Anti-Americanism and Security:Focusing on the Masculinity of Korean Soldiers in the U.S. Military in South Korea
Insook kwon
The research intends to focus on anti-Americanism and the masculinity of a unique organization of soldiers, KATUSA 1(Korean Augmentation To the United States Army)which is a part of the Korean draft system, however, differs itself in form and content from the main draft military service. The study on the KATUSA conscripts reveals globalized dynamics of masculinity and the meaning of hegemonic masculinity through the eyes of the marginalized KATUSA. KATUSA can be characterized as an army that is comprised of conscripts mostly coming from prestigious Korean universities. Most of them have been not only enjoying a privileged status within the Korean society as elites but also have had the opportunity to study English which is an important skill in order to advance in class in Korea. However, they experience discrimination and inferiority as a member of minor power. A close look on the experience of South Korean conscripts at KATUSA where personnel is managed by the Koreans but the right of command belongs to the Americans, reveals ambiguous status in conflict with the masculinity of US soldiers and in comparison with the masculinity
1
The Korean KATUSA is world unique in that the personnel management rights are exercised by Korean army and the right to command belongs to the Eighth U.S. Army (Lee Hyŏngsam, 2001). As personnel of the Korean military dispatched to the Eighth U.S. Army, according to the official terms of the Korean Republic army, “KATUSA refers to personnel belonging to the Korean army that live together with U.S. soldiers at the Eighth U.S. Army to perform their task”. Since its establishment in the 1950, KATUSA consists of 4,800 forces1 which is around 1/8 of the total size of the U.S. Forces stationed in South Korea and around 160,000 Korean men have been serving as the KATUSA so far. Entering KATUSA is highly competitive that the recruitment screening itself is considered to be equally difficult as passing the major state exams such as the Bar exam gaining its notorious name of ‘KATUSA state examination’. Since 1982, KATUSA has gained its reputation of being an army comprised of potential elites with strong academic backgrounds of prestigious universities such as Seoul National University, Yonsei University, and Korea University.
of the general Korean conscripts. Scrutinizing this process helps us to comprehend the role of nation, ethnicity, sexuality, class, and academic background in forming the norms of masculinity.
The ideology of hegemonic masculinity introduced by Cornell has become the core theory for the studies on masculinity and various studies have been conducted based on this theory since the late 1990’s. Cornell has been focusing on diverse relations of masculinity and noting that “the relations between the different kinds of masculinity: relations of alliance, dominance and subordination”(Connell, 1995:37). He defined hegemonic masculinity as the form of masculinity that is most domineering and considered to be ideal among the various norms of masculinities during a specific time, which functions as the basic element to sustain the structure of power and privilege in the nation, society, and organization. Diverse forms of domination among males within the society such as the domination of the heterosexual male over the homosexual one, the domination of the male that successfully performs his role of the patriarch over the one that fails to do so, the domination of the male that completed his duty of attending the army over the one who didn’t are presented not only in the forms of common expectations on males by the general public but also exist as institutionalized and cultural forms such as various norms and criteria of normality that affect the definition of masculinity. The norms of hegemonic masculinity, however, aren’t fixed but constantly get challenged, conform to those challenges and consequently, change. Lee Youngja explains these dynamics of hegemonic masculinity through the terminology of politics. “The politics of masculinity as the politics of norms is sexual politics that institutionalizes a certain type of masculinity as the general and dominant norm” (Lee Youngja, 2000:11). Through the politics of masculinity, males that don’t meet the criteria of hegemonic masculinity get marginalized. Additionally, masculinity including hegemonic masculinity isn’t an entity that is unitary and not changing (Connell, 2002 ; Demetriou, 2001), it is rather a result of an interaction between emotion and reason, interacting directly with both
female and male, getting controlled by race, sexuality, nationality, and class (Berger, Wallis, Watson, 1995:3).
However, hegemonic masculinity is not enclosed in a national boundary. Kimmel argues that today’s globalization is changing the life of males by redefining masculinity at the national and local level. As a result, gender politics to restore the former hierarchy of gender and strong masculinity is enforced by the extreme right parties and fundamentalists in Europe and Islamic countries (Kimmel, 2003). According to Connell, the masculinity of global businessmen and politicians connected to them has been acting as the hegemonic masculinity in the globalizing world where new liberalism has been prevailing. However, the politics of masculinity at the local and ethnic level has been moving towards responses of rebel and challenge rather than assimilation, and the extreme norms of masculinity of the fundamentalists should be understood in this context (Connell, 2000). Strategies taken by the minorities towards hegemonic masculinity within a society are very diverse. For example, Chinese Americans that are taking a compensation strategy tend to excel sports and seek norms of aggressive masculinity in order to establish their masculinity in the American society. If someone refuses his Chinese identity and follows the one of the whites, he is adopting the denial strategy and the contrary strategy to that would be the repudiation strategy which stresses the Asian identity rather than denying it (Chen, 1999)2. As we can see, once factors as race and ethnicity get considered in the politics of hegemonic masculinity that boasts a firm structure of power and organization, it is not easy to understand the dynamics of its political power. Especially, colonialism serves as a good example that revealed this kind of relevance of race and ethnicity to hegemonic masculinity. Shinha who quotes the example of the Bengali men writes that by setting the English masculinity as the norm through gender politics and defining the masculinity of the Bengali men as sexually discriminating, vulgar, and non-masculine, the English not only justified but also enhanced their position as rulers. In response to
2
The authoralso introduces the deflection strategy,however,considering thatestablishing one’s masculinity through making a fortune is similarto the compensation strategy itwasn’t
this, Bengali men tended to prove their masculinity through enhancing patriarchy and the suppression of women (Shinha, 1995).
In searching for the dynamics of hegemonic masculinity on a global level, articulating how military masculinities have been competed, cooperated and chosen in a multi-raced military or a multi-nation military would inform us of how race, nation and ethnicity would affect forming certain masculinities. Although there have been studies conducted on the masculinity of warriors or masculinity related to the making of a soldier with no regard on ethnicity and nationality, however, studies that show how various models of masculinity that differ in their status of power and privilege affect each other within an multiracial army have been absent (Goldstein, 2001; Herbert, 1998; Cock, 1993). This is because scholars of women’s studies have only recently become interested in this subject and the focus has been mainly on considering the common feature of the army as an organization disregarding national differences. In Whitworth’s study on the masculinity of the UN Peace Keeping Force which could be seen as a similar case to the situation of the KATUSA, she only comments that each nation had its own training culture to build a similar military identity (Whitworth, 2004).
