Changes in Korean Family Structure and the Conflicts of Ideology

8/12/2019 Changes in Korean Family Structure and the Conflicts of Ideology

1/12

Changes in Korean Family Structure and the Conflicts of Ideology

and Practice in Early Socialization

Chung Byung-H o

Introduction

With rapid industrialization and urbanization, the Korean family has undergone

tremendous change in both structure and function. Family size is continuously

decreasing, and the number of extended families is decreasing, too. ne-generation and

t!o-generation families ha"e increased, and the increase in one-person households isremar#able. $i"orce has increased explosi"ely, and more than half of married !omen

%oin the labor force.

Family "alues and ideologies ha"e not changed enough to meet !ith the changes in

family structure. &odern "alues of an industrial society such as independence, freedom,and achie"ement ha"e been gaining more and more importance in people's li"es,

especially in the formal sectors such as schools, the !or#place, and other formalorganizations. Where the family is concerned, ho!e"er, traditional "alues such as

parental authority, children's filial piety, and gender-role differentiation are still !idely

emphasized, and the "irtues of the traditional family are highly praised.$ominant "alues in today's Korea still fa"or family care of infants and young children.

Ho!e"er, during the last decade, Korea built an extensi"e day-care system in order to

allo! mothers to ta#e employment outside the home. (nder the surface of the monolithic

image of Korean child rearing, !hich assumes the presence of a family and a)professional house!ife,) in reality, there is a significant clea"age in the en"ironments of

early socialization bet!een children reared at home and those in full-day child-carecenters. *ince the dominant discourses still emphasize the )modal) practice of childrearing and the role of the )proper) mother, the children in the centers and their !or#ing

mothers are often considered either to be exceptions or an insignificant fe! !ho form a

sort of cultural minority.Clea"ages in the paths of early socialization often o"erlap !ith the di"isions among

social classes and differences in the conceptions of )proper) gender roles. Full-day child-

care centers supposedly are for the children of !or#ing mothers !ho are either forced or

!illing to ta#e outside occupations despite the dominant social norms. +n this regard, therapid expansion of the day-care system is not only a reflection of large scale economic

changes but also a potential challenge to the official model for ho! Koreans are supposed

to li"e.

Traditional Ideologies and Current Problems

Changes in Family Structure
https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3178#Chung%20Byung-Hohttps://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3178#Chung%20Byung-Hohttps://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3178#Chung%20Byung-Ho


2/12

"er the last fe! centuries industrialization and urbanization ha"e brought about changes

in family structure all o"er the !orld. ll these changes ha"e occurred in modern Korea

"ery drastically !ithin the range of %ust a fe! decades. able sho!s these changes insome basic social indicators.

he changes in family structure ha"e occurred in accordance !ith the socioeconomicconditions. able / presents the changes in household types.

s sho!n in able /, !ithin a period of 01 years, extended families of three or more

generations ha"e decreased to less than one third, and one-generation families ha"e

almost tripled. he increase in one-person households is e"en more remar#able. s the

di"orce rate has gone up from /.23 in 451 to /23 in /111, single-parent families ha"ealso increased sharply.

hese statistics sho! the drastic changes in the Korean family structure o"er the last 01

years, and the trend !ill continue in the future for some time !ith the ongoing changes inthe Korean society to!ard higher economic de"elopment, democratization,

indi"idualism, and longer life expectancy.

Ideological Conflicts: "Normal" and "Abnormal" Family

here is a cultural lag bet!een practice and ideology. his situation produces

psychological dissonance and creates ad%ustment problems of "arious #inds. he


3/12

dissonance bet!een the dominant traditional family "alues and !idespread family

practices can ma#e people thin# that they are )abnormal) or e"en )immoral.) +ronically,

the ma%ority of family practices can be categorized as )abnormal) 6Chung Byung-Ho4427.

he dissonance bet!een the older and younger generations !ithin a family is "ery

serious, too. hey ha"e different ideas about !hom to li"e !ith, !hat role to play, andho! to interact and communicate. +t is a source of hea"y stress for both parties. he

dissonance also exists !ithin a single indi"idual. &any people experience the conflict

bet!een their psychological need for freedom, independence, and e8uality, and theinternalized cultural norms !ithin oneself. his dissonance or inconsistency can lead to

mental health problems, interpersonal conflict, and moral dilemmas 6Chung 9ean-Kyung

4457.

hese problems occur in any society to some extent, but they are more acute in Koreabecause of the rapidity of its industrialization. Korea's tremendous economic

de"elopment o"er the last three decades has attracted a lot of attention from all o"er the

!orld. But economic blessings are not !ithout a price. he changes in family structure

occurred drastically !ithout allo!ing enough time for adaptation or ad%ustment.

