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

I. Problem Statement

Social integration is a significant social task in Korean society. Regardless of how social integration is interpreted—it possesses a wide range of meanings and aspects—it acts as a bottleneck in the current stage of development of Korean society. From an economic development perspective, research reports indicate that social costs due to social conflict amount to 27% of GDP per capita, with an annual total of up to 246 trillion won (Samsung Economic Research Institute, 2019). From a social development perspective, analyses suggest that the primary reason for Korea's relatively low happiness level compared to its economic development, i.e., GDP level, 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 obstacle 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 policies. However, despite these efforts, social integration in Korea has not significantly improved.

This paper aims to point out the lack of discussion and consideration regarding its ideological foundation as the background for the lack of significant improvement in social integration, despite various studies and policy efforts. Social integration is generally a problem and a subject primarily addressed in fields such as sociology, political science, and social welfare. Among these, sociology has the most direct connections to social integration. In sociology, important concepts related to social integration 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 take place. Social capital is a resource for problem-solving accumulated in civil society, consisting of social relationships, voluntary associations, and social trust. The theoretical resources primarily relied upon in sociological research seeking the causes of weakened social integration and ways to increase its level are mostly social theories 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.

What is additionally needed to diagnose the current level of social integration and prescribe measures to enhance it is its ideological and political foundation. To find the logical prerequisites necessary to answer fundamental questions such as what is the conceptual meaning of social integration, what are its constituent elements, and why is it necessary, ideological exploration and discussion are essential. It is natural for any theoretical or policy discussion to have its ideological basis and foundation, but the reason why it is necessary to examine the ideological foundation in the context of social integration today is as follows. In many advanced societies, including Korea, perspectives and viewpoints on society are sharply opposed. And according to these opposing perspectives and viewpoints, there are vast differences in whether social integration is necessary, and what social integration means. What is considered a problem from one perspective may not be a problem at all from another. Therefore, social integration is not an objectively given topic or subject beyond doubt or controversy, but rather a topic and subject that requires consensus-building through discussion.

Let us consider an example. Fairness has recently emerged as a highly important issue related to social integration in Korea. Attacks claiming unfairness have been directed at various social policies and decision-making processes. Once labeled as unfair, politicians became defenseless, and policies or programs, if embroiled in fairness disputes, faced the fate of being suspended pending the resolution of controversy, or being revised or abolished. However, one regrettable issue in the controversies surrounding fairness in Korea is the vast difference in people's understanding and standards of fairness. While empirical research specifically addressing this issue is scarce, based on anecdotal evidence, for many who advocate for fairness, especially young people, fairness means the recognition of credentials based on meritocracy (Sandel, 2020). In short, it demands that the rules of the game be followed and that differences based on ability and effort be properly reflected. Yet, for others, fairness means providing opportunities to the disadvantaged to reduce inequality at the starting line (Rawls, 1972). If these two positions clash, they will criticize each other as unfair, and the debate will never end.

So, where should we start when examining the political and social ideological foundations related to social integration? This paper aims to examine the differences between liberalism, communitarianism, and various positions around liberalism, and to consider which ideological position would be desirable for discussion and consensus-building for social integration in Korean society. The question may arise as to why we should focus on liberalism when discussing social integration. While the answer will be presented in more detail later, for the sake of initiating the discussion, the reasons are as follows. First, over the past two decades, Korea has experienced rapid changes in values and norms towards individualization, and social relationships have also transformed. As a result, the Confucian collectivism, which served as the cultural grammar (Jeong Su-bok, 2007) of Korean society in the past 20th century, is judged to have weakened considerably. In the West, liberalism has long been central to people's thoughts and judgments, only to be challenged by communitarianism, whereas in Korea, collectivism has long served as the default framework for thought and judgment, only to be challenged in its position. Then why should liberalism be the alternative? Paradoxically, liberalism has not often been properly and fully understood or accepted and applied in Korea.

