During a lunch meeting with religious leaders at Cheong Wa Dae recently, President Lee Jae Myung stressed that social harmony had become an urgent priority for South Korea. He noted that conflict, resentment and hatred have grown sharply in recent years, pledging to work toward a situation where people can live together through reconciliation, forgiveness and inclusion.

His remarks deserve close attention because they identify one of the most critical challenges facing the country and point to a reasonable direction for the future. The weight of his words is even greater given his experience. Since the inauguration of the Yoon Suk Yeol administration in May 2022, Lee has been widely viewed as a target of political retaliation carried out through prosecutorial investigations. He also survived a political terror attack in which he nearly lost his life. His call for unity therefore carries credibility.

Still, the reality of Korea in 2026 makes national unity an exceptionally difficult task. Lee’s own admission reflects this reality. Yet national unity should not be dismissed as a naive aspiration. It remains an achievable goal, if Korea is willing to diagnose the causes of division with clarity.

The first step is to understand why division has occurred. Many people point to “political polarization” and end the discussion by condemning politicians.

But polarization is a symptom, not the root cause. The problem has grown more acute as economic anxiety deepens and social media amplifies outrage faster than compromise. The deeper causes lie in ideological confusion operating at multiple levels of society. At the international level, the negative effects of neoliberalism matter. At the regional level, the division of the Korean Peninsula continues to generate conflict. At the national level, confusion over Korea’s traditional moral and intellectual heritage has also played a role.

Neoliberalism became the dominant philosophy of the post-Cold War order after 1991, when the United States emerged as the sole superpower. Built on the belief that market competition produces efficiency and innovation, it encouraged deregulation so that capital, goods and labor could move as freely as possible in a globalizing world.

Although neoliberalism originated in economic policy, it reshaped society as well. Competition and performance became social norms even in public institutions and individual success was increasingly treated as the primary measure of value. In the process, selfishness was repackaged as “competitiveness.”

As globalization reduced the sense of external threats, societies also lost part of the mindset that individuals should restrain their interests for the sake of collective survival.

A second factor is Korea’s national division. The separation of South and North Korea in 1945 has continued to produce national tragedies — and one of its consequences is extreme polarization.

During the Cold War era, North Korea was the greatest security threat, and paradoxically that threat functioned as a source of cohesion in the South. After the Cold War, however, North Korea evolved into an impoverished, nuclear-armed state. South Korea then grew sharply divided over how to respond.

One camp argues that because North Korea remains a grave threat, Seoul must apply maximum pressure and ultimately pursue unification through regime collapse. Another camp believes that dialogue and negotiation are more effective. Politicians intensify this divide by taking hard-line positions to mobilize supporters and strengthen their political identity. It is electorally useful but socially destructive. The division issue becomes a weapon in domestic politics, and the public pays the cost.

A third factor is the weakening of Korea’s traditional ethical foundation, especially the “seonbi” spirit. The seonbi were Korea’s traditional scholar-gentlemen, an elite expected to combine learning with public responsibility. Korea’s political identity took a more unified shape in the late seventh century, when the Silla Kingdom unified the peninsula by defeating the Goguryeo and Baekje kingdoms with Tang China’s support. Over the centuries, dynasties changed and institutions evolved, but Korea maintained strong continuity. That continuity was supported not only by statecraft and geography, but also by culture and tradition.

Korea’s geopolitical conditions made seonbi spirit valuable. Under repeated external threats from Chinese dynasties or Northern nomadic countries, Korean communities believed that principled leadership was essential to preserve autonomy. However, the seonbi tradition suffered severe damage in the early 20th century as Japan infringed Korea’s sovereignty.

Even after liberation in 1945, the legacy of colonial narratives remained, and the seonbi spirit was never fully restored. It survived only in partial form.

Korea kept a strong respect for education and intellectual achievement, and that contributed to its dramatic development. But the central idea of public responsibility was weakened. As a result, the country has sometimes witnessed the rise of elites who enjoy privilege without a sense of responsibility.

If the causes are correctly identified, solutions can be designed. The negative effects of neoliberalism can be mitigated through partial correction. Korea should preserve the benefits of competition while limiting the ideology of limitless self-interest. Stronger safety nets and social protections are needed for those who fall behind.

Polarization driven by the division issue can also be reduced. Because inter-Korean relations can split society, political leaders should build a bipartisan framework that keeps the issue from becoming fuel for domestic warfare. Korea needs both formal and informal norms discouraging politicians from exploiting the North-South issue for political gain.

Confusion over the seonbi spirit can be addressed through education. Korea should invest in research to rebuild foundational knowledge, then encourage leading scholars to define its core values in modern terms. These principles should be reflected in textbooks, civic education and training programs.

None of these tasks is easy. But abandoning them will not solve anything.

Once the first step is taken, progress can accelerate because the challenges are interconnected. In the end, the decisive factor is presidential will and policy choices. Since the president has already recognized the importance of unity, there is reason for cautious optimism.

National unity can be pursued not as a slogan, but as a practical national project.

Wang Son-taek

Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. He is a former diplomatic correspondent at YTN and a former research associate at Yeosijae. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.

khnews@heraldcorp.com