[EAI Working Paper] Liberalism Series ③_ Liberalism and Social Integration

I. Problem Statement

Social integration is a significant societal challenge in Korea. Regardless of how social integration is interpreted—it possesses diverse meanings and aspects—it acts as a bottleneck in the current stage of Korean society's development. From an economic development perspective, a research report (Samsung Economic Research Institute, 2019) indicates that social conflict incurs social costs equivalent to 27% of GDP per capita, amounting to a maximum annual total of 246 trillion won. From a social development perspective, analyses suggest that the primary reason for Korea's relatively low happiness level compared to its economic development (GDP) is the fragility of the social foundations of happiness, such as social support, freedom in life decisions, perception of corruption, and compassion for others (World Happiness Report, 2019). Korea's low trust levels, particularly generalized trust in strangers and trust in public institutions, have been a persistent phenomenon since the 2000s. The perception that social integration is an impediment to Korea's social, economic, and political development is widespread, and successive governments have established committees for social or national integration to explore policy measures and attempt various initiatives. However, despite these efforts, social integration in Korea has not significantly improved.

This paper aims to highlight the lack of discussion and consideration regarding the ideological underpinnings as a background for the lack of significant improvement in social integration, despite various studies and policy efforts. Social integration is primarily a problem and topic addressed in fields such as sociology, political science, and social welfare. Among these, sociology has the most direct connections to social integration. Key concepts related to social integration in sociology include civil society, social communication and conflict, social capital, and values and norms. Civil society is the stage where social communication occurs, conflicts arise, and efforts for resolution are undertaken. Social capital is a resource for problem-solving accumulated in civil society through social relationships, voluntary associations, and social trust. Sociological studies seeking the causes of weakened social integration and ways to enhance it primarily rely on theoretical resources such as systems theory, communication theory, network theory, action theory, and structuration theory. However, while these theories can serve as frameworks for explanation, they have limitations as a foundation for in-depth diagnosis and prescription.

To diagnose the current state of social integration and prescribe measures to enhance it, additional elements are required: namely, political and social ideological foundations. To find the logical prerequisites for answering fundamental questions such as the conceptual meaning of social integration, its constituent elements, and its necessity, ideological exploration and discussion are essential. It is natural for any theoretical or policy discussion to have an ideological basis and foundation, but the need to examine the ideological foundation for the topic of social integration arises for the following reasons. In many advanced societies, including Korea, perspectives and viewpoints on society are sharply opposed. Consequently, there are vast differences in opinions regarding whether social integration is necessary and what it entails, depending on these opposing viewpoints. What one perspective considers a problem, another may not consider a problem at all. Therefore, social integration is not an objectively given subject that is beyond doubt or controversy, but rather a subject and object that requires consensus-building through discussion.

Consider, for example, the issue of fairness, which has recently emerged as a critical concern related to social integration in Korea. Attacks claiming unfairness have been leveled against various social policies and decision-making processes. When labeled as unfair, politicians have been rendered culpable, and policies or programs embroiled in fairness disputes have faced suspension pending the resolution of controversy, or modification or 폐기 (abolition). However, one unfortunate aspect of the controversy surrounding fairness in Korea is the significant divergence in people's understanding and standards of fairness. While empirical research specifically addressing this issue is scarce, anecdotal evidence suggests that for many advocating fairness, particularly among the youth, fairness signifies the recognition of credentials based on meritocracy (Sandel 2020). In essence, it demands adherence to the rules of the game and, especially, the proper reflection of differences based on ability and effort. Yet, for others, fairness means providing opportunities to the disadvantaged to reduce inequality at the starting line (Rawls 1972). If these two perspectives clash, they will likely criticize each other as unfair, and the debate will remain unresolved.

Therefore, when examining the political and social ideological foundations concerning social integration, where should we begin? This paper aims to review the differences between liberalism, communitarianism, and various positions surrounding liberalism, and to consider which ideological stance would be desirable for discussions and consensus-building for social integration in Korean society. Questions may arise as to why we should focus on liberalism for discussing social integration. While the answer will be presented in more detail later, the reasons for starting the discussion here are as follows. Firstly, over the past two decades, Korea has experienced rapid changes in values and norms towards individualization, and social relationships have also transformed. Consequently, the Confucian collectivism, which served as the cultural grammar (Jeong Su-bok, 2007) of Korean society in the 20th century, is judged to have weakened considerably. In the West, while liberalism has long been central to people's thoughts and judgments, facing challenges from communitarianism, Korea has experienced the opposite: communitarianism has long served as the default framework for thought and judgment, and its position is now being challenged. If so, why should liberalism be the alternative? Paradoxically, liberalism has not often been properly and fully understood, accepted, or applied in Korea.

