Berkley Center

Background: As part of the Education and Social Justice Project, in May 2015 undergraduate student Dana Drecksel interviewed Rev. Munsu Park, S.J., who works for the Jesuit Research Center for Advocacy and Solidarity in Seoul, South Korea. In this interview, he discusses his experiences as a professor, his research on social justice issues, and peace activism in Gangjeong village.

Okay, so do you want to just start off by telling me a little bit about yourself?

I came here in 1969 with the purpose of studying theology in the Korean language. My ministry would be there. In that time, I was majoring in Biology, planning to do a doctorate in Biology after ordination, then come back to Sogang. I studied Korean language and theology here from 1969 to 1973. Then I was ordained in 1973.

And during that time, I saw that the issues for the Church here in matters of biology would be in the distant future, and there were pressing issues of social justice at the time. Park Chung-hee was just solidifying his dictatorship. And one of the key points was to keep labor cheap for quick development. Development in the sense of the government making a lot of money and making a lot of things. That was the concept of development—not a human concept. At that time, there was a struggle to get labor unions formed. It was a severe justice issue, with anyone trying to form labor unions getting arrested, crackdowns.

So, I decided, with other Jesuits at Sogang, to switch from biology. I had had some graduate courses already, but I switched into sociology. So in 1979, I came here with a doctorate and began teaching. So I taught sociology here from 1979 to 1999. I taught many courses, of course, because the students are required to have a full curriculum. But my main interest was the urban poor, the poor of the city, the sociology of the city, and city planning, and its influence on social strata. I worked with the action groups, and my research was to help the action groups to be more effective.

So at Sogang, several faculty members considered me to be unusual, because I was involved directly with the poor and their organizations, and I would go right into the sites of eviction and take part in the demonstrations at the police stations. Korean professors do not do that. Rather than this being some sort of an influence to get social justice issues integrated into Sogang University, it was more like an exception: because he’s an American and a priest, he does that. He has nothing to do with us.

The Jesuit administration, too…though our Jesuit position is to seek social justice in all we do, including education, our Jesuits in the administration could not see any way to do that without Sogang having to change course in a major way.

I stayed on until 1999, and I was looking for a chance to quit and go full-time into the work of the urban poor and social justice issues. In 1999, my graduate students happened to finish up or take a leave of absence, so I was free to quit. Also, the Seoul Diocese was anxious to have a Jesuit come on and take one of the parishes for the urban poor. So, I took the parish for the urban poor and had 10 years there—until 2009. Since then, after that was finished and another Jesuit took over, I was free, and the social apostolates among the Jesuits said that they needed a research center to back up the work with research, practical research. Since I was free then, we established the research center that you just saw, and I have been doing that ever since.

So that’s my background.

Great, thank you for that wonderful background. Now some questions to go off of that: you mentioned the action groups. Could you just tell me a little bit about what those are in this context?

The first area is community organization. The community organization in Korea accepts its history beginning in 1971. That year was the first founding of an educational course for community organizers. Previous to that, Saul Alinsky—you know the name?—yeah, Saul Alinsky, who did community organization from Chicago. One of his books is called Reveille for Radicals, and the other, well, I forgot the name of it, but it is a basic text for community organization. One of his co-workers was also a Protestant minister. He came to Asia to bring community organization to Asia. So, in 1971, some people who were working with community organization and had been with Saul Alinsky set up an education program in Korea. That has a 40-some-odd year history now.

In that area, the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches have worked very closely. It is very ecumenical. So the Christian influence on community organization is very strong. There is the Won Buddhism here, which has done a little bit with us. But for the most part, community organization has been very strongly Christian.

Most recently, there has been burgeoning Buddhism entry, especially in international community organization, so there are more Buddhists now. But back then, that was the Won Buddhism. Won means circle. It is a form of Buddhism that is Korean Buddhism, responding to Western influences, and organizing Buddhism into a system of concepts that people can easily get into. So there were some members doing community organization among the poor, but it is the main order of Buddhism here, the Jogye order, Jogye Buddhism. You may have visited by now—you’ve heard of Insadong of course—right by there is the Jogye Buddhism temple. So now they are very involved in community organization projects, especially internationally.

