From Heroes to Helpless Refugees: A CDA of The Representation of North Korean Refugees in South Korean Law

(1)

From Heroes to Helpless Refugees

A CDA of The Representation of North Korean Refugees in South

Korean Law

Diala Ibrahim Arsofli

International Migration and Ethnic Relations Master Thesis 30 credits

Spring 2020: IM639L

Supervisor: Christian Fernández Word count: 20402

(2)

Abstract

The dictator ruled North Korea is not a country many North Koreans chose to live in voluntarily. Thousands of North Koreans must endure starvation, public executions, prison camps, rape, and numerous other human rights abuses daily. As a result, many choose to flee the country, hoping for a better and safer life in South Korea. This paper investigates how North Korean refugees are represented in the current North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act and its Enforcement Decree Act. This study aims to examine the changes made to the Acts that are relevant to the representation of North Korean refugees in South Korea. I examine the Acts with Critical Discourse Analysis and Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Model of Discourse. The results suggest that the Acts contribute to the negative perception of North Korean refugees by some South Korean nationals. Unstable inter-Korean relations enhance these negative attitudes.

Keywords: North Korean refugees, North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act, Representation, Stereotypes, Critical Discourse Analysis.

(3)

1. Introduction

The dictator ruled North Korea is not a country many North Koreans chose to live in by their own choice. Thousands of North Koreans must endure starvation, public executions, prison camps, rape, and numerous other human rights abuses daily. As a result, thousands of North Koreans choose to flee the country (Human Rights Watch, 2018; Ryu & Park, 2018; Ulferts & Howard, 2017). As of December 2019, an estimated 33,523 North Korean refugees entered South Korea since 1998 and 72.1% of these registered refugees were women (Ministry of Unification, 2020a). Important to note is that North Koreans have been defecting the North for the South even before the 21st century. According to Lankov (2006), an estimated 10% of the entire population fled North Korea after the division of the Korean peninsula and up until the end of the Korean War (pp. 108-109). Regardless, the Ministry of Unification only showcases the North Koreans who defected between 1998-2019 (Park, 2019, p. 112). Defecting is far from an easy matter, and the journey from North Korea to South Korea is far from easy, but the hope for a better life encourages thousands of North Koreans to risk their lives for freedom. North Korean beaches, shores, and the borders are heavily guarded with soldiers and under constant surveillance. Even if one manages to bribe the stationed soldiers, landmines and electric wires are still obstacles a refugee must overcome (Lankov, 2006, p. 109). Another option for defecting is through China as it borders North Korea. Nevertheless, there is still the risk of being caught by human traffickers or spies who actively deport North Korean refugees as the Chinese government does not regard them as refugees (pp. 109-110).

On the other side of the border, in the capitalist South, the Ministry of Unification is

responsible for the North Korean refugees that reach the country (Ryu & Park, 2018; North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act, 2019). The 33,523 North Korean refugees who left North Korea between 1998-2019 and were registered are a minority population and make up 0.06% of the country's 51,709,098 citizens (Ministry of Unification, 2020a). According to Kim and Atteraya (2018), once a North Korean refugee enters South Korea, they are screened to determine whether they are a genuine refugee or not. If they are deemed genuine, they immediately acquire South Korean citizenship (p. 1189). Once out of the screening process, the North Korean refugee is granted entrance into a very generous support system that ‘normal’ refugees who seek refuge in South Korea are not admitted to (ibid.). This generous system was implemented through the North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act (2019) in 1997 and was amended over the years.

(7)

South Korea has two Acts that address refugees with complementary Enforcement Decree Acts, namely the North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act (2019) and the Refugee Act (2016). The former targets the North Korean refugees who enter South Korea while the latter addresses any refugee whose nationality does not fall under that of ‘North Korean’. My interest rests in addressing the legal framework of the former Act. Consequently, I will not be addressing the Refugee Act as this is neither a comparative study nor within the scope of this research.

This research was motivated by several factors associated with the treatment of North Korean refugees who reside in South Korea. Previous research recorded since the early 2000s, that discrimination has been very evident in South Korea since the migration flows of North Korean refugees skyrocketed. With the increasing flows of North Koreans, the previous laws that addressed the Northern refugees began to change and ultimately customised according to the human capital of the immigrants. Consequently, the political tone towards North Korean refugees shifted from addressing them as heroes to helpless refugees (see, Choi, 2018; Lankov 2006). Moreover, interviews done by Asian Boss support these studies. Asian Boss is a YouTube channel that interviews Asians across Asia and has since 2016 been conducting interviews with North Korean refugees in South Korea. Their interviews ranged from asking about the quality of life in the South to the attitudes of its people. Asian Boss also asked about their views, experiences, and current situation in South Korea. What caught my attention was the negativity directed at some North Koreans. The interviewed North Koreans spoke of negative experiences with South Korean citizens who would approach them with prejudice, discrimination, harassment and social exclusion due to their different yet similar origins (Asian Boss, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d, 2017e, 2017f, 2017g, 2017h, 2018a, 2018b, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c).

During my research, I developed several perceptions of the South Korean government and their leaders over time. I noticed a connection between the government and the South Korean people’s perception of foreigners and North Korea as if they went hand in hand. This research was motivated by the confusion I had regarding the connection between the Acts and the South Korean society. I sought to understand why previous studies have repeatedly claimed discrimination against North Korean refugees and blamed it on the legislations and the South Korean government. If the Acts supposedly support the refugees generously, then why do previous research call for the laws to be adjusted? Has the South Korean government been disagreeing with the Acts over time and

(8)

consequently been transmitting negative biases to the South Korean people? I decided to turn to linguistics as within it I could draw in on tools that examine representation in discourse.

In this research, I seek to investigate how North Korean refugees are represented in the South Korean legal discourse by examining the North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act (2019) and its Enforcement Decree Act (2018). I aim to address and analyse general representation, sexism and gender bias, discrimination, and stereotypes in the legal texts. By examining the five concepts above, my goal with this research is to approach the legal texts from various angles to include and subsequently encompass the various forms injustice can take shape.

To carry out my research, I propose a multidisciplinary approach linking the disciplines of social science and law. According to Brettel and Hollifield (2015), law and social science go hand in hand when it comes to the careful examination of a state (p. 15). They argue it is common to analyse legal texts to examine a state since legislation is the resume of society (p. 15, p. 289). Elaborating, they state that this type of analysis is also called an institutional analysis where a researcher carefully reads legal texts and examines statistics (ibid. p. 15). The interconnection between the two disciplines will be linked further by incorporating the disciplines linguistics, sociology, and gender studies. This research proposes the application of critical discourse analysis to combine the disciplines under Norman Fairclough’s (2010) Three-dimensional model of

discourse.