Research Method
Gathering data for studies regarding masculinity is difficult because masculinity itself doesn’t have a discrete form but rather exists as an abstract concept in the minds of people and reveals itself only in the form of action, symbol, and discourse within our daily lives (Sasson-Levy, 2002). Therefore, the best way to launch a research on this kind of theme would be to combine both methods of participant observation that analyzes data gathered by living together and direct observation and in-depth interview that enables gathering data of the conscious mind. However, this study employs the method of in-depth interview and data research only because participant observation is realistically challenging to conduct. In-depth interview with U.S. soldiers weren’t included within the scope of this study from the beginning
because this study intends to focus on the masculinity of the KATUSA conscripts with the low accessibility to U.S. soldiers. Also, a comparative cross examination like cross-cultural observation or the view of the U.S. soldiers on the KATUSA conscripts has been intentionally left out to focus on the thoughts and the collective culture of the KATUSA.
In-depth interviews were conducted of 15 post-conscripts whose year of military service range from the 1970’s until recently. Interviews were hold between the period of June to November, 2004 and lasted for two to three hours. In order to trace the changes in the differences of economic and national power between Korea and the U.S. due to the rapid economic growth of the Korean economy during the last 30 years, interviewees were chosen to cover all the periods from the 70’s until the late 90’s. Half of the selection of interviewees was based on recommendations from acquaintances and the rest were selected by recommendations from the interviewees themselves.
[Table] The general characteristics of the in-depth interviewees
Year of Enlistment
Branch at the army Academic background
Current occupation
Interviewee 1 1978 Transportation unit Undergraduate Researcher Interviewee 2 1982 2nd Division military
hospital
Graduate Journalist
Interviewee 3 1984 Yongsan military hospital
University dropout
Public official
Interviewee 4 1986 2nd Division military hospital
Graduate Company employee
Interviewee 5 1986 Yongsan helicopter unit Undergraduate Company employee Interviewee 6 1991 Chunchon helicopter
unit
Undergraduate Lecturer
Interviewee 7 1994 Sungnam helicopter unit
Interviewee 8 1994 2nd Division signal corps
Undergraduate Researcher
Interviewee 9 1997 2ndinfantry outfit Undergraduate Student Interviewee
10
1998 Yongsan military policeman
Undergraduate Graduate student
Interviewee 11
1998 2ndinfantry outfit Undergraduate Graduate student
Interviewee 12
1998 Taegu Undergraduate Researcher
Interviewee 13 1999 2ndDivision artillery unit Undergraduate Researcher Interviewee 14 1999 Yongsan personnel office
Undergraduate Graduate student
Interviewee 15
2000 2ndDivision supply unit Undergraduate Undergraduate
Developed, Enhanced and Common Sentiment: Anti-Americanism as a Major Factor to Define Masculinity
In general, all interviewees showed strong sentiments against the U.S. The anti-US sentiment of the KATUSA conscripts can be divided into the following aspects as an anti-sentiment as citizens of a minor power, resistance against the individual experience of discrimination, and inferiority complex as a male in witnessing the relations of Korean women to American soldiers.
1) Identity as citizens of a minor power
Most KATUSA conscripts believe that the discrimination towards them is a price they have to pay as citizens of a minor power that fully relies on the U.S., the major
power.
The Americans act like they were the lords, and we are supposed to represent the citizens of the minor power that stink. (Interviewee 3).
How the U.S. soldiers perceive Korea. How they think of the KATUSA gets decided. In my opinion, the American soldiers are very arrogant and in a way it’s natural for them to think that way because most American soldiers view Korea from the eyes as a soldier. Considering the tendency of soldiers to think simply, their opinion is built on their experience at the army. Judgments based on the way the Korean army operates. The problem is because the Korean system isn’t that rational, based on the mandatory conscription system, and U.S. soldiers view it operating under a semi-war state, American soldiers tend to look down on us. They even joke about us among themselves. (Interviewee 9).
This inferiority complex toward the U.S. army is not built just by being exposed to its economic and military superiority. In fact, the Korean society has been positioning itself as a minor power to the U.S. since its liberation from Japanese colonial ruling and as a result, anti-U.S. sentiments increased during the 1980s, which is more and more understood as conflicts between imperial power and its new colony as well as between the major and minor power. The only difference is that the KATUSA conscripts were to be exposed to it more directly. Therefore, their experience naturally is understood to comprise a part of the discourse on the problematic relations between major and minor powers.
Although there certainly exist common features of military masculinity, I find the difference of nationality and ethnicity between the KATUSA and the US soldiers overwhelms the aspects of military masculinity like sympathy, exchange, and cooperation. Most conscripts of the KATUSA have been influenced by the advanced system of the U.S. army and conceive its rules and orders that drive the system to be
modern and advanced. However, at the same time an anti-America sentiment rises from the conscripts’experience of feeling inferior in terms of economy and military power along with the experience of discrimination in their daily lives at the army, which expresses in two ways. One way would be through the fostering of hegemonic masculinity within the Korean society by stressing the role of males in terms of nation and maintaining the logic of sacrifice for the sake of establishing a national identity. The other way is to confirm national superiority through proving their masculinity against the U.S. private soldier’s that is considerably weak within the various organizations at the U.S. army.
The impression of the U.S. that the KATUSA conscripts have during their stay at the U.S. army is that of being a country which is rich and strong in military power. In fact, in recalling their first impression during their training period at the American army which occurs right after their training at the Korean army with other general Korean conscripts is similar to that of visiting an advanced country for the first time.
For instance, <Interviewee 1> who attended the KATUSA during the 70’s where the economic gaps was biggest during the two nations recalls his experience as follows, “There (in the US military) seemed to be lacking nothing. There were always enough shells and medical supplies. The Korean army, in contrast, was nothing. Even military uniforms were lacking at the Korean army.”<Interviewee 3> who attended the army in 1984 recalls his experience of joining the U.S. army right after the six week training at the Korean army as follows.
