Social Networks in Korean Society:

1. Theoretical approaches to the “non-material” forms of capital: cultural, symbolic, social capital in sociological theory.

Elaine Hayes: “In the <Forms of Capital> (Bourdieu, Pierre, 1986. <The Forms of Capital>. In John Richardson, Ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241-258.) Bourdieu expands the notion of capital beyond its economic conception which emphasizes material exchanges, to include ‘immaterial’ and ‘non-economic forms of capital, specifically cultural and symbolic capital. He explains how the different types of capital can be acquired, exchanged, and converted into other forms. Because the structure and distribution of capital also represent the inherent structure of the social world, Bourdieu argues that an understanding of the multiple forms of capital will help elucidate the structure and functioning of the social world.

The term cultural capital represents the collection of non-economic forces such as family background, social class, varying investments in and commitments to education, different resources, etc. which influence academic success. Bourdieu distinguishes three forms of cultural capital. The embodied state is directly linked to and incorporated within the individual and represents what they know and can do. Embodied capital can be increased by investing time into self improvement in the form of learning. As embodied capital becomes integrated into the individual, it becomes a type of habitus and therefore cannot be transmitted instantaneously. The objectified state of cultural capital is represented by cultural goods, material objects such as books, paintings, instruments, or machines. They can be appropriated both materially with economic capital and symbolically via embodied capital. Finally, cultural capital in its institutionalized state provides academic credentials and qualifications which create a 'certificate of cultural competence which confers on its holder a conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to power.’ (248) These academic qualifications can then be used as a rate of conversion between cultural and economic capital.

Throughout his discussion of cultural capital, Bourdieu favors a nurture rather than a nature argument. He states that the ability and talent of an individual is primarily determined by the time and cultural capital invested in them by their parents. Similarly, Bourdieu argues that 'the scholastic yield from educational action depends on the cultural capital previously invested by the family’ (244) and ‘the initial accumulation of cultural capital, the precondition for the fast, easy accumulation of every kind of useful cultural capital, starts at the outset, without delay, without wasted time, only for the offspring of families endowed with strong cultural capital.’ (246) Based upon these assertions, it appears that cultural capital regulates and reproduces itself in a similar fashion as habitus. According to this model, families of a given cultural capital could only produce offspring with an equal amount of cultural capital.”

“Bourdieu defines social capital as, 'the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.’ (248) An individual's social capital is determined by the size or their relationship network, the sum of its cumulated resources (both cultural and economic), and how successfully (quickly) the individual can set them it in motion. According to Bourdieu, social networks must be continuously maintained and fostered over time in order for them to be called upon quickly in the future.

In his discussion of conversions between different types of capital, Bourdieu recognizes that all types of capital can be derived from economic capital through varying efforts of transformation. Bourdieu also states that cultural and social capital are fundamentally rooted in economic capital but they can never be completely reduced to an economic form. Rather, social and cultural capital remain effective because they conceal their relationship to economic capital”

Social capital – ability to use social networks largely based on individual’s economic and cultural capital. Importance of the social capital for achieving a social status has been demonstrated by many empirical researches. See, for example: Nan Lin, “Social Networks and Status Attainment”, - Annual Review of Sociology, 1999. 25:467-487:

“Contributions of social network analysis to status attainment can be traced to the seminal study conducted by Mark Granovetter (1974), who interviewed 282 professional and managerial men in Newton, Massachusetts. The data suggested that those who used interpersonal channels seemed to land more satisfactory and better (e.g., higher income) jobs. Inferring from this empirical research, substantiated with a review of job-search studies, Granovetter proposed a network theory for information flow. The hypothesis of "the strength of weak ties" was that weaker ties tend to form bridges that link individuals to other social circles for information not likely to be available in their own circles, and such information should be useful to the individuals “ (Granovetter M. 1974. Getting a Job. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.).

