The Possibility of Reverse Paternalism and Diaspora Identity Politics

     In last week's blog post, after reflecting on the first half of the book Adopted Territory: Transnational Korean Adoptees and the Politics of Belonging by Eleana J. Kim, I wrote on the theme of paternalism in the lived experience of Korean adoptees living in the Western world -- the United States, specifically, but also Europe. The second half of Adopted Territory focuses more on the experiences of Korean adoptees who return to Korea for various reasons, including to experience their motherland, to gain a sense of identity, and to search for birth families. From these accounts as shared by Kim, there exists a possibility of reverse paternalism as experienced by Korean adoptees in their birth nation which includes identity politics with nationalist and culturally imperialist implications.
     Korean adoptees living in a Western culture are confounded with implications of what the ideal citizen subject is and how they must try to fit that identity while knowing they exist in a body that inherently excludes them from true belonging. White, male, heterosexual, Christian -- these descriptors are just some that define the ideal citizen subject. Due to these confounded expectations of assimilating, Korean adoptees may return to Korea in search of sense of "home" and identity. What they find instead is another culture of expected traits of the ideal citizen subject, that although Korean, still exists within a state of imperialism and neocolonalism.
      In the chapter, "Our Adoptee, Our Alien," Kim illustrates how on the one hand Korean adoptees are seen as belonging to Korea, as essentially Korean, even to the point of their expecting to speak Korean fluently or otherwise offending Korean citizens. But while they are "essentially Korean" and "belong" to the nation-state, as if their adoption was a temporary loan to the West, they are constantly reminded of their inherent foreign status. This Catch-22 treatment is akin to living in the West with the expectation to fully assimilate while not being expected to ever escape your sense of otherness. It is akin to DuBois's description of double consciousness, with notable differences, since DuBois wrote that in reference to African Americans. These experiences in Korea also illustrate the romanticization of diaspora identity politics.
     Diaspora can refer to many ethnic nations, and has been used in references such as the African diaspora, the Jewish diaspora, and now the Korean (adoptee) diaspora. But a sense of returning home is both obligatory on the one hand, a sense of still belonging to your motherland, which may or may not be where you were actually born and futile on the other hand, since your being replaced or displaced to another land creates in you a new identity in which you can never truly  belong again. This double-edged sword reflects the experiences the Korean adoptees had in their return to Korea. It is also akin, with notable differences, to the parents and children in the book Children of Global Migration. You belong to your homeland, but can never fully belong.
     These diaspora identity politics are further complicated in the face of the reality of cultural imperialism. A return home that has been colonized, neocolonized, occupied, or otherwise culturally appropriated might differ greatly from the romanticized notion of being a culturally autonomous motherland. In the case of Adopted Territory, one such example is the exaltation of English-speaking as way of being competitive in the market. European colonization and U.S. imperialism changes not only the persons replaced and displaced through diaspora but also changes the meaning of the motherland. These complications are made detrimental to identity and senses of  belonging and home when they are ignored and/or oversimplified.