Koreans often seem to be confused by the question, “Do good people build a good society, or does a good society foster good people?” The former claim may be the basis for a liberal, democratic society and the latter for a socialist country. Living in a group-oriented society, many Koreans ultimately seem to be inclined to the latter, believing in the power of a good society rather than in the strength of the individual. As someone who studies and teaches literature, however, I believe in the power of individual realization and personal rebellion, rather than the power of collective acts and mass demonstrations. 

While reading an intriguing book entitled, “The Postmodern Adventure,” by Steven Best and Douglas Keller, I came across the following claim: “Yet, like many postmodernists, Pynchon seems to advocate social change through personal resistance and disconnected rebellions rather than through social movements and organized groups.” While criticizing postmodernism and the celebrated postmodern novelist Thomas Pynchon, the two leftist authors uphold solidarity and mass protests by organized groups as means to achieve social change. However, no great novelist would promote such a thing, whether modern or postmodern, unless he is a political activist or living in a Communist country.

In leftist ideology, however, there seems to be virtually no place for individuality. In the eyes of leftist activists, neither personal pain nor individual agonies seems important. It is no wonder that in a Communist country, collective acts and social revolution always override personal interests and individual concerns.

As early as 1924, however, Hemingway was already pointing out that paying attention to personal pain is important. In Hemingway’s short story, “Indian Camp,” Nick’s father, who is a physician, attempts to perform a cesarean section without anesthetic on a pregnant Indian woman. To Nick’s question, “Oh, Daddy, can’t you give her something to make her stop screaming?” the doctor answers, “But her screams are not important. I don’t hear them because they are not important.” Presumably, the doctor simply saw the safe birth of the baby as more important than the mother’s suffering, which was nothing but collateral damage. In fact, however, the pregnant woman’s screams were important; her wounded husband could not stand them and committed suicide. Like the doctor, leftwing leaders tend to ignore personal pain, thinking that it is an inevitable byproduct of a socialist revolution.

In order to mobilize collective movements and organize protest groups, Best and Kellner propose the use of the Internet, an arena in which they believe cyberdemocracy is possible. They argue that the Internet, which allows “political elevation of multiculturalism with its equanimity towards ethics and values regardless of origin,” can create “alternative spaces that can attack and subvert the established culture.” It may be true that the Internet provides an open field to debate and discuss, like a Greek acropolis. But isn’t it also true that the Internet, in which people write behind a cloak of anonymity, can also become a Sodom and Gomorrah, a place of slander, false rumors and chaos?

Although they want to use the Internet for political gain, Best and Kellner exhibit a strong distaste for stunning visual aspects of the Internet, which they see as capitalistic ― mesmerizing images, blasting sound effects and enchanting Web pages. They detest the “metaorgy of lights, music, dazzling image, and constructed environments that glorify the commodity and celebrity culture, and fetishize its idols.”

A positive cyberspace for Best and Kellner, then, seems to include verbal debates only. Although Best and Kellner cherish the Internet for political gain, what they value is, ironically enough, a conservative, traditional, and politically useful verbal space in this age of multimedia. Consequently, they seem to dismiss the truly magical postmodern space where all boundaries collapse and all things can become true hybrid.

The two authors warn the reader that in order not to be brainwashed by seducing capitalist “megaspectacles” on the Internet, the individual must be “technoconscious” or “media literate.” However, the ways to achieve this goal are fairly vague in their book. Best and Kellner are also curiously silent, or perhaps intentionally indifferent, to the possible brainwashing and manipulation of individuals by Marxist demagogues on the Internet. Capitalists and capitalism are the only culprits. Capitalism has flaws to be sure, and yet it may not be that evil, especially compared to communism.

On the Internet people can be used, controlled and manipulated by an invisible mastermind. For example, we read newspaper articles on Naver or Daum that are selected and edited by someone every day. Invisible regulators can easily brainwash us by displaying only those articles they want us to read. Therefore, it is critical for ordinary people to sort through vast amounts of data and to be able to eliminate false information rampant on the internet.

“The Postmodern Adventure” once again reminds us of the importance of having a dual perspective when we set out on intellectual adventures. In order to be fair and free from prejudice, we should avoid binary value judgments such as ‘capitalism is wrong and Marxism is right’ or vice versa. We can do better than that.

By Kim Seong-kon

Kim Seong-kon, a professor of English at Seoul National University, is editor of the literary quarterly “21st Century Literature.” ― Ed.