Currents

According to a new survey from the government of South Korea, the majority of South Koreans — 52% — would oppose LGBT people living nearby them. By comparison, 84% would welcome North Korean defectors into their neighbourhoods, and 97% would welcome people with disabilities. In fact, the only demographic South Koreans considered more unwanted as neighbours were former convicts. Over recent years, progress on LGBT rights seems to have stalled in South Korea amid fierce backlash from the religious right. But this troubling backlash isn’t solely a response to Korea’s own domestic affairs.

The world fixates on the United States as a social petri dish, importing American culture wars even when it makes little sense in non-American contexts. Helen Lewis calls this phenomenon the “American Rhino Problem.” A study examining conservative Reddit threads about “Drag Queen Story Hour”, for example, suggests that digital-age culture wars render geographical distinctions obsolete. The moral panic around Drag Queen Story Hour in a handful of American states was seen as a warning to Redditors, people with no connection to America, about the dangers that would eventually wash over their own communities.

In a 2020 study of homosexuality-related articles in Kidok Sinmun, a leading Christian newspaper in South Korea, political science researchers Wondong Lee and Joseph Yi found that over 80% discussed clashes between conservative Christians and progressive or secular groups in the West. Koh Hyung-suk, a pastor at the Korea Church and a member of the United Denominations of the Korean Church Against Homosexuality, referenced the West’s influence on Korea’s LGBT debate: “[Korean] Christians saw the suppression of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of expression in the West where homosexuality was legalised.” While activist overreach does occur, the distorting effects of culture war messaging combined with the inevitability of important facts being lost in cultural translation produces a perception often more alarming than the reality. Meanwhile, young LGBT people in Korea report feelings of extreme isolation, and the South Korean government has failed to make meaningful progress with comprehensive anti-discrimination laws.

The world watches America’s negotiations with minority rights very carefully. If the fight leads to happier, more productive societies, other countries may follow the example. If the fight leads to madness, unreason, and chaos, bad actors in other countries will point to US media as evidence that protecting sexual and ethnic minorities’ human rights will lead both to an excessive sense of entitlement from minority groups and even the tyranny of the minority. If America cannot model the successful integration of minority populations, many of the most vulnerable people in non-Western countries, like those in South Korea, will continue to be denied rights and dignity as equal citizens. This makes the project of changing minds through persuasion and consensus-building, not backlash-inducing radicalism, all the more important in Western societies.

Mimicking the success of American human rights movements may afford LGBT Koreans some legal gains, such as a proposed same-sex marriage bill. However, copying the Western left’s identity politics, an approach currently centred on claims of victimhood and zero-sum competition among groups, unfortunately undermines mutual dialogue and antagonises religious conservatives in South Korea — just as it has in the US.

Support for same-sex relationships is declining among both Republicans and Democrats in America, and based on Lee and Yi’s research, it’s clear that Korean Christians are paying attention to their American counterparts. They note, “A rising threat narrative claimed that Christians were persecuted by homosexuals and their leftist supporters in Western countries, and that Christians in South Korea, if not vigilant, faced the same dangers.” In other words, proudly radical and in-your-face activism in the anglosphere, whether effective or not in a Western context, has undermined LGBT-Christian relations in South Korea and made progress more difficult.

In a 2015 study, Yi and Joe Phillips suggested bridging dialogues as a more harmonious alternative to victim-based identity politics. The bridging dialogues approach states that rather than centering one’s identity group, individuals nurture communicative social ties with members of the larger society in ostensibly non-political settings, such as volunteer work or after-school activities, that allow them to understand one another beyond social labels. They found that bridging dialogues enabled students to engage foreign, gay, Christian professors with “open-mindedness and sincere acceptance” and to have conversations that were both natural and respectful. One professor stated that while he did not need to directly state his sexuality, students were very interested in the everyday experience of gay Christians.

A Korea-based congregation of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) used the bridging dialogues model in an effort to improve LGBT-Christian relations in 2011. “Open Doors” MCC is an LGBT-affirming church whose founding pastor, Daniel Payne, specifically wanted to create a space for all people to engage in apolitical volunteering activities (such as Animal Rescue Korea and Toastmasters) and honestly discuss their lives rather than live sequestered in a “gay ghetto.” One reason why bridging dialogues are effective is that these conversations de-emphasise people’s (contentious) differences and instead draw attention to our common humanity. MCC congregations in other countries, such as Australia, have similarly used bridging dialogues to speak “across generations, traditions, contemporary politics, and identities.” They encourage LGBT people to invite their family and friends living otherwise separate lives to create spaces where “faith and inclusion” can be “realised simultaneously.”

Recently, Heterodox Academy East Asia held its yearly forum on LGBT-Christian relations in South Korea, featuring three non-Korean gay professors with Korean partners. Importantly, there was no attempt to convert anyone to a certain ideological persuasion or shame them for having the “wrong views.” Rather, speakers shared personal stories and anecdotes expressing their common fear of discrimination in their places of work, as well as their frustration over Korea’s spousal visa restrictions. Afterward, attendees (primarily undergraduates at Hanyang University) were invited to engage in dialogue with the professors and ask questions. While no one may have changed their attitudes on homosexuality and bisexuality’s place in Christian institutions, the forum was a chance for people to learn more about the everyday struggles facing LGBT people in Korea.

Other research from Yi and colleagues has found that gay Korean Christians themselves aspire to have their identities harmonised with the socially conservative mainstream rather than highlighted as a morally entitled victim group. The young gay Christians in their study opted for inclusive religious spaces that retained conservative values (“inclusive evangelical congregations”) over progressive, affirming churches. The authors note several reasons for this. First, most LGBT Christians desire religious cultures similar to those from their often conservative upbringing but without an anti-LGBT overtone. Second, more conservative congregations tend to attract better networks, resources, and legitimacy. Finally, LGBT Christians want to worship alongside family and friends, people who are more likely to be linked to a conservative congregation. While this affinity for inclusive religious congregations is by no means universal among minority groups, its prominence reveals a drastic oversight in Western culture’s dialogues about minority interests.

Ultra-left, Gen-Z Westerners may baulk at the idea of their identity receiving anything less than total celebration. However, they could learn from their South Korean counterparts who have found an achievable way to satisfy their desire for authenticity without forcing the majority to defer to them. Inclusive tolerance may be a viable compromise for groups like gay Christians, for example, who want to express their individuality without antagonising conservative families and peers. As a gay pastor participating in the Heterodox Academy East Asia forum stated, gay Christians in Korea simply wanted to be perceived as normal, not special.

American culture wars are, as Helen Lewis has remarked, similar to a “non-stop reality TV show.” Like actual reality TV, viewers find themselves comparing their own lives to curated, histrionic depictions even as they rationally understand that those melodramas are not real life. Herein lies a lesson that American culture warriors have been reluctant to realise, much less act upon.

Westerners, especially in America, can impact the global conversation about minority rights. For better or worse, we are all stuck with America’s Internet culture. Progress on human rights happens when we work together on shared projects and listen to one another with genuine curiosity, one conversation at a time. It’s time for the West to grasp the extent of its cultural influence and to swap out the trendy, histrionic, identity-obsessed tribalism for bridging dialogues that encourage people to see one another as individuals with far more in common than separates them. The world is watching you.

Published Apr 19, 2024