Exploring Factors on Identity of Korean Diaspora: Perspectives of Millennial Generation

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore the major factors affecting the development of national identity of the Millennial Korean diasporas in the CIS countries that have rarely been explored in previous studies. In particular, this study examines how perceived identities have changed due to social, cultural, and other environmental changes and suggests policy considerations accordingly. Research design, data, and methodology: This study collected data via online survey. Factor and regression analyses were applied for data analysis. Results: The findings of this study suggest a set of factors that is different from the factors generally known to affect the diasporic identities of diasporas. The results of this study provide policy implications to help them construct identities that could more positively define their diasporic lives and relationship with homeland. Conclusions: The factors of direct experiences, such as relationship with host societies and homeland experience, exhibited strong relationship with national identity and life satisfaction of the Millennial Korean diasporas in the CIS countries. The unique characteristics of the Millennials and the long history of separation from homeland showed different results. The results of this study suggest policy considerations in regard to the Millennial diasporas in the CIS countries.

1.Introduction

The history of Korean diaspora has begun since the 1860s when Koreans crossed the northern border to avoid severe famine and natural disasters and settled in Manchuria in China and the Maritime Province in Russia (Jung & Nam, 2011). After over 150 years of diaspora history, Korean diaspora population now reached almost 7.5 million corresponding to approximately 10 percent of the total population of North and South Korea combined (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2019).

Against the turbulent modern history of homeland, the migrations of Koreans diasporas displayed distinctive patterns of different motivations, backgrounds, settlements, and identities (Yoon, 2003). Other than the voting and security issues of overseas Korean, Korean diasporas of foreign citizenship have neither appeared on national agenda nor attracted public attention (Choi, 2016). However, diasporas clearly have been included in the national plan of future of Korea since the Roh Tae-Woo administration when the Roh government suggested Unification as Korean National Community in 1989 (Huh, Cho, Cho, Kwon, & Bae, 2012). Moreover, Korean diasporas with their adaptive strength suggest great potential against the backdrop of rapid decrease in productive population in South Korea and lack of human resource in the North. Their importance, especially the Millennials who possess bicultural and bilingual strengths deserve more academic and political attention, considering the potential contribution they may make to the future of Korea and its global network.

Korean diasporas in the Commonwealth of Independent States(CIS) countries, called as Koryo-in or Koryo-saram, are uniquely situated people groups, who maintained strong ethnic identity as Korean national despite being long separated in history (Kim, 2016). Korean diasporas embody highly strong adaptive strength as they have experienced themselves traumatic separation from homeland and radical transformation of political and economic systems in the midst of post-colonial and post-Cold War eras. They allude to classical notion of diaspora having the pain of being separated from their origin as they were unwillingly displaced from homeland for extended period of time and situated at the periphery of the host societies as strong wave of nationalism swayed their new dwellings. This study recognized that diasporic identities are not static but continue to evolve over time in response to their relationship with homeland and host countries, and their relevant policies, highlighting either positive or negative aspects of diasporic lives. In this context, the objective of this study is to explore the major factors affecting the development of national identity of the Korean diasporas in the CIS countries primarily focusing on the Millennials. This study aims to suggest policy considerations in order to help them construct identities that could more positively define their diasporic lives and relationship with homeland. Previous studies in this field mainly applied qualitative approach to the identities of Korean diaspora in general and rarely examined the factors affecting the identities of the Millennials. Therefore, the significance of this study may be found in that it provides a unique and critical contribution to the field of diaspora studies by applying quantitative analysis in exploring the relationship between diasporic identity of the Millennial Korean diasporas in the CIS countries and the relevant factors affecting their identity construction. This study addressed the following research questions: i) how do factors including diasporas’ perceived relationship with host country and homeland, homeland experience, family education, Korean culture, history, and language affect their national identity and life satisfaction; ii) how does diasporas’ national identity affect their life satisfaction; and iii)how does national identity of diasporas affect their desire to return home and perception of unification.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Defining Diaspora

In today’s globalized world, we observe a large population of migrants voluntarily crossing national boundaries for social and economic opportunities outside their homelands (Girsberger, 2017). According to the United Nations (2019), international migrant stock grew from approximately 153 million in 1990 and reached 271 million in 2019. Such growth of migrant population in recent years represents an enormous developmental potential for developing countries and is captured in four Goals and five Targets of the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations; particularly the remittances of so-called diasporas to their homelands are considered critical resources for economic development in developing nations (Nurse, 2018).