A very brief summary of the vicissitudes of liberalism's fate in Korea is as follows. In the late Korean Empire and during the Japanese colonial period, i.e., the early modern era, liberalism was introduced primarily by those advocating for enlightenment, presenting it as a direction for civilization, such as social Darwinism. Subsequently, during the Cold War, liberalism was understood as a broad term encompassing everything that was not communism, including authoritarianism, within the dichotomy of communism versus liberal democracy. Freedom was understood only as the opposite of communism, i.e., in a negative sense. Seeking the positive and active meaning of freedom became rather subversive. As democratization progressed rapidly, there was an opportunity to shed the negative connotations of freedom associated with authoritarianism, but in the polarized debate landscape of conservative and progressive ideologies amidst deepening political confrontation, liberalism was perceived as unstable, ambiguous, and sometimes subversive, wavering in the center. For both the democratization camp and the conservative camp, liberalism was merely an object of attraction and co-option, appearing untrustworthy and even opportunistic, and could not be an object of firm comradeship. At the turn of the 21st century, facing economic challenges, neoliberalism was abruptly introduced in Korea with expectations and fears that it would solve 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 rather extreme variant at that; it cannot be considered liberalism itself. Libertarianism, which has recently begun to emerge, particularly among young people, can also be seen as a result of the social spread of neoliberalism's 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 chance, which it has not had, but from a more active perspective, liberalism must be strengthened to provide a center in a fragmented society that is becoming individualized and polarized, 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 persuasive alternative but also require training for many people to internalize liberalism. This is because practicing liberalism properly requires a great sense of balance and a broad perspective that considers various situations and factors. This paper starts from this awareness and seeks to find an active interpretation of liberalism through comparative reviews between liberalism and communitarianism, and 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 scattered elements like grains of sand (social coherence).

When social integration is used in the first sense, it evokes overcoming political division, such as North-South unification, and the assimilation of groups with different languages and cultures into the mainstream group. 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 up the distinction between system integration and social integration discussed in sociological theory in the mid-20th century. While 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 the values and norms of society and maintaining social order and stability around them. In this context, there is a possibility that a conservative bias, expecting highly conforming social members, is reflected in social integration. 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, social integration in the second sense is closer to a state where groups and individuals coexist in order and balance by recognizing and respecting each other's rights and identities, without the need for integration into a single set of common values, norms, and lifestyles. Another aspect included in the second sense of social integration is the activation of society through active participation. If social members are not interested in society and are solely immersed in their personal and private spheres, society will become fragmented like grains of sand. Social cooperation or solidarity will also weaken or disappear. In this case, borrowing an analogy from natural science, as entropy increases, the centrifugal force of society acts strongly, leading to disorder or dispersion, and the centripetal force that sustains and maintains society disappears. To overcome this state, attachment and intimacy towards each other or towards shared things 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, on one hand, the functional coherence between the various parts constituting society, and on the other hand, the operation of values and norms that socialize and control social members. During the period when structural functionalism exerted influence as a social theory, criticisms emerged regarding mass society, where individuals lost their individuality by conforming to the group, 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). These reactions implied that social integration with the former meaning was inherently limited in its ability to respond to the diversification and complexity of society. Ultimately, with the new social movements and youth protests of the 1960s, the former meaning of social integration diminished in importance in the United States. The same applies to 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 confrontational framework of communitarianism versus 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. In communitarianism, social integration is 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 perspective, suggesting that for minority groups to be recognized and live in the broader society, they must adopt the values, norms, and lifestyles of the overall 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 not necessarily essential or natural. From a liberal perspective, social integration is closer to the state of coexistence and symbiosis that emerges in a society where individual freedom is guaranteed and each person pursues their own happiness, i.e., the second meaning of social integration. 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 the increasing population mobility due to globalization, leading to greater racial diversity in all societies. The proliferation of online and mobile social interactions and relationships due to digitalization, further intensified by the pandemic, has led to an increase in non-face-to-face interactions. The rise in education levels and material affluence has led to post-materialist values, increasing the diversity of values and identities. Globally, common 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 the diversity of values and confusion. In particular, as social relationships, such as employment, become increasingly unstable, temporary, and precarious, life is becoming more ephemeral.