“The theory of social resources begins with an image of the macro-social structure consisting of positions ranked according to certain normatively valued resources such as wealth, status, and power. This structure has a pyramidal shape in terms of accessibility and control of such resources: The higher the position, the fewer the occupants; and the higher the position, the better the view it has of the structure (especially down below). The pyramidal structure suggests advantages for positions nearer to the top, both in terms of number of occupants (fewer) and accessibility to positions (more). Individuals within these structural constraints and opportunities take actions for expressive and instrumental purposes. For instrumental actions (attaining status in the social structure being one prime example), the better strategy would be for ego to reach toward contacts higher up in the hierarchy. These contacts would be better able to exert influence on positions (e.g., recruiter for a firm) whose actions may benefit ego's interest. This reaching-up process may be facilitated if ego uses weaker ties, since weaker ties are more likely to reach out vertically (presumably upward) rather than horizontally relative to ego's position in the hierarchy”

2. Social networks in South Korean society: The theory of yŏnjul society. Yŏnjul (“connections” – almost the same as guanxi in Chinese cultural sphere) – based on person’s ascribed status (parental status) and various forms of cultural capital, especially such institutionalised forms of cultural capital as academic credentials. The strongest forms of yŏnjul are regional (usually belonging to a group of the natives of one and the same town/province) and high school/university ties. Basically, yŏnjul works in the same way as social network generally work in all societies: serves as the surest way to find a job, dodge a draft etc. – to climb the social ladder up. Still, in S.Korea, due to the lack of institualization in the society – “checks and controls” by civil society and media are still very weak – yŏnjul took somewhat hypertrophied forms. Many Koreans speak about “SNU Republic” (SNU – the most prestigious university, the strongest alumni yŏnjul group) or “TK mafia” (TK – Taegu-Kyŏngsang Province – a strong regional yŏnjul group) in strongly disapproving way. From the viewpoint of South Korean progressives, various yŏnjuls solidify on the informal level the social borders and barriers of the class society – due to the strength of leading privileged yŏnjuls, prospects of social advancement for a person without right class background (economic capital) to enter a right yŏnjul, are very poor. Yŏnjuls are often analysed as a form of “class alienation”. Yi Jaehyuck (Hallim University): the informal yŏnjul networks practically play in Korea the role that civil society should plays in an advanced capitalist society: the role of a mediator between person and state. Yŏnjul also paves way for what many Koreans view as a system of “institutionalised corruption”, for membership in yŏnjuls always entails “exchange of gifts”, sometimes of enormous value.

Yi Chaeyeol, “The Social Network of Korean” (<Korea Journal>, Vol. 40, No.1, 2000):

“Korea has achieved modernity in a very short period of time. Within only one generation, the agrarian society has been transformed into a modern and urban community. Complex organizations have proliferated during the rapid industrialization. The expansion of education has contributed to the diffusion of modern values. The country now maintains democratic institutions and modern corporations, which governs the routine life of the people. Official standards and formal conventions emphasize universalistic code of conduct. Yet there is a strong tendency for the same people using regional, school, and family ties as a means of doing business, getting information, and making important decisions.

Such coexistence of the modern institutional arrangements and informal aspects of social life has contributed to the growing discrepancy between the official rule and the habits of hearts. The stark reality of recent financial crisis has made it apparent that Korea is not exempt from universal standards. Passing through the bailout program provided by the International Monetary Fund, Korean version of capitalism has been equated as "crony" which is riddled with opaque management of financial and business affairs. The conflicting image of Korean society, rapidly becoming modern but much faster in appearance than in content, is succinctly revealed in the working of social networks of ordinary people.

It is very difficult, however, to conceptualise the specific characteristics of networks in Korean context. English word "network" corresponds to two different Korean words, yonkyol and yonjul. Yonkyol is a neutral word, meaning the open relations among objects or people connected by universal rule. Yonjul, on the other hand, means particularistic relations maintained by kin, school and regional ties. The strength of yonjul ties characterizes the Korean society. As the strong bond is built upon a close and personal trust relationship, it usually transcends the institutionalised rules and formal prescriptions. It can be an efficient alternative to either market or hierarchy in economic transaction. But the strong bond working within the yonjul tie tends to become a barrier to those who do not share the link.

