Race and Ethnicity in English Language Teaching

Korea in Focus

Christopher Joseph Jenks

• Editorial: Multilingual Matters
• Año: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781783098446
• Categoría: Social Sciences
• Categoría: Ethnic Studies

This book examines racism and racialized discourses in the ELT profession in South Korea. The book is informed by a number of different critical approaches to race and discourse, and the discussions contained in the chapters offer one way of exploring how the ELT profession can be understood from such perspectives. Observations made are based on the understanding that racism should not be viewed as individual acts of discrimination, but rather as a system of social structures. While the book is principally concerned with language teaching and learning in South Korea, the findings are situated in a wider discussion of race and ethnicity in the global ELT profession. The book makes the following argument: White normativity is an ideological commitment and a form of racialized discourse that comes from the social actions of those involved in the ELT profession; this normative model or ideal standard constructs a system of racial discrimination that is founded on White privilege, saviorism and neoliberalism. Drawing on a wide range of data sources, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in critically examining ELT.

1Introduction: Overview and Objectives

Investigating Race and Ethnicity

This book examines racism and racialized discourses in the English language teaching (ELT) profession in South Korea (henceforth, Korea). The book is informed by a number of different critical approaches to race and discourse, and the discussion below offers one way of exploring how the ELT profession can be understood from such perspectives. Observations made in subsequent chapters are based on the understanding that racism should not be viewed as individual acts of discrimination, but rather as a system of social structures. While the book is principally concerned with language teaching and learning in Korea, the findings are situated in a wider discussion of race and ethnicity in the global ELT profession. The book makes the following argument: White normativity is an ideological commitment and a form of racialized discourse that comes from the social actions of those involved in the ELT profession; this normative model or ideal standard constructs a system of racial discrimination that is founded on White privilege, saviorism and neoliberalism.

Although several investigations of race and ethnicity have been published in recent years (e.g. Curtis & Romney, 2006; Kubota & Lin, 2009a; Motha, 2014; for a seminal collection of journal articles, see also the editorial introduction by Kubota & Lin, 2006), this book is one of the first to focus on how racism props up the ELT profession in one country. A book of this kind is timely because race and ethnicity are complex issues that continue to significantly impact many individuals and communities. The book comes at a time when recent police brutality incidents in the United States have resulted in widespread media coverage of, and debates on, race, racism and racialized discourses. Such issues have coincided with growing racial tensions in Europe regarding immigrants and refugees from Muslim countries. While race and racism are complex issues rooted in a history of oppression and privilege, recent examples of racial discrimination in the United States and Europe have provided both the impetus and discursive means to investigate discrimination in other countries and contexts, such as the ELT profession in Korea that adopts the racial hierarchies from other regions to shape understandings of language proficiency and pedagogy.

Despite the pressing need to understand the ways in which race and ethnicity circulate within nations and are used as tools of oppression and privilege, ELT scholarship has, by and large, failed to address how such issues shape language teaching and learning. Indeed, the comparatively small number of studies conducted on race and ethnicity suggests either that scholars do not know how to address racism in the profession or that this particular area of study is a somewhat low priority issue in the ELT literature. Consequently, many questions remain with regard to how race and ethnicity operate within the ELT profession, and much scholarly attention is needed in order to understand what forms of racialized discourses contribute to the commonsense understandings of language teaching and learning.

The need to study racism, racialized discourses and linguistic discrimination in the ELT profession is especially urgent in a country like Korea. The country is experiencing rapid social, economic and political change and growth. These changes were set into motion by a number of factors leading up to, and during, the Korean War. Accordingly, the United States has an important role in how English language ideologies are constructed in Korea. One outcome of the country’s rapidly changing cultural landscape and unique relationship with the United States is an evolving understanding of what it means to be a speaker of English in Korea and who is qualified to teach this language. In addition to understanding how skin color, nationality, ethnicity and language proficiency inform ELT practices, a discussion of race and racism in Korea contributes to larger efforts to eradicate discriminatory practices in language teaching and learning.