The classical notion of diaspora was labeled to describe the dispersion of peoples away from their homelands due to catastrophic events; the term diaspora was used to refer to the Jewish experience of exile and later the African, Armenian, and Irish people scattered away from their origins (Cohen, 2008; Tölölyan, 1996). The ideas of diaspora have been constructed and reconstructed as different categories of people who showed different motives and patterns of emigration have appeared in the global age.

2.2. Korean Diasporas

Many Korean diasporas were scattered primarily because of traumatic events in the modern history of Korea, in which many of them were denied the opportunity to return to their homeland but forced to remain in foreign nations (Choi, 2016). According to Huh et al. (2012), the history of Korean diaspora can be categorized into four distinct stages as follows: i) the first generation of Korean diasporas migrated to Chinese and Russian border areas from the 1860s to 1910 to escape extreme poverty caused by series of natural disasters at home; ii) from 1910 to 1945, the second generation of Korean diasporas migrated to many foreign destinations for varying reasons such as evasion from the brutal Japanese rule and for independence movement; iii) the third generation diasporas were more systematically mobilized by the Korean government for developmental purposes from the liberation in 1945 to the Cold War era, including nurses and miners sent to Germany, and construction workers to the Middle East; and the fourth generation, emerging after the Cold War era, showed different pattern of migration that they sought for long-term settlement in more diverse destinations in advanced economies. Although short in history, Korean diasporas of each stage symbolically captures the panorama of modern history of Korea. Korean diaspora population is estimated to be 7.5 million, which represents approximately 10% of Korean population, North and South Korea combined. More than 80% of diaspora population reside in East Asia and North America, the two largest host countries being the United States and China.

2.3. Korean Diasporas in the CIS Countries

The history of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries began in the 1860s as many Koreans crossed the northern borders to survive from series of natural disasters and famine in their homeland (Yoon, 2012). According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2019), 493,043 Korean diasporas are hosted in the CIS countries as of 2019. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2019) reported that Uzbekistan, Russia, and Kazakhstan each has more than 100,000 diasporas, together accounting for more than 90% of Korean diasporas in the region. Around the time when Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910, more people fled from the brutal Japanese rule and moved to Manchuria in China and the Maritime Province in Russia (Jung & Nam, 2011). By 1927-28, Korean population in Maritime Province in Russia reached at least 25-thousand (Lee, 2001). As Japan began to display its imperial ambition for the continent, the Soviet Union began to consider the Korean population in its territory a threat to national security as they might be used as spies of the Japanese troops (Shim & Kim, 2007). In this context, the Stalin government deported more than 170-thousand Koreans to Central Asia from September to November in 1937 and during the 6, 000km- long journey about 11-thousand of them died due to harsh climate and starvation (Kim, 2016). Being placed far away from home, the living condition of Koreans in Central Asia at the time was very harsh similar to that of concentration camps (Lee, 2001). Moreover, after the Soviet Union collapsed, Korean diasporas met another great challenge as Islamic nationalism surged in the CIS countries in the aftermath of the Cold War era (Yoon, 2012). Because of the lack of local language skills and growing discrimination against minority groups, a bulk of Korean diasporas re- migrated to the Maritime Province of Russia, where their ancestors began the long journey of diasporic life (Kim, 2016). On the other hand, with the accumulated wealth from their successful farming business, Korean diasporas in the CIS region showed rapid movement to urban areas to support the education of their children (Yoon, 2003). Contrary to the Korean diasporas in North America, because of the strong nationalism and harsh discrimination in the CIS countries after the Cold War era, Korean diasporas in the region were forced to assimilate into the mainstream culture of their host countries (Sung, 2012). Despite such forced assimilation, different appearance, substantial restrictions in vocational and educational opportunities, and the marks as minority group on their legal documents partly explain their long maintained strong national identity as Koryo-in (Yoon, 2003).

