By Jason Lim
When I lived in Korea in the late 1990s, I remember visiting the city of Jeonju in central Korean, famous for its bibimbap, and walking through a local market lined with dog meat butchers. They had dogs ― fairly large ones ― in cages lining the market street, and would actually be butchering them for customers for specific orders, not unlike the fish in aquariums that you see in seafood markets.
I remember espying a large dog's carcass basically halved across the torso and lying bloody on the floor of the butcher shop's waiting to be carved out. A dark mass of brown and red in the dirt. I had to quickly look away, but the scene has remained with me.
Then again, I have to confess that I was once a dog eater. I was convinced to go to a rundown restaurant in northern Seoul and eat dog meat. The menu offered several kinds from roast and soup to stew. I think I ate the stew with sesame leaves. Not that this feeling absolves me from any K-9 sins, but I recall not liking it.
Dog meat was too gamey for me. Also, I think dog meat was meant to be eaten with soju or makgeolli, which I couldn't do, since I am one of those Koreans who is genetically deficient and can't consume alcohol. Anyways, that first time was the last time I ate dog meat. I never missed it.
But what if I couldn't eat dog meat because it was illegal? That could well be the case if President Moon Jae-in has his way. BBC recently reported that Moon, a well-known dog owner and lover, expressed an interest in banning dog meat for consumption. BBC also cites, "A poll in 2020, conducted by Nielsen for Humane Society International found that 84% of South Koreans either have never consumed dog meat or say they do not want to consume it in the future. It also found that 59% of South Koreans support banning dog meat."
Banning dog meat poses an interesting debate. In a way, it's a snapshot of the rapid cultural change that Korea is experiencing. Eating dogs was an absolutely fine thing to do even a few decades ago. There were special days during the dog days of summer (pun intended) in which consuming dog meat was expected and awaited.
Today, however, it seems fairly safe to predict that dog eating will pretty much disappear, as the current older generations die out, only to occupy some esoteric and curious niche of historical Korean culinary lore. In practical terms, I do not believe there is any legal need to ban eating dogs, because no one will be doing it.
Also, there is no objective rationale for banning dog meat consumption. Dogs are not an endangered species or represent special health and safety dangers for human consumption. Eating dogs is purely a cultural and social taboo. By its very nature, such taboos are subjective and localized.
In India, for example, eating cows is considered a huge taboo. The rest of the world will shrug and view India's aversion to beef as a curiosity, but there is no objective moral or ethical criteria that one can point to in order to justify that eating cows is OK but eating dogs is not. The same goes for pigs among the Muslims and Jews. It's a cultural and religious edict.
Tell Koreans that they can't eat "samgyeopsal" and see what happens. What about horses in the U.S.? Americans might be aghast at the idea of eating horse meat, because of the place that horses occupy in America's cultural narrative. But it's a common meat in many other parts of the world.
Therefore, officially banning dogs is mostly a symbolic gesture that codifies an already mainstream cultural taboo. I believe that this situation is when it gets dicey, because formalizing a cultural behavior as illegal will mean that the power of the state will now be involved in its enforcement.
Cultural norms are always subjective and shifting. While the vast majority of the population might adhere to one cultural norm, there might be others who might choose otherwise. Does the majority get to dictate legal behavior to the minority based on cultural preferences?
No matter how popular, my opinion is that codifying this cultural taboo as statute seems misguided. For a democracy that purports to guarantee freedom of choice for the individual, doing so is a giant slippery slope. What about sexual orientation? Many states in the U.S. still have anti-sodomy laws on the books aimed at gays. What about racism?
Until recently, biracial marriages were illegal in many states in the U.S. as well. You might think it's a stretch to go from banning dog eating to banning biracial marriages, but where do you stop? It's the idea that it's OK to legally enforce social and cultural norms that I believe is dangerous here.
Sorry, Fido, you are on your own here.
Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture.
 |
I remember espying a large dog's carcass basically halved across the torso and lying bloody on the floor of the butcher shop's waiting to be carved out. A dark mass of brown and red in the dirt. I had to quickly look away, but the scene has remained with me.
Then again, I have to confess that I was once a dog eater. I was convinced to go to a rundown restaurant in northern Seoul and eat dog meat. The menu offered several kinds from roast and soup to stew. I think I ate the stew with sesame leaves. Not that this feeling absolves me from any K-9 sins, but I recall not liking it.
Dog meat was too gamey for me. Also, I think dog meat was meant to be eaten with soju or makgeolli, which I couldn't do, since I am one of those Koreans who is genetically deficient and can't consume alcohol. Anyways, that first time was the last time I ate dog meat. I never missed it.
But what if I couldn't eat dog meat because it was illegal? That could well be the case if President Moon Jae-in has his way. BBC recently reported that Moon, a well-known dog owner and lover, expressed an interest in banning dog meat for consumption. BBC also cites, "A poll in 2020, conducted by Nielsen for Humane Society International found that 84% of South Koreans either have never consumed dog meat or say they do not want to consume it in the future. It also found that 59% of South Koreans support banning dog meat."
Banning dog meat poses an interesting debate. In a way, it's a snapshot of the rapid cultural change that Korea is experiencing. Eating dogs was an absolutely fine thing to do even a few decades ago. There were special days during the dog days of summer (pun intended) in which consuming dog meat was expected and awaited.
Today, however, it seems fairly safe to predict that dog eating will pretty much disappear, as the current older generations die out, only to occupy some esoteric and curious niche of historical Korean culinary lore. In practical terms, I do not believe there is any legal need to ban eating dogs, because no one will be doing it.
Also, there is no objective rationale for banning dog meat consumption. Dogs are not an endangered species or represent special health and safety dangers for human consumption. Eating dogs is purely a cultural and social taboo. By its very nature, such taboos are subjective and localized.
In India, for example, eating cows is considered a huge taboo. The rest of the world will shrug and view India's aversion to beef as a curiosity, but there is no objective moral or ethical criteria that one can point to in order to justify that eating cows is OK but eating dogs is not. The same goes for pigs among the Muslims and Jews. It's a cultural and religious edict.
Tell Koreans that they can't eat "samgyeopsal" and see what happens. What about horses in the U.S.? Americans might be aghast at the idea of eating horse meat, because of the place that horses occupy in America's cultural narrative. But it's a common meat in many other parts of the world.
Therefore, officially banning dogs is mostly a symbolic gesture that codifies an already mainstream cultural taboo. I believe that this situation is when it gets dicey, because formalizing a cultural behavior as illegal will mean that the power of the state will now be involved in its enforcement.
Cultural norms are always subjective and shifting. While the vast majority of the population might adhere to one cultural norm, there might be others who might choose otherwise. Does the majority get to dictate legal behavior to the minority based on cultural preferences?
No matter how popular, my opinion is that codifying this cultural taboo as statute seems misguided. For a democracy that purports to guarantee freedom of choice for the individual, doing so is a giant slippery slope. What about sexual orientation? Many states in the U.S. still have anti-sodomy laws on the books aimed at gays. What about racism?
Until recently, biracial marriages were illegal in many states in the U.S. as well. You might think it's a stretch to go from banning dog eating to banning biracial marriages, but where do you stop? It's the idea that it's OK to legally enforce social and cultural norms that I believe is dangerous here.
Sorry, Fido, you are on your own here.
Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture.
![[INTERVIEW] Hip-hop group Uptown returns after 13 years with new lineup](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/0eae35da5e9c40c38cf439e550a2eb3e.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] ASTRO members aim to shine in musical theater](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/df16760dc50f469d93434f66a069465c.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
