In South Korea's New Nationalism, Emma Campbell explores the evolution of nationalism in South Korea, focusing particularly on the youth, or isipdae (those in their twenties). Her research begins with the observation that increasing numbers of isipdae hold ambivalent attitudes or apathy toward North Korea and unification. This is an interesting new phenomenon, given that unification has been assumed to be the national consensus since the foundation of the Republic of Korea (South Korea). Campbell asserts that it is because the type of national identity most widely shared by young South Koreans has changed from ethnicity-based to culture-based. A new globalized cultural nationalism has emerged as an alternative among the isipdae, which the author cautiously predicts might lead to the end of the “One Korea” belief.

Through historiographic analysis, Campbell demonstrates that historically, ethnic nationalism has been strong in South Korea. The Korean national identity started forming during Japanese colonial rule. Due to this origin, the consciousness of being Korean and of a Korean nation developed on the basis of a strong sense of ethnicity. This ethnically driven national identity remained prevalent after the liberation and then the division of Korea. Campbell refers to Ernest Gellner, who defines nationalism as anger aroused by incongruence between shared beliefs about a national unit and its reality as a political unit. On this definition, it is not surprising that these two events, Japanese colonialism and the division of the peninsula, were the forces shaping and fueling ethnic nationalism in South Korea. This type of nationalism continued and was adopted as one of the main themes of the pro-democracy student movement while South Korea fell under authoritarian regimes. Even after democratization, ethnicity still played a dominant role in defining national identity among South Koreans. Therefore, it was a consensus that uri nara (our nation) included not only South Korea but North Korea, and that unification was the rightful, ultimate duty to restore the nation fully.

Campbell points out that this view of uri nara does not hold as firmly as before in South Korea, particularly among its young population. Isipdae South Koreans nowadays tend to consider North Korea a different nation, so unification is not a necessity to them. Those who support unification do so mainly because it would benefit South Korea, uri nara, in terms of economy, national security, and diplomatic relations. Campbell describes this attitude as having a “colonial” tone. This change shows the decline of ethnic nationalism in South Korea. The waning importance of ethnicity is reaffirmed by South Koreans’ reluctance to accept other Korean-ethnic groups such as Joseonjok and Goryeoin, diasporic ethnic Koreans in China and the former USSR respectively, as “us.”

Campbell argues that ethnic nationalism has been replaced by a “globalized cultural nationalism” in which membership is determined by modernization, cosmopolitanism, and status. Modernity is a key component of the emerging South Korean nationalism and a source of pride within it. Rapid economic development and accompanying cultural advancement, evidenced in the “Korean Wave” (Hallyu), have triggered nationalist sentiment; for instance, pride when these achievements are recognized internationally and anger when they are ignored. Cosmopolitanism is the valuing of international experience and knowledge, and cultural sophistication linked to understanding and appreciating global cultures and tastes. The isipdae identify “Korean-ness” as cosmopolitanism. Like modernity, the global status of South Korea is also an important source of nationalism. Young South Koreans measure Korea against international standards and desire appropriate international recognition and respect. Reinforced by globalization and neo-liberal ideas, cultural nationalism has rendered the ethnic boundary of us-versus-them blurry among the isipdae. Shared heritage and tradition have become too weak to justify the inclusion of North Korea within uri nara. Campbell cautiously predicts that if this globalized cultural nationalism continues, the notion of “One Korea” might lose its relevance in South Korea.

Campbell's analysis of the evolution of South Korean nationalism offers insights for scholars not only of Korean studies but of nationalism in the developing world and of globalization. Her illustration of how cosmopolitanism and status have become crucial components of the new South Korean nationalism reveals that globalization, through increased transnational flows of information and cross-national mobility of people, has had a tremendous impact on national identity. In addition, contrary to the claim by Gi-wook Shin and Anthony Smith that globalization intensifies ethnic nationalism, the South Korean case suggests that the impact of globalization on nationalism varies greatly across nations.

Despite her insights and contribution to our understanding of South Korea's emerging nationalism, I would have liked to have seen Campbell consider the role of inter-Korean relations in her analysis. The political relations between South and North Korea significantly shape South Koreans’ stance on North Korea and unification. Since its withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 2003, North Korea has posed a real threat to South Korea. The tension in the peninsula escalated further after a series of failed efforts to improve the situation; instead, North Korea launched missile tests, and other forms of aggression continued afterward. For instance, in 2008, a South Korean tourist was killed by a North Korean soldier at the Mount Kumgang resort in North Korea. In March 2010, the South Korean navy ship Cheonan was sunk, allegedly by a North Korean torpedo, and several months later, North Korea shelled South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island and two South Korean soldiers were killed. This series of incidents disillusioned most South Koreans of their long-held belief in “One Korea.”

Given that Campbell conducted interviews from 2009 to 2014, it is not surprising that most of her subjects express negative views about North Korea and unification. In other words, it is hard to parse out the “pure” effect of globalized cultural nationalism from that of inter-Korean relations on the growing sense of heterogeneity young South Koreans feel toward their northern neighbors. In line with this, the recent development of South Korean public opinion that is more accepting of North Korea as uri nara, and a highly increased level of support for unification, does not quite square with Campbell's argument. I believe it is crucial to consider inter-Korean relations more closely to control for their confounding effects on the demise of ethnic nationalism in South Korea.