3. Theoretical Background

3.1. Diasporas and Diasporic Identity

Previous studies (Cohen, 2008; Mavroudi, 2007; Reis, 2004) in the field observed different approaches to diasporic identity, or the perceptions of the diasporas themselves; from traditional approach adopting classical view of diaspora, to transnational approach of deterritorialized identities, and to modified reaffirmation of the diasporic idea, reemphasizing its core elements such as homeland influence.

Traditional approach extended the narrow definition of the classical view. Tölölyan (1991) explained that the notion diaspora gained a larger semantic domain that includes words like immigrant, expatriate, refugee, guest- worker, exile community, overseas community, and ethnic community. Gupta and Ferguson (1997) noted that homeland often serves as symbolic anchors for dispersed people and it remains powerful unifying symbols for mobile and displaced peoples. Safran (1991) suggested that diasporic communities share several characteristics: i) dispersed from a specific original center to peripheral, or foreign regions; ii) retain a collective memory, vision, or myth about their original homeland; iii) cannot be fully accepted by the host society; iv) continue to relate, personally or vicariously, to that homeland in one way or another. Transnational approach is based on the ideas of fluidity, movement, routes and the destabilization of boundaries of identity, community, and the nation-state. Scholars began to criticize the traditional approach that it centered around the boundaries of the nation-state hegemony and ethnic homogeneity, and does not fully capture the complexity and dynamics of diasporas in a global age (Cohen, 2008). Clifford (1994) argued that diasporas form transnational identities as they are situated in a state of border. Hall (1990) underscored the hybridity and doubleness of diasporic identities formed culturally. Anderson (1992) argued that diasporas can construct identities of homeland or host country-orientation depending on their responses to the policies and cultural environments of both homeland and host society, while most of diasporas have the identities that continuously evolve around time of their diasporic lives. Vertovec (1997) underscored that multiplicity of diasporic identity is considered a source of adaptive strength.

Transnational approach was modified by the scholars who viewed the ideas of home and the inflection of homeland remain powerful discourses, and Cohen (2008) termed the trend as the phase of consolidation. Sökefeld (2006) argued that diasporic consciousness is mobilized since diasporic identity is socially constructed. He argued that diasporas need (i) opportunity structures like an enhanced means of communication and a permissive legal and political environment; ii) mobilizing practices like neighborhood associations, demonstrations and fund-raising events; and iii) frames that allude to ideas like roots and home and the importance of memory in history. Mavroudi (2007) argued that diasporas may be understood as dynamic, in-the-making, and fluid but also subject to power relations, tensions, disconnections and the specific, situated process that enable (or force) the constructions of shared (and often politicized) notions of belonging, identity and community. While the increased complexity and deterritorialization of identities are still valid phenomena, Cohen (2008) observed counter-global movements in the era of globalization that head to the opposite direction of cosmopolitanism and called such narrowing tendency as localism.

3.2. The Millennials and Identity

Generational theory, initiated by Mannheim (1952), and developed by theorists like Howe and Strauss (2000) and Huntley (2006), attempts to understand and characterize cohorts of people according to the generation they belong to, which is objectively assigned according to the year of birth. Assumption of the theory is that the shared experiences and social and economic conditions influence the cohorts of people in particular ways that shape their thinking, values and beliefs, forming the generational traits (Benckendorff, Moscardo, & Pendergast, 2010). Generations and generational units are informally defined by the press and media, demographers, popular culture, market researchers and by members of the generation and generational theorists generally agree with 20-22 years being the typical generational range(Benckendorff, Moscardo, & Pendergast, 2010).