So that is one area of groups. The other area of groups has been among the urban poor. The name “urban poor” comes from the 1970s and 1980s. The development planning here was to focus development investment in the cities at first, in areas of what’s called “substitution”: substitute imports by developing local industry, or early on, based on good, cheap, plentiful labor.

So, that development led to three major groups being excluded from the benefits of development. First, the countryside, so farmers, since there was not much investment in infrastructure or what they really needed. Secondly, laborers, to keep labor cheap for cheap exports. Then thirdly, because the farmers were being dispossessed, huge numbers came to the cities—oftentimes without anything to start up with. So there was a huge group called the “urban poor.”

Some would become laborers, and they are called “laborers.” But then many others, became a part of what’s called the “informal sector.” So laborers went into the formal sector of work, and manufactured, and serviced. But the informal sector would be people living in the city in very poor circumstances and making a small amount of money. So those three groups were excluded.

The other action groups I was working with were those working with the urban poor. In the 1980s, one of the key struggles was against eviction. They were living in concentrated population centers that originally didn’t have many urban services, like water or electricity. By the 1980s, they had water and electricity; but, in the 1980s came the re-development. So, Seoul city wanted to take away all visible poverty before they hosted international events, like the Olympics in 1988. But there were others as well. So it was called “re-development,” but really, it’s now called “displacement.” They took the areas that are on the hillsides, without urban services, and completely tore them down and made them available to automobile access. And since they are on the height, they have beautiful views. It becomes middle- and upper-class apartments. So it’s a type of displacement, but it was called “re-development.”

And because it is so unjust to the people living there, the evictions had to be forced. So the action groups were education, to inform the people that they had rights to housing. They shouldn’t consider themselves just poor and unable to do anything. They have a right to housing. So they should organize and demand their right. The action groups would tell them the particulars about how redevelopment is carried out, and what they can possibly gain. So it was a type of education, and then organization… trying to get them into organized groups that can make demands.

So those action groups…some of them are more on the lines of education and organization, and then there are the people’s own action groups, or their own rights. So I was involved with those groups a lot.

And then there are other groups in the informal sector, such as food vendors, street vendors. They are also in the informal sector, and that’s another issue. Seoul authorities: “Get them off the street. Get them out of view. Seoul doesn’t have any poverty.” It’s that sort of thing going on.

So that was the action group backbone. And then I was involved in the 1980s and 1990s, even up until now.

Okay, wonderful. So some of the classes that you would teach at Sogang would be related to those issues, such as the urban poor?

Right. The course would be like “Urban Sociology.” So I’d introduce the various sociological theories on the basis of the city. What is the city, and what is city planning, etc.; what are typical things that you find in the city as far as poverty and wealth, politics, urban social strata, all those things. But I would make sure there was plenty on the urban poor worldwide, but also here in Korea.

With undergraduates, I was mostly teaching. With graduate students, I could require them to do a paper, and go into one of the areas and do some actual research—observation, and interviews, and reading of background, and then do research on it.

That was going to be my next question. Would you find that students would actually try and go out to make a difference, instead of just reading or learning about it in class?

Some, some. To give an overview, one of the researchers you just met was in the sociology class, and even as an undergraduate, she joined the urban poor action group that formed among Catholics. She has been in touch with that group ever since. But there have been very few who have directly gone into action, but there are many who have kept up an interest. But, it’s more like an interest; so when they have time, or when they have money, they’ll contribute something.

And it’s not just the urban poor; it’s many social issues. Sociology graduates tend to be socially aware. I don’t know about now, but those in the 1980s… 80 percent were socially aware, and aware that there needed to be action for change here in Korea. That was a time of the dictatorship, so it was easier to see.

Was Sogang receptive to the students wanting to make a change?

At that time at Sogang, the majority of professors—and what would be standard for the school—would try and prevent the students from demonstrating.

Why do you think that was?

They should study rather than demonstrate. And, at that time, that’s not all bad, because it was a dictatorship; there was strong police presence. So, the police would know about any planned demonstration, and the police would come and block the gates. And a demonstration turned out to be rallying, and then pushing and shoving with the police, and throwing stones, and the police firing tear gas.