Current Problems

raditional Korean family "alues are undergoing a change, but not fast enough to meet

the changing family structure. +n &ay of e"ery year, !hich is designated the )familymonth,) the mass media laments the deterioration of the traditional family "alues, gi"es

out prizes to those !ho #ept the good tradition of filial piety 6hyo7, and prompts people to

re"i"e the good "irtues. Clearly, one of the reasons for the gap bet!een family ideology

and practice is that the high speed of changes in family structure did not allo! people thetime they needed to ad%ust their thin#ing. here are other reasons, ho!-e"er, that are

more specific to Korean culture itself.

Korea has been described as one of the most collecti"ist cultures 6Bond 4::; Han andhn 440; Hofstede 4:17.


4/12

elicited a strong reacti"e response. +t enhanced the cohesi"eness of the family as a unit,

strengthened its ability to sur"i"e in the face of hardship, and conse8uently reinforced the

sentiment of )familism) !ith all the traditional family "alues that go !ith it.

7 bsessions of )Blood) and >xtreme +nfant *ex-ratio

he most stri#ing example is the phenomenon called )boy preference.) he sex-ratio ofboys to girls at birth !as 2./?11 in Korea in 440, the highest in the !orld

6Newsweek4427. he traditional "alue of continuing the patrilinear descendence !ith at

least one son and the contemporary practice of ha"ing a small number of children found asolution in selecti"e abortion, using the modern medical technology such as ultra-

sonograms. he la! prohibits selecti"e abortion 6in 444, the sex-ratio lo!ered to

14.5?117, but the ratio tells ho! !idely it has been practiced. For the fourth child, the

ratio of girls to boys is less than 21 percent. married !oman is li#ely to be under some pressure from her husband and in-la!s,

either openly or co"ertly, to gi"e birth to a son. he pressure from the husband's family,

ho!e"er, is not the only factor. ften, it is the !ish of the !oman herself. his is !here

the problem gets more complicated. Women these days cannot and do not expect theirsons to beha"e li#e the sons in the traditional family, obeying parents, li"ing !ith them,

and supporting them in their old age. hey ha"e obser"ed that the number of elderly !holi"e !ith and are supported by the oldest son, or any son, has decreased. Boy or girl,

children these days ha"e become an economic burden on the family rather than an

economic asset or an insurance against old age. Furthermore, in modern nuclear families,the lo"e and intimacy bet!een husband and !ife is not structurally interfered !ith.

+n this respect, the boy preference in contemporary Korea does not ha"e the instrumental

or sentimental basis it had in the past. he only meaningful aspect of the boy preference

that is still effecti"e is the symbolic po!er and status that bearing a son gi"es a !oman inthe husband's family. he factors that comprise boy preference and influence a !oman's

decision to ha"e a selecti"e abortion need further in"estigation.

he immorality of the selecti"e abortion is mitigated and rationalized !ith the excuse thatit is done )for the family,) gi"ing a good example of ho! the )familism) sometimes

comes before morality. But, for many !omen !ho go through selecti"e abortions, the

psychological hurt remains. >"en !hen it is their o!n decision, the guilt and pain from)#illing a baby girl, a daughter that might ha"e been,) troubles them for a long time. +t

goes against their basic moral "alues, and creates a dissonance that does not go a!ay

easily 6Chung 9ean-Kyung 4457.

/7


5/12

Children's education becomes one important arena !here !omen compete !ith a

concentration of their personal ability and social resources. Being restricted from many

socially meaningful acti"ities, mothers seldom find !ays to fulfill their social self otherthan realizing it indirectly through their children. n the other hand, it is considered to be

one of the most acceptable and surest in"estments, one that is closely related to

traditional strategies for establishing one's place !ithin the existing social stratification.s such, it is a serious social po!er game, !ith the future at sta#e, in !hich mothers

become ma%or players.@/A

+n "ie! of a familism based exclusi"ely on blood ties, children cannot be separated fromthe family, and thus, they are expected to function as a means of reproduction of family,

status, and property. s the number of children in the nuclear family decreases, the

traditional expectation becomes an intolerable pressure on the children. +t often leads to

collecti"e child abuse, as a #ind of ne! cultural practice, to !hich the contemporaryKorean society at large has yet to be sensitized.

