The SNU Center for Contemporary Korean Studies held an international conference titled “Korea as Symptom” over two days, August 22 and 23. As the closing session of the conference, a roundtable titled “Korea as Symptom: Why Symptomatology in Korean Studies” was held at Youngone Hall, SNU Asia Center. Chaired by Professor Jaeho Kang (Seoul National University), the session featured two presentations followed by responses from two discussants.
In the first presentation, Professor Woosung Kang (Seoul National University) emphasized that “Korea as Symptom” cannot be reduced simply to Korean exceptionalism or particularity, but must instead be understood within the complementary structures of global neoliberal capitalism. He further argued that any discussion of Korea in these terms must take into account the Korean Peninsula as a whole, including North Korea. Kang described the relationship between Korean society and the notion of the “symptom” through the concept of “the simultaneity of the non-simultaneous,” drawing attention to the distinctive condition of Korean society in which the legacies of colonialism and the Cold War continue to persist. He also noted that Korea retains historical memories of having belonged to a Sinocentric cultural sphere while today repositioning itself within the emerging Indo-Pacific order.
Kang further highlighted the labor-intensive character of Korean society and culture. As examples, he pointed to the military-like synchronization of K-pop idol performances, often referred to as kalgunmu; the excessive labor concealed behind the convenience of round-the-clock delivery services; the cultures of familialism and “catch-up capitalism”; and the phenomenon of mukbang.
Professor Hong-Jung Kim (Seoul National University) then offered a theoretical reflection on the conference theme, “Korea as Symptom,” by posing three questions. The first was: “What is a symptom?” Tracing a genealogy of symptomatological thought through Georges Didi-Huberman, Carlo Ginzburg, and Gilles Deleuze, Kim described the symptom as a distinctive sign through which otherwise invisible structures become perceptible. He further identified four characteristics of the symptom: eventfulness, fragmentariness, affectivity, and relationality grounded in care.
His second question was: “Why does Korean Studies need a symptomatological approach?” Kim observed that twenty-first-century Korean society is surrounded by a wide range of symptoms, including political upheaval, new forms of right-wing politics, religious movements, radical demands articulated by women of the so-called MZ generation, high suicide rates and low fertility, and shamanistic practices. His final question was: “How can symptomatology be applied to Korean Studies?” In response, Kim argued that, rather than following the twentieth-century ambition to establish universal laws, scholars should seek new paths through the collection and analysis of individual symptomatic cases. Instead of understanding Korea through a single overarching structure, he emphasized the need to respond to multiple symptoms that are ambiguous, fragmented, and heterogeneous.
The presentations were followed by comments from Professor Hyoungchul Shin (Seoul National University). Shin first noted the tension involved in translating the English word “symptom” into Korean, particularly between the terms jeunghu and jeungsang. He explained that different translations carry different epistemological nuances and can therefore shape how researchers interpret the concept. He further argued that the term “symptom” raises two fundamental questions: “What can I know?” and “Who is entitled to know it?”
Regarding the first question, Shin observed that it remains unclear whether a symptom belongs to a subjective realm that requires deep individual interpretation or to an objective realm that can be diagnosed in the same way by anyone. Regarding the second, he cautioned that scholars’ claims to perceive “deep structures” may themselves involve a form of narcissism or an illusion of depth.
Finally, Professor Seok-Kyeong Hong (Seoul National University) discussed how the idea of “Korea as Symptom” might be connected to Hallyu studies. She first raised the question of whether symptomatological terminology, given its origins in Western psychoanalysis, can be readily applied to East Asian contexts. She then introduced a Foucauldian approach that investigates broader social transformations through particular events, noting that Hallyu studies similarly employs a kind of “archaeology of contemporary society.”
Hong broadly divided Hallyu research into two areas. The first examines the kinds of resonance Korean popular culture generates overseas, while the second analyzes the cultural and creative industries in Korea that make such global circulation possible. Turning to the question of knowledge production through symptomatology, she suggested that the symptoms of Korean society reflect a particular social “constitution” or disposition but may manifest differently in other societies depending on their contexts. In this regard, she proposed the possibility of an approach analogous to Sasang constitutional medicine, which recognizes different constitutions rather than assuming a single universal model. In conclusion, Hong suggested that Hallyu studies can function like a “skin” where knowledge of Korea and knowledge of the world come into contact.
The roundtable provided an opportunity to reflect comprehensively on the conference theme, “Korea as Symptom,” at both theoretical and philosophical levels. Rather than reducing contemporary Korea to a single explanatory framework, the discussion demonstrated how a symptomatological reading can open new directions for research by attending to the multilayered and often contradictory signs that characterize Korean society. Building on the questions raised at this year’s conference, the SNU Center for Contemporary Korean Studies will continue to deepen its exploration of contemporary Korea through future international conferences.