Analysing a legal text is not similar to examining an advertisement, a press release or a newspaper article which is commonly done when approaching a discourse with critical discourse analysis. Legal texts are formal and use a language that requires a certain level of knowledge within a language. I have a bachelor’s degree in English studies but remain humble to the language of the legal texts as the format is alien to what I have approached previous to this research. I have

organised and executed this paper ultimately to contribute to the lacking literature on the Acts. I have yet to encounter research that addresses the Acts through a multidisciplinary approach in English. Therefore, I aim to contribute with my methodology to hopefully encourage research-fellows to shed more light on the Acts and what they encompass.

Before moving on to the structure of this paper, I will briefly address the terms “refugee” and “defector” as they reoccur in both this paper and when referring to North Koreans who leave their country for another. During my research, I found scholars using the terms interchangeably regardless of their minor differences. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term

(9)

“refugee” typically refers to a person who is seeking refuge from somewhere due to different reasons such as war, religious persecution, political matters, or the effects of a natural disaster. The term “defector”, however, refers to a “person who defects from a person, party, organisation, or cause” (2020a; 2020b). In other words, not all North Koreans who leave North Korea are defectors, but most of them are refugees. As a result of this difference, I have chosen to address North

Koreans in South Korea as refugees in this research.

Another essential point to mention is the presentation of Korean names. In this research, I present Korean names as Family name + First name. i.e. Rhee (family name) Syngman (first name) instead of Syngman Rhee or Kim (family name) Il-sung (first name) instead of Il-sung Kim.

The study proceeds as follows. After presenting the aim and research questions that guide this paper, I conclude this section with the paper’s delimitations and limitations. In the second chapter, I briefly address the historical and political backgrounds of the Korean peninsula pre and post its division. The third chapter presents the previous research conducted on North Korean refugees in South Korea and explains where I situate this research. The fourth chapter elaborates on my philosophical standpoint. The fifth chapter presents the theoretical framework of this research. The sixth and seventh chapters include the methodology and the design of this study, where I explain the method and material. In the final three chapters, I present the results and attempt to discuss and encapsulate the findings of the analysis.

1.1 Aim and Research Questions

This empirical study aims to examine the North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act (2019) and its Enforcement Decree Act (2018) through a multidisciplinary approach. This research aims to examine how the Acts represent North Korean refugees and how this representation has developed over time. Two main research questions and two sub-questions lead this research.

As discussed above, North Korean refugees are shown to be discriminated against by many South Korean citizens due to several factors associated with the refugees. These factors could be their social, financial, or educational status or their place of origin. After scholars made these claims, they continued to call for changes in the legislation. Therefore, I first seek to reveal whether this discrimination is reflected in the chosen medium by asking the following research question:

(10)

RQ1: How are North Korean refugees represented in the current North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act and its Enforcement Decree Act?

I am also interested in addressing the different sexes and whether they are represented differently in the Acts. Indeed, studies have shown that there is discrimination concerning gender roles before and after North Korean refugees settle in South Korea. Consequently, my first research question is followed by two sub-questions that deal with how the Acts address the sexes:

SQ1.1: How are North Korean men and women represented in the Acts? SQ1.2: Are there visibly assigned gender roles assigned within the Acts?

Finally, I wish to examine what the changes made to the Acts had of effects on the South Korean perception of North Korean refugees. I aim to do so by examining the political history of South Korea, focusing on the possible change of attitudes since 1988. Consequently, I seek to answer my second research question that directly addresses the changes made since 1997 and two sub-questions aimed at the sources that affected the changes and the political objectives behind them:

RQ2: How did the representation of North Korean refugees change since 1997?

SQ2.1: What are some of the sources that influenced the production and changes of the Acts? SQ2.2: How did the political agendas since 1988 affect South Koreans’ perceptions of North Korean refugees?

1.2 Delimitations

I purposefully chose to focus on the North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act and its Enforcement Decree Act (henceforth, the Act and the Enforcement Decree Act, respectively) as I was interested in examining their different levels of texture, production, and distribution. As a result of this choice, I will be ignorant of any legal texts that may act as clarifying or supporting to my chosen Acts. Examples of such legal texts are the previous legislations that came before the current, the South Korean Constitution, the Citizenship Act, the Refugee Act, and Nationality Act, and others. Regardless of these delimitations, I argue that examining the political history of the inter-Korean relations can suffice in encapsulating the context of the Acts before and after their promulgation. Understandably, I could go into a first-hand analysis of all supporting legal texts. However, due to time constraints, this research does not allow for it.

(11)

1.3 Limitations

This research was partly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. My access to physical libraries, and consequently literature, was limited mid-way significantly when Denmark announced its lockdown. I was, therefore, unable to access data unavailable online or in my

immediate possession. This hurdle has affected my ability to conduct the qualitative analysis of my results on the level of depth I desired.

2. Background

The following sub-sections present a brief account of the events that shaped the divided Korean peninsula. This chapter illustrates what is perhaps not considered common knowledge to the general audience and therefore, does not act as a deep historical review. In the chapters that follow this chapter, I illustrate the past and current picture of the two Koreas leading up to the current situation under Presidents Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un of South and North Korea, respectively. 2.1 The Korean Peninsula in 1910-1953

For this study, a summary of the history of Korea from 1910-1953 is essential for understanding what divided and afterwards shaped the Korean peninsula. Before 1910, Korea existed as one united country for almost 1300 years (Sørensen, 2004, pp. 21-22). Between 1910-1945, Japan annexed Korea and aimed at erasing the Korean people’s sense of national identity, replacing it with its own (Grant, 2005, p. 5). During World War II in August 1945, Japan was attacked by the US on the 6th,_{and the Soviet Union invaded the Manchu Empire on the 8}th_(ibid.).

As a result, Japan withdrew and lost Korea. The Soviet Union invaded Korea that same month and triggered the US to strike a deal with the communists. The two superpowers agreed to divide Korea into two areas: the communist North and the capitalist South. The division of the country was not a symbolic one. Overnight, the US decided to draw a line on the 38th parallel since Korea’s capital city Seoul is located under the division line (Sørensen, 2004, pp. 24-25). The division of the country came with its complementary rulers: the communist Kim Il-sung and the liberal Syngman Rhee (Grant, 2005, pp. 6-11). The divided peninsula is now called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the north and the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the south. The Soviet Union and China supported the North while the US and its allies supported the South. After the division, North Korea’s leader decided to invade South Korea in 1950, causing the Korean War to break out

(Hastings, 2013, p. 567). The war lasted three years and 33 days (Grant, 2005, p. 47) and came to a standstill with the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement on 27 July 1953 (Sørensen, 2004, p.

(12)

29). The Agreement also birthed the Korean Demilitarized Zone, which is an area that divides the previously united Korean nation roughly in half (ibid.). After the war’s end, the Soviet Union, China, the UN, and the US eventually withdrew from the two newly split Korean nations. It allowed the new states to govern themselves (Grant, 2004, pp. 48-51).

