This blog post examines how new social movements and old social movements have coexisted and developed within the historical context of Korean society, reflecting on whether Western theories can fully account for this phenomenon.
Social movements are no longer viewed as pathological phenomena causing conflict outside existing social institutions. Rather, they are recognized as normal and inevitable social phenomena that pursue and achieve institutional improvements. Historically, the labor movement secured rights for a humane life, and the women’s movement is evaluated as a significant achievement that elevated women’s social status and brought about institutional reforms.
However, the space and standing for social movements to take root in Korean society were relatively limited. State-led rapid industrialization, epitomized by the term ‘compressed growth,’ proceeded at a breakneck pace, simultaneously deepening ethnic and class contradictions. While diverse social movements erupted during this process, the authoritarian regime constrained them through powerful physical and ideological suppression. Given the inherently limited space for social movements to take root, Korean social movements inevitably faced delayed growth in both scale and capacity.
Within this unique historical context, Korean social movements developed distinctive characteristics. While in the West, labor-centered movements (termed “old social movements”) and issue-focused movements (termed “new social movements”) centered on women, the environment, and minorities emerged in distinct phases, in Korea these two movements unfolded concurrently during nearly the same period.
Western old social movements aimed to build a welfare state based on class compromise between capital, labor, and the state. Their goals included distributive justice, class equilibrium, and the realization of a dignified life through material prosperity. After these objectives were largely achieved, new sources of conflict emerged in a society where a dignified life was guaranteed. These included discrimination against women, discrimination against minorities, environmental destruction, militarism, and the Cold War structure. To address these issues, a new form of movement emerged: the new social movement.
New social movements unfold in a pluralistic and post-materialistic manner, centered on diverse identities and values rather than economic class relations. These movements bring excluded members of society to the forefront as subjects and possess a reflective nature, seeking to complement and expand upon the limitations of the old social movements. In particular, new social movements do not rely on a single class ideology; they encompass diverse fields and themes, pursuing social change based on solidarity and cooperation.
However, the particularities of Korean society make simplifying this distinction difficult. This is because new social movements grew concurrently before old social movements could realize class compromise within institutional politics and secure a humane life. Consequently, some critics have argued that new social movements fragment the driving force for comprehensive social transformation and act as obstacles to democratization.
However, such criticism may stem from misunderstandings arising from insufficient comprehension of how new social movements unfold and their objectives. Beyond mere expressions of identity, Korea’s new social movements pursue concrete, practical goals: expanding the fundamental rights of society’s members and realizing participatory democracy. This clearly differs from Western new social movements, which centered on individual identity and autonomy.
In short, while Western new social movements pursued a postmodern direction transcending the ‘modern project,’ Korea’s new social movements aim to overcome both the incompleteness of modernity and premodern constraints simultaneously. In Korean society, where even modern institutions remain incomplete, new social movements and old social movements are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they are intertwined by a common orientation: overcoming the contradictions of industrialization and the limitations of democracy. Ultimately, both movements advance toward a democratic and just society, albeit through different means.