A brief summary of the changing fortunes of liberalism in Korea is as follows. In the late Joseon Dynasty and during the Japanese colonial period, in the early modern era, liberalism was primarily introduced by proponents of enlightenment as a direction for civilization, akin to social Darwinism. Subsequently, during the Cold War, liberalism was understood within the dichotomy of communism versus liberal democracy, encompassing everything that was not communism, including authoritarianism. Freedom was understood only as the opposite of communism, i.e., in a negative sense. Seeking the positive and active meaning of freedom became a potentially subversive act. With rapid democratization, there was an opportunity to shed the negative connotations associated with authoritarianism, but in the polarized debate landscape of conservative and progressive politics, liberalism was perceived as unstable, ambiguous, and sometimes subversive, wavering in the center. For both the democratization movement and the conservative camp, liberalism was not a reliable ally but merely an object of attraction and inclusion, sometimes appearing opportunistic, and never a solid object of camaraderie. At the turn of the 21st century, facing economic challenges, South Korea saw the rapid introduction of neoliberalism, which was met with both expectations and fears as a solution to the accumulated problems in Korean politics, economy, and society. However, neoliberalism is merely a variant of liberalism in the economic sphere in the era of global capitalism, and a particularly extreme variant at that; it cannot be considered liberalism itself. Libertarianism, which has recently begun to emerge among the youth, can also be seen as a result of the social diffusion of neoliberal influence and differs significantly from liberalism itself.

Given that the reception and interaction of liberalism in Korea have been marked by stigma and misunderstanding, the time is ripe to properly grasp its substance and calmly discuss its potential and limitations in resolving the issue of social integration in Korean society. From a passive perspective, it is about giving liberalism a proper opportunity, as it has not had one before. However, from a more active perspective, liberalism must be strengthened to provide a center in a society that is individualizing and polarizing, and to prevent the two extremes from drifting further apart. If we actively acknowledge the potential of liberalism, it must not only present itself as a compelling alternative but also require training for many people to internalize liberalism. Practicing liberalism properly demands a great sense of balance and a broad perspective that considers various situations and factors. This paper begins with this awareness and seeks to find an active interpretation of liberalism through comparative reviews between liberalism and communitarianism, and between liberalism and libertarianism, across important components or aspects of social integration.

II. The Meaning of Social Integration and Liberalism

Social integration encompasses both the meaning of uniting what is divided (social integration) and bringing together what is scattered like grains of sand (social coherence).

When social integration is used in the first sense, it evokes overcoming political division, such as unification between North and South Korea, or the assimilation of groups with different languages and cultures into the mainstream. Therefore, in this case, the aspect of convergence, emphasizing a sense of unity, is highlighted. Furthermore, understanding social integration in the former sense also brings to mind the distinction between system integration and social integration discussed in sociological theory in the mid-20th century. If system integration refers to the smooth functional operation of the social system with minimal dysfunction and no functional conflicts, social integration refers to social members agreeing on societal values and norms, and maintaining social order and stability around them. In this context, there is a potential for a conservative bias to be reflected in social integration, expecting social members to be highly conformist. Social integration understood in the former sense risks prematurely concluding that social conflict or deviance should be suppressed.

Interpreting social integration in the second sense assumes that society is pluralistic and diverse. In such a pluralistic and diverse society, the second meaning of social integration is closer to a state where groups and individuals, without necessarily being integrated by a single set of common values, norms, or lifestyles, acknowledge and respect each other's rights and identities, thereby achieving order and balance. Another aspect included in the second meaning of social integration is the revitalization of society through active participation. If social members become disengaged from society and immerse themselves solely in their personal and private spheres, society will become scattered like grains of sand. Social cooperation or solidarity will also weaken or disappear. In this case, borrowing an analogy from natural sciences, entropy increases, leading to a state where centrifugal forces in society act strongly, resulting in disorder or dispersion, and the centripetal force that sustains and maintains society vanishes. To overcome this state, attachment and intimacy towards each other or towards shared aspects are needed.

