[Culture Op-Ed] Should Celebrities, as Public Figures, Face Limits Even in Their Private Lives?

These days, the debate has cooled somewhat, but not because any real “social consensus” has been reached. The same arguments have simply been repeated over and over without conclusion, until everyone grew tired and more or less let it slide. But if some unavoidable trigger arises again, it is obvious the issue will flare up all over as if nothing had changed.

Let us first look at where this “entertainers = public figures” logic began. In his book *The Media and Public Figures*, Lee Jaejin, a professor in the Department of Media and Communication at Hanyang University, explains the trajectory as follows.

“Until the 1980s, the concept of a public figure did not include popular stars such as entertainers or athletes. (omitted) What is most notable about the term ‘public figure’ as it appeared in the media in the 1990s is the rapid expansion of its meaning. Before that, the label was attached to public officials and politicians depending on how public the nature of their work was, but after 1990 that practice began to change significantly.”

That is certainly true. Up through the 1980s, in practical terms, the very concept of a “public figure” was rarely used as a standard for evaluating a person’s morality or restricting that person’s behavior. Those who were originally within the concept’s narrow scope, such as civil servants, already had the character *gong* (公), meaning “public,” built into their very title, so there was little need to label them separately. In effect, the concept was created in order to place “others” into a category of behavioral restriction comparable to that applied to civil servants. One interpretation of this is that it was “a concept that emerged as a political weapon to attack politically connected individuals across various private-sector professions such as professors and lawyers” (Lee Jeonghun, former secretary-general of the Korea Association of Telecommunications Reporters). Professor Lee Jaejin describes what happened next as follows.

“After the 1990s, the standard for public figures broadened from the ‘nature of one’s work’ to the ‘prominence of one’s name,’ but social expectations of ‘public figures’ did not change much from before. In one interview, when asked how he had managed to avoid a single scandal despite a long acting career, one TV actor replied, ‘From the standpoint of a public figure, I have lived by giving up many things and enduring much’ (*Segye Ilbo*, 1999.12.10). Likewise, in connection with the issue of many famous singers driving around without license plates, a newspaper article quoted a veteran singer as saying, ‘There may be difficulties, but one must show the attitude befitting a public figure for fans’ love to continue’ (*Seoul Shinmun*, 1999.10.20). This also shows that the attitude society demands of entertainers as public figures is not fundamentally different from what it traditionally demands of public figures, namely public officials and the like. (omitted) In this way, the media began to show a tendency to construct the meaning of a public person based on personal ‘recognizability’ and ‘social influence.’”

There are two key points to note here. First, the idea that “entertainers = public figures” seems to have taken root around 1999. Second, and interestingly, entertainers themselves were calling themselves public figures and, again of their own accord, accepting restrictions on their behavior. This stood in striking contrast to people in other professions at the time, such as professors and lawyers, who responded to media demands for accountability as public figures by arguing that they were plainly private individuals because they held no public office. On this point, Seo Byungki, a pop culture reporter for *Herald Business*, interprets it this way: because entertainers’ social status was still low at the time, they came to accept the media’s treatment of them as people in the same category as public officials, even if that meant accepting strict behavioral constraints. In other words, it was a gag they put on themselves.

As entertainers’ social status rose, entertainers themselves began denying that they were “public figures”

In the 2000s, the “entertainers = public figures” theory effectively entered a stage of general acceptance. Above all, entertainers themselves endorsed it and even welcomed it, so this was only natural. But around 2010, entertainers finally began to express discomfort with it.

A key early example appeared in 2009. Singer Rain, appearing on MBC Every1’s *Shin Haechul’s Special Edition*, discussed the role of entertainers and remarked, “I do not think entertainers are public figures. I wish people would just see entertainers as entertainers.” Shin Haechul, who hosted the program, responded, “Public figures are those entrusted by the state with grave responsibilities. In the case of entertainers, it is more accurate to call them private individuals, not public figures.”

After that, the “entertainers = public figures” theory was subjected to countless attacks and denials, mainly from the entertainers’ side. The context for this sudden shift becomes easier to understand if we consider it together with reporter Seo Byungki’s interpretation above. In the 2000s, entertainers’ social standing rose to a completely different level than before. This became especially true as the Korean Wave exploded in the 2000s, bringing global popularity and enormous income to entertainers across nearly every corner of popular culture.

