[Quoted]
It's already been a good two weeks since I took on the heavy responsibility of Minister of Culture and Tourism. Having promised that 'instead of holding an inauguration ceremony, I would post the inaugural address online,' I feel sorry to be posting these words of greeting only now. I'd meant to gather my thoughts and say something rather than offer a grand ambition or a perfunctory greeting, but from inauguration until now I've spent such a hectic schedule that I haven't had even 30 minutes to sit in front of a computer. In any case, first of all, I offer heartfelt thanks to all of you who warmly welcomed and helped me from my first day until now.
On March 1, after finishing the March 1st Independence Movement commemoration at the National Theater, I went down to Daegu and visited the site of the subway disaster. There I met the bloodshot eyes of bereaved families who had lost beloved family members and could not even find their remains, and I faced the many beautiful and sorrowful stories of the dead written in tiny letters all over the soot-blackened subway station. And I had to feel a wretched heart and an unspeakable rage welling up from the bottom of my chest.
People cite many reasons and causes — the impulsive crime of one disturbed person, our society's complacency about safety, the absence of a disaster system, and so on — but among them I think it's fair to say the chief culprit is Korean society's 'bureaucratism.' What expanded and worsened into such a terrible tragedy an incident that might have ended as a mere happening was clearly, I think, the 'bureaucratism' in which no one takes responsibility or makes a judgment on their own, hiding themselves only in complacency.
Franz Kafka long ago depicted, through his novels, the vast castle of bureaucratism in which an individual's fate and sacred existential life are thrown and decided among the desks and stacks of documents where bureaucrats sit. But even Kafka's outstanding imagination could not have dared imagine that horrifying, apocalyptic scene of hundreds of innocent citizens trapped inside two trains, burning whole at nearly 2,000-degree heat. Those innocent victims remain today as portrait photographs at the joint memorial altar, or in the desperate appeals of missing persons' families — but where are the perpetrators?
At the very front of the perpetrators stands one wretched man of a twisted, distorted mind who thinks he is being ignored by this entire society, that no one listens seriously to his circumstances. But the many other perpetrators lined up behind him are like faint shadows, their names and faces unrecognizable. We public servants must painfully admit that among those faint-faced, anonymous perpetrators, 'I' too am included.
I'm sorry to begin my first greeting with such heavy talk, but I want to accept this accident, which broke out just before the launch of the Participatory Government, as a heavy lesson for myself as I'm just beginning public duty.
After the accident, as always, we are now busily re-inspecting our society's safety systems. For efficient disaster management the new government is preparing to establish a disaster-prevention agency, and intends to create various safety manuals. Of course these are things that must be done, but I think there are limits to such a systemic approach alone. Because no matter how much the system is improved, if the people operating it don't change, the system becomes useless. As was proven in the Daegu subway, there were many monitors but no one to watch them; there was high-grade communication equipment, but at the most urgent moment they couldn't even exchange the minimum necessary information.
Come to think of it, the Daegu subway on the day of the accident had all communication blocked from beginning to end. A man who thinks he cannot communicate at all with this society chooses destruction instead of communication, carrying a plastic gasoline can. Communication was blocked even between the engine room and the control room of cars 1079 and 1080, and the innocent citizens in the cars just sat, hearing not a single warning, until the very moment of fate. After the accident, no dialogue passed between the Daegu city authorities and the victims' families.
All of that tragically shows how blocked the function of communication is in our society now. In today's modern society, 'communication' is an important factor determining a society's character and quality. That is, if in the past society was composed of status or groups, today it is composed of communication. Therefore, to obtain proof that Korean society has been democratized, the mode of communication must be democratized. But until now Korean society, though its political institutions were democratized, did not democratize its mode of communication at all. From the Blue House and the administration to the National Assembly and political parties, the public organizations charged with the social function of communication were paralyzed, distorted, and deformed, crushed by authoritarianism and bureaucratism. The Daegu subway accident is, I'd say, a tragic and symbolic example of this.
And so we come to think of 'culture.' It's easy to think culture's role is merely to hang more refined, meaningful decorations inside a subway station. Of course, in our lives culture sometimes appears in such small details, but in fact it works as something more essential and invisible — namely, as the form of communication between person and person, group and group. Making communication possible: that is precisely culture's role.
We are now beginning a new millennium, a new century. In the new century humanity will live in a way utterly different from before. We vividly feel that information-communication technology, computers, and digital civilization — forming a mighty tide — are already changing our daily lives moment by moment. And what this new civilization carries in enormous quantity and at great speed is precisely the so-called 'cultural content.' That's why people often name the new century the 'century of culture.' The old view that sees culture as an auxiliary domain of politics or economics can never cope with today's changes. We must confirm the clear facts that cultural-artistic creativity and autonomy will have a decisive influence on all areas of production, distribution, and consumption, and that a cultural perspective is being demanded in every domain.
That the Participatory Government launched at the very starting point of such a new century is very significant. And we must accept deep in our hearts the fact that the crucial role of leading the coming cultural change has been entrusted to our Ministry of Culture and Tourism.