Both meanings of social integration discussed above are important aspects of society in sociology. The emphasis on the former aspect was prevalent from the early to mid-20th century, during which the foundational social theory was Talcott Parsons' structural functionalism or normative functionalism. According to this theory, social integration is achieved on one hand through the functional coherence of the various parts constituting society, and on the other hand through the operation of values and norms that socialize and control social members. During the period when structural functionalism exerted influence as a social theory, critiques of mass society emerged, such as David Riesman's "The Lonely Crowd" (1950), Erich Fromm's "Escape from Freedom" (1941), and William H. Whyte's "The Organization Man" (1956), which criticized individuals losing their individuality by conforming to the group. These reactions implied that social integration with the former meaning had limited potential to cope with the diversification and complexity of society. Ultimately, through the new social movements and youth protests of the 1960s, the former meaning of social integration diminished in importance in the United States, and similarly in Korea. This emphasis on social integration was understood as reflecting an intention to control resistance or deviance in society during the authoritarian period.

In the dichotomy between communitarianism and liberalism, the first meaning of social integration is closer to communitarianism than liberalism. In communitarianism, the values and norms of the community take precedence over individual freedom. For communitarianism, social integration is both essential and natural for the realization of communal ideals. From a communitarian perspective, social integration is based on the socialization of members, adherence to norms and rules, and solidarity based on a sense of community. Therefore, the communitarian prescription for social division and chaos is the reinforcement of education for the internalization of community values and normative control. In this view, multicultural situations are also addressed from an assimilationist standpoint, suggesting that for minority groups to be recognized and live in the broader society, they must adopt the values, norms, and lifestyles of the larger society as their own.

Conversely, in liberalism, individual freedom and rights take precedence over communal values and norms, making the first meaning of social integration neither natural nor essential. From a liberal perspective, social integration is closer to the second meaning: a state of coexistence and symbiosis that emerges in a society where individual freedom is guaranteed and each person pursues their own happiness. The liberal prescription for social chaos and division is the adjustment of conflicting rights and freedoms and the tolerance of diverse values and claims.

Recent global social changes that are likely to significantly impact social integration include: increased population mobility due to globalization, leading to greater racial diversity in all societies; a surge in social interaction and relationships online and via mobile devices as a result of digitalization, further intensified by the pandemic, leading to increased non-face-to-face interactions; and a rise in the diversity of values and identities as people's values become post-materialistic due to higher education levels and material affluence. Globally, common trends of economic and political polarization and increasing social isolation weaken the sense of belonging and solidarity that form the basis of communitarianism, while simultaneously increasing social division, conflict, and value confusion and diversity. In particular, the increasing instability and temporariness of social relationships, such as employment, make life increasingly ephemeral.

In addition, in Korea, since the IMF financial crisis, individualization has proceeded rapidly as economic, social structures, and culture have undergone a comprehensive neoliberal transformation, to the point where the concept of 'each person fends for themselves' (각자도생) is now readily accepted. The neighborly and collegial relationships that once characterized Korea are now difficult to find. These social changes are well explained by postmodern theories based on deconstruction in culture, and by constructivist network theories in society and economics, as both meaning and relationships are subject to continuous reconfigurations. This situation is well captured by Richard Sennett's "The Corrosion of Character" (1998), Zygmunt Bauman's "Liquid Modernity" (1999), Ulrich Beck's "The Risk Society" (1986), Scott Lash and John Urry's "The End of Organized Capitalism" (1988), and Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" (1995). In a situation dominated by fluidity and flexibility, where diversity and pluralism are generalized, the need for a centripetal force in society has increased.

This situation heightens the need for social integration in the second sense, while reducing the practical relevance of prescriptions and measures based on the first meaning of social integration, which has been emphasized from a communitarian perspective. Ultimately, the trends of recent social change examined above demand a search for measures of social integration in the second sense that reduce social division and chaos and allow for the coexistence and symbiosis of the majority, without infringing upon individual freedom. This ultimately implies an active response and consideration of social integration from a liberal perspective.

III. The Politics of Rights and Social Integration

Beyond the general view that communitarianism emphasizes responsibility and duty based on values and morality, while liberalism prioritizes individual rights and freedoms, it is necessary to examine the issue of rights in a broader context. One of the misunderstandings of liberalism is that it leads to social chaos by enabling the abuse of rights and freedoms. In liberalism, rights and freedoms are not unconditional; they must not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville, who represent the classical liberal position, advocated for individual rights and freedoms while further emphasizing the right and freedom not to be infringed upon by others (Seo Byung-hoon, 2020).