The term Generation X, coined by Coupland (1991), is defined as the group of people who were born between the early 1960s and the middle of the 1970s and who seem to lack a sense of direction in life and to feel that they have no part to play in society, while Generation Y refers to the generation born in the 1980s and 1990s, comprising primarily the children of the baby boomers and typically perceived as increasingly familiar with digital and electronic technology (Oxford dictionary, 2020). Generation X refers to the generation after the Baby Boomers and the X stands for the namelessness of a generation different from Baby Boomers (Possamai, 2009). Generation Y is also called as dot.coms, the Millennials, the Net Generation or the Digital Generation (Benckendorff, Moscardo, & Pendergast, 2010; Possamai, 2009). Wyn and Woodman (2006) prefer to use the term post-1970 generation to include so-called generations X and Y because these groups differ clearly from the Baby Boomers in terms of social and cultural conditions. However, many have argued that the pattern of values, attitudes and behaviors has shown that Generation X and Y respond to many public and social arenas differently (Huntley, 2006; Wolburg & Pokrywczynski, 2001).

Many researches showed that generation Y represented distinct shift in life priorities from earlier members of the 1970s generation (Wolburg & Pokrywczynski, 2001). The previous 25-30 years have been a period of unprecedented transition from industrial economy to information-based economy and culture, from print-based to multi-mediated, digital approaches to communication effects of ICTs, globalization, and the emergence of the digital native (Paul, 2001). Huntley (2006) described generation X has more skeptical outlook than generation Y who tends to be more positive and open to many possibilities. Generation Y has the technological capability and personal capacity to participate virtually as global community members and regards itself as a participant of a global community to an extent unprecedented in generational traits (Benckendorff, Moscardo, & Pendergast, 2010). This paper termed generation Y as the Millennials because the notion is more widely used.

4. Hypothesis Development

This study proposed key factors affecting national identity of Korean diasporas including perceived relationship with host country and homeland, homeland experience, family education, Korean culture, Korean history, and Korean language. In addition, this study assumed that the variables affecting diasporas’ national identity also have a bearing on the overall life satisfaction of diasporic lives. Furthermore, this study also hypothesized that the development of national identity affects diasporas’ life satisfaction, desire to return home, and perception of unification. Previous studies have examined the issues and explored many aspects of satisfaction (Nguyen, Nguyen, Nguyen, Le, & Do, 2020; Phuong, Khuong, Phuc, & Dong, 2018) including culture (Paais & Pattiruhu, 2020).

4.1. Effects of Perceived Relationship with Host Country on Identity and Satisfaction

Although diasporas exhibit transnational identity (Clifford, 1994), they are also subject to power relations and tensions of host societies and homeland (Mavroudi, 2007). Cohen (2008) noted that social exclusion in the destination societies is one of the common marks of diaspora groups and ethnic discriminations are observed in a number of diaspora populations. Yoon (2003) described that despite the high rate of assimilation, the Korean diasporas in the CIS countries are significantly barred from many important socioeconomic positions of the host countries and such discrimination and exclusion ironically help them maintain strong ethnic identity. As Vertovec (1997) argued that diaspora consciousness is constituted negatively by experiences of discrimination and exclusion, the negative experiences of Korean diasporas in their host countries may enhance their ethnic awareness and exert negative influence on their diasporic lives. Based on the consideration, this study hypothesized the following.

H1a: Perceived relationship with host country affects the development of national identity of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

H1b: Perceived relationship with host country affects the overall life satisfaction of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

4.2. Effects of Perceived Relationship with Homeland on Identity and Satisfaction

Considering homeland as center and foreign regions as peripheral, Safran (1991) emphasized the paramount importance of homeland for diasporas. Safran (2004) also noted that homeland orientation is widely perceived to be the major element that distinguishes a diaspora from ordinary immigrant expatriate communities. Chander (2001) mentioned that homeland exerts a strong emotional pull on the diaspora. Anderson (1998) claimed that such emotional pull does not wane because of the distance when arguing for long-distance nationalism. Yoon (2003) explained the sense of belonging of Koreandiasporas in the CIS countries against the backdrop of exclusion and otherness in foreign lands. Vertovec (1997) claimed that diaspora consciousness is constituted positively by identification with historical heritage. Therefore, this study hypothesized the following.