I remember receiving a yellow bag, you know, the grocery bag you get at American general stores. Each one of us received one. I couldn’t believe my eyes what I found inside it. There was white toilet paper which I had only believed to find at American universities. Also shampoo was there and even shaving cream, razor, nail scissors were in there. I almost cried. I’m not kidding, I had tears in my eyes. Tears were dropping from my eyes. That was tense. What was more, walking towards the camp, I found it to be shining as if it had been just waxed. But in fact, the reason why it was that shining was not the effect of wax but
because they were made of certain tiles that had those shining effects. The camps were heated well that everybody was wearing just short trousers. Then those beds with bed linen and padded blankets. There were also goose feather pillows. Everything was so new and different. (Interviewee 3)
After the 90s, KATUSA conscripts have not felt this kind of experiences of extreme gaps anymore because of the considerable growth of the Korean economy. However, still cultural differences especially regarding food have existed which have been perceived as differences of national power.
First you get really shocked by the cultural difference. Whereas food is very poor at the Korean army, here you even go to family restaurants. Those restaurants do resemble Bennigan’s or TGI Fridays. Even T-bone steak and lobster is served at those places. Just unbelievable! It was there that I ate lobster for the first time in my life. After a while Burger King hamburgers start to taste too bad for eating. And you start wondering how come the U.S. is able to provide its armies abroad with such good food. We couldn’t even get food of this standard in our own country’s army. Yes, that’s the point you get to feel, the difference of national power. (Interviewee 12)
This difference of national power becomes something that conscripts have to experience continually during their military life at the KATUSA.
Military power, because they possess outstanding military power…a difference in military skills. For instance, regarding the satellite, they are able to gather all kinds of data through it, which the Korean army wouldn’t be able to get without the help of the U.S. army. I heard that ten stealth fighters have recently been purchased including an aircraft carrier. These kinds of weapons rely heavily on the information from the satellite. Although I can’t reveal what happens when war breaks out because it is top military
secret, you can count on it that 99% we will have to do is to rely on the U.S. army. The Korean army is supposed to fill the remaining 1% through defending the nation until the arrival of the U.S. army. (Interviewee 12)
As we can see, through the inferiority complex resulting from differences of
economic and military power and acknowledging the U.S. army to be rational, modern, and as an advanced institution, KATUSA conscripts internalize the view of the American army such as disregard for the Korean army and feeling superior due to their experiencing the advanced system. This kind of conflict between the inferior complex of belonging to a weak power and pride of having experienced the advanced American system is noticeable in the book Do you know the KATUSA? written by Pak Chŏngch’ŏl and O Sŭnghwan (2003). Although the U.S. is criticized for its justification of imperialistic intention and application, the book praises the U.S. soldiers for their rationality, family oriented life style, respect to human rights, and culture that respects diversity and individuality. The view on the U.S. army reflects at the same time a negative attitude towards the Korean system that is irrational, lacks in individuality and preparedness, wholly relies on the U.S. army, doesn’t embrace diversity, and isn’t advanced.
<Interviewee 9> remarks that the experience as an in-between undergoing both the superior systems of the American army and the inferior systems of weak incapable general Korean army caused an identity crisis for him.
After entering the army, I got to know how poor the quality of the Korean military system and power was. The Korean military depended on the U.S, literally everything. Then I came to ask myself how wearing the American military uniform as a Korean, would be seen by the general Korean soldiers. (Is it true that you also considered yourself to be superior to your Korean peers at the Korean army? A sort of elitism?) I couldn’t deny it. It would be a lie if I’d say that I didn’t have such a feeling at all. That feeling of superiority would be similar to the one that Koreans still have over others when they are talking with
foreigners on the street. (Could it be that you also felt a sort of inferiority complex as being a betrayer to your country?) Yes, that’s true. Those two feelings are actually rooted together. The more one feeling increases so does the other side of feeling, which could be called characteristics of colonialism in a broader sense. (Interviewee 9).
The feeling of inferiority as a member of poor nation that has less advanced military conflicts with the feeling of superiority towards the U.S. private soldiers on a personal level. In fact, the superiority has been most often noted as the prevalent element in determining the KATUSA conscript’s identity in his relations with American soldiers. This feeling of superiority is rooted in the gap of academic background and class between the KATUSA conscripts and U.S. general private soldiers. Whereas the U.S. army is composed of lower class and ethnical minorities, KATUSA conscripts pride themselves of being elites from prestigious universities and as a results consider themselves superior as individuals.
Their educational background is very poor and mostly you can’t hold a sound
conversation with U.S. private soldiers. The working capability differs so much that it’s actually meaningless to try to compare it at all. Just listening to their talking would tell you much. I’d say most of them aren’t capable of thinking. Except for sergeants and officers, general private soldiers could be seen as no-brainers. (Interviewee 9).
Because U.S. soldiers are less educated, a cultural difference exists. For instance, my roommate confessed to have been from Harlem (Interviewee 3).
As Pak Chŏngch’ŏland O Sŭnghwan note in their book, the first responses of Korean conscripts to the violence of American senior soldiers and problems regarding communicating in English was that “I used to be a student of one of the top universities in Korea and I never considered myself to be incapable.”(2003:37).
2) The direct experience of discrimination
The consciousness as citizens of a weak power transforms into anger through the individual experience of discrimination. Most of the KATUSA conscripts experience discrimination for the first time of their lives at the army. As males that had been free from discrimination based on race, gender, and educational background in the Korean society, it is at the army where they undergo discrimination as a racial other and minority of masculinity. Especially, the fact that they are discriminated by U.S. private soldiers whose educational level doesn’t meet the average standards of the Korean society intensifies their anger.
Actually, the people that join the KATUSA don’t’have strong anti-U.S. sentiments from the beginning. They just wanted to have an easy going military life. However, the experience there turns them into an anti-American because Americans oppress and neglect us without any reason. Also the U.S soldiers can be quite unreasonable at times. As Koreans who had been attending or graduated from universities, they usually demand a rational explanation for behaviors despite all the cultural differences. The U.S. soldiers, however, don’t show that. Although we feel injustice there is no way to protest against it (Interviewee 3).
<Interviewee 9> who attended high school in an English speaking country answers as follows.
