Photo by NJT. John Linton, Innovation Chairman of the People Power Party, Attends First Anniversary Memorial of Itaewon Tragedy

Language and Context: The Sociocultural Dynamics of Lee Jun-seok's English Remarks

By Byung Kee Park

Seoul, South Korea — In the wake of the recent controversy surrounding former People's Party leader Lee Jun-seok's English-language comments directed at innovation chairman In Yo-han (also known as John Linton), it has become a flashpoint for discussions about linguistic appropriateness and political decorum in South Korea. During a talk concert at Kyungsung University in Busan on the 4th, Lee's use of English made him the center of heated debate throughout the weekend.

Conservative media and commentators heatedly framed Lee's remarks as disrespectful, while some went so far as to accuse him of racial discrimination against Chairman In, who is a Caucasian. In response, Lee dissected his English statements in a detailed rebuttal during a YouTube broadcast on the 5th, asserting his speech was courteous both in tone and content. Furthermore, In Yo-han expressed a sense of disappointment during a major broadcast appearance on the same day.

A conservative YouTube channel, "god's Hand," spent an hour critiquing Lee's English grammar, suggesting his command of the language was lacking. However, when examining the original English transcript and broadcast clips, Lee's attitude and message were indeed polite. He expressed respect for In's family and ancestors who are Christian missionaries in Korea, emphasizing inclusivity by stating, "You are one of us," and addressed "Mr. Linton" in a manner consistent with respectful American norms—as even the President of the United States is referred to as "Mr. President."

The context of Lee's remarks, "You do not seem like one of us," was not racial but political, implying In was not politically aligned with the event's undertone. Lee's gestures and tone in English were not disrespectful, and his content merely outlined that without addressing specific political "prerequisites," dialogue with In was not feasible at the time.

Lee implied that the innovation chairman should call for significant changes within the current administration. This prerequisite was crucial for Lee, and he elegantly refused a conversation without it. Lee also questioned In about the opinions of the residents of Gangseo District, hinting at the need for reflection and change following the district's by-election results, which were seen as a judgment on President Yoon Suk-yeol.

Most claims in the media have been cherry-picking "out of context." Chairman In's uncoordinated visit to Busan was unexpected in its repercussions. His intentions might have been rooted in finding resolution through dialogue, even in the face of rejection.

Was Lee Jun-seok then free from fault? Not entirely. Communicating in English was not the best choice. 

Imagine an analogous situation where Tyler, an American active in the Korean entertainment market, is now a famous man in the U.S. as a politician. Now, he is approached by a Korean-American innovation chairperson named Paul, who is fluent in both languages and was born in Los Angeles. If Tyler refused a meeting in Korean in a predominantly English-speaking context, it might be seen as culturally inappropriate. Despite Tyler's respectful tone and content, the choice of language could complicate the social and cultural interpretation for the audience.

I tried to interpret this incident from the viewpoints of sociocultural linguists. Scholars in the field of sociocultural linguistics have significantly contributed to understanding such dynamics:

Pierre Bourdieu viewed language as a symbol of social class and power, influencing socioeconomic status and perpetuating class inequalities. Erving Goffman, a sociologist and anthropologist, saw language as a tool for social interaction, essential for identity formation and maintaining social norms. Mikhail Bakhtin, a literary theorist and linguist, saw language as a process of dialogue and conflict, reflecting social change. Herbert Goldberg considered language as a cognitive process, linking language use to human cognitive capabilities and asserting its influence on cognitive development.

According to generative AIs' hypothetical analyses based on the perspectives of foundational thinkers in sociocultural linguistics, Pierre Bourdieu might view Lee's choice to use English as an assertion of specific sociocultural capital. It could represent an attempt to display his social stratum and cultural sophistication. However, this action may also reveal a lack of awareness about Korea's societal attitudes toward race and language, inadvertently highlighting the intricate connection between linguistic choice and political identity within Korean culture.

Erving Goffman might have interpreted Lee's behavior as a strategic performance of 'front' action, a calculated management of self-image wherein the use of the English language showcases an international persona and a high level of education. Nonetheless, this could have backfired by needing to consider Korean societal perceptions of race and language fully.

Mikhail Bakhtin's analysis could suggest that Lee's employment of English was an effort to articulate his identity within Korean society but transgressed social interaction norms in the process.

Herbert S. Golumb's expected analysis might delve into the psychological motivations behind Lee's behavior and its outcomes. It could be seen as a reflection of Lee's internal beliefs or attitudes while also examining how he intended to adapt to the social situation. Lee's English remarks may have been an attempt to express the cultural values he advocates for, yet in doing so, he potentially distorted the cultural values within Korean society.

The interaction between Lee Jun-seok and In Yo-han represents more than a mere personal exchange; it prompts a reassessment of how language use operates within social contexts. From the perspective of sociocultural linguistics, Lee's choice to use English signals that language transcends mere communication—it serves as an instrument for conveying political stance, sociocultural capital, and even power relations.

This incident underscores the societal and cultural ramifications of linguistic choices. It provides a stark illustration of the deep connections between language, context, identity, and the potential for conflict and misunderstanding. It prompts a reevaluation of the sociocultural impact of language use and the need for deeper understanding in a continuously evolving social landscape.