I am an editorial writer at The Korea Times, focusing on foreign policy, North Korea and domestic politics. My key areas of interest include North Korea, foreign interference in elections, election integrity, cyberattacks and human rights. Prior to joining the Editorial Board, I served as both Politics Desk editor and Culture Desk editor. During my career, I have reported on the Presidential Office under the Lee Myung-bak administration, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Assembly.
Code of conduct for stars
By Kang Hyun-kyung
By Kang Hyun-kyung
Not so long ago, success was defined narrowly in Korea. People who landed in the top two professions_ namely doctors and lawyers, the toughest survivors of the brutally heavy competition through their years of hard work_ were deemed successful.
To succeed in life, they had to attend a prestigious university, and then pass the notoriously competitive state bar exams.
Medical school was (and still is) another gateway to a successful career that attracts the nation's smartest students.
When people with humble beginnings landed in one of the top two “it-jobs,” they were praised for their hard-won achievements. People who overcame childhood adversities and rose above their working-class family backgrounds were called “creek dragons” because they defied the odds; the mythical creature was believed to live in oceans, not creeks or streams which are too small for then to inhibit.
With the ever-widening income gap between the high- and low-income earners after the Asian Financial Crisis hit the region in the late 1990s, education lost steam as the springboard to success for children from working-class families. Chances of success for those from the working class have become slimmer. A child's academic success is a reflection of their parents' investment in their education. Children inherit their parents' socio-economic class status. Upward social mobility has become improbable, so some lament creek dragons are almost extinct.
But people with humble beginnings still find chances to succeed as the fixed formula for success has been broken. Nowadays, success is redefined and has become more inclusive with more diverse professions in the category.
Academic accomplishments are no longer being used as the sole criterion to determine success. Olympic medalists, high-paid athletes playing in big leagues, audition show winners, filmmakers and actors of award-winning films are all considered successful.
Behind the “flexible notion” of success is the subtle but apparent shift of focus from education to wealth as a key determinant. Top-tiered professional athletes earn income unthinkable for average salaried workers with university degrees. Look at Tottenham Hotspur's forward Son Heung-min or Toronto Blue Jays starting pitcher Ryu Hyun-jin. During their relatively short professional careers, they earn much more than what average high-paid income earners can make over decades. So do singers, composers or lyricists having hit songs.
Successful people exert influence. Like it or not, influence entails a certain level of responsibility.
Back in the 1990s, the media used the vague term, “leaders of society” quite a lot to refer to unspecified people who were highly successful. The term was used in articles or editorials to highlight the moral obligation of people who were in a position to influence others. It was about dos and don'ts for them. They were expected to live exemplary lives as an example for other “ordinary” community members.
I remember a female best-selling author mocked the media for using the term in her novel that was published in the early 1990s. Calling the term ridiculous, she said it reflected that Korea was still an authoritarian society. She sarcastically asked who it was that gave those unspecified people the mandate to lead others.
Nowadays journalists don't use the term anymore.
But I think there was a reason why such a term was used in the past. In whatever areas or fields they have found success, those who rise to prominence owe society for their success and thus they have a moral obligation to give something back.
Sports stars, popular singers and actors are today's equivalent of leaders of society. Like their predecessors, stars owe fans for their success. So I think they should have a sense of obligation to give back to society. This is an unwritten code of conduct.
Some celebrities and sports stars have been caught in bullying scandals. Some allegations could be exaggerated or baseless, in which case they can confront the accusers. If the allegations ― even some of them ― are based on facts, I think they should take responsibility for their past deeds. Aspiring singers, actors and sports stars can also learn a lesson from the bullying scandals. In addition to honing necessary skills to improve their performance or competitiveness, they also need to be mentally prepared to be mature and responsible stars as their careers advance.