To be frank, first I had the expectations of leading a good military life and dating American female soldiers at the U.S. army. But on my arrival at the army, I found senior soldiers calling the American soldiers ‘Yankees’. At first I couldn’t understand their behavior but just after a little while I came to the conclusion that the word ‘Yankee’was still quite paying respect to them. They deserved to have been called much worse. Spending some
time there, you can’t help calling them ‘Yankees’. Feeling neglected by someone who is less capable than you is really discouraging. (Interviewee 9)
I admit that everybody must be thinking that I’m smarter than the U.S.
counterparts. Especially, it poses lots of problems at the combat unit. (Why?) Because you feel neglected. Well, in a way it’s natural to be neglected when you don’t know how to do things. However, it becomes complicated once you start believing that you would be much more capable than the American soldier in handling things if you were only taught how to do it. (Interviewee 15)
Moreover, the national pride damaged by their experience at an army stronger in terms of economic and military power, the anti-American sentiment roused by experiencing discrimination for the first time in their lives, and the anger that easily get justified in terms of the dominant anti-American atmosphere intensifies more through the American soldiers’relations to Korean women.
3) The damaged masculinity of the Korean men
All interviewees confessed having despised Korean women for dating American soldiers and actually lamented the fact that the majority of women who dated U.S. soldiers were university students.
What really bothers me is that American men need to take much less effort to have a one night stand with a woman than we have to do. Although it has much changed these days, in old days, women preferred students studying abroad or foreigners. That really pissed me off. How could it be that the women were much more hospitable to foreigners? Whereas their attitude toward Korean men was quite harsh. I really disliked that aspect of Korean women. (Interviewee 13)
<Interviewee 3> who attended the army in the 80s had similar views as those from the 90s.
Well, they used to hang around in clubs at Itawon. There are so many dumb female university students. Excluding the very low class American soldiers ….This is an episode I had when I used to live with American officers. There was this officer who was married that showed me his notebook one day. There were around 20 names written in it. He started explaining to me who they all were. They were mostly university students from Ewha University and other schools. Then he explained to me that he met all these women to teach English to them but what they really did together was….. (Interviewee 3)
I really hate to see them with Korean women. (Why is that?) It just makes me feel bad (laughing). Feels like being invaded by territory, seeing foreigners going around with Korean women in their arms. (Interviewee 15)
In other words, interviewees expressed feelings of anger and jealousy about the fact that the American soldiers, especially white Americans, enjoyed too much privilege purely thanks to their nationality and ethnicity. In their view, white American soldiers actually didn’t deserve such popularity among the so called educated Korean women. Additionally, Korean women who had a relationship with these U.S. soldiers were treated as objects of contempt and disregard. Interviewees thought that Korean women’s dating of American soldiers was regarded to be evidence of Korea’s position of being a weak power, symbolizing the occupation of the foreign force, a disgrace to the nation’s pride. The female body is considered to symbolize a nation’s territory (McClintock, 1995), and to protect women and children along with the territory is seen to compose the identity of male soldiers (Enloe, 1998; Cock, 1993). Whereas the Korean man’s dating an American woman is interpreted to be an extension of national territory, a Korean woman’s dating an American man is considered to symbolize
colonization. In particular, seen from the perspectives of the norms of military masculinity of the Korean soldier, the preference for American men of the Korean women tends to overshadow the norms of military masculinity of the Korean soldiers and consequently, effeminate their masculinity. The Korean military aspect of the masculinity of the KATUSA conscripts reconfirmed through their evaluation of the Korean women that date American soldiers.
Moreover, the KATUSA conscripts have their own reason of showing such reaction. One of the main rationales of criticizing the Korean women is that they chose to date soldiers of low class and educational level. However, the Korean female’s choice for these American private soldiers despite their low class could be understood as a decision to enjoy a western life style that is less patriarchal or an opportunistic choice to learn English. Therefore, it can be said that such criticism of the KATUSA conscripts underlies an uneasy feeling toward the female’s desire for rise in society. The desire of women that they are refusing to acknowledge, paradoxically, explains why the KATUSA conscripts can’t tell with confidence why they chose to join the KATUSA among Korean mails. The Korean women’s decision doesn’t differ much from the one of the conscripts who wanted to have an easy military life that benefits from the superiority of the U.S. economic power and system and wanted to catch the opportunity of learning English. Moreover, considering that the interviewees of the both 1980s and 1990s maintain a cynical view on women that date American soldiers, it can’t be said that this criticism is purely based on the Korean society’s traditional emphasis on female virginity. Interestingly, the sexual relationship between the man of a major power and the women of a weaker power is always blamed from the perspectives of the norms of masculinity and nationalism. Also within the male culture of a minor power, schematizing the issue of female’s virginity into the two categories of preserving and staining purity tend to be easily justified even among the intellectuals.
One interesting aspects of the interview is that although the interviewees were very talkative and expressed feelings of anger toward the stories regarding the Korean women’s dating of white Americans, they showed almost no emotional response to the
topic that dealt with sexual relations with prostitutes. In most cases, they admitted not to have really paid respect to this topic or considered it seriously before and refused to talk further.
(Dongduchon is an area well known for prostitution?) Yes, that’s true. There live a lot of prostitutes in the Dongduchon area including women from Russia, the Philippines along with Koreans. (How do you feel about this place?) I don’t have any particular feeling. Some people just choose to go there. I don’t have any certain feelings towards them. Actually haven’t really thought about it. (Even not among Korean soldiers? Don’t you criticize the Americans that go to those places?) Not really. We are in the military you know. The men are also victims of suppression here. (Interviewee 13)
It is also true that there doesn’t exist much information regarding prostitution. “I don’t know really about it. We, KATUSA conscripts, don’t go to those places and I don’t know about the American soldiers either. Probably they go.”According to <Interviewee 9>, it could be inferred that prostitution was a topic that was avoided or neglected among the KATUSA conscripts and between the KATUSA conscripts and the U.S. soldiers. Except for the case of Interviewee 8 who commented to have avoided the topic due to guilty consciousness, all other interviewees weren’t able to provide a reasonable answer. This could be a reflection of the existing prejudice of taking prostitution for granted based on the common ground of masculine sexuality that transcends the boundaries of nation and ethnicity. It also reveals that while the norms of a normal female represented by female university students are considered as members of our society that might pose threats to the norms of Korean masculinity, female prostitutes aren’t considered worth protection. However, as the response of Interviewee 8 shows, it also could be that the theme of prostitution is conceived to be of too much shame for the males of a minor power that reveals their failure to protect their own women. Therefore, it could have been a topic to be consciously or unconsciously avoided among themselves or in the relations to American soldiers.