So it was, by and large, unproductive. It was letting off steam, so on that score, it’s not necessarily to be against justice for the school to be against students being involved with demonstrations. They were largely futile. However, the demonstrations were a way of raising consciousness and developing a stronger interest, and leading to re-reading. But at that time, that becomes very controversial and hard to handle because immediately, because they are so regressed, they get into Marxism. So then there’s a move to see how North Korean Marxism can be looked at as an alternative path for here in South Korea. And immediately you get into a national security issue—not just a social justice issue. And it becomes very complicated.

At any rate, Sogang as a university had no other policy than to try and maintain itself as a good quality university. It had no way, no desire to try and work against the repression of the government. The key feature there, I think it would have been in 1982 or 1983, the Chun Doo-hwan dictatorship wanted to control students by increasing the entry group, and then requiring that 30 percent had to be failed out by graduation. This was the government way of repressing the student movement.

So, Sogang at that time had an entry class of 650. But we wanted to go and expand our departments. So we went and requested an increase to 950, for Sogang’s growth. But the government demanded that we increase the incoming class to 1350, and then take 30 percent more, going to 1750. To jump, in one year, from 650 to 1750… they said that Sogang’s library facilities and other facilities are good, so you can take more. So, by all means, if our university had any real sense that we had our own mission, and we are not going to follow the government when it is misguided, we should have found a way to avoid that. However, the administration couldn’t find any way. And that has had a huge impact on Sogang ever since.

As you can imagine, the quality of our education went down dramatically. That was a huge change, and I don’t think that Sogang has ever recovered from that. Sogang has never had a strong sense of mission, and especially a vision, that could see Sogang opposing the government and then suffering the consequences. Those in the school’s administration may have a different point of view; they may say that a strong opposition of the government would have led to closing the university. And I don’t know about that… but at any rate, that kind of administration has more or less prevented Sogang from officially taking on issues of social justice as part of our program.

I can give you a very distinct example. It was in the 1980s: We decided that we should form a mission statement and a vision. I was on the first committee preparing that, so I made sure that we put in there that following the Jesuit ideals of education, we work toward education for justice, and the university working towards social justice in Korean society. That passed among our first committee, but then there was another committee before it went to the board of trustees. And that committee changed it to “Sogang prepares students to work for social justice.” So they cut out the part about Sogang working for social justice. That led to what is really quite a contradiction: how can you prepare the students for working for social justice if you are not doing it yourself?

So that’s been the situation at Sogang.

Since Korea has, in general, gotten a more open government compared to the dictatorships, have things changed at all?

Now, with more open government, the governments of Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-hyun were much more open to social justice actions and tried to include ways to cut back on social discrimination as a way to form government policy. However, at the same time, both of those governments felt like they couldn’t help but follow neo-liberalistic economic policies.

Still, that did lead to more openness; Sogang has done a little bit more, but regarding social justice, it mostly comes through student volunteer action, so that they can contact people working in Korean society, but it would be much more focused on public welfare rather than changing structure or social justice issues.

I can give you another sorry example that we experienced. I was on the board of trustees 15 years after I quit teaching, and I thought I saw a very hopeful sign: we got an invitation from the United Nations to set up a Peace College here at Sogang. And the majority of the members of the board of trustees said, “This sounds very good, and this is in line with Jesuit education.” So, they gave the go-ahead to look into it. Then there was no report for several meetings, so finally, we said, “What’s going on?” And the school responded that it would be too much of a financial burden, and we dropped it. So the university dropped it without even bringing it up to the board of trustees.

That’s a problem with the board of trustees: the board of trustees makes decisions on things that the school prepares. The board of trustees doesn’t make its own set of proposals. So that’s another example of the school putting their number one consideration with finances. So that way of looking at things has made the way of action for justice quite difficult for the university.

That’s obviously a really tough issue, and it must have been difficult while you were on the board of trustees. So what sort of research do you do now?

