18
hybridity are taking their place. In this way, identities move contradictorily between
‘tradition’ and ‘translation.’ Yoo was once considered to be a “translator”, but he was
eventually “translated” by a bigger power force—the government and nationalism.
Cultural mobility seems very plural thanks to globalization, but political mobility is still
heavily limited.
Regulating and controlling mobility is a crucial element in maintaining national
culture, because modern nation states are established on their abilities to define
themselves against ‘Others.’ Defining ‘otherness’ is not just about control over the
formulation of representations: the ability to determine differences of identity between
people also resides in power over military, economic and legal sources, for example, in
the case of laws and rights pertaining to immigrants (Kennedy, 2001). Because identity
involves a common history, not a common origin, there always is one and another
translation within identity, and the translation makes a certain difference stand out in a
certain historical and cultural condition. Therefore, the scene of difference is not pure
‘otherness’, but a discursive power or knowledge that anchors a certain difference as
otherness. Depending on how these different power centers have their dynamics with
each other, construction of identity (points of identification) can be won or lost (Hall,
1996b). This point of identification, therefore, becomes politicized. In the case of Yoo, he
won his culturally multiple identities with a help of national cultural industry, but lost his
political identity by national political power. It was not a battle between global media
industry and local political powers, and yet it was not a simple domestic affair either. The
cultural and political power games around Yoo exemplify the ways in which ‘otherness’
is even constructed from inside under the influence of globalization. The consequence of
Convention