Entertainers began to be seen as “the pride of the nation.” State institutions, including the Blue House, were eager to invite them, and public agencies routinely showered them with plaques and awards. Universities tried hard to book celebrity lectures, and local governments did the same. As a result, becoming an entertainer never dropped from the list of top dream careers among teenagers. The reason was obvious: entertainers could earn enormous sums, receive social recognition, and, above all, enjoy tremendous status on a global stage.

As that happened, entertainers no longer needed the status of “public figure.” Rather, by around 2010, the reality that their every move was watched and criticized had begun to feel burdensome. Once the benefits of “status elevation” disappeared, all that remained was restriction. From around this point onward, the “entertainers = public figures” debate became an almost annual fixture in the popular culture world.

What about now? As mentioned at the outset, no real conclusion has emerged even today. The issue merely comes up less often because it has been repeated so many times. For example, in the April 8, 2019 Op-Ed “Are Entertainers or Celebrities Public Figures?” in *Kyunghyang Shinmun*, Ha Taehoon, a professor at Korea University Law School, explained, “Then who is a public figure? Traditionally, giving weight to the dictionary meaning, the term referred to high-ranking public officials. It gradually broadened to include prominent people as well.” Yet he also stated, “It is problematic to include famous individuals in the category of public figures based on their prominence as newsworthy subjects or the frequency of their media exposure.” In other words, his position amounted to: this is how things stand now, but there are problems with it.

The National Institute of Korean Language is much the same. It has effectively given up on offering a clear interpretation. It explains, “According to the current definition in the *Standard Korean Language Dictionary*, religious figures, entertainers, and athletes with great social influence cannot be included in the category of ‘public figures.’ (omitted) The *Yonsei Modern Korean Dictionary*, however, presents as the second definition of ‘public figure’ ‘a famous person who has great influence on society as a whole,’” and then ends its explanation after presenting examples of both interpretations.

The overseas concept of “public figure” is completely different from Korea’s “gongin”

In fact, any fundamental interpretation of this issue must address overseas examples. The Korean term *gongin* was originally coined as a literal translation of the Anglo-American term “public figure.” But “public figure” is used differently from Korea’s *gongin*. If one looks at dictionary definitions, “public figure” is mainly a concept applied in relation to the press. That is, it refers to people who have difficulty objecting when part of their private lives is exposed by the media. Even if they are merely “celebrities,” public interest in their lives and the demand for information about them are understood as partly consistent with the role of the press, so some exposure of their private lives by the media is seen as unavoidable.

Naturally, this is different from Korea, where “social responsibility” is also demanded of them. In places such as the United States, only the concept of “celebrity” is applied to popular stars such as entertainers. They are simply well-known individuals, and strictly speaking, since they live off popular support in a private market, their conduct is judged by the “market’s judgment” of them. In other words, if their private lives are disorderly or they make controversial remarks and end up on the media chopping block, the consuming public delivers its “judgment” in the market for their work. Beyond that, no special social responsibility can be demanded of them. That is the basic principle.

Of course, there are entertainers overseas who do speak of entertainers’ “social responsibility” in relation to their private lives. Representative examples include Hollywood actress Brooke Shields and singer Britney Spears, both of whom long emphasized their virginity. Of course, their claims were eventually revealed to be false through their own admissions, but they generally explained themselves by saying things like, “I lied because I knew I could be a role model for young girls.”

This is the position that even those who are merely celebrities may still need to bear some social responsibility because their social influence is so large. The media generally interpret such cases simply as lies chosen for the sake of image-making, but still acknowledge that such a position can exist.

The important point is that society and the press do not force that responsibility on them. Such matters are left to individual judgment, and each person’s intention is respected. Those who feel they have social responsibility and voluntarily accept behavioral restraints as so-called public figures are respected for that, but the views of those who do not believe they bear any such special responsibility are respected as well. Strictly speaking, this is a matter of personal philosophy, so differing positions are accepted as legitimate. Indeed, even entertainers who speak of entertainers’ social responsibility do not necessarily argue that other entertainers should bear the same responsibility. For them, it is only “their own philosophy.”