While a book of this kind is immediately relevant to scholars concerned with the ELT profession in Korea, the observations made in subsequent chapters contribute to a number of areas of study. For example, the observations made of language teaching and learning in Korea can also advance an understanding of critical approaches to racism in particular, as well as empirical and pedagogical issues pertaining to the ELT profession in general. For instance, a discussion of racism in Korea can be used to critique the extent to which teacher training programs adequately address critical issues in language teaching and learning. Such an exercise can be helpful in advancing teacher training programs in so-called ‘inner-circle’ countries like the United States and Canada, as universities in this ‘concentric region’ are responsible for educating large numbers of teachers from around the world (for a discussion of the concentric circles model of Englishes, see Kachru, 1985). Further, a discussion of racism in Korea, and in particular an exploration of how neoliberalism shapes hiring practices in ELT, can provide a framework for understanding how free market principles in education systems in other countries establish the conditions for racial discrimination. To this end, the discussions contained in this book use an understanding of White normativity, saviorism and neoliberalism to identify themes and issues that scholarship must address in future work (e.g. White public spaces in teacher training programs) and explore the extent to which the global ELT profession is complicit in racial and linguistic discrimination (e.g. the promotion of native speakerism).

Before laying out the foundation for this book, it is important to provide a critical reflective account of how my lived experiences shaped the conceptualization and writing of this project. Such narratives are foundational to critical discussions of race and racism, and are underpinned by the belief that the subjectivities of the observer shape how the observed is studied and understood. This reflective account is both an exercise in exploring how my life is related to the issues discussed in this book and an opportunity for readers to examine my positionality in relation to race and racism.

Critical Reflexivity

The present book is the result of several years of teaching in the ELT profession in Korea, as well as over a decade of living in the country. In this sense, this book is based on numerous years of experience in, and participant observations of, language teaching in Korea. These professional and life experiences have shaped who I am as a researcher and explain why the present investigation has been conducted. Furthermore, in preparing this book I have reflected extensively on my own experiences with racism and how these unfortunate situations may have guided me in understanding the issues investigated in subsequent chapters.

I am aware of the highly subjective nature of empirical studies (Woolgar, 1988); that is, I understand that research is based on the subjective realities of the researcher and that objectivity is only achieved through the lens of these subjectivities; therefore, I subscribe to the notion that what we produce in our research is a reflection of who we are as researchers. This reflection extends beyond research interests and disciplinary commitments. The observations that I present in this book, for example, not only reflect my interest in critical issues in ELT, but are also a projection of who I am as a father, husband, biracial Korean American and heritage language learner. This section represents my attempt to provide a critical reflexive account of the book. That is, how have my subjectivities influenced the observations made in subsequent chapters?

In order to answer this question, an understanding of reflexivity must first be established. Reflexivity ‘expresses researchers’ awareness of their necessary connection to the research situation and hence their effects upon it’ (Davies, 1999: 7). Reflexivity is an investigatory practice; it can be carried out in a number of ways, which may include keeping a journal during ethnographic fieldwork or writing a public account of the potential effects of different research subjectivities (Davies, 1999), such as the discussion contained within this section. My purpose in writing a critical reflection is not to achieve some level of objectivity as understood within academic circles that are guided by positivism, though an argument can be made that a connection between researcher and researched is necessary for all ELT scholarship (e.g. Shacklock & Smyth, 1998). Rather, the goal here is to provide an autobiographical account of how I evolved as a person and scholar interested in writing a book of this kind (cf. Okely, 1996). The autobiographical approach to reflexivity is a form of self-analysis, which demonstrates that not only are researcher subjectivities always present in empirical studies, but also that the research process is, in and of itself, a life experience.