Compared to the past, today's younger children in Korea are blessed !ith material

abundance. Ho!e"er, they are depri"ed of spontaneous social relationships and cultural

experiences. hey are typically confined to the apartment of the nuclear family,especially !ith their mothers !ho are usually isolated from relati"es, neighbors, and

larger communities in their daily interactions. =imited spaces in institutional groupsettings for education and care do pro"ide experiences to interact !ith others. Ho!e"er,

these in"aluable opportunities are often eroded by collecti"e class-room acti"ities !hich

promote competiti"e early learning and talent training.$ue to their parents' ambition and strong desire to see their children achie"e much at an

early age, many young children find themsel"es spending long, passi"e hours e"ery day

in talent-training classes. Field 644/7 describes a similar phenomenon caused by parental

obsession in 9apan, and argues that it is an example of forced )labor) upon children. Forthe children, it results in the )erosion of childhood) 6*urans#y 4:/7, ta#ing a!ay the

experiences and happiness they deser"e during their childhood.

7 Wor#ing &others and the eed for *ocialized Childcare

(nli#e our image of Korean mothers as )professional house!i"es) !ho rear theirchildren and stay at home, a significant number of mothers are fully incorporated into

paid !or# outside the home, and a large percentage of children are reared in institutional

settings. +n the year /111, DD.43 of married !omen !or#ed, !hile /D.3 of mothers

!ith 1-2 year-old children 6.43 !ith -2 year-olds; /1.23 !ith 1-/ year-olds7 had%obs, numbers that run counter to the dominant "alues !hich still insist that the mother

should care for infants and younger children in the home. Further, three out of four full-

time house!i"es, ages bet!een /2-/4 years old, !ant to ha"e %obs outside the home, ifthey can find a proper arrangement for the care of their children 6Hankyoreh/ /117. +n

other !ords, today's Korean mothers fa"or more socialized childcare than family care.

he problem is that the society is not able to recognize nor to respond to their demandsproperly yet.

Figure sho!s the dynamic changes of the !omen's participation in the labor force

during the years from 451 to 442. he participation rate has more than doubled since

the 451s. he rapid expansion of the Korean economy and the e"er increasing demands
https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3178#2.https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3178#2.


6/12

for labor ha"e been considered as the main causes of this radical change. But, it also

needs to be examined from the supply side, from the changes in !omen's li"es. &arital

status, child birth, and education are the ma%or factors that affect the !omen'sparticipation to the labor mar#et. ll of these areas ha"e changed drastically.

First of all, the total birth rate dropped from 0.: children in 452 to .D in 4:2, and it has

remained at this le"el to the present 6KW$+ 44D7. +t means that !omen ha"e beensome!hat freed from the demands of repeated pregnancy and child birth during their

marriages. +t also affects families' in"estment into girls' education.

*econd, the a"erage number of years of formal education for !omen increased from years in 451 to 4. years in 442. he increase in the education of younger !omen had

been so rapid that, by 442, there !as no difference in a"erage length of education

bet!een men and !omen under 1 years old 69ang 44:7. $uring the initial period of

industrialization, in the 451s and 4D1s, undereducated young girls as uns#illed cheaplaborers in the factory had been the symbol of !omen in the labor force. o!, more and

more !omen !ith higher education !ant to find %obs !ith the potential for a life-time

career.

hird, the a"erage age for a !oman's initial marriage gradually increased from /.2 yearsold in 451 to /5 in 442 6ibid., 44:7.


7/12

!omen out at the time of marriage, childbirth, and child rearing, and ho! the society is

not supporti"e of them. $ominant ideologies concerning the family and the role of the

mother lay the cultural foundations for these discriminatory social practices against!omen. he establishment of the socialized child-care system !ill be an effecti"e tool for

further social change.

Dual Responses !Education! and !Care!