2.2 Post-War Struggles in Leadership

Since the division in 1945 and the war’s end in 1953, the two countries have each had their fair share of challenges. In the South, the South Korean leader Syngman Rhee was exiled after a student demonstration in 1960 that killed 115 (Pratt, 2007, pp. 264-269). According to Pratt (2007), “[t]he first three presidents all ended their terms of office in unhappy style, and even the next two, the most popularly elected and democratically inclined, saw their reputations marred by scandal” (pp. 275-276). The reference here is to the killings, oppression, dictatorship, and misconducts the first five presidents were involved in (ibid. pp. 264-269). The five presidents who ruled after Rhee all had a background in the military. It was not until 1988, where a more liberal approach was introduced through President Roh Tae-woo (ibid.). The road to democracy was a bumpy one for South Korea as its presidents came from a variety of backgrounds. As of today, South Korea has had 12 rulers in total since 1948, and its current leader is President Moon Jae-in (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2017).

The change in rulers in the North did not shift as ‘frequently’ as in the South. Since 1948, North Korea has had three rulers in total. Their first ruler was Kim Il-sung who ruled from 1948-1994, followed by his son Kim Jung-il from 1994-2011, and currently, the country is ruled by Kim Jong-un, the son of the previous leader (BBC, 2019). According to Pratt (2007), Kim Il-sung was Stalin’s choice for North Korea’s leader (p. 269). Stalin’s choice ultimately resulted in the birth of the Kim ‘dynasty’. The Kim dynasty has been ruling their people under a totalitarian system for decades. A system where people’s opinions are neither heard nor regarded. Propaganda,

manipulation, and oppression are few of the hardships the North Koreans must endure daily (Pratt, 2007, pp. 270-272). The education in the North is tremendously propaganda heavy (Asian Boss, 2017a). Moreover, children are taught that their ‘Dear Leader’ is their father, whom they should never cross (Pratt, 2007, p. 270). Resonating with the filial piety way of thinking that permeates much of the Asian region and their customs, this indebts them further under the rule of the dictatorship. When the great famine or ‘Arduous March’ hit its peak in 1998-1999, the North

(13)

Korean regime failed to address the crisis resulting in North Koreans fleeing to the South in desperation for a better life (Kim & Atteraya, 2018, p. 1189).

As shown above, neither North nor South Korea started with experience in governing a country since the peninsula’s division. According to Pratt (2007), both countries revisited

“authoritarian control based on traditional notions of legitimisation, and the Neo-Confucian appeal to respect for hierarchy and superiority” (p. 274). As a result, their attempts to govern their

respective countries were heavily influenced by the imperial Chinese style government that includes military oppression and undercover agencies that aid the law’s enforcement (ibid.).

2.3 From Privileged to Poor Refugees

The North Korean refugees that chose to seek refuge in South Korea and other countries were at first encouraged to do so by the South Korean government. According to Lankov (2006), South Korea welcomed refugees of elite status such as ambassadors and military officials with open arms due to their invaluable knowledge on North Korea (p. 109). However, when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the number and social status of the refugees changed, and South Korea’s interest in them plummeted suit (ibid.). The years between the late 1970s to the early 2000s were

troublesome times for North Korea. Natural disasters, an economic crisis, and consequently, famine struck the country (Seth, 2018, pp. 153-222). Not only did South Korea go through a significant technological development North Korea could not compete with but being closed off from the rest of the global market began to show its wear on the Northern state’s economy. The famine hit an all-time high between 1998-1999, and it was estimated that between 2-3 million North Koreans passed (ibid. pp. 194-195). It is therefore not surprising that poor and less well-off citizens began to flee the country in the 90s (Lankov, 2006, p. 109). Due to the differences in the technological development between the two Koreas, the newly arrived refugees had less useful information and required more work to incorporate them back into a very different society. Consequently, South Korea started changing their refugee and inter-Korean legislation and policies from spoiling refugees to selectively picking the “best” ones (ibid. pp. 117-118). In the years 1997-1998, South Korea implemented the North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act (2019) and its Enforcement Decree (2018).

2.4 Hanawon

Once in South Korea, North Koreans are enrolled in the House of Unity, Hanawon.

(14)

to Demick (2010), Hanawon was opened in 1999 and currently serves as a life school that teaches North Korean refugees about the South Korean system and how to live within it on their own (p. 249). She describes how the government places North Koreans on a three-month training

curriculum that focuses on three different types of training programmes. The programmes focus on easing anxiety, overcoming cultural barriers, and practical training for earning a livelihood (ibid.). The refugees also relearn the peninsula’s history as the one they were taught is filled with

propaganda. They are taught about human rights and democracy, sex education, and other practical matters, such as using different electronic devices (ibid.). According to the Ministry of Unification (2020b), Hanawon also prepares refugees for settlement which includes registration of family relations, housing, and financial benefits. Moreover, the system incorporates the refugees into the social safety net, which offers fundamental living security and medical care, and vocational and educational support (ibid.).

The Ministry of Unification established a non-profit public organisation in 2010 called the Korea Hana Foundation or the KHF (Korea Hana Foundation, 2020). The KHF offers various forms of support, and they cooperate with the central and local governments as well as the private sector (Ministry of Unification, 2020b). The KHF runs 25 regional adaptation centres called the Hana Center across South Korea (ibid.). The centre was founded based on the “Act on the protection and settlement support for North Korean defectors” (Korea Hana Foundation, 2020). To help the North Korean refugees settle down and integrate in South Korea, the KHF has implemented projects tailored for them such as immediate resettlement, medical expenses, employment, youth education, and others. Important to note here is that the KHF actively works towards spreading videos and advertising campaigns aimed at reducing the psychological gap between North and South Korean residents (ibid.).

3. Review of The Research Field

Copious studies have been conducted on North Korean refugees from across various disciplines. Regrettably, due to language barriers, I was unable to examine research published in Hangul (Korean) and therefore, cannot include any in this chapter. Nevertheless, I did encounter numerous studies published in Hangul listed in the reference lists and footnotes of the

undermentioned scholars.

The medical field has published numerous reports on mental illnesses, such as PTSD and depression, and physical and mental violence at home and in South Korean society. While some

(15)

scholars call for changes in the then-current laws, others state the need for more reliable formal and informal support for vulnerable refugees. These studies nearly all conclude that South Korean society is not welcoming to North Korean refugees post-Hanawon phase. This behaviour results in adverse reactions such as self-isolation, depression, and high drop-out rates during high school and university years (Emery et al., 2015; Jeon et al., 2008; Kim et al. 2018; Ryu & Park, 2018; Park et al., 2019a; Park et al., 2019b; Shin & Lee, 2015; Um et al., 2015; Watson, 2015).