H2a: Perceived relationship with homeland significantly affects the development of national identity of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

H2b: Perceived relationship with homeland significantly affects the overall life satisfaction of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

4.3. Effects of Homeland Experience on Identity and Satisfaction

Diaspora’s travel to their ancestral homelands can be understood as a search for their roots and an experience of the connection to their heritage of original belonging (Huang, Haller, & Ramshaw, 2013). Huang Haller, and Ramshaw(2013) also found that such travel to ancestral home arouse feeling at home in their country of origin and the length and frequency of the homecoming effectively affects the strength of such feeling. Similarly, Hughes and Allen (2010) noted that diaspora tourism were generated by a pull of homeland rather than a push from foreign country and the visits of diasporas have the effect of reinforcing a sense of identification with homeland. Iorio and Corsale (2013) addressed that diaspora’s visit to homeland plays a clear role in defining the meanings of homeland and reaffirming the sense of belonging to their homeland. Chang (2016) stated that visits of Korean diaspora with the motivation for relationship and search of identity generally showed more positive experience than otherwise. Based on the consideration, this study hypothesized the following.

H3a: Homeland experience affects the development of national identity of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

H3b: Homeland experience affects the overall life satisfaction of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

4.4. Effects of Family Education on Identity and Satisfaction

Para (2008) discussed that family interactions play a crucial role in identity development as it provides a foundation for one’s value and belief system in early age. Waterman (1993) also agreed that family factors are the primary influence on one’s initial stage of identity formation. More relevant to families in diaspora, Tsolidis (2011) noted that the family is a primary site where identities are mediated and negotiated between members, generations and places. As family plays a crucial role in identity development and is considered a primary place where diasporic identities are negotiated and mediated, this study hypothesized the following.

H4a: Family education affects the development of national identity of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

H4b: Family education affects the overall life satisfaction of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries

4.5. Effects of Korean Culture, Language, and History on Identity and Satisfaction

As Gupta and Ferguson (1997) noted, homeland serves as symbolic anchors and remains powerful unifying symbols for diasporas. Shared language and beliefs, and collective memories have critical importance in constructing identities of people in diaspora (Mavroudi, 2007). Cohen (2008) also claimed that bonds of language, religion, culture and a sense of common fate provide an affective, intimate quality that formal citizenship frequently lacks. In addition, language use is one of the highly observable marker(s) of group identity and prerequisite for the intergenerational maintenance of group identity (Smolicz, 1980). A collective memory and myth about the homeland (Safran, 1991) with intimacy of shared religion, language, and way of life (Cohen, 2008) produce comforting identity of people in diaspora. Based on the consideration, this study hypothesized the following.

H5a: Familiarity with Korean culture affects the development of national identity of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

H5b: Familiarity with Korean culture affects the overall life satisfaction of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

H6a: Fluency in Korean language affects the development of national identity of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

H6b: Fluency in Korean language affects the overall life satisfaction of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

H7a: Understanding of Korean history affects the development of national identity of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

H7b: Understanding of Korean history affects the overall life satisfaction of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

4.6. Effects of National Identity on Life Satisfaction

Anderson (1991) contended that the nation-ness commands a profound emotional legitimacy. If diasporas find themselves positively positioned in the history of their homeland, they can construct national identity in its positive meaning (Weedon, 2004). Moreover, diaspora consciousness is constituted negatively by experiences of discrimination and exclusion, and positively by identification with a historical heritage (Vertovec, 1997). Cohen (2008) also noted that extended family and identification with homeland brings warmth and comfort in the complex, uncertain, and even fearful world. Therefore, this study hypothesized the following.

H8: National identity significantly affects the overall life satisfaction of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

4.7. Effects of National Identity on Desire to Return Home

Safran (1991) claimed that for diasporas, homeland is considered a specific original center and they are dispersed to peripheral foreign places where the homeland is the true, ideal home and the place their descendants would (or should) eventually return–when conditions are appropriate. Cohen (2008) also observed that diasporas exhibit an idealization of the supposed ancestral home and a return movement or at least a continuing connection. Choi (2016) discussed the right of Korean diasporas to return home and highlighted the desire of Korean diasporas’ homecoming and its legal implications. Accordingly, this study hypothesized the following.

H9: National identity significantly affects the desire of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries to return home.

