When I was in college, one of my classmates wrote an essay in the campus newspaper that made him popular among college girls. In his essay, he insisted that men should respect women and treat them as fellow human beings, not as sexual objects. His prose was so elegant and persuasive that all the coeds on campus were deeply moved by his essay.
Reading his essay, however, I was confused, because I knew he was a notorious playboy who changed his sexual partners virtually every night. In fact, he was a man who found it impossible to have long-lasting relationships; he was a sexually promiscuous one-night stand type of guy who exploited women whenever he had the chance. That is why we nicknamed him Casanova. In his essay, however, he pretended to be a feminist who cared about women dearly. I was at a loss due to the unbridgeable chasm between his writing and his behavior.
Ever since, I have seen many similar instances of people lacking consistency and, perhaps unwittingly, deceiving people. Some time ago, a columnist vehemently condemned those who did not send their sons to the army, and helped them to evade their mandatory military duty with dubious excuses such as fake tuberculosis, bad spines or poor eyesight. Later, when he was appointed as a high-ranking government official, people were exasperated on finding that his sons, too, were exempted from their military duty on highly suspicious grounds. How, then, could he write such a column? It totally eluded me.
I have also seen quite a few people who, while preaching anti-Americanism, clandestinely enrolled their children in American schools or sent their sons to KATUSA (Korean Augmentation to the U.S. Army) instead of the ROK army, simply because this would let their sons complete their military duty in a better environment. Furthermore, most of these America-baiters studied in the States and received a Ph.D. degree from American universities. Yet these inconsistencies and contradictions do not seem to bother them.
Recently, a politician was summoned to the prosecutor’s office to answer allegations of kickbacks from a certain CEO. The television news broadcast a recording of the politician who had once harangued in a press conference: “Any money donated by a businessman entails some sort of request. They’re businessmen. What do you expect from them? It’s bribery, for sure.” Since the politician has denied the allegations, we need to wait until the investigation is over. If he turns out to be guilty as charged, it will be proved that a vast gulf exists between his words and actions.
It is intriguing that similar contradictions can be found in North Korea too. In her book, “Without You, There Is No Us: My Time with the Sons of North Korea’s Elite,” Suki Kim finds it odd that North Koreans learn English fervently while at the same time condemn America as an archenemy. Kim also noticed that her North Korean students tended to lie when they were faced with an embarrassing moment. She wrote that they habitually told lies or exaggerated in order to escape from the embarrassing moment or crisis.
In the 19th century, a foreigner, after living in Korea for a year, wrote that in times of crisis Koreans were concerned more with lying to get off the hook than with how to deal with it rationally. Indeed, our politicians, too, almost always become myopic when they are in trouble and try to muddle through a crisis by telling lies. Indeed, I have never seen a Korean politician say frankly, “Yes, I took the money. It was election time so I thought it was a political donation. Now I regret it.” However, their instinct seems to tell them, “Deny it and you can get away with it.” In fact, however, you can never get away with it no matter how strongly you deny it.
When it comes to consistency of speech and action, two great, conscientious literary critics come to mind. One is Leslie A. Fiedler, who advocated pop culture and middlebrow literature against elite culture and highbrow literature. He wrote a seminal essay, “Cross the Border ― Close the Gap,” which he published appropriately in “Playboy.” Then he allowed his children to marry men of color ― a Mexican Indian, an African and an Asian ― boldly crossing conventional boundaries.
Edward W. Said was another literary critic who was true to his word. He maintained that literary criticism was a part of the social world and human life, and thus can be painful. As a scholar who criticized both Western imperialism and Islamic extremism, Said was an adversary of both Western conservatives and Muslim fanatics. Although he was Arabic, Said was a Christian, embracing both Eastern and Western culture. As a self-appointed exile, however, he belonged neither to the West nor to the East.
What we say should correspond with what we do. Otherwise, we will become unreliable and lose credibility.
By Kim Seong-kon
Kim Seong-kon is a professor emeritus of English at Seoul National University and president of the Literature Translation Institute of Korea. ― Ed.