Studies on North Korean refugees have also commonly been focusing on North Korean refugees’ citizenship status in South Korea. These studies examined whether naturalised North Koreans were treated equally to an ethnic South Korean on the job market, at school, and in daily life (Choo, 2006; Wolman, 2014). Wolman’s (2014) research examines the South Korean

citizenship status of North Korean escapees. He examined the South Korean Constitution, the North Korean Settlement and Support Act, and Nationality Act, and other relevant legislation. He states that the practical availability of citizenship rights for North Koreans are rendered ineffective as they lack a detailed legal description of the North Koreans’ rights. Wolman calls for changes to be made to the Acts of 2014 claiming the language unclear in how it depicts citizenship when acquired by a North Korean refugee. In the same vein but taking a different approach, Choo (2006) examines the same citizenship status but through a feminist lens. Choo analyses how gendered modernising projects in South Korea shape North Korean settlers’ citizenship experiences. She aimed to analyse the different strategies put into action to integrate North Korean settlers. She concludes by

proposing the notion of “ethnicised citizenship” to describe her perception of how North Koreans are integrated into South Korean society through gendered and ethnicised methods.

Ample research has been directed at examining the struggles of North Koreans resettling and integrating in South Korea. This field of research addresses an array of attempts to integrate men and women of all ages into the South Korean society, be it through sports, politics, education, or religious activities. The research often concludes by calling for more focus to be put on helping the vulnerable cohort by customising integration instead of basing it on prejudice and an inflexible mould. This prejudice is often described as some South Koreans expecting North Koreans to assimilate and adapt swiftly due to their common racial background. Moreover, studies have shown that many within the South Korean society expect swift assimilation regardless of the

discrimination they direct at the North Korean refugees (Bidet, 2009; Hur, 2018; Jeong & Kim, 2016; Kim & Atteraya, 2018; Lankov, 2006; Park & Ok, 2017; Riley et al., 1951).

(16)

Studies examining South Koreans’ perceptions of North Korea and its people has also been fruitful. These studies tend to focus on how South Korea treats North Korean refugees, what the South Korean society thinks of the governments’ actions, and finally, how the North Koreans are treated. The results point to similar conclusions, indicating that many South Koreans in their 20s are unhappy with how the South Korean government ‘pampers’ North Korean refugees through the various programmes offered upon settlement. The dissatisfaction combined with the mass media’s representation of the Northern neighbours has birthed either indifferent attitudes or discriminating approaches among some South Koreans. The researchers’ call for action is commonly directed at policymakers to encourage mixed classrooms, positive media campaigns, and to improve education aimed at shedding a positive light on North Korean refugees and those who still reside in North Korea (Collet & Bang, 2016; Kim, 2016; Kim et al., 2018; Um et al., 2015).

Early and recent research have been calling for changes in the North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act and other related laws and policies (Bidet, 2009; Choi, 2018; Kim et al., 2016; Kim & Atteraya, 2018; Lankov, 2006; Shen, 2016; Wolman, 2014). Further calls for change have also risen from researchers whose focus were the citizenship status of North Korean refugees in South Korea and the integrations methods. These studies often review the predecessors of the Act and the political discourses that caused these changes. Curiously, none of the scholars addressed how North Korean refugees are represented in the legal discourse. Lankov (2006) and Choi (2018) came close in their research. Lankov’s (2006) study examined the political and societal discourses since the end of the Korean War and how the Seoul government had been reacting to the changing legislation. He describes Seoul’s attitude towards the refugees as being a somewhat negative tone as it is focused on North Korean refugees’ human capital (pp. 105-128). Choi (2018) offers a more recent study that builds upon some of the points Lankov rises. Choi (2018) was concerned with addressing the numerous changes made to the name of the Act before 1997. He discovered how with the change of political leaders followed a new name, and from time to time, the name was changed several times under the same leader (pp. 93-94).

As can be seen, none of the previous studies mentioned examined the Acts through a

multidisciplinary approach that addresses representation. Kim’s (2014) study is the closest research that applies a similar methodology to this research paper. Kim (2014) investigates the politics of inclusion and exclusion embedded in South Korea’s multicultural education documents. He approaches the data through critical discourse analysis and applies Fairclough’s (2010) model. His

(17)

research concludes that there remains a lingering deep-rooted “ethnocentrism” in South Korea that prevents it from becoming a fully fleshed multicultural society.

Regardless of the lack of linguistic approaches to the South Korean legislation, the contributions of the studies mentioned above are essential for understanding the context of South Korea and its power relations towards North Korean refugees. Most of the listed studies address South Korean laws to some extent. While some scholars chose to refer to them briefly in order to explain a then-current situation, other scholars addressed several legal texts and policies directly and openly blamed some of the laws for the damaging effects they had on North Korean refugees. Notwithstanding, the literature on how North Korean refugees are represented in the Acts remains unexplored territory. This research attempts to further the understanding of the representation of North Korean refugees in the Acts by examining the linguistic, discursive, and social practices of the chosen data.

The present study contributes to the existing literature on North Korean refugees in South Korea by focusing on a context that is perhaps quite different from previous studies, that is, the exploration of representation in South Korean law. As presented earlier, leading this research are questions aimed at examining the representation of a particular refugee group that, according to both law and previous studies, wrap the North Korean refugees in a very generous bundle. To examine representation, I address some factors found under the concept representation. I investigate whether gender roles and sexism are evident in the data and what stereotypes or prejudice there might be. I also seek to reveal how negative representation could have emerged by tracing the political history and subsequently political agenda since 1988 to reveal some of the sources.

4. Philosophical Standpoint

4.1 Role of the researcher

For the present study, I approach my data with Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth, CDA) and my philosophical standpoint is that of ontological relativism and epistemological

subjectivism. I examine two legal texts through CDA, meaning my involvement with the data is on a hands-on level. Regarding my involvement with the field, I only have a personal interest in the subject area and do not have any personal ties to North Korea or South Korea, nor have I previously engaged in professional or volunteer work related to North Korean refugees. Moreover, I do not speak, read, or understand the Korean language Hangul. As a result, the data I was capable of collecting were translations and not the original legal texts. Concerning my connection to the field, I

(18)

consider myself an etic who is viewing data from an outsider’s view instead of an emic who would be an insider (Simon, 2011). Since I am an outsider looking into a society thousands of kilometres away from where I currently reside, I have the disadvantage of not understanding the South Korean society and culture on a deep level. Moreover, I have never engaged with a South Korean on an acquaintance level, nor have I been to South Korea. Regardless of being an outsider, I remain influenced by my views towards refugees as both of my parents have been refugees.

