‘국민’이 되지 못한 자의 곤경

Abstract

Transnational networks have been formed as a result of the development of communication and technology in the twenty-first century. Through “telepoesis” (imagination across time and space), the concept of diaspora has been renewed by combining and creatively transforming the cultures of the homelands left behind and the new places in which people settle. Such transformations have occurred because of the loosened relationships, previously more rigid, that immigrants now have with and their homelands. In this article, I examine two films: Ip Man 4, which shows an aspect of Hong Kong’s identity that is inevitably confused because of Hong Kong’s political and cultural distance from mainland China; and Minari, which focuses on the transformation of the self of a Korean immigrant family that belongs to neither Korea nor the US and is in the process of overcoming economic threats in a foreign land. On the one hand, the characters in these two films clearly demonstrate the predicament of not being a “National” despite the insistent calling of the motherland embedded in the terms “hwagyo” and “dongpo.” On the other hand, the audience outside of the films place themselves once again within the paradigm of being Korean nationals while consciously and unconsciously overlooking the characters’ predicaments. However, in the modern nation state that has begun to corrode, such a manner of acceptance reveals the contradictions and cracks in the audience’s understanding. It is clearly contradictory for Korean audiences to consider Ip Man 4 as an example of “jungppong” and to display their hatred toward it, while they are intoxicated with “gukppong” and consume Minari as they enjoy a sense of pride as members of the nation state. That this ironic situation in which the terms “gukppong” and “jungppong,” which in fact belong to the same category, leads to such different emotions encapsulates the distorted image of nationalism of Korea, and furthermore, in East Asia. Therefore, this article raises a question about nationalism once again by focusing on the different receptions given these two films by cultural consumers who are constantly reviving the nation and state. It is also to protect the positive value that Korean culture has built up for its coexistence and harmony.