Can American desirability lead to Korean disloyalty?

Youtube as a channel almost mirrors most, if not all, of what K-pop stands for — the visuality of music. It’s a medium that has contributed to the enhanced popularity of the transnational media culture that was produced in a non-Western nation. With this growing popularity, I understand there are certain aspects to this recognition and desirability that may be a cause of concern.

When the K-pop artists are brought to a western audience and attempted to be made famous in the global market, a variety of actions are taken (Ono & Kwon, 206). Foreign members are introduced to the group, foreign language is taught, and much more. As for the songs, there is the inclusion of more American lyrics, i.e. doing more of what the American audience likes to see, and this may not always be great because in the process, the origin of musical style “loses significance within reciprocal processes of cultural exchange” (203). In contrast, as Dr. Crystal Anderson stressed during class, when Beyonce goes to Korea, she doesn’t put in as much effort; she just performs, hops on a plane and is on her way back to America when finished. Easy access is key here. Given the Korean government had so many restrictions in the past but now has altered those policies and given artists more agency and lesser limitations, K-pop groups are moving more rapidly towards the western sphere and trying to find and fit into the colonial space to reach a global audience. What does it then mean for authenticity and loyalty of K-pop artists to their origin brand? Can it put at risk and increase the possibility of these artists who are now exposed to international fame, money, and recognition, to partially betray their own and strive to appeal more specifically to the American audience over the Korean?

Youtube does indeed have a big part to play in the virality of K-Pop worldwide and the globalization of the culture. As Hyun mentions, “concatenation of cultures, is part of the Korean Wave, a result of globalization processes” (202). The colonial processes then become quite complex and tangled. I find it then fair to agree with Ono & Kwon in that, “..the border between worlding and un-worlding diminishes, or at least, the meanings become more blurred, as possibilities for shifting power relations and social positions emerge” (211).

According to Ono and Kwon, “Unlike traditional media Youtube does not work without “you”, people to upload videos, view them, offer comments, and read those comments” (208). In that way, could we say that Ono and Kwon are somewhat aligned with the ideology Fiske grounds about the cultural industry — of the consumer, i.e. the “you” having more control than the producer? Could Youtube be an example Fiske could use to support his argument? Or, would Adorno still be right in his stance given at the end of the day it still is the producer who’s putting out the content the consumer is allowed to consume? As Spivak stated, this “might be an imperial process of imperially reinscribing imperial culture into the “Third World” contexts in order to legitimize imperial dominance”, however, it has helped. In that case, the current popularity of K-pop culture might really be an example of a hybrid colonial form that both worlds and un-worlds culture.