In addition, in Korea, since the IMF financial crisis, individualization has proceeded at a rapid pace as economic, social structures, and culture have undergone a comprehensive transformation in a neoliberal direction, to the point where the term 'each person for themselves' (각자도생) is now readily accepted. The warm relationships between neighbors and colleagues that characterized Korea for a long time are now difficult to find. These social changes are well explained by postmodern theories based on deconstruction theory in terms of culture, and by constructivist network theory in terms of society and economy. This is because both meaning and relationships hold the potential for continuous re-formation. Richard Sennett's "The Corrosion of Character" (1998), Zygmunt Bauman's "Liquid Modernity" (1999), Ulrich Beck's "Risk Society" (1986), Scott Lash and John Urry's "The End of Organized Capitalism" (1988), and Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" (1995) are works that well express this situation. This is because in a situation dominated by fluidity and flexibility, where diversity and pluralism are generalized, the need for a centripetal force for society has increased.

This situation increases the need for social integration in the second sense, but reduces the practical relevance of prescriptions or measures based on the first meaning of social integration, which has traditionally stemmed from communitarianism. Ultimately, the recent social changes examined above demand a search for ways to achieve social integration in the second sense, where a majority can coexist and live together, reducing social division and chaos 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, there is a need to examine the issue of rights in a broader context. One of the misunderstandings about liberalism is that it leads to social chaos by allowing 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. Classical liberal thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville defended individual rights and freedoms but further emphasized the right and freedom not to be infringed upon by others (Seo Byung-hoon, 2020).

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

First, let us examine the recognition and protection of rights by the state. Legal scholars Stephen Holmes and Cass Sunstein explain in "The Cost of Rights" (2012) that rights are not absolute and that they only become effective when legally and institutionally protected. Being legally and institutionally protected 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's budget is deciding which rights to invest in protecting among competing rights claims, given that state finances are a scarce resource. 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 are not rights but interests and privileges. Therefore, the state needs to be careful not to let rights degenerate into privileges. Even if the majority of citizens desire and demand the recognition of a right, if it 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 infringes upon the rights of a minority due to the demands of the majority, 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 recognition of civil rights for Black people in the United States in the 1960s through the Civil Rights Movement. This was the result of other citizens accepting the demands and collective actions of those who had not previously been recognized as having 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" (2011).

Sociologist James Coleman analyzes the process by which citizens recognize each other's rights in terms of negotiation and bargaining in "Foundations of Social Theory" (1998). 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 prime 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, in order to respect 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 go through justification, as argued by Rainer Forst (2014). The justification of rights claims by subjects seeking recognition cannot be unilateral because it involves continuous back-and-forth. In this regard, the argument that liberalism risks rampant or abusive use of rights is insufficiently considered. It is not liberalism, but libertarianism, that leads society to 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 of the consequences is an increase in 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 seen in recent repeated foreign examples. The strength to prevent this lies in liberalism, which recognizes the reciprocity of rights.

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 at the heart of 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.

In Korean society, important identities that have come to the fore 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 at the forefront of social conflict, particularly among young people. 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 anti-discrimination legislation, which divides society. So, how do communitarianism and liberalism, and liberalism and libertarianism, relate to identity in Korean society?

In the context of gender issues in Korean society, patriarchy, rooted in Confucian culture, played a significant role in the past. While patriarchy includes oppressive elements towards women, its core can be seen as prioritizing the value of the family, i.e., protecting the family. It can be argued that the burden of childbirth and childcare, necessary for family reproduction and stability, was exclusively borne by women, leading 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 patriarch to support a large family as the sole breadwinner. This gender division of labor within the patriarchal family was also reflected in investment in children, leading to discriminatory educational investment and expectations for sons and daughters.

