2016, Vol.43, No.2

Korean Social Science Journal 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.06

pISSN : 1225-0368 / eISSN : 2196-4424
https://journal.kci.go.kr/kssj

Debates regarding the nature of self-enhancement versus accurate self-assessment have been active among psychologists for decades. More recently, researchers have become interested in the panculturality of self-enhancement. Some researchers argue that self-enhancement is universal and present within all cultures. Others declare self-enhancement to be a Western tendency, with self-diminishment being the norm among East Asians. Importantly, the majority of such studies have not compared self-perceptions against objective external criteria, especially those with East Asians. Furthermore, the link between narcissism and self-enhancement has been largely overlooked within Korean samples. To address such gaps, we utilized scores on an objective test as a criterion to investigate the accuracy of Koreans’ self-assessments of performance, as well as how individual differences in narcissism are related to such assessments. A sample of Korean students (N = 146; 71 women) completed self-report measures of narcissism and self-esteem, and took a listening comprehension quiz. Estimated and actual scores were collected and used to compute self-enhancement scores. Results demonstrated that Koreans’ self-perceptions of performance on the quiz were quite accurate. As has been found in Western cultures, narcissism was related to self-enhancement.

Even with the Comfort Women Agreement in 2015, not much seems to have improved. The victims are still requesting for a sincere apology of the Japanese Prime Minister, where Abe is not at all considering. Why are the victims again demanding another sincere apology even after numerous previous apologies? Why has this apology problem repeated for over 20 years despite tremendous efforts by both governments? By raising the question ‘what are the mechanisms for Japanese political apologies and backlashes?’ the paper aims to explain motivations for both apology and backlash. The significance of this paper is in its combination of two key concepts, apology and backlash, into a single framework and its explanation on Korea–Japan relations accordingly. Unlike previous literatures that stressed the importance of sincere apology for reconciliation between the two, this paper aims to show that such an argument rather blurs the comprehensive approach towards the apology problem. The arguments of the paper are twofold. First, the act of Japanese apology and backlash is not a result of sincere remorse of the past, but a result of inter/intra party competition for future political benefits. Second, despite the significance of apology in achieving stable reconciliation, it is unlikely that Japan will choose to express another apology.

International politics after the Cold War called our attention to the shifting paradigms in the discipline of international relations. The shift included meta-theoretical attempts for transformations beyond the problem-solving theories searching for systemic stability. Democratic peace theory set itself apart from other system theories by seeking changes at the unit level, and it was closely related to actual policy objectives. The relevance of this theory, however, seemed not to be universal to all the regions, and the reality of Northeast Asia required considerations of the region’s particularities as well as general tendencies of the post-Cold War world. Although the liberal peace approach led by the United States has come to form a new global standard in the post-Cold War period and it bears implications for positive changes in the long run, it has its limits in initiating a new virtuous cycle in Northeast Asia. The limitations come from the aspects of realpolitik in American liberalism on the one hand, and from particular characteristics of Northeast Asian states on the other. That is why we need to think about alternative second images for the host of problems besetting the region, including the cross-straits tensions, the Japan question, and the North Korean problem. It means a consideration of the new political order which can solve the dilemma between status quo and transformation in Northeast Asia.