Masculinities Culturally Sexually Different
This feeling of superiority from class and educational background of the KATUSA comes to justify their sustaining Korean masculinity, separating themselves from the masculinity of the U.S. soldiers, and raising an anti-American sentiment. The rejection of the norms of masculinity of American soldiers and instead maintaining the norms of Korean masculinity not only embodies sentiments of national pride that continuously is hurt as citizens of a minor power despite personal excellence and superiority but also is a concrete form of anti-American sentiment. The strong desire to maintain the norms of Korean masculinity that is brought by anti-Americanism and national consciousness of being citizens of a weak power is revealed through the aspects of cultural separation.
According to Kim Hyunyoung who comments on the process of how the norms of masculinity of Korean soldiers are constructed through physical training, disciplinary punishment, group sports, and the bond built through these kinds of activities are noted as the key elements. Also the discourse on sex that objectifies the female and contributes in rejecting femininity, as a result, enforces the bond among men as well as the rationale of excluding women (Kim Hyunyoung, 2002). However, in the case of the KATUSA, there hardly exists this kind of strong bond between the American soldiers and Koreans despite the fact that they share the same barracks and even rooms in some cases. Moreover, in spite of the tendency of seeking relations with U.S. soldiers to explore opportunities of learning English.
1) Separation of Living
A separate culture of living exists among the KATUSA even at the same barracks.
live in separate barracks and hanging out with U.S. soldiers is interpreted as extracting from the rule system of the Korean KATUSA. As a junior, you don’t really have free time even in the afternoon. The senior has always an eye on you so going out with the Americans to have a drink at a bar would be unimaginable. Totally forbidden. As a result, even though you become senior later on your relations are limited to the Korean conscripts. It means you have almost no contact with the American soldiers. (Interviewee 14)
<Interviewee 15> describes his experience at the KATUSA of attending the U.S. army at daytime and attending the Korean army at night time.
In the office, I was a U.S. soldier because of my positions as a supply officer. The moment I left the office, my position unofficially switched to that of a Korean soldier. At work, I was controlled completely by the American officers. Under the U.S. military culture, you are allowed to call your bosses just by their name after work. In a way, U.S. soldiers become sort of friends in their free time. However, in the case of Korean conscripts, because unofficially you became a Korean soldier after work, you weren’t given free time. Even though you had your own room, it didn’t necessarily mean that you could enjoy your free time at your own will. (Interviewee 15)
It is apparent that the KATUSA had to lead a separate day and nigh life which was enforced to them. This aspect actually reveals that the Korean conscripts’behavior of building their own culture reflected their intention of building a separate culture from that of the Americans.
2) Endeavors to achieve true identity as a Korean soldier
This collective consciousness of being different from the U.S soldiers, on the contrary, is also well expressed within the KATUSA’s group culture that tries to
maintain a separate identity as Korean soldiers. First of all, a strict class culture exists among conscripts like in the regular Korean army. Many interviewees pointed out that this is one of the characteristics that distinguish the KATUSA from the general U.S. army where no class order exists among private soldiers3. There exists no salutation among private soldiers and private soldiers including the deputy commander only bow to the officers. Among officers, the junior officer only salutes the senior and indoors there exists neither salutation with a hand nor salutation catchwords (O Sŏngsik, 2002). However, among the private soldiers at KATUSA the hierarchy of class order is strictly held and salutation are made to the private first class and the sergeant who become in charge of setting the military disciplines.
Secondly, the role of military disciplines differs a lot between the KATUSA and the U.S. army. Whereas following military disciplines are seen as means of observing rules and sets of criteria for promotion decisions in the American army, they exist as means of oppression to maintain a strong group culture in the KATUSA (O Sŏngsik, 2002; Pak Chŏngch’ŏland O Sŭnghwan, 2003). The conscripts of the KATUSA were clearly aware of this difference.
Setting the disciplines is very important in the army, however, in my opinion, it is set in the form of an oppressive culture in the Korean army. Unlike the U.S. army, disciplinary punishments are given to prevent any mistakes and keep everyone in tension. In the U.S. army, however, discipline is established through regulations. By regulations which are very strict. It is said that the amount of regulations could fill the shelves of one whole wall at the library. Seen from my current point of view, it was a very good system. (Interview 12)
As <Interviewee 12> who entered the army in 1998 comments, the KATUSA’s
3
The terminology private soldierrefers to GI(GovernmentIssue)thatincludes only Private, Private FirstClass,Specialistunlike the Korean army terminology thatincludes Sergeant.The U.S.army is based on the drafting system and differentfrom the Korean military where you get automatically promoted aftera certain amountoftime,U.S.soldiers’ promotion is based on
method of setting discipline was done in the Korean way and this Korean way of discipline setting has been maintained during the 80s and 90s.
Senior soldiers insist on keeping this kind of method. (For fear that military discipline would get lost?) Yes, and seniors are asked to treat juniors very strictly so that the discipline gets sustained. In military culture, there exists the term ‘father’. All seniors no matter if they entered the army one month or two month before you are to be called ‘father’. Father or Grandfather. What an absurdly authoritative atmosphere? ( Interviewee 4)
<Interviewee 11> who experienced the army in the mid 90s remembers KATUSA to have been a place where military discipline prevailed more than in the general Korean army.
Rules are much stricter at the KATUSA than at the Korean quarters. In fact there were constant reports of suicide during my stay at the army. (Why was it so strict?) It is because the combat unit is expected to meet the U.S. standards despite their physical inferiority. To overcome that, mental power is asked which of course isn’t that easy. Moreover, seniors insist on it to sort of keep our Korean cultural identity. However, those were just meaningless rules which meant nothing … (Interviewee 11)
Thirdly, diverse cultural tools are employed to sustain their identity of being Korean soldiers. Group behaviors such as singing the Korean national hymn and conducting salutations and disciplinary punishments in the Korean way reveal the anxiety of the conscripts at KATUSA to be seen as Korean soldiers. Patterns of this kind of behavior weren’t based on a certain model but were based on the training methods at the Nonsan military training center where they shared their first experience as soldiers with their counterparts at the Korean army or on disciplinary methods generally known to exist at the Korean army. Interestingly the most severe method got
accepted to be the way at the KATUSA.