However, after the IMF financial crisis, the values and perceptions of Koreans regarding the patriarchal division of labor within the family and the family itself changed rapidly. First, with the generalization of economic instability, particularly employment insecurity, it became increasingly difficult for a single patriarch to support the family, leading to expressions like 'bowed-down father' and 'family disintegration' frequently appearing in discussions about Korean families. Changes in the economic and material conditions of families were influenced not only by neoliberalism but also by demographic changes. As the socioeconomic conditions for young people forming new families became much more difficult compared to the baby boomer generation, family formation was delayed. Marriage rates and, consequently, birth rates significantly declined. With the sharp decrease in the number of children born, discriminatory educational investment and expectations for sons and daughters also changed, leading to high educational aspirations for both sons and daughters without distinction. As a result, women's educational levels increased, and their critical thinking abilities improved, leading to increased critical awareness 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 for the existence of patriarchy, which had long emphasized family values and norms in Korean society, have rapidly weakened since the 2000s. What is noteworthy here is that family values and the unit of the family were the most important basis and starting point for the communitarian perspective on gender issues in Korea. As the family and family values, a crucial pillar of communitarianism that had long functioned as the cultural grammar of Koreans, came under threat, the communitarian position on gender issues has been significantly weakened. Conversely, with the weakening of the family and the progress of individualization in society, interest in individual rights has increased. Indeed, the proportion of single-person households in Korean society now exceeds 30% of all households, and young people account for more than half of these. Consequently, recent surveys on family attitudes indicate that the most prominent aspect of viewing the family is its role in providing emotional satisfaction, rather than its economic function of sharing livelihood, its reproductive function of continuing the lineage, or its sexual function of fulfilling sexual desires (KOSIS, 2020).

Along with the weakening of the family-centric 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 "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 3 to 4 times higher than the average, and significantly higher than 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 the gender discrimination they routinely experience in their daily lives, and the heightened issue of safety related to gender as they live independently, following their emancipation from the family. Ultimately, interest in and claims regarding rights are, on one hand, the 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 liberalism's focus on rights, it is also noteworthy to consider 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 equality. In short, it requires tolerance to accommodate and embrace these differences, even though they are different. The most important aspect of this tolerance is not unconditional acceptance and inclusion, but the fact that it arises from recognizing the other party as a subject of rights, and by recognizing those rights, a basis for coexistence is established.

However, some recent claims related to identity politics in Korea show signs of what can be called identity collectivism. Specific examples of identity collectivism include the problem of suppressing dissent within an identity group due to an excessive emphasis on identity, and the exclusion of individuals on the boundaries of identity. People with different identities can each be subjects of rights, but identity itself is not a subject of rights. Identity is merely a difference that distinguishes people 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 direction to overcome the collectivist bias in identity politics and claims is to clearly establish that individuals with these identities are subjects of freedom and rights, rather than the identity itself. In the society we live in, the most respected subjects of freedom and rights must ultimately be each individual. To achieve this, it is necessary to attempt sufficient consultation and consensus-building 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, we can find ways, from a liberal perspective, to reduce unnecessary conflicts associated with identity politics and prevent identity from becoming another form of privilege.■

References

Baek Jin-a. 2009. “Changes in Korean Families: Persistence and Transformation of Patriarchy.” Phenomena 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. Aranet.

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. 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 y 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 y 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.

■ Autor: Han Jun_Director del Centro de Investigación de Innovación Futura de EAI, Profesor de Sociología en la Universidad Yonsei. Obtuvo un doctorado en Sociología de la Universidad de Stanford en Estados Unidos. Se desempeñó como Director del Centro de Datos de Ciencias Sociales de Corea y miembro civil del Comité de Asesoramiento Económico Nacional, y actualmente es Presidente de la Sociedad Coreana para la Calidad de Vida. Sus principales obras incluyen 『La Cuarta Revolución Industrial, que cambia el trabajo y la gestión』(2018) y 『Connect Power: ¿Cómo el mundo hiperconectado está cambiando el panorama empresarial?』(2019), y sus artículos incluyen “Reconocimiento en el mundo del arte como proceso social: El caso de los Premios de Cine Oscar y Daejong (Korean Social Science Journal, 2017)”, “Estudio de sistemas complejos en ciencias sociales: Centrado en la emergencia y el terreno adaptativo” (New Physics, 2017), “Estudio de análisis de valor de la educación artística y cultural” (2017), “¿Cómo los indicadores de evaluación cambian la investigación y la educación universitaria: Centrado en la sociología” (2017).

■ Editor y responsable: Yoon Ha-eun_Investigador de EAI

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