4.8. Effects of National Identity on Perception of Unification

One of the salient features of diasporas is that diasporas believe that they should collectively be committed to the maintenance, restoration, safety, and prosperity of their homeland, and their relationship with homeland critically defines their ethnocommunal consciousness and solidarity (Safran, 1991). Korean diasporas view unification of Korea more positively than the Koreans in South Korea (Huh, Cho, Cho, Kwon, & Bae, 2012). In this regard, this study hypothesized the following.

H10: National identity significantly affects the perception of unification of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries.

5. Methodology

Online survey was conducted among Korean diasporas in the CIS countries. The survey was distributed through social media. The survey was conducted from August to September of 2020 with 102 respondents of Korean diasporas from the CIS countries, most of whom from the Millennial generation. The questionnaire was prepared and distributed in English and Russian given that most of the Korean diasporas in the CIS countries speak Russian as first language. This study conducted back-translation to check reliability of the translated version. The survey first informed the respondents of the objectives of the study, and confidentiality and anonymity of the survey. The survey asked 61 questions in total, considering proposed variables and including demographic factors. The Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted for reliability check. Cronbach’s alpha values were over 0.6 including 0.862 for perceived relationship with host country, 0.845 for perceived relationship with homeland, 0.830 for homeland experience, 0.792 for Korean culture, 0.678 for Korean history, and 0.650 for national identity.

6. Data Analysis

6.1. Demographics

Of the 102 respondents, two-thirds were female and one-third were male. About 42% and 33% were in their twenties and thirties, respectively, together representing approximately 75% of the respondents. Given that the Millennials are now in their twenties and thirties, most of the respondents are likely from the Millennial generation. Approximately 52% were married and 38% single. 75% were third generation diasporas, 16% fourth generation, and less than 9% of respondents were first or second generation diasporas. 94% said both parents were of Korean ethnic and only 6% said only one of their parents were of Korean ethnic.

58% of the respondents were nationals of Uzbekistan, 12% were from Kyrgyzstan, and 11% from Kazakhstan and Russia. Current resident country distribution showed that more than 50% of the respondents are currently residing in South Korea, while 34% in Uzbekistan, 7% in Kazakhstan, 4% in Kyrgyzstan, and 2% in Russia. In regard to education level, respondents showed relatively higher educational achievement. Their occupation showed diverse patterns: 19% office worker, 13% student, 13% self-employed, and 14% with no regular jobs. 52% of the respondents answered their annual household income was USD10, 000 or lower, 24% between USD10, 001 and 20, 000, and only around 24% over USD20, 000. More than 50% of both fathers and mothers of the respondents had college degrees.52% said they had no religion, 42% Christianity, and only one respondent was Muslim. Table 1 summarizes demographics of the sample.

Table 1:Summary of Demographics

6.2. Hypothesis Testing

This study applied factor and regression analyses. For validity check of each construct, this study conducted factor analyses, using the principal component analyses as extraction method, and Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization. The outcomes of factor analysis positively appeared as the major model with Eigenvalues greater than 1.00.

Table 2 showed results of the factor analysis for variables including host country perception, homeland perception, homeland experience, and family education. This study also conducted correlation analyses. The results of correlation analyses showed values greater than 0.70 between independent variables and dependent variables.

Table 2:Component Matrix

The multiple regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses using the factor scores. The ANOVA result tells that the models were significant at 0.01 level with F = 4.032 (r-square = 0.232). As shown in Table 3, the results of regression analysis found that H1a and H3a were accepted. Perceived relationship with host country and homeland experience affect the national identity of diaspora. This study also confirmed that there are no multicollinearity.

Table 3:Effects of Variables on National Identity

*** p < 0.01, ** p <0.05, * p < 0.1

Table 4 summarizes another multiple regression analysis for the effects of variables on life satisfaction. The ANOVA result shows that the models were significant at 0.01 level with F= 4.016 (r-square = 0.164). As shown in Table 6, H1b and H3b were accepted at 0.01 level. Perceived relationship with host country and homeland experience significantly affect the life satisfaction of diaspora.