Many people believe that there are abundant social networks in Korean society. People section of most newspapers is filled with articles reporting the annual meeting of alumni associations, accompanied with a picture kindly specifying the names of important figures. Celebration parties hosted by these associations usually follow national elections. Some companies require the applicants to submit a list of their acquaintances and relatives who are prominent either in politics or government. Most agree that personal network based on regional and school background plays a critical role in Korea.”

“Types of Ties: Alters vary according to the life course of respondents. The role of spouse is most important between 30s and 50s. After late forties, children become important alter. After sixties, neighbor becomes more important. However, the role of alumni and parents become less significant as one gets older. Death of parents and the growth of children explain the transition of alters around 60s.Major contents of the ties belong to personal advice. Figure 3 shows that over 45 percent of ties contains personal advice from alter. It is followed by financial assistance (30.03 percent), assistance in job-search (18.50 percent), and assistance in purchasing goods (12.25 percent).”

“Social network functions as a reference group in both positive and negative way. Strong, or densely knit network creates pressure for an individual to conform to the group. Groups with strong solidarity, such as Mafia, is very cohesive one, exerting enormous pressure for conformity to the members. In a rural community where the inter-personal network is dense, individuals may be revealed to the strong pressure for conformity. To measure the network dependence, we asked whether the respondent would furnish security to their a) parents/children, b) sibling, c) brother- or sister-in-law, if s/he is requested to guarantee the return of twenty thousand dollars bank loan directed to these people. Guaranteeing the loan to others requires strong trust relation. And many people are cautious about underwriting monetary loans even to the close family member or friends.”

“First, social network functions as an important mode of social exchange. People with higher socio-economic status tend to focus more on the instrumental advantage of large network size, thus minimizing transaction costs, and getting information quickly and cheaply. On the other hand, lower class tend to rely on the social network more emotionally, identifying their group membership and finding emotional support. Social network, as a kind of relational capital, shows a skewed distribution across socio-economic status.

Second, social network in Korea shows high homopily, or very homogeneous association within the line of sex, age, and region. Such a homopily reflects the strong in-group orientation. Put aside kin ties, people tend to associate with those whom they share background variables. It implies that the strong and abundant social network may work against societal integration, unless the strong in-group orientation is released by widening the boundary of the membership.

Third, social network functions as a reference group so that it asserts an enormous influence on individual's value and attitude. The openness of social network significantly reduces regional prejudice of individuals. Also frequent contact across class boundary contributes to the mitigation of hostile attitudes of working class. Also entrapment in a strong personal network enforce individual strongly conform to the group.

Fourth, those who have wider range of network tend to have less authoritarian attitude, but they are more cautious and have deep distrust on judicial justice. They maintain public-oriented network and reveals strong post-materialist attitudes, challenging the traditional emphasis on wealth and military safety.

Weak tie means network with wide range but with low density. Weak tie tends to be used instrumentally for information transfer or confer of control. People with higher socio-economic status tend to show deep distrust on the institutional justice and shows post-materalist, post-authoritarian, and adventurous attitude on social issues, but they are also adept in utilizing the instrumental network. They have two different faces, which often conflicts each other, i.e., strong public-oriented value and strong behavioural tendency to utilize the relational capital for instrumental purpose.

People with strong ties are from lower socio-economic status group. They tend to be farmers or older generation. They are embedded in kin network, and shows very traditional value orientation, such as authoritarianism. They are neither critical on institutionalised social mechanism, nor public-issue oriented. Instead, they seem to take the existing social order for granted. Their social network is dense and narrow, mainly providing emotional support, but sometimes-strong pressure of conformity for the individual.

During the rapid modernization, weak ties especially among the educated young middle class have gradually replaced the strong tie. It means emancipation from the closure of traditional kin network, reduction of prejudice, and diffusion of universalistic attitude. Yet, it also reveals that those enlightened group is also very adept in developing instrumental networks conceptualised as yonjul. Such a conflicting role of weak ties is derived from the fact that secondary associations are fragile in Korea. Without recovery of new moral basis compatible with increasingly complex society, Korean society will suffer from the social fragmentation divided and occupied by yonjul network”