Families, homes, and mothers are still considered to be ma%or agents for the early

socialization of children in Korea. Ho!e"er, rapid industrialization and urbanization ha"e

created emergent ne! needs for early socialization outside the home. he speed of

change has been so fast that the society has failed to respond to them in time. hetraditional "ie! of education as a means of social competition has eroded the childhood

experience by being extended to younger children. he lac# of understanding of the need

for social childcare has made the children of some !or#ing mothers the "ictims of fire

!hen they !ere loc#ed in tiny one-room apartments.*till, Korean society has difficulty in ac#no!ledging the contemporary problems of

childcare and education as social responsibilities. Children under the ages for compulsoryeducation are belie"ed to be in the hands of mothers, and thus, the expenses of their

education and care are considered to be solely family matters. >"en the ad"ocates and

policyma#ers, !ho argue for the go"ernmental support for early socialization, find theirrationale in the traditional perspecti"es on competiti"e schooling and the !elfare of the

poor.

arly ducation: !omestic and International Cometition

Kindergarten education in Korea started out as an exotic form of early socialization for

the children of elite families. s an import for the pri"ileged, it displayed manydistincti"ely foreign cultural forms that became the dominant mode of early education.

ot only the material settings such as buildings, classes, and educational materials, but

also the songs, dances, and !ays of speech and interaction patterns !ere modeled afterthe dominant foreign practices.

$uring the colonial period, the pre!ar 9apanese #indergarten practices laid the

foundations of the #indergarten culture in Korea. (niforms, collecti"e acti"ities, and

ritualized interactions bet!een teachers and children are still "isible in many#indergartens as a legacy of the past. fter the liberation and the Korean !ar, merican

culture added a ne! layer to the #indergarten life. *ome #indergartens, usually affiliated

to uni"ersities, started to emphasize more liberal approaches for indi"idual freedom andde"elopment. Ho!e"er, their influence has been limited to a fe! experimental

institutions because of the societal obsession for the competiti"e education. *till, popular

perception of early education as fundamentally foreign and ad"anced has been confirmedand !idespread. >"en today, many early educational institutions display the names of

foreign scholars, theories, and practices as their models.

(ntil 4D2, #indergarten enrollment of the 2 year-old children had remained under /.:3.

+t rose to 023 in 44D.@Ahis mar#s a significant shift from the education of the fe! to
https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3178#3.https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3178#3.


8/12

that of the masses. Ho!e"er, the modes of education ha"e not changed much.

Kindergartens in contemporary Korea are mainly for the children of non!or#ing mothers.

With only morning-hour programs 6four hours a day as a standard, usually !ith a 4?11.&. to ?11 "ery possible sub%ect in education is for sale. +n this

field, discourses on the success and the failure in education are consumed extensi"elyamong educators and both !or#ing and non!or#ing mothers.

Competition is the #ey factor that ma#es mothers most deeply afraid. >arlier learning is!idely belie"ed to be the only effecti"e tool for success in the realms of domestic and

international competition. +t is no !onder that many ad"ocates and policyma#ers

emphasize international competition as a reason for further go"ernmental in"estment inearly education.

Child#care Priority: Class or $ender

he go"ernment's delayed response to childcare !as not simply due to inefficient

bureaucratic arrangements, but !as mainly due to dissonance in the cultural concepts 6or

political ideologies7, especially among the policyma#ers, concerning the roles of thego"ernment and the family. +n 4:, the First =ady of the


9/12

society and the go"ernment should assume responsibility of childcare since many

indi"idual nuclear families !ere no longer able to pro"ide the necessary care themsel"es.

Finally, the +nfant and Childcare =a! !as passed in 44. +mmediately, the child-caresystem rapidly expanded to such an extent that in 44D the total number of institutions

became 2,D2 6public, ,2:; pri"ate, :,D/; !or#place, 2:; family, 2,:DD7, enough to

care for 2/1,:24 children 6&inistry of Health and Welfare 44:7. hese !ere neither thenatural fruits of economic de"elopment nor the mechanical outcomes of policyma#ing by

state bureaucracies. Child-care ad"ocates and some progressi"e !omen's organizations

had to struggle for the establishment of today's day-care system. Earious forms ofstruggle such as rallies, sit-ins, fund raisers, signature collections, la! petitions, and

political campaigns had to be carried out to ma#e e"en a minimal child-care system

a"ailable.

t the same time, the labor mar#et demands on !or#ing mothers also pressedconser"ati"es to ma#e a bargain !ith progressi"es o"er the expansion of day care.