The recognition that culture is industrially important existed under the previous government too. So much effort was put into supporting the culture industry, and there were considerable achievements. But there's a considerable misunderstanding in the industrial logic of culture. That is, if you look at culture only from an industrial or economic angle, it's easy to stay at the simplistic logic of 'culture makes money too.' Hence the divisive approach of investing in and fostering 'money-making' culture (games, film, animation, tourism, etc.) and directly supporting and protecting 'non-money-making' culture (literature, theater, fine art, museums, etc.).
But this approach can't escape the limit of being fundamentally captive to the old paradigm of a bygone era. Now it must change from 'culture makes money too' to 'there's no separating money-making culture from non-money-making culture.' In other words, rather than viewing culture from an economic perspective, we must view the economy from a cultural perspective. Because culture leading the new century means not that certain cultural products become important, but that cultural forms and perspectives, cultural autonomy and creativity, will influence every domain.
Henceforth the policy of the Participatory Government's Ministry of Culture and Tourism must be made from this perspective. And the direction of policy must be to create environments and frameworks that spark the embers of cultural creativity and autonomy in each domain of our society. Only then can we make everything 'money-making' and, further, raise the quality of our lives.
The first task or goal for moving in this direction is to grant autonomy to each field — culture and the arts, sports, tourism, and so on. In other words, to change the system so that each field agonizes for itself, gathers opinions, and makes and executes the policies it needs, with the government only supporting and largely handing authority and responsibility over to the private sector. Culture lives by autonomy and creation, and it's self-evident that the current way — government bureaucrats making policy on their desks and sending it down to the field — cannot bring that autonomy and creativity to life.
Of course I'm well aware this is easy to say but a very difficult task. Looking at whether each field currently has such autonomy, and whether it's prepared for it, the situation isn't so optimistic. Every field has all kinds of conflicts and clashing interests, and the honest reality is that the soil and the people for autonomous discussion and consensus are lacking. We can easily anticipate facing countless difficulties and setbacks. Nevertheless, from now on we must do that work. We must make clear that the government will definitely move in that direction, and help them prepare. Even if considerable inefficiency and trial-and-error are revealed over a substantial period in that process, the government must be resolved to endure and bear it.
To achieve the goal of the private sector's autonomous participation in cultural administration, we must research and prepare what institutions, what systems and methods are needed. That is the clear direction of reform in culture, and it realizes the reform values the Participatory Government upholds — autonomy, openness, participation, and decentralization. This is not the belief of me, the minister, alone, nor only the will of the Participatory Government. It is the flow of the era and the demand of world-historical change; if anything, our country can be said to be far too late.
Culture is the form of life and at the same time its essence. We speak of reform, but unless the form of life changes, its essence can never change. After becoming minister I was quite surprised by the authoritarian culture within our administration. From the appointment-letter ceremony and the inauguration ceremony to the protocol toward the minister, I felt that the customs and culture upheld within the administration were authoritarian to a degree hard for the common public's common sense to understand.
The red carpet laid only in front of the minister's office, the staff standing at attention when the minister appears, a secretary — a civil servant who passed the administrative exam — dutifully opening the minister's car door for him, everyone bowing 90 degrees to the minister — watching these, I was reminded, though it may be a rude comparison, of 'gangster culture.' The characteristic of a 'gangster' organization is that it is isolated from general society. Being isolated, it forms its own peculiar culture, and so it's often depicted interestingly in films and dramas. That such authoritarian, peculiar culture and customs remain intact within today's administrative culture proves the distance between the administration and the general public. So I urge all of you that, starting with our Ministry of Culture and Tourism, we boldly cast off these authoritarian customs and culture.
Acknowledging the authority and responsibility befitting the post of minister and showing natural courtesy is an entirely different thing from treating the minister through authoritarian formalities. That a civil servant must necessarily work in a tie and suit, and that a civil servant must have dignity and moral strictness, are also entirely different things. As a film director traveling abroad I met various culture-ministry officials of those countries, but I never saw anyone giving off a 'civil-servant odor' from their dress. As free as their dress was, their thinking and behavior were free and flexible. Yet in the 21st century, in this so-called age of globalization, whether the minister comes to work in a tie or not is still a news item for newspapers and broadcasts. I cannot believe true debate, communication, and understanding will be achieved within such an authoritarian culture.
To handle culture-and-arts administration, we ourselves must become people of culture and the arts. The same will be true of sports administration and tourism. Confined within the duties of public office — no, precisely because of that — we must always reflect on ourselves within social relationships and ceaselessly commune and communicate with them. To do so, we must first throw off the thick iron armor of authoritarianism and change into the soft silk garment of culture.
I hope our Ministry of Culture and Tourism can guide the people in 'how culture gives dreams to our thoughts and actions.' I will make sure our Ministry's standing is established here. By all means, promising that we will, together, unfold a cultural administration in which emotion is alive, I close this rambling greeting. Thank you once again.
March 13, 2003, afternoon — Lee Chang-dong
Comments 0
No comments yet. Be the first.