Table 4: Effects of Variables on Life Satisfaction

*** p < 0.01, ** p <0.05, * p < 0.1

Table 5 shows the results of regression analyses for the effects of national identity on life satisfaction and the effects of national identity on desire to return home and perception of unification. The ANOVA results showed that the models were significant at 0.01 level with F= 3.705, 114.444, and 2.489 (r-square = 0.037, 0.534, and 0.25) respectively. H8 and H9 were accepted at 0.1% and 0.01% each, while H10 was not accepted. In short, the effects of national identity on life satisfaction and desire to return home were significant, while the effect of national identity on perception of unification was not significant.

Table 5: Effects of National Identity on Life Satisfaction, Desire to Return Home, and Perception of Unification

*** p < 0.01, ** p <0.05, * p < 0.1

7. Conclusion

7.1. Key Findings

Previous studies rarely examined perspectives of the Millennial Korean diasporas in the CIS countries by applying quantitative analysis. This study examined the relationship between diasporic identity of the Millennial Korean diasporas in the CIS countries by exploring the relevant factors with identity construction. The results of the analysis suggest different set of factors affecting the diasporic thinking of the Millennials compared to whatare believed to be important factors in the development of diasporic identities. While most of the factors conventionally considered to be critical in identity formation of diasporas, such as perceived relationship with homeland, family education, and culture, history and language of ancestral home, the results do not appear to be significant in the case of Millennial Korean diasporas in the CIS countries. The unique characteristics of the Millennials and the long history of separation may explain the research outcomes. Because the Millennials are more individualistic, flexible, fast-paced, multicultural, play-oriented, and questioning of authority (Benckendorff, Moscardo, & Pendergast, 2010), the importance of skills, knowledge and emotional solidarity considered necessary to gain access to ethnocentric communities centered around the ideas of imagined, idealized and vague reality of ancestral home seems to reduce with this new generation. Moreover, such weakening power of conventional influences is accelerated by the time distance of this generation as they are now third-or fourth-generation away from their homeland. On the other hand, the relationship with their host countries and their visit to ancestral homeland are direct, live and real- time experiences, thus significantly affecting their identity construction and perception of life. Again, the generational gap between the Millennials and the previous generations is notable. Also, the Millennial diasporas in the CIS region are now more than one and a half century away from their national heritage, a time long enough to transform the entirety of diasporic patterns of life and ideas. Without considering such critically important generational difference and time passage, accurate and meaningful understanding of the diasporic perception and thinking of homeland becomes a naïve idea. It must be noted, however, despite their weakening influence over the new diaspora generation, the conventional factors relating to diasporas such as culture, language, and history of homeland still play important roles as can be understood in a number of empirical studies of diaspora. In fact, the survey result of this study also agreed with this view that most of the respondents had the strong wanting of developing such skills and knowledge, and over 90% of the respondents answered that acquiring good understanding of Korean culture, language and history is very important for their future career in homeland and desired homecoming.

This study observed that national identity of these diasporas significantly affects their life satisfaction and desire to return home. This implies that although the Millennials are more transnational and exhibit more flexible identities, the emotional pull and sense of belongings in regard to their homeland still remain an important factor in the quality of diasporic lives. Diasporas’ high level of identification with their homeland is found to have a significant bearing on their desire to return home. The negative experiences in host societies and the positive experiences in homeland seem to generate emotional push from host countries and pull toward homeland. On the other hand, however, as the Millennials are generally apolitical, enhanced national identity does not seem to have significant effect on their perception of unification of Korea. Most of the survey respondents did not necessarily find unified Korea more favorable than South Korea of current status. However, they still exhibited a very high level of unification perception compared to the South Korean cohorts that most of the respondents said that they would support the unification.

Additionally, this study examined if there are any differences in national identity and life satisfaction among different groups. For this purpose, ANOVA analysis was used to observe the differences between groups. According to the analysis, the mean of life satisfaction differed based on nationality, education level, and annual household income. In addition, the mean of national identity differed based on religion at the significant level of 0.05. Korean diasporas in different countries face varying degrees of discrimination and exclusion depending on the culture and immigration policy of the host country in which they are located. For example, Korean diasporas in Kazakhstan may experience little discrimination due to the multicultural policies of the country whereas Korean diasporas in Uzbekistan may feel that they are significantly marginalized due to strong nationalism and ethnocentric differentiation in the nation. In addition, factors that seemingly have heavy association with socioeconomic status or potential were found to be significantly affecting one’s perception of life. This may be true with other populations but these factors may be felt more important for the Millennial diasporas in the CIS countries given their uncertainty as diaspora and the uncertainty of our times.