*uffering from an extreme labor shortage beginning in the late 4:1s, the Korean

economy began to rely on imported foreign labor. s a means of exploiting a"ailable

domestic labor, the day-care system !as implemented for the integration of youngmothers into the labor force.@0Ahis !as !hen the &inistry of =abor decided to step into

the day-care business. Ho!e"er, there !ere limits to ho! far the system could expandand in !hat directions. he system itself ran counter to the dominant family "alues.

he notion that financial support for childcare is only for the underpri"ileged class 6or

)bro#en) families7 !as firmly set in policy from the beginning. he go"ernment andconser"ati"es held the "ie! that most )ordinary) 6or middle-class7 families should carry

the financial burden since the primary role of day care is child rearing. +t is fundamentally

a !elfare program for the poor families in !hich mothers are forced to !or# outside

home. he go"ernment only supports the public centers, !hich are supposedly located inunderpri"ileged communities, and it pro"ides subsidies for the children of families !ho

recei"e social !elfare.

ll pri"ate and family care centers operate only on the tuition.@2As pri"ate businesses, itis natural that most of these centers see# profit. Ho!e"er, childcare is fundamentally less

profitable than education because of regulations prescribing )proper) teacher-children

ratios for the care of younger children for the full day. he contradictions bet!een policyand practice are the source of current problems !hich result in a lac# of infant and

toddler care in most centers. &any centers e"en demand the softening of regulations in

order to ha"e the #indergarten-li#e large classes but !ith fe!er teachers.

(nli#e the stereotypical images of childcare as a form of social !elfare for the poor, theactual need of childcare has been emerging across classes and regions. fter such rapid

social change, it is no! almost e"enly distributed among the entire population, as a

significant proportion of !omen of all ages and classes participate in 6or, at least, !ant toparticipate in7 !or# outside the home. he only difference is !hether this need is "isible

to the society or it is obfuscated by the sacrifices of indi"idual family members. he need

itself is not homogeneous any more. +t is di"erse and depends on the types of !or# andthe life cycles of mothers. Further, as the di"orce rate increases, not only the types of

families but also the life-style choices of families also increase, and thus di"ersify the

needs of childcare.
https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3178#4.https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3178#4.https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3178#5.https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3178#4.https://www.ekoreajournal.net/issue/view_pop.htm?Idx=3178#5.


10/12

he recently established &inistry of ender >8uality "ie!s childcare as mainly a gender

issue rather than a class one. +t see#s the establishment of a more comprehensi"e child-

care system that !ould greatly enhance !omen's participation to, and status in, thesociety. n the other hand, the &inistry of Health and Welfare, !hich still has full

control o"er the system, insists on extending the system to support the poor and the

!or#ing class.

!ebate in Practice

From 445, the #indergarten ad"ocates ha"e proposed to ma#e the education for all 2-

year-old children as part of the national compulsory schooling. By comparing Korea's

percentage of preschool enrollment !ith those of other >C$ countries, the ad"ocates

ha"e persuaded the go"ernment, and the proposal !as accepted. +t means that theestablishment of half-day preschool education has no! become the top national priority

for early socialization. +t also proposes the establishment of a nationally standardized

education system for children o"er three years and a national care system for the infants

and toddlers under age three.he ad"ocates for )care) ha"e resisted these proposals. hey "ie! them as a uniform

application of educational policy to address radically different demands in earlysocialization. Further, they argue for the urgent extension of the child-care system to

school-age children. he issue of the )unification of #indergarten and the day-care

system) has been a central theme of the debate among the people in both camps, and inthe related offices of go"ernment.

+n terms of theory and principle, it is rather a clear and simple demand, since both

institutions ser"e o"erlapping age groups 6from three to fi"e, that is, preschoolers7, and

e"eryone agrees that for these children, education and care should not be separated. But,it is often speculated that conflicts of interest in the t!o camps and bet!een the related

go"ernment offices act as ma%or obstacles to the unification. he t!o parties ne"er come

to terms !ith one another, since the #indergartens !ant to see a )#indergartenization) ofthe day-care centers, and, on the other hand, the day-care centers prefer a process of

expanding the )full-day) care function to the #indergartens.

Ho!e"er, the current situation can also be "ie!ed as a reflection of social and culturaldi"isions at a deeper le"el. here are many layers of larger di"isions in society that !ould

directly influence the di"ision of the t!o systemssuch as di"ided concepts ofmothering, radically different "ie!s on childhood, and different ideas about earlysocialization in institutional settings. Furthermore, there are fundamental policy

differences regarding these institutions among three go"ernment offices? the &inistry of

>ducation, the &inistry of Health and Welfare, and the &inistry of ender >8uality.>ach system is supposed to respond to one set of needs and expectations of a different

segment of the population. *ometimes, the arbitrary di"ision of the system dictates the

choice of the people !ho are less dichotomized than the go"ernmental definitions. hedi"ision itself guarantees a dichotomized experience for the children.