Although I have a lack of connection to South Korea and have been influenced by my parents from their experiences as refugees, I am confident that these weaknesses are my strengths as they allow me to view and examine the South Korean state critically. Since I have neither lived nor been associated with South Korea or North Korea, the bias I have towards my data and the Korean peninsula is very limited to general media observations. With these advantages, I am positive that I can contribute to the existing literature on North Korean refugees in South Korea with my

multidisciplinary approach which, strictly speaking, would be challenging to execute if I allow myself to be too subjective. I have enclosed my personal experiences as I deem it necessary to be transparent in my views and prejudice when examining any social construction through a qualitative approach. Without transparency, readers of this research would be incapable of judging the

legitimacy of my results and consequently unable to judge its reliability. 4.2 The CDA Approach

This research aims to examine legal discourse with CDA to attempt revealing the way(s) North Korean refugees are represented. To conduct my examination, I draw upon a

multidisciplinary theory rooted in social constructionism (Fairclough, 2010, p. 5; Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 4). According to Jørgensen and Phillips (2002), CDA is a “complete package” that includes method and theory as a “theoretical and methodological whole” (p. 4). They state that theory and method are intertwined and urge the researcher who applies CDA in their empirical study to take the whole package without leaving any of its components out. They list four

components that encompass CDA: (1) “philosophical (ontological and epistemological) premises regarding the role of language in the social construction of the world”, (2) “theoretical models”, (3) “methodological guidelines for how to approach a research domain”, and (4) “specific techniques for analysis” (ibid.). The presented four components are according to the researchers found in numerous CDA approaches, and Fairclough’s approach is one of such approaches.

(19)

As explained in the previous paragraph, I consider my position as an outsider advantageous due to the limited prejudice I ultimately hold. Concerning CDA, objectivity is challenging to accomplish due to the qualitative nature of CDA. Regardless, having applied this approach before this research, I quickly realised the importance of objectivity as subjectivity is swiftly revealed if little research is conducted and presented in the discussion. In other words, this approach tends to reveal the intentions of its researcher since it usually requires a copious amount of research to encompass the macro and micro levels of the chosen data. I now first direct my attention to this research’s theoretical framework before diving into Fairclough’s framework,

5. Theoretical Framework

The analysis of representation is often connected to media studies (Davis, 2004; Hall, 1997; Ott & Mack, 2019). Critical media studies have often examined and revealed power abuse in its various forms in both old and new products, i.e. texts (Ott & Mack, 2019). One of the shapes of power misuse is often seen in is stereotypes. Apart from media studies, theories on stereotypes are also commonly found in the field of sociology. For this research, I apply two theories from

sociology. Before presenting the chosen theories, I will first examine the term “stereotype” and what it entails. I then examine the term’s relationship with the terms “prejudice” and

“discrimination” ending with the presentation of the chosen theories. 5.1 Stereotypes

According to Ashmore and Del Boca (2015), stereotypes are linked to attitudes and prejudice that oversimplify and exaggerate traits found in different ethnic groups in an often-incorrect manner (pp. 6-7). Ott and Mack (2019) argue that when stereotypes are accepted, they tend to become socially oppressive (p. 208). They claim that “a stereotype is a misleading and simplified representation of a particular social group” (ibid.). Stereotypes are common as they help individuals categorise and navigate society. Although many are inaccurate, stereotypes “form mental shortcuts that allow us to quickly make snap judgements about individuals and move on” (ibid. p. 209). In her book Choosing Ethnic Identity, Song (2003) confirms what has been described thus far and adds that stereotypes are “reductive and crude” elaborating that they are “an integral part of how racialised regimes of representation operate” (p. 35). With these arguments in mind, I digest that the representation of a group is often heavily influenced by the stereotypes people of power hold. In this research’s case, the people responsible for the production of the Acts must then

(20)

hold power over the government and ultimately the South Korean society. I will return to this argument later during the analysis.

The relationship between stereotypes and the chosen data lies in the calls for change in the legislations I discussed in Chapter 1. As explained briefly earlier, previous research has repeatedly called for changes in laws and policies to improve the quality of life of North Korean refugees. These claims were made on the grounds of the results of various studies conducted on North Korean refugees in South Korea. The said studies often conclude that blame should be directed at specific laws and policies as they indirectly encourage discrimination towards North Korean refugees in South Korea. In other words, some scholars blame legislation for the discrimination some South Koreans convey to North Korean refugees. I seek to reveal and evaluate whether the Acts that directly address North Korean refugees encourage such behaviour and attempt to trace the changes and the agendas connected to these changes since the promulgation of the Acts.

As I examined previous research on North Korean refugees in South Korea, I encountered various stereotypes addressed by researchers. Consequently, I chose to collect some of those stereotypes and list them under two different tables to discuss later and compare my results with them. In Appendix B, I present two tables of stereotypes: (1) Gender-specific stereotypes and (2) General stereotypes. I collected the stereotypes from papers across the disciples published between 2004-2018 (Bidet, 2009; Choo, 2006; Collet & Bang, 2016; Han & Kim, 2004; Kim et al., 2018; Kim & Atteraya, 2018 Lankov, 2006; Sung & Go, 2014;). In my example below, I will be using some of the stereotypes found in this previous research to flesh out the main elements of the context of this research.

5.2 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Bar-Tal and colleagues (1989) define stereotypes and prejudice as social constructs typically the products of the organisation of different cohorts and consequently group membership excluding other members of a society (pp. v-vi). Stroebe and Insko (1989) argue that the concepts

‘stereotype’, ‘prejudice’, and ‘discrimination’ are rooted in humans’ attitudes towards one another (pp. 3-12). They explain that the concept ‘stereotype’ has two categories ‘outgroup’ and ‘ingroup’. Outgroup stereotyping depicts negativity while ingroup stereotyping is often positive (ibid.). An example of outgroup stereotyping could be University X students stereotyping University B’s students and vice versa. Ingroup stereotyping could be University X students glorifying each other with stereotypes or degrading one another. The dangerous thing about ingroup stereotyping is that it

(21)

can lead to ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is when a group favours the ingroup members and devaluates the outgroup non-members. Extreme examples of ethnocentrism are Nazi parties and KKK.

Stroebe and Insko (1989) argue that it is difficult to isolate the concept ‘stereotype’ from the concept ‘prejudice’. Stereotypes can be both positive and negative and are the “beliefs or opinions about the attitudes of a social group of its members” (ibid. p.8). Prejudice, however, is often detrimental as it commonly conceptualises negative attitudes of a group. Regardless, prejudice can also be positive as it can favour a group over another (ibid.). The relationship between stereotypes and prejudice lies in the attitude. Stroebe and Insko theorise that if a group has positive stereotypes categorising another group, then the prejudice will be positive, too.

A context-relevant example can be produced by applying some of the negative stereotypes I found in previous research. If a South Korean perceives North Korean refugees as “a threat”, “selfish”, and ‘uneducated’, then the attitude and consequently prejudice of North Korean refugees for that person will most likely be negative. If that South Korean then spreads these stereotypes to friends, family, and colleagues and more people adopt these negative attitudes, North Koreans will be favoured less and less. In theory, then, if South Koreans build negative stereotypes about North Korean refugees, perhaps even before they meet them be it through friends or family, refugees are at risk of facing negative attitudes upon confrontation. The dangerous thing about such negative attitudes encompassing equally negative stereotypes and prejudice is the birth of discrimination. According to Stroebe and Insko (1989), stereotypes and prejudice only become real issues when acted upon. They categorise this type of behaviour as discrimination. Discrimination is the result of negative attitudes reaching a climax that can lead to discriminatory behaviour towards an outgroup be it through verbal or physical violence or power misuse (p. 10). The issue with

discrimination is the difficulty in measuring it. The researchers argue that claiming discrimination based on observation can lead to misunderstandings. Moreover, they argue further how

discrimination and people acting on it is not always the result of both prejudice and stereotypes, indicating that predicting discriminatory behaviour is very difficult to achieve. I address

discrimination only through linguistic means, indicating that I go in-depth with how the framework of the Acts could result in discrimination and injustice. Therefore, I will not be examining examples of North Korean refugees being discriminated against leaving that to other research fellows.

