Will K-pop’s political ambivalence hurt its goals for western expansion in the long-term?
- Sheridan King
- Oct 11, 2019
- 2 min read
In Olga Fedorenko’s article, “Korean-Wave celebrities between global capital and regional nationalism”, she states that hallyu celebrities function as both representatives of Korean nationalism and, within Asia, symbols of an ethnically blind, cosmopolitan “asianness” (2017). These traits make them lucrative but volatile investments: lucrative because of their wide appeal and volatile because regional disputes (Fedorenko 2017). Fedorenko gives the example of the dispute between South Korea and Japan over Tokto/ Takeshima islands and how it affected the careers of actress Kim Tae-Hee and idol group Kara. In the case of Kim Tae-Hee, who was one of the first hallyu stars to accrue a large audience in other Asian countries, she starred in a Japanese drama in late 2011 after gaining popularity there, however, as the drama was beginning to air Kim’s past support for a Korean Tokto came to light causing avalanche of petitions, protests, and even death threats (Fedorenko 2017: 509, 510). This caused Kim’s popularity in Japan to wane while she received a lot of praise in Korea, and she seems to focus on promoting in Korea these days (Fedorenko 2017: 510). With the idol group Kara we see the inverse happen. After finding success in South Korea, Kara debuted in Japan in 2010. A couple years later, during a press conference in Seoul, a Korean journalist asked them about the disputed islands and the group choose not to answer the question (Fedorenko 2017: 510). While this was met with a positive reaction in Japan, Koreans criticized them for their silence and accused them of choosing Japanese fans and money over Korean patriotism (Fedorenko 2017: 510). Ultimately, Fedorenko argues that the domestic, foreign, and commercial demands placed on hallyu celebrities are “fundamentally irreconcilable” (2017: 499).
K-pop idol groups tend to take the approach of being apolitical when in the west but will they begin to be caught up in western regional disputes as they gain popularity? I say yes and it’s already started. Case in point: BTS’s concert in Saudi Arabia. Many of western BTS fan were not happy with a concert being held there, many saying they felt that BTS’s values were not compatible with the treatment of women and LGBTQ people in Saudi Arabia, but the concert went on anyway. In the future, this will be brought up again and will influence how westerners think about BTS.
Fedorenko, Olga “Korean-Wave celebrities between global capital and regional nationalism.” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 18, no. 4 (2017): 498-517.
Good job everyone. Don't forget, I hope to see evidence that you went back and read each other's comments, engaging in a real dialogue.
Also, I can't help but add:
1. BTS was invited by the GOVERNMENT of Saudi, which is very different than being invited by a concert promoter
2. BTS was invited by the same man who ordered the brutal killing of Jamal Khashoggi
3. BTS going to Saudi was a PR coup for the Saudi gov't-- essentially hiding bad behavior behind BTS. BTS became part of their media play-- they were used not for their own message but how their own message obscured the evils of this regime.
4. As mentioned BTS are UN Ambassadors for UNICEF,…
The BTS/Saudi Arabia concert has been a huge topic of debate and discourse within the fandom (and even outside of the fandom) since it was announced. I think that BTS being UN representatives that this was perhaps a bad decision to perform there, but I also don't think the members may have a huge say in whether they should perform over there or not. While BTS does seem to have perhaps a bit more freedom than some other idol groups, they're still an idol group controlled by a company. I think that maybe if there was more uproar (like when they were planning to collaborate with that Japanese producer many people had an issue with) that maybe BigHit would have…
K-Idols will always be under constant scrutiny by the public. There is no way a single person, or group, would be able to please everyone. They either said the wrong thing, agreed with the wrong person, or didn't wear the right kind of clothing. Another example would be when Jimin wore the shirt bearing the image of an atomic bomb dropping on the Japanese city, Nagasaki. He and BTS were criticized and their appearance on a Japanese T.V. show was postponed. The shirt wasn't even about the bombing, but rather celebrating Korean National Liberation Day. What makes it even more frustrating is that Jimin doesn't pick his clothing when he makes public appearances, his stylists do, so there is no…
As for the question in your title, I feel like a political stance in general could certainly impact K-Pop's western expansion, but it could also impact individual artists' popularity/stock in Korea as well. Many Korean artists may start to have a similar path as Kara in Japan, or the Kim Sisters in the United States in that they end up with more popularity in a country other than Korea, whether it be because of politics or other factors.
I've always found the amount of pressure placed on K-Pop idols to have a "correct" political stance to be a little absurd. Even just considering the recent concert, when you take into account the amount of global fans a group like BTS has currently, there is no possible way to please all of their fans and maintain a perfect image. I also find the situation of them performing in Saudi Arabia upsetting Western fans to be somewhat ridiculous. While fans argue that their views don't match the political status of the people there, they clearly have enough fans to put forth a concert. Fans of BTS are often aware of their messages, as well as their "Speak Yourself" campaign, an…