Why names matter in politics and identity

Home > Opinion > Columns

Why names matter in politics and identity

Published: 30 Apr. 2026, 00:01

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Yeh Young-june

The author is the head of the editorial board at the JoongAng Ilbo.

President Lee Jae Myung recently said he watched the film “My Name Is,” which portrays the unhealed trauma of the Jeju April 3 Uprising. The story follows an older woman who, having lost all memory before the age of 8 due to that trauma, has lived her entire life under a different name and begins searching for her original identity buried deep in her memory. The director’s decision to place “name” at the center of both the story and its title reflects a broader truth: A name carries the weight of a life and symbolizes an identity that cannot be replaced.

Kim Nam-jung, vice minister of unification, speaks at a special academic conference hosted by the Korean Political Science Association at the Press Center in Jung District, central Seoul, on April 29. The conference was held under the theme “Naming for peaceful coexistence: North Korea or Joseon.” [YONHAP]

This principle extends beyond individual lives. Naming others or objects reflects one’s perception, but it also works in reverse. Once a name is assigned, it shapes perception and eventually guides behavior. The Korean poet Kim Chun-soo captured this idea in a well-known line: “When I called his name, he came to me and became a flower.” Cognitive psychologists describe a similar phenomenon as the framing effect, showing through repeated experiments that people’s choices and actions differ depending on how the same information is presented.

President Lee Jae Myung, left, smiles at remarks by Unification Minister Chung Dong-young during a Cabinet meeting at the presidential office in Yongsan District, central Seoul, on Sept. 2, 2025. [YONHAP]

Against this backdrop, a recent academic conference raised questions about naming in inter-Korean relations. Titled “Naming for peaceful coexistence: North Korea or Joseon" — “Joseon” being Pyongyang’s own term for the state — the event was hosted by the Korean Political Science Association, with support from the Ministry of Unification. Officials explained that the forum aimed to gather academic views after Minister Chung Dong-young suggested using the term “Korea-Joseon relations” instead of the commonly used “inter-Korean relations.”

Although described as a platform for public discussion, the presentations reportedly leaned in one direction, emphasizing that changing terminology would be acceptable or even necessary. This raises questions about whether the process is genuinely open-ended or part of a broader effort to build consensus around a predetermined conclusion.

Supporters of renaming argue from a pragmatic standpoint. North Korea is a member of the United Nations and is treated as a sovereign state in the international community. From this perspective, using its official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, appears consistent with international practice. When U.S. officials, including U.S. President Donald Trump, use the initialism "DPRK," it carries little more than formal recognition. The implications differ, however, when the same terminology is adopted by South Korea itself.

South Korea's Constitution states that the national territory includes the entire Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands. It also defines peaceful unification based on a free democratic order as a fundamental national objective. The 1992 Basic Agreement between the two Koreas describes their relationship not as one between two separate states but as a special, interim arrangement formed in the course of pursuing unification. This formulation has been maintained across administrations and has guided inter-Korean agreements for decades.

Changing how North Korea is named could therefore raise questions about consistency with this legal and political framework. Even setting aside constitutional concerns, such a potential shift could undermine the principles that have shaped inter-Korean relations for more than 30 years. If altering that foundation is not the intention, it is unclear why the issue is being raised now.

Some argue that since the North has begun referring to the South by its official name rather than “South Joseon,” reciprocity can be justified. However, Pyongyang’s change is not necessarily rooted in goodwill. It is often framed within what it calls a “two-state theory,” which emphasizes division and hostility. Simply adopting a different name is unlikely to produce a sudden improvement in relations.

Kim Jong-un attends an expanded plenary meeting of the ninth session of the eighth Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea at the party headquarters in Pyongyang, North Korea, on Dec. 26, 2023, according to a report by Korean Central Television the following day. At the meeting, Kim said inter-Korean relations had “completely hardened into relations between two hostile states and two belligerents at war, no longer those of the same people or a shared community.” [KOREAN CENTRAL TELEVISION CAPTURE]

There was a time when inter-Korean exchanges were more active, and participants used neutral expressions such as “the South” and “the North” to avoid unnecessary friction. Recalling that period should not obscure current realities. The timing of the current debate also raises questions. If Seoul had raised the issue of changing terminology before Pyongyang formalized its two-state theory, it would not have risked being misunderstood as following the North’s position. As things stand now, however, any such move is likely to be seen as aligning with Pyongyang’s approach.

The importance of correct naming has long been emphasized in Confucian thought. Confucius taught that the first task of governance is to rectify names. In the “Analects,” he states, “If names are not correct, speech will not be in accordance with truth, and if speech is not in accordance with truth, affairs cannot be carried out.” The principle underscores that clarity in language is essential for coherent policy and effective governance.

From this perspective, even the official name of North Korea invites scrutiny. Whether the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea accurately reflects a democratic system or governance for the people is open to question. This tension highlights the gap between naming and reality.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.