(22)

Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination found in the previous research have commonly presented the accounts of some North Korean refugees. On the job market, North Korean refugees are often either paid less than a South Korean or not offered the position at all (Lankov, 2006, p. 124). In educational institutions such as school, high school, and university North Korean students often have to adapt to a “Seoul accent” to fit in and use English terms to prove their integration (Choo, 2006, p. 590). North Korean parents often scold or punish their children verbally and physically for not speaking in a particular accent or dressing a certain way (Sung & Go, 2014, p.11). Pressure also lies on the exterior as South Korea is a capitalist country where the wealth and social status of an individual are significant.

Consequently, some North Koreans struggle with keeping up with the current fashion trends or luxury items required to fit in modern South Korean society (Sohn, 2013). When North Korean refugees fail to integrate accordingly, and even if they do but are revealed to be from the North, they are often discriminated against either verbally or through action (Sung & Go, 2014, pp. 10-11). Jobs are perhaps given to less able individuals, and students are bullied for having an accent or dressed “poorly”, and so forth. In worst cases, North Korean individuals isolate themselves, develop the fear of speaking to or asking for help from South Koreans, risk returning to North Korea

regardless of the consequences, or commit suicide (Noh et al. 2016; Um et al., 2015). These examples are some of the results previous scholars have revealed about South Korean society over the years. These results and others encourage some scholars to point the finger at policymakers and people of power in South Korea to change laws and policies that have resulted in these negative experiences (Chung, 2014, p. 337).

I now turn my attention to the theories chosen for this paper that I judged successful in encapsulating the essence of the defined concepts. Stroebe and Insko (1989) present a handful of theories that address the concepts of ‘stereotypes’, ‘prejudice’, and ‘discrimination’. According to these scholars, when analysing stereotypes and prejudice at a societal level, a researcher must distinguish between motivational and nonmotivational approaches that translate to coercion vs integration theories of society (p. 13). Coercion theorists see societies as organisations held together “by force and constraint exerted by a few members of a society who dominate and suppress the majority” (ibid.). According to this perspective, societies are assumed to be characterised by conflicts of interest that partly is the cause for justifying the suppression of the powerless (ibid.). Attached under this first level of meta-theoretical perspective are conflict theories of stereotypes and prejudice. Integration theorists negate the former theory and instead approach social cohesion

(23)

and social order as the result of a “general agreement of values that outweighs all possible or actual differences of opinion or interest” arguing that values are transmitted to members of a given society through socialisation deeming stereotypes and prejudice a part of a societal heritage (ibid.). This approach includes social learning theories under the second level of the meta-theoretical

perspective.

The theories chosen for this research are the Realistic Conflict Theory and the Social Learning Theory. I chose to include one theory from each of the approaches in my attempt to deepen my analysis and consequently, understanding of the connection between the Acts and the societal representation of North Korean refugees. The theories were applied on both the micro and macro levels of the analysis to examine the effects the Acts had on the South Korean perception of North Korean refugees. The next two sub-sections explain the theories chosen.

5.3 The Realistic Conflict Theory

The realistic conflict theory sees prejudice “as the outcome of intergroup competition for some scarce resource” (Stroebe & Insko, 1989, p. 14). This theory addresses groups that see other groups as a threat to a state’s resources. An example of such a resource could be social resources, i.e. prestige and status within a society (ibid. p. 15). To illustrate with a fictitious example, using this paper’s focus cohort, I draw on the relationship between South Koreans and North Koreans once again. Imagine a South Korean applying for a job and then discovering post-interview that a North Korean refugee with perhaps less or equal experience was hired for that same position because of the benefits the Act might have provided. The knowledge of these benefits could lead to negative attitudes if the South Korean knows of the benefits or had been told that North Koreans receive special treatment by the government. Some of the stereotypes I found during my research derived from the competition on the South Korean job market. The realistic conflict theory theorises that such competition over scarce resources, should there be a lack of jobs in the given country, could lead to stereotypes, prejudice, and in worse cases discrimination towards the group ‘threatening’ the majority.

The relevance of this theory lies in how it addresses negative attitudes deriving from competition. Although this paper will not be examining the South Korean labour market, it will examine how the public consumes the Acts and what this consumption could have of effects. Therefore, this theory contributes with its argument that if two or more cohorts fight over a similar valuable product, some of the groups are likely to exclude and devaluate other groups in favour of

(24)

their members making it more difficult for other groups to prosper. This situation could happen in a society where the majority group is dominant and ethnocentric. Therefore, if the results of the analysis reveal that the representation of North Korean refugees is overly favourable and supporting in the Acts, there could be a chance of negative attitudes deriving from this governmental and even institutional preferencing of refugees over South Korean citizens.

5.4 The Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory, unlike the previous theory, does not “assume a motive to derogate outgroups” (Stroebe & Insko, 1989, p.15). According to this theory, stereotypes and prejudice are either the result of observations of “actual differences between groups” or based on “social influences deriving from sources such as mass media, schools, parents, and peer groups” (ibid.). The main difference between this theory and the previous is that instead of blaming scarce

resources for negative attitudes, it theorises that individuals or specific groups are the cause of these attitudes. For example, if a South Korean couple raises their children to believe that North Korean refugees are educated and well-behaved people then the children will probably grow with the positive perception of their Northern neighbours. However, if at school children are taught that North Korea is a dangerous place where people are unpredictable and a threat then children will most likely grow negative attitudes towards their Northern neighbours (ibid. pp. 15-17).

This approach can be applied to the study of ethnic, racial, and gender stereotypes which this paper partly addresses. Stroebe and Insko (1989) discuss that previous research has shown how social roles are integrated and consequently socialised and normalised through societal values and norms regardless of whether these stereotypes were right or wrong (p. 16). The scope of this paper does not permit a more in-depth analysis of every type of stereotype. However, it does allow for an examination of whether the Acts promote gender stereotypes or sexism. The examination of gender representation and bias will be accompanied by a checklist presented below.

To summarise, this theory emphasises that education, communication, and direct

observation as “bases for the development of stereotypes and prejudice” making it a meaningful extension of conflict theories (Stroebe & Insko, 1989, p.17). By combining the realistic conflict theory and the social learning theory, this research examines the source of the representation North Korean refugees are designated. I am aware of two factors that weaken my choice of theories: (1) they are dated, and (2) I am addressing them from a shallow perspective. However, I argue that they

(25)

remain relevant in their approach to the abovementioned concepts as they do encapsulate representation conveniently.

