I have long observed that in South Korea, people often tend to fall into an either/or trap, and thus divide everything into two opposite groups, such as good and evil, rich and poor, or win and lose. This includes the political arena: There are socialists and capitalists, progressives and conservatives, and patriots and traitors. Meanwhile, all those existing in the middle are completely ignored. It is no wonder that Korea has a reputation as a place where there is no middle ground.

In Chon Kwang-yong’s short story “Kapitan Lee,” we can see this phenomenon very distinctly. It is the story of Dr. Lee In-gook, a man who gets caught up in quite a few rapid and radical changes in Korean history, such as the Japanese occupation, Russian military rule in the North, and the institution of US military government in the South. Throughout the story, Dr. Lee tries hard to adapt to these wildly different situations and get along with the foreigners who rule Korea.

Many Koreans, especially in the older generation, would not hesitate to label Dr. Lee a “traitor” because he not only survives but even thrives while other people are suffering in the socio-political turmoil of Korea. In their black-and-white perception, Dr. Lee would be a chameleon-like opportunist who always adapts to the situation by serving different masters.

However, many foreign nationals and young Koreans are reluctant to accept such a monochromatic perception. Recently, I was one of the three judges for the 2025 Sejong Writing Competition sponsored by the Sejong Cultural Society in Chicago. The assigned short story for the essay contest for grades 9-12 was Chon Kwang-yong’s “Kapitan Lee.” Surprisingly, not a single contestant labeled Dr. Lee a traitor.

Instead, all the entries unanimously defended Dr. Lee, refusing to judge him with the black-and-white notion of good and evil because he was an unfortunate product of extraordinary circumstances in the turbulence of Korean history. One of them maintained, “Kapitan Lee was a mirror held up to history itself, revealing that the ones who survive are not always the noblest, but often the most adaptable.”

One contestant pointed out that Dr. Lee could not be called a conformist simply because he strived to learn the new languages of the rulers, such as Japanese, Russian and English, to “align himself with those in power.” Another contestant advocated for Lee, saying, “Dr. Lee resonated with the American ethos of self-reliance, individualism and pragmatism.”

A common thread across the different essays was the argument that we do not have the right to judge or blame Dr. Lee because we would have done the same thing if we had been in his shoes. The author of one entry brought up his grandfather, who, as a member of the riot police during Chun Doo-hwan’s dictatorship in the 1980s, “shot rubber bullets at college protestors and beat them with his baton.” He argued that there was no difference between Dr. Lee and his grandfather. If one of them was evil, so was the other.

When the Russian army ruled North Korea briefly after liberation, Dr. Lee sent his son to Moscow to study, thinking that Korea’s future must depend on Russia. In the contestants’ eyes, Dr. Lee was better than those who sent their children to the US to study while preaching anti-Americanism. In that sense, Dr. Lee was not a hypocrite, at least, despite his other controversial tendencies.

Another essay persuasively maintained, “Dr. Lee bends, twists and pirouettes through history, but he does not break. This resilience, while morally dubious, is still impressive.” Then, he continued, “Dr. Lee is a product of a world where morality is often a luxury, where survival is the only currency that truly matters. His existence challenges the idea of absolute virtue, exposing the crack in the black-and-white narratives in history.”

Another essay describes the dilemma as follows: “Kapitan Lee’s story is one of shifting identities and survival. His life is shaped by forces beyond his control. Each upheaval forced him to make difficult choices, often prioritizing pragmatism over principle. These decisions, however, are not rooted in ideology but in necessity.” He went on, “The tension between his actions and his inner doubts makes him one of literature’s most compelling figures, not because he is good or evil, but because he is, ultimately, human.”

It is true that Chon Kwang-yong wrote the story not to simply condemn Kapitan Lee as an opportunist, but to provide readers with an opportunity to ponder the issues of human nature, morality and survival amid political turmoil and historical turbulence. One of them wrote, “It challenges readers to consider how history judges individuals, urging them to reflect not only on the past but also on how they themselves might respond when faced with similar moral situations.”

Reading the story of Kapitan Lee, we realize that we should discard binary oppositions and embrace both/and perspectives instead. Then, surely our vision will become wider and more colorful.

Kim Seong-kon

Kim Seong-kon is a professor emeritus of English at Seoul National University and a visiting scholar at Dartmouth College. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. -- Ed.