Ho! far can this di"ision bet!een )education) and )care) goG +s the current situation a

process of polarization of early socialization, or a process of e"entual integration of the

t!o systems and conceptsG he ans!ers remain, in large part, dependent on changes inthe larger society? changes in the nature of !omen's participation in social labor, changes


11/12

in the mother's role in the domestic sphere, and changes in society's "ie! of educational

institutions and education itself. Ho!e"er, there are groups of people !ho belie"e in the

po!er of social action to ma#e and accelerate changes through their efforts, especially inthe day-care field.

+n order to challenge the dominant cultural patterns and social structure in Korea, some

indi"iduals and organizations, !ith progressi"e ideologies of class and gender issues,utilize day care as transformati"e institution for socializing a ne! generationchildren!ho !ill ac8uire alternati"e "alues and beha"iorsand for inducing concomitantsociopolitical change.

While the ma%ority of #indergartens and day-care centers in contemporary Korea still

effecti"ely carry out conser"ati"e functions by practicing the collecti"ist and discipline-

oriented process of socialization, some centers, such as the )cooperati"e childcare)6gongdong yuga7 centers, challenge them by de"eloping a radically permissi"e pedagogy

that emphasizes acti"ities in nature and at a tempo of daily life rather than a tightly

organized school-li#e schedule in the classroom 6Chung Byung-Ho 4407.hrough daily interaction, these experimental centers perform mediating functions by

de"eloping strong bonds bet!een child-care practitioners and parents, and among theparents. Based on this social bond and these consciousness-raising efforts, the adults arepoliticized through their in"ol"ement in institutional child-care practices, and become

organized to participate in "arious community-le"el social mo"ements and engage !ith

important concurrent social issues.

hey ha"e opened the day-care field as a ne! arena !here the dominant concepts andpatterns of early socialization are constantly challenged and transformed. +n this context,

theory and practice in the Cooperati"e Centers ha"e become an excercise of )cultural

politics) 6iroux 447 inter"ening in po!er structures.

Conclusion

esearch on early socialization in Korea has mainly focused on childhood experiences in

the home and familial relationships. he strong ties bet!een mother and child ha"e beenconsidered crucial in formulating the later personalities, interpersonal relationships, and

adult social participation. *uch conceptions of uni"ersal experience in early socialization

are mostly based on conceptions of Korea in !hich a homogeneous national culture,

patriarchal family structure, and rigid gender-role di"ision are supposed to dictate sociallife.

Ho!e"er, li#e families in any society that has undergone rapid industrialization, Korean

families ha"e also gone through all the characteristic changes attendant to the processesof industrialization and urbanization. he current problems emerge mainly from the

rapidity of these changes. he speed of these societal changes has created serious

dissonance bet!een the traditional family ideology and the already di"ersified modes offamily li"es.

Wor#ing mothers and the issues of socialized childcare constitute one of the most

dynamic fields in !hich the contradictions of contemporary Korea can be seen. he

dominant ideologies still dictate that mothers stay in the home, but, in reality, thema%ority of mothers !or# outside the home. he hegemonic exercise of cultural


12/12

perceptions such as )full-time house!ife and mother) pushes !omen to lea"e the labor

mar#et during the childbirth and child rearing only to return to it later and recei"e much

lo!er !ages and positions. ccording to the dominant "alues, children under age fi"eshould be reared in the home by family members, but, in practice, institutional modes of

collecti"e child rearing are rapidly becoming popular among many families across

different classes and regions.s in other industrial societies, Korea, too, de"eloped its child-care system initially to put

mothers into the labor force 6Chung Byung-Ho 44/b7. But, during the last decade, the

focus of the system has gradually shifted from the mothers to the socialization of thechildren. What children learn or experience in a child-care facility has become a greater

concern, since it touches on a "ariety of issues? e8uality 6or e8ual opportunity7 bet!een

children at home 6or in a half-day #indergarten7 and children in a full-day child-care

center; the nature of the center, !hether as a place for early schooling or for communalli"ing; and the role of the center, !hether as a socializer of dominant "alues or of

alternati"e ideals.

*ocialized childcare itself has been considered to be a fundamentally sub"ersi"e practice

to the traditional family ideology. o!, li#e the heated debate of )education) and )care)for children of the same age group, the 8uestions of !ho controls, !hat #ind of program,

for !hom, and for !hat are more explicitly confronted and debated in many fields ofearly socialization by groups !ith "aried and often contradicting expectations for future

generations.

Documents

Changes in Korean Family Structure and the Conflicts of Ideology