7.2. Policy Considerations

The Millennial Korean diasporas in the CIS region suggest a previously less-considered productive population who possess multicultural and bilingual strengths with relatively high level of education. The results of this study implied that the Millennial Korean diasporas in the CIS region inherited the experiences of transition in economic and political systems in their host societies. The results of this study also implied that the Millennial Korean diasporas in the CIS region have desire to engage more with their homeland (over 79% of survey respondents said they would like to return to homeland for long-term or permanent residence, and over 90% said they would like to develop their career in homeland). Their importance as rich human resources increases considering the aging crisis of South Korea, desired regime transition of North Korea, and necessary growth of global economic and cultural Korean network in global age. In this context, this study highlights the paramount importance of understanding the characteristics of the Millennials in general and more particularly the Millennial diasporas in the CIS countries given the extended passage of time of separation. With the proper understanding of such, diaspora policies of the Korean government can be set in a right direction. As discussed earlier, two factors were found to have more significance in diaspora policies than others –diasporas’ relationship with host societies and homeland experience. While not reducing the importance of other factors, these two factors need to receive more policy attention.

Firstly, the Korean government can leverage its enhanced international influence over the CIS countries to alleviate the social discrimination and exclusion that Korean diasporas experience in the region. Secondly, the government can enrich the homecoming experience of the diasporas by reviewing and upgrading of current visit programs in terms of quality, design and opportunity with enhanced financial support. At the same time the government can also invest in adding more Korean-ness in the CIS region by reforming the current Korean culture and language center, and elevating its presence comparable to Korean Schools. Currently, Korean language and cultural centers provide programs centered mostly around Korean language, while Korean Schools offer regular curriculum that is almost identical to that of the public schoolsin Korea. This effort should consider the need and accessibility of Korean diasporas to the proposed programs. A good benchmark case can be found in Israel’s diaspora policy in its nation-building effort. The Development Corporation for Israel (DCI) established by the Israeli government in 1951 invested heavily in placing Israeli-presence across the Jewish diaspora communities around the globe, maintaining and enhancing the bond between diaspora communities and homeland (Ketkar & Ratha, 2010). Thirdly, more discourse and researches are needed in legal and historic review relating to the diasporas’ right to return home. The researches need to explain the legitimacy of their claim taking into account the unique diasporic history of Korea. At the same time, researches are necessary to suggest concrete policy measures to help prepare both diasporas and Korean population to make the return most profitable to both groups. Fourthly, unification discourses need to include the role and potential of the diasporas considering the unique strength and possible contribution they may offer. Through such effort, diasporas will be able to support the unification with their full capacity and be more positively positioned in the future of unified Korea.

7.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study primarily focuses on the Millennials of Korean diasporas in the CIS countries who are mostly third or fourth generation diasporas. Also, a significant number of survey respondents of the study currently reside in South Korea (51%) and a larger number of people had the experience in South Korea over one-year period (62%). Therefore, the sample population of the study may not well represent the general Millennial diaspora population in the CIS countries. Rather it exhibits the ideas of nation, identities, and relationship with homeland of the Millennial Korean diasporas who possess increased mobility and more experiences in homeland. Future study should increase the sample size. Future study might also consider more concrete policy measures based on the findings of this study. Possible areas of further research could be on issues relating to policy measures to alleviate the difficulties of diasporas in their host countries, support diasporas’ homeland experience and increased Korean-ness in the host societies, and prepare diasporas’ homecoming. Future study might include other aspects such as loyalty (Budi, Hidayat, & La, 2021; Lee, Ou, & Choi, 2021; Nguyen & Khoa, 2019; Shin, Hwang, Lee, & Cho, 2015), gender equality (Olga, Potluri, Gulfiya, & Aizhan, 2020), and trust (Cha & Seo, 2019).