[New Release] Kang Junman 'Shopping Is More Important Than Voting'

[Asia Economy Reporter Byunghee Park] Professor Kang Junman of the Department of Journalism and Broadcasting at Jeonbuk National University has published a new book titled Shopping Is More Important Than Voting.

Although Professor Kang is commonly known as a progressive intellectual, he has long been outspoken in his criticism of both conservatives and progressives.

In 2014, he published a book titled Rude Progressives, and in 2016, he criticized the progressive camp for turning political strife into a religious war. In 2017, he analyzed the journalism of Son Seokhee, JTBC’s president, who is regarded as one of the most trusted journalists in Korea.

Professor Kang’s stance remains consistent in Shopping Is More Important Than Voting. He questions why support for civic groups and media reform declined after the Moon Jae-in administration took office. Regarding the Cho Kuk minister incident, he points out that although Minister Cho resigned, President Moon did not apologize but instead expressed a tender sentiment toward Cho, thereby fueling the second “national opinion division war.”

In his new book, Professor Kang’s sharp insight and perspective continue to transcend fields and boundaries to penetrate society. The phrase Shopping Is More Important Than Voting implies that in a time when politics has become an object of distrust and hatred, political consumer movements can exert greater power to change the world.

Political consumer movements refer to political actions such as boycotting or buycotting, where consumption behavior is linked to consumers’ ideological, political, or ethical beliefs, leading to refusal or support of certain products. While general consumer movements focus on products and services and aim to raise awareness and resolve consumer harm, political consumer movements raise ideological, political, and ethical issues across a broad spectrum?from the production process of goods to the behavior of companies and managers?and “politicize” these issues.

Political consumer movements have already deeply penetrated our daily lives. Thanks to the social media revolution, we almost daily hear reputation-based stories about specific products, companies, or businesses. The fact that companies almost without exception proclaim “corporate social responsibility” themselves is a good indication of the influence of political consumer movements.

Consumers who value ideological, political, and ethical values are increasing day by day. Until now, “consumers” have been regarded as relatively selfish and inferior compared to “citizens,” but as political consumer movements spread, such distinctions are disappearing. Rather, more people are becoming aware of their civic identity through consumption behavior.

If political consumer movements expand, we may wield greater political power as consumers rather than as voters. In a situation where we are already armed with cynicism that voting is merely a formality and that elections do not change the world, it is difficult to exert power as voters.

Although political consumer movements have entered our daily lives, they are criticized by both the right and the left. The right criticizes them for disrupting market order and the possibility of political regulation of the market, while the left criticizes them as anti-political acts that weaken politics through neoliberal ideas.

Professor Kang argues that political consumer movements are neither anti-capitalist nor neoliberal movements and that their essence cannot be understood through existing dichotomies. He also emphasizes that while political consumer movements are critical of current market capitalism, they seek reform rather than revolution to replace capitalism with something else.

Professor Kang claims that in situations where corporations, governments, politics, and the media commit or overlook wrongdoing, political consumer movements are inevitably the last resort. He also stresses that the driving force behind political consumer movements is so-called “inclusive individualism” and the “power of weak ties,” which are individualistic yet do not reject solidarity.

(Written by Kang Junman / Inmulgwa Sasangsa)