Then, what constrains rights? This paper will examine constraints on rights claims from two main aspects: first, the recognition and protection of rights by the state, and second, the mutual recognition of citizens' rights.

First, let us consider the recognition and protection of rights by the state. Legal scholars Stephen Holmes and Cass Sunstein explain in "The Cost of Rights" (Holmes and Sunstein, 2012) that rights are not absolute and that they only become effective when legally and institutionally protected. Legal and institutional protection ultimately means investing state finances to protect individual rights. If the state lacks the resources, i.e., finances, to protect rights, individual rights are meaningless. Therefore, for the state to recognize individual rights, it must also secure the resources to protect them effectively. Equally important as the size of the state budget is the decision of which rights to allocate scarce state finances to, among competing rights claims. While rights claims originate from individual rights, their endpoint is public recognition and protection by the state.

For rights to be worth protecting with state finances, they must be universal. If rights belong only to members of a specific group, they become privileges, not rights. Therefore, the state must be careful to prevent rights from degenerating into privileges. Even if the majority of citizens desire and demand the recognition of certain rights, if doing so infringes upon the rights of a minority, the state must not allow such infringement, as this is a principle of liberalism. If the state violates this principle and yields to the demands of the majority, infringing upon the rights of the minority, it becomes the tyranny of the majority, and democracy degenerates into populism.

The second constraint on rights claims is that citizens must recognize the rights of others by persuading them that their own rights do not infringe upon those of others. In modern society, rights, particularly civil rights, have continuously expanded. Behind this historical process lies the expansion of civil rights to various groups by civil society. A prime example is the civil rights movement of African Americans in the 1960s in the United States, which led to the recognition of their civil rights. This was the result of other citizens accepting the demands and collective actions of those who had previously been denied civil rights. Sociologist and philosopher Axel Honneth analyzes the process by which the struggle for recognition led to the expansion of civil rights theoretically and philosophically in "The Struggle for Recognition" (Honneth, 2011).

Sociologist James Coleman, in "Foundations of Social Theory" (1998), analyzes the process by which citizens recognize each other's rights in terms of negotiation and bargaining. He posits that people do not simply assert their rights but engage in negotiation and bargaining with the right to recognize the rights of others, i.e., a right to rights. A representative example is the right to smoke and the right to permit smoking. According to Coleman, smokers do not unilaterally assert their right to smoke. Smokers negotiate and bargain with those who have the right to recognize their right to smoke, offering concessions or stipulating conditions under which they will smoke, out of respect for the health and environmental rights of others.

To gain the approval of others who possess the right to rights, those asserting rights must persuade others to accept their claims or demands rather than unilaterally asserting their own rights. To have rights recognized, one must undergo justification, as argued by Rainer Forst (2014). The justification of rights claims by subjects seeking recognition is continuous and reciprocal, thus it cannot be unilateral. In this regard, the argument that liberalism risks rampant or abusive exercise of rights is insufficiently considered. It is not liberalism, but libertarianism, that leads to social chaos through the abuse of rights and freedoms. Libertarianism is more concerned with maximizing one's own rights claims than with consideration or respect for others. One consequence of this is increased conflict and the dominance of the logic of power. When libertarians, who do not respect the rights of others, become the majority, we risk undermining democracy and moving towards populism, as evidenced by recent repeated foreign examples. Liberalism, which recognizes the reciprocity of rights, has the power to prevent this.

IV. The Politics of Identity (Gender) and Liberalism

The issue of identity is directly linked to the issue of rights, as many rights claims raised in Korea recently are related to identity. Identity has emerged as a core issue of debate and conflict in Korea in the 21st century. Issues of identity, such as gender, race, and sexual orientation, are central to politics and conflict not only in Korea but globally. What is important in identity is difference, which distinguishes it from other identities, and as society diversifies and becomes more complex, numerous differences arise, leading to a corresponding increase in identities. While identity is becoming more important, the relative importance of class, which previously drove social conflict, is diminishing.

Key identities that have emerged in Korean society in relation to identity include gender and sexual orientation. Although the term multiculturalism is not unfamiliar in Korea, and the number of foreign residents has increased, their voices regarding rights are not yet very loud. In contrast, gender has recently emerged as a front-line issue of social conflict, particularly among the youth. Furthermore, sexual orientation, regardless of existing political divides, is likely to become a persistent axis of conflict in Korean society, linked to the contentious issue of the anti-discrimination law. How, then, do communitarianism and liberalism, and liberalism and libertarianism, relate to identity in Korean society?