We sung the Korean army song. Not because we knew the army song and the way of the Korean army, but because this was said to be the way of military discipline at the Korean army. It was enforced by saying ‘This is said to be the Korean way, so you also have to follow it.’Actually, the level of discipline differs a lot among Korean army units. Whereas at some places rules are very strict, there are also many places where the atmosphere is not so tense. However, only the worst standards were applied to us. For instance, conscripts were forced to sing a song while attending sever disciplinary punishments or among KATUSA conscripts, salutation was conducted in the Korean way. (Interviewee 10)
Fourthly, this kind of establishing of their identity as Korean soldiers is naturally received and maintained. Although there might be some cases of exception such as showing rebel against extreme cases of violence (Interviewee 12) and conducting no violence on juniors as a senior (Interviewee 2,3), generally certain behaviors of establishing the identity as a Korean soldier have been maintained so far.
(What is the main rational behind this maintaining a stronger military discipline than the U.S. soldiers?) The rationale is very simple. It is because we are Korean soldiers. Everything gets explained through this logic. Because we are not Americans, we don’t need to follow their rules. As being Koreans, we are asked to obey to the Korean way of military life such as following certain disciplines and rules that resemble those of the Korean army. This is the sort of rationale in openly demanding that we should sustain this kind of culture. (Interviewee 7)
Although most interviewees participated in the efforts that were taken to establish an identity as Koreans at the KATUSA, it is noticeable that they, however, showed low respect or even despise towards the general Korean soldiers. <Interviewee
4>, for instance, who joined the KATUSA in 1986 and formerly had expressed much frustration about the fact that KATUSA wasn’t perceived as part of the Korean army, interestingly had a cynical view on the general Korean army’s way of discipline setting and claimed the superiority of the U.S. way.
The Korean way of discipline setting could be said to be close to torture. There exists no discipline. In terms of military discipline, I think that the U.S. army is the best example. Literally, military discipline means rules and law. The U.S. army has a full set of books containing those rules. It is explained and analyzed in detail in these books how each job is to be conducted. That is a big contrast against the Korean way of discipline. Much superior. As I told you, these books could fill a whole shelf of wall. So detailed are the rules. (Interviewee 4)
<Interviewee 6> saw the Korean army as a pre-modern organization where even among private soldiers, the class structure is ruled by oppression rather than by talent.
The Korean military system doesn’t really focus on increasing its force but soldiers are put to do lots of work which include picking weeds or attending training programs on ideology which nowadays everybody would consider bullshit. Yes, that was my major opinion on the Korean army. I regarded it to be a dumb system, which probably also others must have thought that way. Rather than considering it being a modern system, being irrational and absurd were the more fitting explanations and impressions of the Korean army’s system. (Interviewee 6)
Also <Interviewee 7> who got recruited in 1994 criticized the inefficiency of the military discipline set by oppressive methods.
military culture of the Korean army are very irrational. Everything is put under oppression. In contrast to that, the U.S. army, on the other hand, appears at least on the surface to be very rational. For example, physical violence would be unimaginable in the U.S. army. (Interviewee 7)
Here rises the question then why the KATUSA as a group composed of conscripts from leading universities4 and that are at minimum potential candidates of B.A. degrees and tend to give a rational evaluation on the quality of the general Korean army, has been so eager to keep the irrational Korean military tradition throughout the 80s and 90s until the present? In fact, the U.S. soldiers tried to get rid of the violent elements of the Korean army culture5 (Interviewee 12). Why is it that the KATUSA has been maintaining this oppressive culture despite the fact that they have been despised by the U.S. soldiers for it and they consider it to be wrong themselves?
The fundamental reason could be traced back to the initial comment on the fact that the post-conscripts have shown an inferiority complex of having attended an easy going army where life style was comparably more relaxing and conscripts were given more free time. According to Kwon Hyukbum, “Within a strong nationalistic group culture, ‘the individual’gains a negative meaning, thus conceived as a synonym to ‘egoism’(Hyukbum, 2004:33). To defend and free themselves from the negative picture of representing selfish masculinity that chose to join the KATUSA for their own interest and pursuing an easy military life, the KATUSA chose to maintain aspects of the Korean military culture. In other words, the Korean military culture was an alternative for preventing the loss of the identity as a Korean soldier that represents proper military masculinity.
4Ofcourse notallwere from leading universities.Although mostconscripts recruited through
the centralrecruitmentsystem were students oftop universities,conscripts recruited through the platoon recruitmentmostly were students orgraduates from generaluniversities.
5
<Interviewee 8> explains the reason why U.S.soldiers and KATUSA conscripts came to share barracks.“Some barracks are occupied by the KATUSA conscripts only,however,because the U.S.soldiers disliked the atmosphere ofdisciplinary punishmentamong the Koreans,rules were
3) Seeking a different sexuality
All interviewees remarked that the U.S. soldiers were sexually active in their relationships with Korean women and their female colleagues. However, the Korean conscripts didn’t seem to be much affected by this sex culture of the American soldiers and actually noted to lead a separated sex culture themselves.
They (US soldiers) tend to lead a free sex life among themselves. Because there are many female soldiers, casual sex life among themselves is quite natural. When they want to bring a female over to their place, they ask their roommate to leave for the night. Yes, that’s their way of having sex. Everybody has their own value system, but that’s their way. (Haven’t your norms of sex been changed since?) Can’t say that anything changed during my two years at the army. Some tend to be quite shocked by those things. There are some who really are shocked by those scenes. However, once you get used to it…Haha. (Interviewee 7)
In my opinion, the KATUSA conscripts seem to be sexually castrated. The Korean soldiers (in the regular Korean army) must have been sexually active as the Americans. (Actually, I didn’t really envy them for that.) Well, I can’t totally deny that I wished to sleep with women myself. However, I can’t say that I envied that kind of way of life. (Interviewee 6)
The interview revealed that the KATUSA conscripts’discourse on sex and sex life focused on differentiating themselves from the Americans, in other words, it tended to stress “that we were different from them.”
