Rights and Duties
Observed: Whereas in Manhattan, pedestrians always have the right of way and cars always obey the traffic laws, in Seoul it's the opposite. In Seoul, nobody crosses the street, even if it's totally clear, until the light turns green. On the other hand, if the street is clear, taxis don't think twice about running a red. Why the difference?
I think this little thing actually provides a pretty clear demonstration of the different social rights and duties characteristic of our two countries. In the U.S., we emphasize negative liberties when distributing social duties. Americans have the right not to be blocked or prohibited from pursuing our lives or projects; and we have the corresponding duty not to interfere with other people's lives or projects. Walking in New York is a perfect example of this principle of non-interference. Since cars can interfere more profoundly with pedestrians' lives than pedestrians can interfere with cars, cars have the greater duty. The responsibility falls to drivers not to hit anyone. So, pedestrians are given a licence to wander the streets at will. This right is defended greedily. If a car starts to encroach upon pedestrian freedom, you can always count on somebody banging the hood and shouting "Hey! I'm walking here!"
But Koreans don't really have the principle of non-interference. They have, instead, something like the "principle of not making a mess that the rest of us will have to clean up." The pedestrian, if she does not follow the traffic rules, risks creating a big mess that everyone else will have to clean up. Drivers, of course, have a duty not to hit people, but pedestrians have a bigger obligation not to put themselves in a situation where their safety is uncertain and out of their control.
Instead of a duty to live and let live, as it were, Korean think that they have, not just a right, but a duty to interfere in each other's lives. I've elsewhere said that Koreans think of themselves as a big family, and this seems the best way to understand their rights and duties. If someone is doing something a little wrong, it's better to get him back on track now, than to wait until he creates a big mess that everybody has to clean up.
Another example of this is the Afghan hostage crisis. In case you missed it, 23 Korean missionaries were kidnapped by the Taliban in mid-July. Two were killed; the rest were eventually freed in late August, after much national hand-wringing and soul-searching. Their freedom was paid for with guarantees from Seoul that it would withdraw its medical and construction military units from Afghanistan.
Once the hostages were freed, and even well before this, the public consensus was that they were to blame for their own misfortunes. As one "netizen" quoted by Yonghap said, "These people defied the government's warning against travelling in Afghanistan, and they should pay for whatever happened in the course of the negotiations." And there we calls for Korean churches to disband their missionary operations all together. The missionaries made a mess that the rest of the Koreans had to clean up. Like a big family, the Korean people did whatever they had to do to get their brothers and sisters back. But also like a big family, they all felt personally affronted by the mess that was created. In Korea (if you're Korean, anyway) you've no right to be left alone to your own projects. Instead, everyone has a duty to take care of each other. So, you as an individual, have a specific and weighty duty to take care of yourself and not cause other people problems. So, don't risk crossing that street when the light is red!
I think this little thing actually provides a pretty clear demonstration of the different social rights and duties characteristic of our two countries. In the U.S., we emphasize negative liberties when distributing social duties. Americans have the right not to be blocked or prohibited from pursuing our lives or projects; and we have the corresponding duty not to interfere with other people's lives or projects. Walking in New York is a perfect example of this principle of non-interference. Since cars can interfere more profoundly with pedestrians' lives than pedestrians can interfere with cars, cars have the greater duty. The responsibility falls to drivers not to hit anyone. So, pedestrians are given a licence to wander the streets at will. This right is defended greedily. If a car starts to encroach upon pedestrian freedom, you can always count on somebody banging the hood and shouting "Hey! I'm walking here!"
But Koreans don't really have the principle of non-interference. They have, instead, something like the "principle of not making a mess that the rest of us will have to clean up." The pedestrian, if she does not follow the traffic rules, risks creating a big mess that everyone else will have to clean up. Drivers, of course, have a duty not to hit people, but pedestrians have a bigger obligation not to put themselves in a situation where their safety is uncertain and out of their control.
Instead of a duty to live and let live, as it were, Korean think that they have, not just a right, but a duty to interfere in each other's lives. I've elsewhere said that Koreans think of themselves as a big family, and this seems the best way to understand their rights and duties. If someone is doing something a little wrong, it's better to get him back on track now, than to wait until he creates a big mess that everybody has to clean up.
Another example of this is the Afghan hostage crisis. In case you missed it, 23 Korean missionaries were kidnapped by the Taliban in mid-July. Two were killed; the rest were eventually freed in late August, after much national hand-wringing and soul-searching. Their freedom was paid for with guarantees from Seoul that it would withdraw its medical and construction military units from Afghanistan.
Once the hostages were freed, and even well before this, the public consensus was that they were to blame for their own misfortunes. As one "netizen" quoted by Yonghap said, "These people defied the government's warning against travelling in Afghanistan, and they should pay for whatever happened in the course of the negotiations." And there we calls for Korean churches to disband their missionary operations all together. The missionaries made a mess that the rest of the Koreans had to clean up. Like a big family, the Korean people did whatever they had to do to get their brothers and sisters back. But also like a big family, they all felt personally affronted by the mess that was created. In Korea (if you're Korean, anyway) you've no right to be left alone to your own projects. Instead, everyone has a duty to take care of each other. So, you as an individual, have a specific and weighty duty to take care of yourself and not cause other people problems. So, don't risk crossing that street when the light is red!
posted by Brian at 10:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home