Reflexivity is part of a larger investigatory principle that assumes researchers possess multiple identities (and thus subjectivities) that potentially shape the knowledge produced in studies (for an excellent discussion of how an author struggles to manage multiple identities, see Du Bois [2007] and his use of the term double consciousness). This principle is often referred to as positionality, which ‘recognizes research spaces as sites of struggle, in which researchers risk reinscribing dominant discourses of research participants through their practice’ (Crumpler et al., 2011: 57). As Milner (2007: 388) argues, positionality is an important issue to address in critical race scholarship because ‘dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen can emerge for researchers when they do not pay careful attention to their own and others’ racialized and cultural systems of coming to know, knowing, and experiencing the world’. In other words, a researcher’s position within the process of engaging in investigatory work is a form of knowledge production. Such knowledge, when left unattended to, can create a lens through which the cultural Other is misinterpreted and misrepresented (Milner, 2007). In the most basic form, positionality statements allow the public to know (and appreciate) where the researcher is coming from and how this may have shaped the knowledge produced in an investigation. Low (1999: 297) takes this a step further by stating that positionality statements challenge ‘the assumption that fixed standpoints of truth exist’. More importantly, addressing the issue of positionality permits ‘those in more advantageous positions to speak in solidarity with (and not on behalf of) oppressed minorities’ (E. Lee & Simon-Maeda, 2006: 576). Reflexivity, then, is an investigatory tool that allows researchers to assess their influence on, or positionality within, the research process.

Reflexivity, also commonly practiced in critical race scholarship where researchers employ personal narratives, is a central part of how individuals address and dispel oppressive narratives, discourses and ideologies. In this sense, critical race scholarship uses reflexivity as an investigatory tool to make connections between the individual and wider societal issues. Pennycook (2001) also discusses the importance of questioning the researcher’s role in applied linguistics scholarship, what he refers to as self-reflexivity, when providing a critical account of issues central to knowledge production in the profession.

The notion that researcher positionality is bound to the research process suggests a power dynamic. Researchers are in positions of power, and therefore must be aware of, and reflect on, their positionality when engaging in investigatory work, especially studies that analyze marginalized or oppressed individuals or groups. While investigating race and racism in the ELT profession, for example, I must be cognizant of my own participation in knowledge production and how this may create other forms of racialized discourses (for a discussion of what can be done to address the oppressive discourses in the ELT profession, see Chapter 7). That is, scholars should not only engage in a discussion of social rights and injustice, but they must also consider how being in positions of power and privilege influence their research (cf. Kubota, 2015b). In other words, the critical ELT scholar addresses the issue of positionality by engaging in reflexive practices (for an excellent book-length study that includes an extended autoethnographic discussion, see Phan, 2008: 14).

My story: A brief critical self-narrative

Experiencing racism forever changes the way you see the world. When I was a very young child in the 1980s, I remember vividly my first encounter with racism. I was just outside of Seattle in a small town with my family visiting relatives. My brother and I, along with a White cousin, were strolling along the town’s quiet sidewalks. It was early in the afternoon. We were not causing any trouble, nor did we do anything to draw attention to ourselves. We were simply walking.

A few rocks rolled in front of us. I looked down to see if I had kicked them. Strange, I thought. A few more rocks came our way. I looked up and noticed two older kids about half a football field away from us. They looked angry and were yelling something. I could not make out what they were saying, but it was clear that the rocks were coming from their direction. I remember to this day the feeling of complete bewilderment. Why were they throwing rocks? As they continued to yell and throw rocks, my cousin said that they were talking about us. I only realized after leaving the situation and having time to take in what had happened that the two kids were yelling Asian slurs. ‘Chink’ was one of the words thrown in our direction. This defining moment taught me, for the first time, that my racial and ethnic background may upset people, be used against me and represent an object of ridicule. Wu (2002: 7), in his book on the Asian American experience in the United States, talks about how similar experiences taught him that ‘The lives of people of color are materially different than the lives of whites, but in the abiding American spirit we all prefer to believe that our individualism is most important’. Experiencing racism early in and throughout my life, coupled with being a biracial Korean American in the United States, I, like Frank Wu (2002: 8), ‘alternate between being conspicuous and vanishing, being stared at or looked through’. This complex and complicated alternating life view is one of several reasons why I decided to work in Korea later in my life.