6. Methodology

6.1 Critical Discourse Analysis

CDA introduces a profound theoretical and methodological toolbox that contains a vast number of tools. These tools can be applied across all disciplines and function as a gateway to multiple levels of analysis. CDA is an interdisciplinary methodological approach used to study discourse in social practice (Fairclough, 1995, p. 6). According to Strauss and Feiz (2014), CDA contributes to the discovery of the “connections between the use of language and the exercise of power” to assist people in comprehending discourse (p. 312). Moreover, this approach is often applied by scholars who are “politically committed to social change” and tend to “take the side of oppressed social groups” (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 46). CDA is used to investigate human communication through written, spoken, and electronic text by pulling the discourse apart layer by layer (Gillen & Petersen, 2005, pp. 146-148; Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 61). CDA is also referred to as a micro-macro-based analysis of any given discourse, which includes graphic discourses and facial expressions (Strauss & Feiz, 2014, p. 316). The main aim of this theory is typically to uncover any injustice or misuse of power in discourse through critical analysis. Through CDA, a researcher can uncover misrepresentation, inequality, manipulation, exclusion, and

hegemony by analysing the ideologies and history of the source (ibid., p. 313; Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, pp. 60-95). Consequently, CDA applies to a variety of socially constructed productions such as mass media, advertisements, and press releases. Contrary to the exemplified discourses, I believe CDA and specifically the systematic, empirical study of language use model I introduce below can be applied to legal discourse. Law is, after all, human production and therefore, a social construct. The Acts I chose to examine did not appear out of thin air but were produced over time and changed to accommodate the South Korean government’s political ideologies as reviewed earlier. I address this point further in the analysis and discussion.

The tool I chose from the CDA toolbox is Norman Fairclough’s approach to critical discourse analysis. Fairclough’s approach is the cornerstone of this research paper. Fairclough (2010) is concerned with developing “ways of analysing language which address its involvement in the workings of contemporary capitalist societies” (p. 1). His focus is on capitalist societies due to capitalism being the current dominant economic system and its effect on “all aspects of social life”

(26)

(ibid.). He elaborates on his choice by explaining how capitalism affects and ultimately plays a big role in the “major changes in politics, in the nature of work, education and healthcare, in social and moral values, in lifestyle, and so forth” (ibid.). South Korea, as explored in its historical

background, is a capitalist country by origin due to its strong influence by the US, making it a state worth examining using Fairclough’s approach to CDA.

Fairclough’s (2010) view of CDA entails three basic properties: “it is relational, it is dialectical, and it is transdisciplinary” (p. 3). With ‘relational’ Fairclough refers to social relations. In other words, the way people communicate across various media and methods. He states that what constitutes social life is “meaning, and meaning making” (ibid.). With ‘dialectical’ he refers to the “relationship between objects that are different from one another but not (…) fully separate in the sense that one excludes the other” (ibid). He gives a relevant example of power and discourse. They are different from one another, but either can ‘flow’ into the other. For example, the law is a

discourse that has power in a society. However, that discourse can be applied as a power to punish people (ibid.). To put it into sharper perspective, the Acts are legal discourses with substantial power over North Korean refugees who enter South Korea. With these legal texts, the Ministry of Unification can decide what to do with the refugees be it grant them citizenship or deport them. Finally, with ‘transdisciplinary’ he refers to how well CDA communicates with other disciplines. Theories, concepts, and frameworks from CDA can take part in developing the theories and

methodology of other disciplines (ibid. pp. 3-4; Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, pp. 60-95). Fairclough sees CDA as a methodology and not as a method since he regards the approach as a “theory-driven process of constructing objects of research” (ibid. p. 5). This indicates that researchers should situate their research not solely in one method or theory but find a transdisciplinary way to include other relevant theories. He elaborates stating that these relevant theories could be found across other disciplines than from the one the researcher comes from (ibid. pp. 5-6). In the case of this research, I incorporated the theories from Sociology, namely the realistic conflict theory and the social learning theory.

The ‘critical’ part of CDA is the critique of society and the analysis of what is wrong with it. CDA aims at revealing how these “‘wrongs’ might be ‘righted’” (Fairclough, 2010, p. 7). In other words, turning society into a ‘good society’. To achieve a ‘good society’, Fairclough argues that this requires “critique that is grounded in values” (ibid.). Fairclough elaborates further stating that CDA seeks to understand how capitalism limits the “well-being and flourishing” of humans (ibid. p. 11). In the case of the South Korean legislation, the critique will fall into the second and third levels of

(27)

Fairclough’s (2010) model. Finally, Fairclough presents three common misconceptions of CDA and responses: (1) “Not simply an analysis of text, but instead an analysis of discourse in relation to social process.” (2) “Not just commentary on texts, but a systematic analysis of discourse.” (3) “Not simply descriptive, but addresses the “social wrongs” and ways to right them” (ibid. pp. 10-11).

From the description above, it should be understood that CDA is not merely an intense approach to analysing grammar. CDA also addresses metaphors, euphemisms, dysphemism, and figurative language within a discourse (Staruss & Feiz, 2014, p. 316). Through this tool of micro-analysis, one may connect the results to the “macro-level messages of power, control, racism, hegemony, dominance, and discrimination” that are either consciously or unconsciously transmitted by the source (ibid.). Fairclough (1995) stresses the importance of not neglecting the discursive process of a text and describes them as being “social spaces in which two fundamental social processes simultaneously occurs: cognition and representation of the world, and social interaction” (ibid. p. 6). To summarise, a text can be broken apart to clarify how it represents a world, what its intention is, and from what context it derives from (ibid. pp. 6-7).

6.1.1 Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Model of Discourse

Having gone through the fundamental elements of CDA, I now turn to how this approach is applied in this research paper. Fairclough Three-dimensional Model of Discourse is divided into three levels of analysis: (1) text, (2) discourse practice, and (3) social practice. Below is a brief run-down of how each level is applied. The methods presented were collected from Fairclough (2010) and Jørgensen and Phillips (2002). Before explaining each level, I must note here that Fairclough’s (2010) model is often applied by starting from the second level discourse practice. However, in this research’s case, I will be explaining and starting with the first level and henceforth move back and forth between the levels during and after the analysis.

The first level requires the researcher to break down a text and investigate its vocabulary, grammar, and language for possible signs of power abuse or manipulation (Fairclough, 1995, pp. 7-9). On the first level, I utilise Litosseliti’s Language Bias Checklist to deepen the analysis with her list of ten types of language bias. On this level, a vast collection of analysis tools can be applied to approach a text from various angles. Fairclough (1992) proposes several elements that can be applied on this stage, such as interactional control, cohesion, politeness, ethos, grammar,

transitivity, theme, modality, word meaning, wording, and metaphor (pp. 235-237). I have selected only a few of his proposed points since this is not research situated in the linguistic discipline.

