pantanella issue in the pages of La Pubblica. New Community 22(1): 39–66.

55.

Tsirogianni

Andreouli

(2011) Beyond social cohesion: The role of ‘fusion of horizons’ in inter-group solidarities. Papers on Social Representations 20(5): 5.1–5.25. Available at: http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/PSR2011/20_05.pdf (accessed 5 March 2012).

56.

Tsuda

(2003) Domesticating the immigrant other: Japanese media images of nikkeijin return migration. Ethnology 42(4): 289–305.

57.

Van Dijk

(1987) Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

58.

Van Dijk

(1989) Race, riots, and the press: An analysis of editorials in the British press about the 1985 disorders. Gazette 43: 229–253.

59.

Van Dijk

(1991) Racism and the Press. London: Routledge.

60.

Van Dijk

(1992) Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society 3(1): 87–118.

61.

Van Dijk

(1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2): 249–283.

62.

Van Dijk

(1994) Discourse and cognition in society. In: Crowley

Mitchell

(eds) Communication Theory Today. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 107–126.

63.

Van Dijk

(1996) Discourse, power, and access. In: Caldas-Coulthard

Coulthard

(eds) Texts and Practices: Reading in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 84–104.

64.

Van Dijk

(2000) New(s) racism: A discourse analytical approach. In: Cottle

(ed.) Ethnic Minorities and the Media. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, pp. 33–49.

65.

Vélez-Ibáñez

(1996) Border Visions: Mexican Cultures of the Southwest United States. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.

66.

Wodak

(1989) Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

67.

Yang

(2003) ‘Nanŭn holhyŏra’ kobaekhani holgabunhaeyo [TV actress Lee Yujin confesses, ‘I’m mixed-blooded’]. Munhwa-Ilbo, 29 May, p. 19.

Racism in the global era: Analysis of Korean media discourse around migrants,1990–2009

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background

Data

Source

Sampling criteria

Data validity

Methods

Frame analysis

Critical discourse analysis

Results

Discourse ‘on the surface’

Predominantly positive in tone

Discourse ‘beneath the surface’

Negative stereotyping I: Portraying migrants as helpless victims

Negative stereotyping II: Portraying migrants as manipulable objects

Avoiding concrete discussion on how to empower migrants

Misinterpreting positive rhetoric I: Globalization

Misinterpreting positive rhetoric II: Multiculturalism

Conclusion and discussions

Footnotes

Appendix

Funding

Notes

Author biography

References