Coming-Out in the Intersections: Examining Relationality in How Korean Gay Men in Seattle Navigate Church, Culture and Family through a Pacific Lens

Transnational Interest Convergence and Global Korea at the Edge of Race and Queer Experiences

“…This volume attends to “pervasive forms of ‘queer blindness’ that surround the peninsula and its inhabitants” (Henry 2020, p. 8). This critique speaks to consistent criticism by scholars in Korean queer studies that the queer subject has been discursively erased from Korean national historiographies (Henry 2018, 2020; Seo 2001; Thomsen 2018). Dongjin Seo (2001) attributes this to the process of “orientalizing from within,” arguing this erasure serves specific biopolitical purposes to ensure the reproduction of the heteronormative Korean nation.…”

“…I argue that PRM promotes relational understanding between researcher and participant, and in a case like Korea, also means research interactions between researcher and participants take place beyond Western eyes (Thomsen 2019). These interactions are situated epistemologically and paradigmatically on the edges of cross-cultural encounters (Teaiwa 2001).…”

“…There is myself and yourself, through myself, you are given primacy in light of our collective identity (Tamasese et al, 2005). Therefore, in social research, the vā precipitates an understanding that the knowledge being generated is co-constructed in a shared space held by both the researcher and participant, not just observationally excavated (Thomsen 2019). Unlike conventional ethnography, PRM acknowledges relationality between multiple parts of a researchers’ positionalities and that of participants as a site of knowledge generation (Naepi 2019).…”

“…In Japan and Thailand, a body of literature is emerging at the intersections of racialized desires, queerness, and notions of inter-Asia queer mobilities (Baudinette 2016; Kang 2017; Mackintosh 2010). Korean scholarship in queer studies, in contrast, has focused on mapping queer identities, (in)visibility, and the multiple ways they are imbricated/excluded within South Korean social, religious, state, and family institutions (for example: Bong 2008; Cho and Sohn, 2016; Henry 2020; Kim and Hong, 2007; Kim and Hahn, 2006; Lim and Johnson, 2001; Seo 2001; Thomsen 2018; Um et al, 2016). Therefore, I find it a necessary exercise to briefly review relevant literature on race/racialization in Korea and relevant queer scholarship on Korea and draw insights from existing scholarship in Asia that locates itself at the intersections of race and queerness.…”

“…Following this, the themes were contextually placed against existing literature that looks at race/racialization and foreigners in South Korea as well as literature on queer Asia and my interpretations as researcher. What follows is what I term a thematic talanoa (Thomsen 2019, Thomsen et al, in press) that allows the voices of participants to be centered in the pages, whilst analyses and theory is built around them. I argue that this approach was appropriate in that my open sharing of my own culture, worldview, experiences, and stories of living abroad in Korea for nearly a decade, in the U.S., and in my home countries is what led participants to feel comfort in sharing deeply and directly.…”