The problem is that Korea does not have much of an atmosphere for this kind of situation to emerge. The Hollywood examples above are deeply individualistic in outlook. They respect the individual’s wishes and do not seek to broaden the scope of social responsibility. Korea, however, still has a strong collectivist-totalistic social and cultural atmosphere. It is not easy for interpretations like “it differs from person to person” to take hold. There must be one clearly established rule, and everyone must follow it.

That is why the “entertainers = public figures” controversy keeps resurfacing every two or three years. The idea that this is merely a matter of “individual philosophy,” and that people may think differently about it, is hardly even raised. Instead, people themselves create a totalistic atmosphere in which one society must have one clear and unmistakable rule, and no one may deviate from it. Ultimately, this means that the circumstances seen in the United States and other advanced countries with a distinctly individualistic socio-cultural atmosphere are difficult to reproduce as they are in Korea.

A society that makes “envy” the basis of social rules is bound to collapse

Finally, let us examine how the Korean public views the “entertainers = public figures” theory. The Korean public tends, surprisingly, to accept this logic quite comfortably. Even when controversy arises, objections tend to come only from the entertainer’s fandom, while the general public not directly connected to the matter mostly supports the idea that entertainers are public figures.

The reason is simple. In Korea, entertainers are seen as people who “have too much.” They are fully part of the entrenched elite. As mentioned earlier, especially after the explosion of the Korean Wave, many of them began earning enormous wealth rivaling that of major corporate owners. They also attained social status to the point that political circles, desperate for publicity, scramble to invite them to events and offer them seats of honor. In the case of sports stars, military service can even be exempted under certain conditions, and now similar arguments are being extended to various entertainers who have “made the nation proud.” Above all, in a society so obsessed with appearance as ours, they possess even the power of looks that everyone desires. In some sense, they are close to being a privileged class “beyond” the existing political and economic establishment.

The public’s instinct to keep this “privileged class beyond the privileged class”—this so-called “new elite”—in check is what won support for the logic that “entertainers = public figures.” Since they have so much, the argument goes, they should be made to bear a corresponding “burden.” It is a punitive logic: not that there is any special principled reason why this must be so, but rather that an aggressive impulse rooted in envy has bundled together various arguments and given them concrete form.

This is, of course, a dangerous idea. A society that makes “envy” one of the rules and driving forces of social life is always doomed to collapse. As history shows, successful societies are always those that move to secure more freedom. A mentality of revenge born of envy, and a psychology of enforced equality, inevitably lead to a society in which everyone is oppressed, restricted, and unable to move. If one tries to soothe the pain of jealousy and envy by oppressing others, the same arrow will eventually turn back on oneself. Conversely, only by protecting others’ freedom can one’s own freedom also be protected.

Yet Korean society, whatever the case, seems increasingly eager to suppress various people and load them with burdens under the concept of “public figures,” all on the basis of this envy. By now, even the families of major conglomerate chairmen are naturally referred to as “public figures.” Not because there is any compelling justification for doing so. They are not even publicly famous enough to fit the concepts of either “celebrity” or “public figure,” yet they are still unconditionally treated as “public figures,” simply because they belong to the owner family of a “famous company.” From there comes the absurd and nonsensical logic that they must therefore bear a corresponding level of social responsibility. At that point, this is no longer a game of logic at all. It is naked retaliation.

In any case, entertainers now seem to understand this public psychology to some degree. They no longer publicly say things like Rain or Shin Haechul did—that “entertainers cannot be regarded as public figures.” They have realized that doing so only provokes public resentment that previously did not exist. At the same time, once they rise to a certain level of stardom, making “donations” to various charities has come to operate as an unwritten rule of so-called self-management. It would be one thing if only they chose to act that way themselves, but the public also constantly pressures them in that direction. Once someone becomes fairly famous, comments explode across portal sites saying, “You make that much money and still do not donate?” The atmosphere is already far from normal.

Seen in this light, entertainers may actually be regarded not as a “privileged class” but in some respects as the vulnerable party. If they do not simply accept at face value the many justifications concocted out of envy, they face endless attacks and serious harm to their future career and income. They are expected to donate if told to donate, and even their dating and marriage become matters for public interference. Unless one truly believes there is real merit in such a state of affairs, the Korean public would do well to discard the “entertainers = public figures” theory themselves.

---

Original title: [문화칼럼] 연예인은 공인이므로 사생활에도 제약이 따라야 한다?

Author: Mun-won Lee

Date: 2020-01-16

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=column&pn=10&idx=22296