I still do work with the urban poor. But of course, I’m responsible for education in the urban poor center in the Seoul Diocese. So I’m involved in designing programs for ministers and social activists, and the poor also who are in the ministry.

But I don’t have too much time left over; our research institute has gotten huge projects that are very time-consuming. And one project is to back up the work at Gangjeong. So last year we sponsored, along with the Jeju Diocese, an international conference on peace, and we are now preparing another one for this year. And this year, there is especially a lot of involvement from Japan because the Okinawa issue is very alive. Okinawans are saying, “We are a small island. We don’t want the American military to be based here.” So they are trying to get the American military out of Okinawa. So there’s a build up of solidarity between Jeju and Okinawa.

And our other big project is an alliance with the Japan province in opposing nuclear power. Since the Fukushima accident, the Jesuits of Japan… many are very concerned and see the value in getting quite a few Jesuits full-time work in opposing nuclear power. So our research institute has been a main point of cooperation with the Japan province. So we are very much involved with the anti-nuclear power movement in South Korea. A

nd that, of course, involves renewable energy. Because you can’t just oppose: those should be shut down, and then bring in renewable energy. It is almost limitless the amount of information you have to get in touch with. Those are very time-consuming.

And I am still involved with the area where I was pastor, because our Jesuit community is right there. So I am still involved with the young people in that neighborhood. And our research center is helping the activists, or the ministers, or lay ministers, the teachers, the people working with youth there, to develop a more common vision… what they can do among the youth. So that is also very time-consuming.

So because I am going to Gangjeong in a few days, could you tell me a little bit about the peace conference that the research institute is helping organize?

I’ll give you a 13-page write up that I did of the peace conference. Just give me your email address, and that way we’ll save printing.

That would be great! Thanks so much.

So when did the research institute here start working on the social justice issues that are currently present in Gangjeong?

Ahh… that was in 2012. You saw Brother [Dohyun] Park? He came to us in 2012 and said that it would be good to have an international conference, because the people of Gangjeong need an input of new ideas, and we need an event that would get some media attention. So from that time on, we began to plan. And then in 2013, I went to see the bishop of Jeju and told him of our interest in having an international peace conference. And he was very positive, so we first checked on when he would be available, and we held the conference on the date he was available.

I know that the Catholic Church has been very active in promoting social justice with the situation in Gangjeong village. What about other groups?

Actually, the action there goes back to 2007. It was going on for a long time before we were involved. But Bishop Khan, bishop of the Jeju diocese, was involved right from the start. So the navy used duplicity, a trick, to get the agreement of the local people. The trick was, they held what was called a village meeting. But actually, the way it was prepared, very few people knew about it. So out of about 600 or 700 adults who would be concerned, there were only 80 persons who came, and they were dominated by the women divers. But with the naval base, the biggest threat is to the agricultural way of life in the village; they’ll lose that. So, when the people found out what went on, they were extremely angry, and they gathered a full village meeting. And out of about 650 or 680 villagers who came, 80 percent opposed the base. But the navy has always said, “It’s too late; it’s already been approved.”

So in 2007, the villagers began to take positive steps to oppose the naval base. And the village leader at the time chose “Island of Peace” and “World Peace” as the main feature, aside from the obvious fact that they are going to lose their way of life.

The theme of “Island of Peace” goes back to the year 2005, which was the year that President Roh Moo-hyun made an official apology to the Jeju people for the massacre of 1948 and 1949. It was the first time that the Korean government ever made an apology; before that, the information was repressed. More recently, the information came out, and President Roh Moo-hyun made an official apology. And in that speech, he said that Jeju would be an “Island of Peace.” The concept, at that time, was to demilitarize the Island of Peace.

And government policy on Jeju was also to make it open to the people of the world. No visa required. That goes back to the 1990s, I think—no visa required for Jeju. It’s a tourist place, a beautiful place. It’s a UNESCO-recognized beautiful spot of the world, and Island of Peace is a part of that—a kind of outgrowth of that.

So the concept was very unfortunate. But I’m sure you will learn a lot more about that as you go to the village.

Yes, I look forward to travelling to Jeju and Gangjeong. And I’m very happy that you could introduce me to Brother Park!

My pleasure.