The viva defence for my PhD is coming up and I figured I'd map out a few thoughts and why I wrote a dissertation on 'belief'.
When I first started, my initial proposal was to do fieldwork at Hanawon - a South Korean transition/re-education facility for North Korean defectors for their assimilation into capitalist South Korean society (a brief glimpse here). The aim of the proposal was to consider how 'religion' was presented to North Koreans and how they understood it. The theoretical reasoning drew on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (the predecessor to Lakoff and Johnson's The Metaphors We Live By) which maps out the claim that language and "culture" influence thought. This discussion plays out in religion and 'religious emotions' or 'religious experiences' in the perennialist-constructivist debate which centres around the extent to which a conceptual framework (and exposure to that framework) is necessary to have these 'religious emotions' or 'religious experiences' and how this framework influences 'religious cognition.' One curiosity was the extent in which they might map one view over the other. Considering the similarities between the deification of Kim Il Sung and Jesus, would the introduction of Christianity (forms of Protestantism and Catholicism) be one of 'syncretism' or something else? How would they respond to such overtures in this facility? How would they respond to a more direct exposure to Buddhism or other emerging religious movements like Mormonism, Won Buddhism, Islam, and Chundogyo?
The North Korean demographic transitioning into South Korea was an opportune site to investigate the issues of religion, freedom of conscience (along with its suppression) and the relationship between religion and capitalism. On one hand, it was an opportunity to see how S. Korea's brand of capitalism would be presented and in turn how it would be received, respond to, understood, and learned. This would range from very basic concepts, like money, to learned habits we took for granted (e.g. using an ATM or going to the bank). With capitalism, they were being presented to another conceptual framework in the realm of practice for South Korean society. They are given lessons in how to shed certain identity markers of being North Korean (e.g.dialect/accent/vocabulary) primarily due to the discrimination and biases they would face otherwise. This facility would be a place to begin learning new techniques of the body; reforming/reshaping habitus in a two-stage process: first at this facility and second as a new citizen; simulation and "real" - both socially constructed realities while the latter gives weight to responsibility, trust, and consequence. Over sixty years, have passed since the stalemate of Korea. In evolutionary terms, there is an allopatric division; a superficially constructed barrier that divides a geography preventing genetic and cultural exchange. For cultural evolutionists it would be interesting to consider whether, and I have heard many in South Korea argue, the north and south are different countries with different cultures. And of course, for Koreans, it will differ depending on who you ask.
Within this context, we can ask how the separation over the years have influenced thought, ethics, and mannerisms. What preconceptions do they have of each other? And particularly with North Koreans, what are the discrepancies between their life in the north and their experience in the south (views of ethics, morals, metaphysics)? The migration from north to south is, in this sense, a rupture of one set of social structures and the imposition of another. Between this transition they must navigate their identities, duties, and aspirations; meanings and power. The study would have situated habitus directly in the midst of social change manifested at the individual and group (those at Hanawon) level by which rules and improvisation would be focussed. The use of Bourdieu's habitus and the paradigm of embodiment would be significant as it would be a liminal space in which North Koreans would, not only, be subject to learning forms of "morality" but the site would also be a place in which improvisations manifest - reproduction/freedom and structure/improvisation. In this regard, there would be various ways to consider the dynamics of morality, ethics, self, and the intersections/interplay of social structures within this process. Ideally, the project would be longitudinal: conducting research within the facility and following up with them a year or two afterwards - were they disillusioned, what kind of difficulties were they facing, did their attitudes to religion change or remains the same, etc. Not only would this contribute to a greater understanding of belief, practice, and habitus but it also begs comment on the effect of capitalism on their thinking - in terms of morals and ethics. Would there be a trend correlated with the number of years living in society? If so, what kind of changes and what are the experiences/memories that shaped their thinking? How have they understood the conceptual frameworks of religion and capitalism, post-Hanawon?
Several South Korean scholars have noted that one of the greatest challenges for future unification will be the differences in thinking, beliefs, values, and practices between the north and south. On a practical level of impact, it would seem that this proposal would contribute quite meaningfully to this challenge as well as contribute to theoretical issues regarding morality, religion and political economy and issues regarding the relationship individual and society (Interdependent v. Independent self-construals, Durkheim's notion of homo duplex, and Bourdieu's project of accounting for the space between structure and experience). It would also be worth asking questions about the marginalization and the construction of an impoverished class.
It would have been interesting to start with this set of questions and assumptions and dive into fieldwork. As most anthropologists will attest, the project changes over time.... But alas due to complications (what I was told to be "homeland security" issues), I was forced to change my topic rather quickly and think of a new proposal. Being in a theology and religion department, there was significant room for manoeuvrability and because I occupied a somewhat odd intellectual space (a hodgepodge of philosophy, psychology, and anthropology) I wanted to revisit my fascination with religion to begin with...
No comments:
Post a Comment