The biggest difference between us and the Americans is their view on sex. For example, it doesn’t matter if you are a dentist who attended medical school and is currently captain at the army. No matter how well you are educated, in relations with women they are all the
same. They know no shame. They even exchange women among themselves. (Interviewee 3)
I have never heard of a case that a KATUSA conscript paid for sex. Supposing that these sex related behaviors would have been prevailing not among the U.S. soldiers but among the Korean soldiers, I believe that the case would have been quite different. Because they are Americans, in the view of a well educated, they are not of equal class…therefore, their behavior isn’t regarded to be respectable.. (Interviewee 11)
According to the above comments, it is possible to think that sexuality functioned as a way of confirming a differentiated masculinity for the Korean conscripts and its strategic choice was affected by the differences of national power and social class.
The aspect of separating itself from the U.S. sex culture is also found in the absence of objectifying female American soldiers by the Korean conscripts. Although having sex among American soldiers was a common thing, most interviewees noted that they didn’t see female American soldiers as women. “There used to be jokes about who slept with whom. However, it didn’t really matter to me because they were racially different. We weren’t sexually attracted to each other (Interviewee 8)”. As Lee Donghŭn and Kim Hyunyoung note, female American soldiers weren’t considered as women by Korean soldiers but also there wasn’t any hatred visible that most Korean general soldiers had toward Korean female soldiers. They mostly accepted the existence of female soldiers at the army and didn’tshow any gender based prejudices against their female coworkers. The only comment on them was that ‘fat’female private soldiers seemed to have difficulties at physical examinations (Interviewee 9,11). Sexual objectification is conducted based on the hierarchies of gender in most societies. Seen from the context of power relations, the American female soldier subverts the hierarchy of gender between the sexes. From the perspectives of the Korean conscript, the female American soldier doesn’trepresent the social other that is weak in power, neither does she represent the woman that is dominated by the men. This striking
contrast of attitudes toward women between the American soldiers who view both Korean and American women as the object of their sex and love and the Korean soldiers, reveals how the weak power’s male’s view on sexuality towards the women of the strong power is affected not only simply by the existing norms of gender but also by the nation’s power.
4) Multidimensional refusal of the norms of masculinity of the American soldiers
In commenting on the norms of military masculinity, Lee Donghŭn mentions that masculinity is of competing nature and functions in ruling society’s structural hierarchy. This means that soldiers try to conform to the norms of masculinity that pictures the muscular soldier as superior and the irresolute and gentle officer as inferior and therefore, challengeable by the masculinity of his subordinates (Lee Donghŭn, 2002). However, this kind of comparison of masculinity between the KATUSA and the American soldiers isn’t applicable. Contrary to the common assumption that the masculinity of U.S. soldiers would be considered superior due to their physical superiority, Korean soldiers had considerable number of rationales to negate it and even stressed the superiority of the Korean male.
(In the case of combat soldiers, the Korean soldiers are much smaller in size than the Americans, right?) Nowadays, everything is mechanized that the role of the soldier is quite small. The KATUSA conscripts get well recognized because they are smart and know how to handle computers. In other words, Korean conscripts get acknowledged through their talent in other things than physical features. (Interviewee 4)
In fact, the KATUSA tend to underline their superiority through changing the standards of comparing physical superiority.
Well, it depends on what the standards are in defining your superiority. For instance, it’s undeniable that the American soldiers are better in holding heavy things. But in cases of long marching, it isn’t necessarily physical strength that counts. (Do you mean strong will counts more?) Yes, it is partly stems from the pressure of the seniors, and also due to the will of keeping your pride. (Interviewee 11)
Actually, the Korean conscripts who in general had a strong collective will not to lose showed in average a better performance in long distance running and marching than American soldiers. Moreover, interviewees tended to hardly relate the norms of masculinity with the characteristics of a Rambo-like muscular body. This was mainly due to the fact that they attended the army at a time when people were less interested in making bodies than nowadays, but also due to the atmosphere of the Korean society that more values the individual’s intellectual capabilities than physical ones. Therefore, the conscripts had been beneficiaries as elites in the Korean society and existing stereotypical images of ‘a big and dumb black soldier’fostered their feeling of superiority over their American counterparts.
5) KATUSA, as a Shameful Experience
Through the enhanced consciousness of being citizens of a minor power and the anti-American sentiments, the conscripts came to stress the sense of sacrifice for the sake of the nation but also question their own identity. This conflict makes the conscripts silent regarding their experience at the KATUSA even though they had the opportunity to experience the more advanced American military system and study English. Excluding <Interviewee 12>, all interviewees confessed that they never mentioned to others they had served at the KATUSA. <Interviewee 4>, for example, noted that he even never told his current close friends about his military life at the KATUSA.
I must say that I really came to feel ashamed of attending the KATUSA, the more I got to know about this place. It sort of became a mistake of my life I couldn’t get rid of, I was that ashamed…which I’m still. Although I talk about the military with people who also served at the KATUSA, if I’m with people from the general Korean army, I start feeling quite bad after some time. (Interviewee 3>
This aspect of shamefulness is also found in the interview with <Interviewee 15>.
Because I didn’t join the Korean army, I can’t share the same experience with other Koreans. Furthermore, it means that I will get teased of having joined the KATUSA for the rest of my life. People usually don’t know that a combat unit exists at the KATUSA6. (Do you get teased of having been a KATUSA?) Yes, I can’t tell anyone about it. (Don’t you rather get recognized as an elite person by others?) No, I don’t think so. They will call me a fake soldier for having had an easy military life. (Interviewee 15)
Men acknowledge masculinity through their experience at the military, whose hierarchical structure is decided by the level of personal sacrifice and commitment. Notwithstanding personal reasons of choice, it becomes a hegemonic masculinity that decides how an individual and group perceive themselves as men. Anti-Americanism enhances the hegemonic masculinity among Korean men with heightened nationalistic male consciousness. The politics of hegemonic masculinity not only sets the standards of masculinity but also reinforces its power through discriminating people that don’t meet the standards or by marginalizing them. On a global level, the inferiority complex of being citizens of a minor power along with the anti-U.S. sentiments resulting from KATUSA’sexperienceof discrimination from U.S. soldiers tends to enforce a strong sense of national identity and common efforts of constructing masculinity that differs from that of the American soldiers. Also, the superiority on a personal level rooted in the gap of academic background and class between the KATUSA conscripts and U.S.
6
general private soldiers enhance the anger of discrimination against them and develop anti-Americanism. These are the main drivers for the conscripts at the KATUSA to maintain a separate Korean military culture and sexuality. Research on the KATUSA conscripts shows how military masculinities have been competed, cooperated and chosen in a multi-raced military or a multi-nation military. It would inform us of how important to achieve a global perspective in studying masculinities.
