Over at Coming Anarchy, Curzon discusses the issue of whether language skills are required for someone to becoming a regional expert. Read the entire post, but here is the conclusion:
If you want to study Japan, guess what—most of the novel research on Japan is done in Japan, by Japanese people, in the Japanese language. Only a fraction of it is translated. That’s true regardless what the topic is, whether it’s business, politics, culture, history, law, economics, or anything else. And it’s true not just about Japan, but the world in general. Experts in the West who build their career on knowing a region had better know the language if they want to be taken seriously, and as consumers of the analysis we should be wary of who and what we read.
Many of the problems mentioned by Curzon regarding Western “expert” opinion on Japan applies to Korea as well. I can count on one hand the number of frequently cited Western experts on Korea who can, say, read a Korean newspaper. This might be even more severe for Korea because many Western “Korea” experts were originally Japan, China or Eastern Europe experts who shifted over.
Like Curzon, let me make two things perfectly clear:
- Just because someone lacks language skills doesn’t negate the value of his or her analysis. I made the mistake some time ago of rather nastily criticizing a well-known North Korea expert for his lack of Korean skills; the expert in question responded quite rightly that he’d been visiting North Korea since before I was born and reminding me—very politely—that perhaps I shouldn’t be such a snotty little prick. For the record, I enjoy and the respect the work of a number of Western Korea experts who’d be hard-pressed to read a Korean menu;
- Language skills do not an expert make. I know tons of Koreans who can read the New York Times in English. Doesn’t make them experts about the United States. I can read the Chosun Ilbo in its vernacular, and all that does is expand the pool of material about which I regularly make dreadfully ignorant and uninformed comments.
Now, having said all that, Korea experts who can at least conduct research in Korean are worth their weight in gold. To paraphrase Curzon’s observations concerning research on Japan, most of the insightful research on Korea is done in Korea, by Koreans in the Korean language. And if you’re going to observe Korea through the English language only, you’re options are, to say the least, limited.
And those limits have consequences, some of which can be seen—albeit on a very inconsequential scale—on this blog. How many time have commenters left comments asking why Koreans weren’t discussing this or that issue, only for another commenter to note that they were discussing it—only not in the Korea Times or Korea Herald.
Just in terms of media matters, it doesn’t take long to realize that the discourse found in the Korean language press is much more diverse—and infinitely more frank—than what you’ll find in the handful of English-language sources. In fact, it sometimes appears that the English and Korean language media are operating in two different worlds, with the English language press focusing on issues of “foreigner/international interest” and the Korean press focusing on what the Korean public actually cares about—or at least what the paper in question thinks the public should care about. If you’re a Western Korea expert without Korean skills, you stand a good chance of missing what Korean society is talking about, especially if you’re residing outside of Korea.
Finally, let me second my blogging colleague over at Coming Anarchy by noting that, say, a Latin America expert who couldn’t speak Spanish might have a tough time being taken seriously. Yet for Korea, Korean-illiterate experts seem to be the norm rather than the exception. It’s an odd situation, to say the least. And one for which I lack an explanation.
10 Comments
Here we go again. Another conspiracy by the evil empire.
But in terms of what i read in the blogsphere, it explains a lot. Many bloggers of english speaking countries, accuse koreans on a regular basis of not “knowing” their own history. Of “fabricating” history, and so on and so on. It happens. But it shouldn’t. To them, if they didn’t see it written in engish, it doesn’t exist. Oh well. Too bad.
What is insight?
On the one hand, it’s hard to see how someone can be an “expert” on the affairs of a country whose literature he cannot read.
On the other hand, for many purposes right judgment is more valuable than expertise.
In Coppola’s _The Godfather Part II_, Michael Corleone is debating whether to make a large investment in Cuba during the last days of the Batista regime. Several people, some of them presumably knowledgeable, assure him that the rebels are a flash in the pan. He is being driven to a meeting when his car has to stop while the police deal with an incident on the road. He watches one of the rebels blow himself up in order to kill a police captain, while the other police back away. Corleone decides not to make the investment.
Of course life is more complex than the movies, but still, there is nothing better than an eye for the telling detail, and a recognition of what really matters amid a profusion of conflicting information.
Uugh, I need to get back to the language books…
When talking about Korean history, especially history involving nationalistic issues like “Dokdo,” it also helps to know some hanmun since you cannot always trust Koreans to translate, in Korean or English, the original text correctly. For example, it is very common for Koreans to substitute “Dokdo” for other names that they just assume were references to “Dokdo.” They also tend to ignore material that is important, but does not support their argument. That often leads to wrong conclusions, especially when it involves topics like “Dokdo.”
A person can learn a lot about a country by simply reading translations and making personal observations, but I, personally, would be embarrassed to call myself “an expert” on a country without knowing that country’s language. In fact, even though I have lived in Korea for many years and know the language fairly well, I do not consider myself an expert on Korea or anything else.
“for Korea, Korean-illiterate experts seem to be the norm rather than the exception”
Really? I might be missing something, but, bloggers aside, who gets heaped into that group? Are they US-ROK political analysts or bonafide Korea history/cultural experts? The Korean studies profs and scholars I’m familiar with are all pretty comfortable with their Korean. They’re not all Palais and Ledyard when it comes to language abilities but then again neither are many of the native Korean scholars…
An expert, maybe not, but a good judge…
I’ve long thought that, as went with Japan, the next generation of pontificators on things Korean would need to have the tongue - not to do a good job, but for credibility.
But Robert has taken a good approach.
It would indeed be arrogant prickism if the only argument you had against Bradley Martin, Aidan Foster-Carter and Seoul-based western reporters, for example, was language. In their case, language presents itself as a technical problem got around by interpreters and translators.
B.R. Myers is a different kind of expert. It would be an odd expert in North Korean literature who couldn’t read the original.
I think any serious scholar of Korea ought to be able to read & comprehend: English, Korean, Japanese, and Chinese. At the very least, English, Korean and Japanese are necessary to fully understand the modern history of Korea and the resulting consequences of the Japan-Korea relationship. Chinese would definitely be helpful, but given nearly all of the material available in that language is censored it’s simply distorted, useless crap. However, I have found that Chinese in Korea, and in the U.S. are quite willing to speak openly about their opinions, albeit to a much lessor extend in Japan. I included English in my opinion because most graduate and post-graduate work is published in English.
Beyond language ability, or a lack of it, I believe most scholars outside of Asia view the educational system in Korea and Japan, and its works, as a complete joke. College students aren’t required to attend classes or study. Rampant plagiarism occurs at every level of university (especially in China, Korea, and Japan), with a healthy dose of nepotism thrown in to the mix too in Korea. As I eluded to earlier, I don’t think any communist country’s educational system or works can be taken seriously, given every thing needs the Communist party’s approval. However, there are many Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, and Taiwanese that come to the States and do publish many scholarly works in English, but they have in most cases received some part of their education in the west, be it in England or in the States.
–Remort
Your definition eliminates 99+ percent of the group. And you forgot Russian. The only person I personally know who has that ability is Dr. Suh Dae-sook.
But I think the overall assertion is nonsense.
A person with insight, experience and wisdom will always be more useful than someone that can read a newspaper in that language.
2 Trackbacks
[...] There is a discussion among some English bloggers in Korean concerning whether one needs to know the language to be a regional expert. Robert Koehler picks up the discussion in Marmot’s Hole. [...]
Linguistically Challenged Experts…
In one of those serendipitous events that makes blogging fun, Chris over at Buyo drew my attention to a new vintage of Martin Jacques article on Japan, at the same time that the Marmot’s Hole points out a very interesting article at Coming Anarchy ab….