(28)

Moreover, several of his concepts cannot or would hardly work on my chosen data due to its perhaps too refined and formal nature.

One of the types of stereotypes I will be focusing on is sexism in discourse. To do so, I will be applying one of the lists Litosseliti presents in her book to assist me in finding perhaps

commonly overlooked terms or phrases. Ott and Mack (2019) describe sexism as “discrimination based upon a person’s sex” (p. 205). Litosseliti (2006) categorises sexism as bias in a language (p. 24). Other terms she applies are sexist wordings and semantic derogation (ibid. p. 24; p. 47). She presents in her book Gender and Language: Theory and Practice ten points that attempt to

encompass many of the commonly seen biases found in diverse discourses such as mass media and political statements. The said list will partly lead the analysis of the Acts and is situated on the first level of the chosen model. Since the first level addresses the text, this list fits well as it offers a different angle of analysis. I have chosen to call her list Litosseliti’s Language Bias Checklist as the scholar does not name it herself. Her ten points can be found in Appendix A. Briefly, the list

consists of ten areas of bias that can be found in the English language (ibid. 14). The ten points she introduces might not all be relevant for the data chosen for this research. However, I have regardless decided to apply the list on Fairclough’s first level to (1) test out the list on legal discourse and (2) to approach the Acts from as many angles as possible. Consequently, the first level of the model attempts to reveal the different elements of representation discussed earlier.

I chose to incorporate this list into Fairclough’s (2010) model due to the high amount of female North Korean refugees that migrate to South Korea. I hypothesise that if the majority of the refugees are female, then perhaps the laws contain some context or reference on the sex.

Notwithstanding, I address both sexes with Litosseliti’s list, although it is mainly aimed at the female sex. The main issue with this list is how little it addresses formal language. The list is evidently conducted to address mass media than legal texts. Moreover, the primary sources in this research are translations from Hangul to English, indicating that the language could have been ‘polished’ for the international audience. As a result, there is a high chance that the list will not be able to pick out any biases if applied to law. Michael Halliday’s functional grammar inspired Fairclough’s first level of the model (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 65). On this level, I thoroughly examine the North Korean Refugees Protection and Settlement Support Act (2019) and its

Enforcement Decree Act (2018) by analysis of among other factors references, grammar, and word choice.

(29)

The second level addresses the processes and refers to how the text is produced and

consumed (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p.81). On this level, I examine what kinds of processes the Acts went through before promulgation and after enforcement. The references found on the

previous level are connected and compared to the changes that caused them, i.e. the discourse practice. Fairclough (1992) divides the level into three dimensions: (1) “interdiscursivity and manifest intertextuality”, (2) “intertextual chains”, and (3) “coherence” (pp. 232-234). The objective of interdiscursivity is to specify the type of discourse a researcher is examining, and if possible, trace the type(s) of genres it draws or drew upon. Manifest intertextuality is concerned with elaborating upon the previous point by asking further questions to the text production and the hidden meanings and ironies behind a product. Intertextual chains address the transformation a text underwent before distribution and how it was distributed. Finally, coherence’s objective is to investigate how a text is interpreted. On this level, Fairclough (1995) was inspired by the

Bakhtinian theory of genre (p. 2). Discourse practice is the connection between a text and social practice as it bridges the two levels. Its successful execution has been repeatedly stressed

(Fairclough, 1992; 2010; Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002).

The third level analyses the cultural, economic, political, and environmental conditions of production and interpretation of the text (ibid. p. 9; Janks, 1997, p. 329). On this level, the brief history lesson presented earlier comes into play. Here I analyse the connection between the

production of the Acts to the consumption and interpretation of them. Regrettably, I cannot present any field study conducted on how North Korean refugees and South Korean natives interpret the Acts. However, I draw on the political history reported in previous research to attempt

encompassing an understanding of how the Acts affect society. It is on this level where the previous sections come into play as their execution is paramount for defining social practice. This is also the level on which I include my chosen theories and ultimately bridge the results to the discussion. The third level drew inspiration from the Gramscian theory of hegemony “(in analysis of sociocultural practice)” (Fairclough, 1995, p.2).

The model presented above does not come without its flaws. According to Jørgensen and Phillips (2002), the model is a good starting point but lacks the necessary details for the second and third levels (pp. 86; 89-92). Here they refer to the difficulty of tracking certain discourses such as mass media or other widespread discourses. Moreover, the third level does not come with a comprehensive guide. It seems that the model requires independent improvising on another level apart from a very multidisciplinary approach. Without a comprehensive understanding of the

(30)

history of Korea, I would have struggled immensely with executing the last two levels. They require ample knowledge of the two Koreas, their politics, North Korean refugees, and South Korean attitudes from over the years. Regardless of these challenging requirements, I do not deem the application of this model impossible. However, it is very time-consuming.

6.2 Validity and Reliability

According to Fernández (2019) and 6 and Bellamy (2012, p. 13), validity and reliability are essential factors when it comes to methodology. They describe validity as the relevance of the study, while reliability is defined as the precision and dependability of a study (ibid.). There are two types of validity and reliability: internal and external validity; and reliability of process and material (ibid.). In the case of this paper, internal validity is high as this research aims to be context-sensitive through the qualitative approach taken. The external validity of this research is arguable at a

medium as generalisation beyond the actual data, and perhaps some South Korean attitudes would be challenging. Moreover, the ideology, and ultimately agenda, of the state in question can reveal how the government conceptualises South Korea. I will elaborate on the reliability of this research’s material under the heading ‘7.2’. The next two sections explain Fairclough’s (2010) model and Litosseliti’s Language Bias Checklist (2006).

According to 6 and Bellamy (2012), when a researcher conducts an inductive study, they start with a question and work their way towards constructing a theory or statement. This research is empirical and inductive as it attempts to answer specific questions about the social phenomena of North Korean refugees being discriminated against in South Korea by some South Koreans. This research conducts a within-case analysis as it seeks to isolate how references came to be and changed since 1997 in the Acts (p. 77). This indicates that the concern of this study is with how differences, i.e. the changes made to the Acts, are generated. Since this is case-based research, the focus in on the case, making the research more context-sensitive. When conducting case-based research, it is important to make use of an ample array of data of both the qualitative and

quantitative type (pp.103-104) a point Fairclough (1995; 2010) stressed repeatedly. 6 and Bellamy argue, that “the strength of case-based research is its ability to capture the full significance of a complex data set” (p. 104). One of the limitations case-based research is that “it cannot analyse large numbers of cases or large volumes of data” (p. 105). As discussed in the delimitations, this research will remain ignorant of any references or relationships the Acts have to other South Korean Acts related to refugees and North Koreans. However, I do not find this ignorance a threat to the

From Heroes to Helpless Refugees: A CDA of The Representation of North Korean Refugees in South Korean Law