References
Benedict, Anderson (1996), Imagined Communities, London and New York: Verso. Berger, Maurice, Brian Wallis, Simon Watson (1995), "Introduction", edited by
Maurice Berger, Brian Wallis, Simon Watson, Constructing Masculinity, New York and London: Routledge, pp. 1-10.
Bly, R. (1990), Iron Man: A Book about Men, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Brod, Harry (2002), “StudyingMasculinities as Subordinate Studies", Masculinity
Studies and Feminist Theory, New York: Columbia University Press, pp.161-175.
Chen, Anthony S.(1999), "Lives at the Center of The Periphery, Lives at the Periphery of the Center: Chinese American Masculinities and Bargaining with Hegemony,
Gender & Society, 13(5), pp.584-607.
Cho,Sŏng-suk (1997), "Masculinity and the Military Culture", Society for the Studies of the Korean Society, Masculinity and the Korean Society, Socio-Culture Research Institute.
Cock Jacklyn (1993), Women & War in South Africa, Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press. Connell, R.W., (1995), Masculinities, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
---, (2000), The Men and The Boys, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Demetriou, Demetrakis Z.,(2001), "Connell's Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: A Critique", Theory and Society, 30, pp.337-361.
Enloe, Cynthia (1988), Does Khaki Become You, London, Winchester, North Sydney and Wellington: Pandora.
Gardiner, Judith Kegan(2002), "Introduction", edited by Judith Kegan Gardiner,
Masculinity Studies and Feminist Theory, New York: Columbia University Press,
pp. 1-19.
Goldstein, Joshua S.,(2003), War and Gender, How Gender Shapes the War System
and Vice Versa, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gramsci, Antonio(1971), Selections From the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, New York: International Publishers.
Herbert, Melissa S. (1998), Camouflage isn't Only for Combat, Gender, Sexuality, and
Women in the Military, New York and London: New York University Press.
Izraeli, Dafna (1997), "Gendering Military Service in the Israeli Defense Forces",
Israel Social Science Research, 12, pp. 305-332.
Kendall, Lori (2000), "Oh No! I'm a Nerd!, Hegemonic Masculinity on an Online Forum", Gender & Society, 14(2), pp. 256-274.
Kim, Hyŏn-yŏng (2002),"SexualPoliticsoftheMilitary Serviceand Modern Identity of Citizens". Masters Thesis at Ewha Woman's University.
Kim,Kyŏng-hwa and Shi-kyŏng Sŏng (1999),"TheEconomicCrisisand theCrisesof Masculinity", Studies in Feminism, vol.24, pp.1-18.
Kimmel, Michael S. (2003), "Globalization and Its Mal(e) contents: The Gendered Moral and Political Economy of Terrorism", International Sociology, 18(3), pp. 603-620.
---(1996), Manhood in America: A Cultural History, New York: Free Press. Kwŏn,Hŏyk-pŏm (2004),Breaking Away from Citizenship: Nation, Progress, and the
Lee, Hyŏng-sam (2001), "Elite Soldiers that Dream the 50 Year History of the KATUSA in English", Monthly Dong-a, May.
Lee, Su-hyŏng (1997),"The Absence of the Roll-call Doesn't Mean It Is an Easy-going Army" , Weekly Dong-a, pp.01-02.
Lee, Tong-hŭn (2001),"TheMale-centered Aspect of the Military Culture and Gender Equal Education", Masters Thesis at Yonsei University.
Lee,Yŏng-cha (2000), "The Social Constitution of Masculinity and Sexual Politics",
Studies in Gender Equality. vol.5, pp.1-25.
Levy, Edna (1998), Heros and Helpmates: Militarism, Gender, and National Belonging in Israel, Doctoral Dissertation at University of California, Irvine.
Lomsky-Fedar, Edna, Tamar Rapport (2003), "Juggling Models of Masculinity: Russian-Jewish Immigrants in the Israeli Army", Sociological Inquiry, 73(1), pp.114-17.
McClintock, Anne (1995), Imperial Leather: Race, Gender and Sexuality in The
Colonial Contest, New York and London: Routledge.
Monthly Chosun Press (2002), Monthly Chosun's Total Guide Book of the Military. Seoul: Monthly Chosun Press.
Moon, Seungsook (2002), "The Production and Subversion of Hegemonic Masculinity: Reconfiguring Gender Hierarchy in Contemporary South Korea", edited by Laurel Kendall, Under Construction: The Gendering of Modernity, Class, and Consumption in the Republic of Korea, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,
pp.79-114.
Oh, Sŏng-shik (2002), "Post-conscriptSŏng-shik Oh's Understanding the English of the KATUSA", Monthly Chosun's Total Guide Book of the Military. Seoul: Monthly Chosun Press. pp.112-130.
Oh, Tong-nyong (2002), "Guide to the Military". Monthly Chosun's Total Guide Book
Pak,Chŏng-chŏland Sung-hwan Oh (2003), Do You Know the KATUSA. Seoul: Lisu Press.
Sasson-Levy, Orna (2003), "Feminism and Military Gender Practices: Israeli Women Soldiers in "Masculine" Roles, Sociological Inquiry, 73(3), pp.440-65.
---(2002), "Constructing Identities at the Margins: Masculinities and Citizenship in the Israeli Army", The Sociological Quarterly, 43(3), pp. 357-383. Sinha, Mrinalini (1995), Colonial Masculinity. The 'Manly English Man' and the
'Effeminate Bengali' in the Late Nineteenth Century, Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Steans, Jill (1998), Gender and International Relations: An Introduction, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Speer, Susan A. (2001), "Reconsidering the Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: Discursive Psychology, Conversation Analysis and Participant's Orientation",
Feminism & Psychology, 11(1), pp.107-135.
Wingman, Robyn (2002), " Unmaking: Men and Masculinity in Feminist Theory", edited by Judith Kegan Gardiner, Masculinity Studies and Feminist Theory, New York: Columbia University Press, pp.31-59.
Wetherell, Margaret and Nigel Edley (1999). "Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imaginary Positions and Psycho-Discursive Practices", Feminism & Psychology, 9(3), pp.335-356.
Whithworth, Sandra(2004), Men, Militarism & UN Peacekeeping, A Gendered
