다문화주의와 한반도 통일론

Abstract

This article will focus on three main points of the unification theory in the multicultural society era and present policy directions for the unification theory of the Korean Peninsula from a multicultural perspective. There are three points of contention. The first point is the broader definition of unification within the era of multiculturalism. It should be emphasized as a means and process to mutually overcome the various conflicts that have resulted from the division, which will act as an opportunity to restore a new Korean national identity with new members of our society. Second, the main agents on the unification of the Korean Peninsula are expanding, and unification in the era of multiculturalism should be a process that incorporates the participation of multiple agents. Third, the classification of the national community must be reinterpreted. This is attributed to the fact that multiculturalism has evoked a new perspective on a concept that integrates global issues. The implications of multiculturalism under these three main points of contention are as follows. First, it is crucial to acknowledge the necessity of a new cultural identity in preparation for the unification among the diverse members of our society and to increase reciprocal understandings and dialogues among the different cultures. Throughout the process, there must be constant efforts to form a unified cultural identity as an emerging trajectory among the diverse cultures. Second, the civil rights of multifaceted agents for unification should be expanded. In addition to the simple categorization and widening citizenry as an agent for unification, civil rights and its responsibilities to achieve unification must be endowed, while the moral virtue of the citizens who support unification must be strengthened. Multifaceted endeavors, such as those in private sectors, civic society, family, education system and religion, should act as a breeding ground to cultivate moral characters for citizens in preparation for unification. In addition, it should ensure that these multiple agents contribute toward the social integration and unification of the Korean Peninsula via achieving democracy within a nation-state and further leading to increase awareness of their full cosmopolitan civil rights. Third, discourses on the state and nationalism should be reorganized to become more open and logical. In concrete terms, discussions on the Korean state as well as nationalism should be complemented and redeveloped to integrate a more international perspective, such as democracy and openness. Thus, Korean discussions on the nation-state as well as nationalism should promote peace, reconciliation and cooperation in the international community through establishing a system of international universality and coexisting with other nations on the basis of universal humanity.