Was my first experience of racism a catalyst for writing this book? Most likely not, but I am aware that having rocks thrown at you while being called racial epithets creates a heightened awareness of the emotional and psychological damage of racism. So while my initial decision to write a book on racial discrimination in the ELT profession was not overtly guided by my unfortunate experience outside of Seattle, my treatment of racial issues in this book is aided by an awareness that racism is not merely an analytic topic that should be exploited for empirical goals. Racism has real-life consequences for individuals. Thus, researchers should make some effort in reflecting on how the responsibilities of conducting research hinder or facilitate their ability to be both an investigator with empirical interests and a ‘vulnerable observer’ (Behar, 1996).

While it is important to treat victims of racism as individuals with unique experiences, I am also aware that racial discrimination extends beyond individual acts of oppression or exploitation (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). That is to say, racism is a projection of wider societal issues. I understand, for example, that the two kids in the small town outside of Seattle were not simply throwing rocks, but were also projecting many years of racialized socialization. As a critical race scholar, I am committed to understanding how individual acts of discrimination are connected to larger socialization processes. As a victim of racism, I select topics that reflect the questions that I am personally invested in, such as how a privileging of Whiteness in society compels individuals to feel threatened by, for example in my situation, Asian Americans. I am particularly interested in understanding how White normativity – like the discourses and ideologies that circulate within society that tell children that it is acceptable to throw rocks and hurl racial epithets at ethnic minorities – shapes our understanding of what it means to be a speaker of English. As a vulnerable observer, however, I would be careless not to acknowledge that while White privilege exists in language teaching and learning, Korean Americans are above many ethnic groups in a global ELT racial hierarchy that oppresses many professional communities. That is, being a biracial Korean American is a form of racial privilege. My ethnic status affords me occupational rights that are not available to other instructors of different ethnicities (see Chapter 4). One of the goals of this book is to identify and explore what discourses and ideologies drive such privilege.

My decision to focus on White normative discourses (e.g. privilege and saviorism) in subsequent analytic chapters was not made during the early stages of writing this book. The analytic chapters are an expression of my interests evolving over time as I reviewed critical race scholarship and reflected on my own experiences with racism. I initially envisioned a book that focused on racism from the perspectives of instructors of color, which would have allowed me to demonstrate that their experiences should not be viewed through a single lens. However, my focus shifted as I noticed that White normativity is an underexplored issue in ELT scholarship (many studies are based on examining the cultural Other, a historical artifact of language teaching and learning). This new focus also allowed me to better understand the root cause of racial discrimination in the ELT profession. That is to say, I wanted to know more about the discourses and ideologies that individuals rely on to carry out racial discrimination, rather than, or in addition to, understanding the lived experiences of teachers of color.

Through my reading of the literature (see Chapter 2), I have come to view racism as a system of racial hierarchies that ascribes identities and social categories to the oppressed, such as novice, incompetent, learner, non-native and foreigner. These categories allow dominant groups to maintain their positions of power. In my many years of experiencing various forms of racism, I have learned that my racial and ethnic identities are bound to similar hierarchies and are used to maintain the same power dynamics. I have come to learn, for example, that the many slurs used to emasculate me as an Asian American when I was younger are simply efforts by White Americans to maintain their positions of power and privilege. Again, I am also aware that being a biracial Korean American can afford me certain privileges in other contexts, such as the ELT profession in Korea. Therefore, when I examine how racialized discourses disadvantage teachers of color, I cannot detach myself from their plight; we all belong to the same racial hierarchy that privileges and oppresses. My analytic observations may allow me to maintain an observer position in their world, but my life experiences are forever connected to theirs. I will always be connected to the participants that I examine in this book because of our shared participation in, and resistance to, racialized discourses. In this respect, the observations and suggestions that I make in this book are an extension of my life experiences.

Although I would not wish racism on anyone, my experiences with racial discrimination have been valuable learning events. For example, being a victim of racism has forced me to think on many occasions about how racialized discourses come into being. This critical reflec...