Because, an Hankyoreh Op-ed/Column Series December 2, 2024

Revisiting the “Role of Fathers” through the Jung Parenthood Controversy

by Hee Jung Kwon
Director, Unwed Mothers Initiative for Archiving and Advocacy (UMI4AA)

The recent public discourse surrounding South Korean actor Woo-sung Jung’s “child born out of wedlock” has reignited debates about family, sparking polarized views ranging from “We must embrace new family forms” to “That’s not a family—children should live with both parents.” A prominent opposition party member even remarked, “Korea’s Confucian traditions remain strong; such changes will not come easily.” The debate, however, seems bogged down due to misconceptions or false assumptions about tradition, marriage, and family. 

The image of 'the family' as a legally married heterosexual couple raising children is a distinctly modern construct. In traditional Confucian societies, a family was defined as a single father, multiple mothers, and their children. During the Joseon Dynasty, aristocratic families adhered to Zhu Xi’s Family Rituals as the cornerstone of domestic practices. In Confucian society, formal mourning periods were designated for eight types of mothers (palmo, 八母) upon their passing, including the jeokmo (嫡母), the father’s primary wife; the seo-mo (庶母), concubines who bore sons; and the chulmo (出母), mothers who had been expelled from the family. While distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate offspring existed, it is historically inaccurate to claim that raising children outside formal marriage contradicted Confucian norms. 

It was not Confucian tradition but the early 20th century that stigmatized extramarital relationships and suppressed “out-of-wedlock births”' The rise of the bourgeois ideal of a hardworking, morally upright family became the societal aspiration. Eugenicists of the 19th century evolved into defenders of marriage and family in the 20th century, championing bans on extramarital sex under the guise of improving race and advocating sterilization for individuals with disabilities. Children born out of wedlock, unmarried mothers, and individuals with disabilities were systematically excluded from the definition of family. This marked the emergence of the modern “normal family.” By the 1930s, the birthplace of eugenics, Britain, saw the emergence of the “Ideal Home Exhibition,” alongside the establishment of organizations such as the “Marriage Guidance Council” and the “Marriage Guidance Sub-committee.” This newly constructed family model of the early 20th century continues to be regarded as the most moral, ideal, and complete form of family life. However, this perception is nothing more than a eugenic misunderstanding of what constitutes a “family.” 

Another glaring issue in the Jung controversy is the absence of meaningful discussion about the role of fathers—both historically and moving forward. Some exemplary fathers embrace their responsibilities, such as single fathers raising children born from non-marital relationships, fathers raising stepchildren, or those who adopt. But far too many men shirk these responsibilities. Behind the stories of mothers abandoning children at baby boxes or relinquishing them for adoption are absent fathers who failed to step up. 

Since the founding of the Republic of Korea, a staggering number of children, estimated at over 160,000, have been sent abroad for adoption. When accounting for children adopted through informal channels, those placed in domestic adoptions (within South Korea), and infants left in baby boxes, the numbers become even more significant. At the same time, the struggles of unwed or divorced single-parenting mothers and women, who serve as sole providers while often receiving no child support, remain an ongoing and pressing issue.

Jung’s story offers an opportunity for our society to begin earnest discussions about new family forms and the roles within them. Above all, it is crucial to reframe societal understanding of parenting responsibilities as shared equally by both fathers and mothers, irrespective of marital status. While it is ideal for parents to cohabit and raise children together, fulfilling the obligations and responsibilities toward a child born as a result of their actions is equally meaningful, regardless of whether they are legally married. It is essential to ensure that children are not caught in the crossfire of their parents' relationships or personal choices. Significant progress has been made in many Western contexts in discussions about co-parenting arrangements between non-married parents. Perhaps it is time for our society to evolve toward a similarly inclusive vision of family.

----------------------------------------------------------------- 

This column, written by Hee Jung Kwon, director of UMI4AA, was adapted from an article published on Hankyoreh on December 2, 2024

The English translation of this article is provided by UMI4AA.