In Korean society, patriarchy, rooted in Confucian culture, played a significant role in gender issues. While patriarchy includes oppressive elements towards women, its core can be seen as prioritizing the value of the family. The notion that women exclusively undertook roles such as childbirth and childcare necessary for family reproduction and stability led to their disadvantaged status and oppressive aspects. However, this patriarchy was almost dismantled during the comprehensive restructuring of Korean society and economy by neoliberalism in the early 2000s. The material basis of the patriarchal system during Korea's economic development was the possibility for the male head of household to financially support a large family as the sole breadwinner. This gendered division of labor within the patriarchal family was also reflected in investment in children, leading to discriminatory educational investments and expectations for sons and daughters.

However, after the IMF financial crisis, the gendered division of labor within the patriarchal family and people's values and perceptions of family changed rapidly. Firstly, economic instability, particularly employment instability, became widespread, making it difficult for the male head of household to support the family alone, leading to frequent expressions like 'bowed-head father' and 'family disintegration' regarding Korean families. Changes in the economic and material conditions of families were influenced not only by neoliberalism but also by demographic changes. The socioeconomic conditions for young people forming new families became much more difficult compared to the baby boomer generation, leading to delays in family formation. Marriage rates and, consequently, birth rates have significantly declined. With a sharp decrease in the number of children born, discriminatory educational investments and expectations for sons and daughters have also changed, leading to a high emphasis on education for both sons and daughters without distinction. As a result, women's educational attainment has increased, and their critical thinking skills have improved, leading to a heightened critical perception of patriarchy among women.

All these changes—the restructuring of the neoliberal socio-economic system, the delay in family formation due to low birth rates and an aging population, and the increase in women's higher education and criticism of patriarchy—mean that the conditions supporting patriarchy, which had long emphasized family values and norms in Korean society, have rapidly weakened since the 2000s. What is noteworthy here is that the family and the unit of the family, which emphasized family values and norms, were the most important basis and starting point for the communitarian perspective on gender issues in Korea. As the family and family values, crucial pillars of communitarianism that had long functioned as the cultural grammar of Koreans, came under threat, the communitarian position on gender issues has significantly weakened. Conversely, with the weakening of the family and the progress of societal individualization, interest in individual rights has increased. Indeed, the proportion of single-person households in Korean society now exceeds 30% of all households, with young adults accounting for more than half of these. Consequently, recent surveys on family attitudes indicate that the most prominent aspect of viewing the family is now emotional satisfaction from one's roots, rather than the economic aspect of sharing livelihood, the reproductive aspect of continuing the lineage, or the sexual aspect of fulfilling sexual desires (Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, 2020).

Alongside the weakening of the familialist perspective, it is noteworthy that interest in and claims regarding rights are rapidly increasing, particularly among young women. According to recent survey results from the National Human Rights Commission's annual <National Human Rights Survey>, the proportion of women in their 20s and 30s who believe their rights have been violated or that they have experienced discrimination is significantly higher—three to four times the overall average—than that of men in the same age group and women in other age groups (National Human Rights Commission, 2020). This fact can be seen as a result of young women becoming highly sensitive to gender-based discrimination experienced in daily life as individuals independent from their families, and the heightened issue of gender-related safety while living alone. Ultimately, interest in and claims regarding rights are, on one hand, a result of conscious awareness, but also a natural consequence of changes in real-world conditions.

In this context, alongside the weakening of the communitarian position on gender issues in Korean society and the increasing prominence of liberal rights issues, it is important to note the growing influence and content of identity fundamentalism or identity collectivism. The basic stance of liberalism towards identity politics, including gender issues, is based on the imperative to recognize and respect differences and individual identities to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals with different backgrounds and circumstances. Therefore, it accepts the claims of minority rights and opposition to discrimination from immigrants, women, sexual minorities, and people with disabilities from the perspective of recognition, inclusion, and equal rights. In short, it requires tolerance that accepts and embraces these differences, even though they are different. The most crucial aspect of this tolerance is not unconditional acceptance and embrace, but the recognition that the other party is also a subject of rights, and that recognizing their rights creates a basis for coexistence.

However, some claims related to identity politics in Korea recently show signs of what can be called identity collectivism. Specific examples of identity collectivism include issues where the emphasis on identity becomes excessive, leading to the suppression of dissenting opinions within identity groups, and the exclusion of individuals on the boundaries of identity. While people with different identities can be subjects of rights, identity itself is not a subject of rights. Identity is merely a difference that distinguishes individuals with other characteristics. However, in recent controversies surrounding identity, identity is sometimes treated as if it were a subject of rights, leading to a refusal to recognize other identities or the suppression of dissenting opinions within that identity group. In the former case, if one rejects the recognition of other identities and asserts only one's own, rights will degenerate into privileges. Furthermore, in the latter case, if individuals, who are subjects of rights, are pressured in the name of identity, rights will disappear and only power will remain. Representative examples include the exclusion of transgender individuals by some feminists and divisions within radical feminism.

The way to overcome the collectivist bias in identity politics and claims is to clarify that individuals with these identities, rather than the identities themselves, are subjects of freedom and rights. In the society we live in, the subjects of freedom and rights who deserve the most respect must ultimately be each individual. To achieve this, it is necessary to attempt sufficient consultation and consensus through careful examination and discussion of situations where identity leads to imbalance and exclusion, ensuring that individual rights claims are not infringed upon, and preventing identity groups themselves, rather than individuals, from being considered units of rights. In this process, from a liberal perspective, we can find ways to reduce unnecessary conflicts associated with identity politics and prevent identity from becoming another form of privilege.■

References

Baek Jin-ah. 2009. “Changes in Korean Families: Persistence and Transformation of Patriarchy.” *Phenomenon and Perception*, 33(1·2), 204-224.

Samsung Economic Research Institute. 2009. *Social Conflict and Economic Costs in Korea*. Samsung Economic Research Institute.

Seo Byung-hoon. 2020. *Democracy: Mill and Tocqueville*. Daewoo Academic Series 626. Acanet.

Lee Yoon-kyung, Byun Soo-jung, Kim Eun-jung, Jin Hwa-young, Ju Bo-hye, Namgung Eun-ha, Kim Ju-hyun, Jeong Yun-kyung. 2020. *In-depth Survey on Public Perception and Values Regarding Response to Low Birth Rate and Aging Society*. Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs Research Report 2020-26.

Jeong Su-bok. 2007. *The Cultural Grammar of Koreans*. Saenggakui Namu.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 1999. Liquid Modernity. Polity.

Beck, Ulrich. 1986. The Risk Society. Polity.

Coleman, James. 1998. Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press.

Forst, Rainer. 2014. Justification and Critique: Towards a Critical Theory of Politics. Polity.

Fromm, Erich. 1941. Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart.

Holms, Stephen and Cass R. Sunstein, 2012. The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes. W.W. Norton & Company.

Honneth, Axel 2011. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. John Wiley & Sons.

Lash, Scott and John Urry. 1988. The End of Organized Capitalism. Polity.

Putnam, Robert. 1995. Bowling Alone. Simon & Schuster.

Rawls, John. 1972. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.

Riesman, David. 1950. The Lonely Crowd. Yale University Press.

Sachs, J. et al. 2019. World Happiness Report, United Nations

Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good?. Penguin UK.

Sennet, Richard. 1998. The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. W.W. Norton & Company.

Whyte, William H. 1956. The Organization Man. Simon & Schuster.

■ Author: Han Jun_Director, EAI Future Innovation Center, Professor of Sociology, Yonsei University. Obtained a Ph.D. in Sociology from Stanford University. Served as Director of the Korean Social Science Data Archive and as a civilian member of the Presidential Advisory Council on Economic Affairs. Currently serves as President of the Korean Society for Quality of Life Studies. Major publications include *The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Changing Work and Management* (2018) and *Connect Power: How the Hyper-connected World is Changing the Business Landscape* (2019). Articles include “Recognition in Art World as Social Process: The Case of Oscar and Daejong Film Awards” (Korean Social Science Journal, 2017), “Complex Systems Research in Social Science: Focusing on Emergence and Adaptive Landscapes” (Saemulri, 2017), “A Study on the Value Analysis of Arts and Cultural Education” (2017), and “How Evaluation Metrics Change University Research and Education: Focusing on Sociology” (2017).

■ Contact and Editing: Yoon Ha-eun_EAI Researcher

   Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 208) | hyoon@eai.or.kr