Episode 5: The Social Codes Shaped by Military Service in Korea
1. Duty and Social Expectation
In South Korea, military service is more than a government policy or a constitutional clause—it is a deeply embedded cultural expectation. Article 39 of the Korean Constitution declares that all citizens have the duty of national defense, and this has translated into a conscription system that requires nearly all able-bodied men to serve for about 18 to 21 months. For generations, completing military service has been regarded as a rite of passage, a symbolic transition from youth to adulthood.
Parents and older relatives often say, “You only become a real man after the army.” The expression captures how service is perceived not merely as a civic duty, but as proof of maturity, endurance, and responsibility. This mindset has been reinforced over decades of conflict and tension on the Korean Peninsula, where the possibility of military confrontation has never fully disappeared.
Serving in the military therefore carries not only legal weight but also social legitimacy. Those who return from service are often respected as people who have “done their part.” Their fulfillment of duty becomes a quiet but powerful credential in everyday life, signaling reliability and discipline.
The case of BTS members completing service illustrates this cultural code vividly. Despite being global superstars with extraordinary influence, each member served without exception. Their decision was celebrated as a reaffirmation of fairness: no matter how successful or famous, Koreans are bound by the same obligations. For many fans, their service was not only a patriotic gesture but also a cultural moment that reinforced the principle of equality before duty.
Conversely, failing to serve without valid reason can trigger intense stigma. Politicians, celebrities, or wealthy heirs who attempt to avoid conscription often face public outrage. Their reputations can be permanently damaged, as society interprets draft evasion as a betrayal of shared responsibility. In this sense, military service operates as a social code of trust and legitimacy—an unwritten but powerful rule about who deserves respect and leadership roles in Korea.
Collectivism and Leadership
Military service is also one of the most powerful institutions shaping Korean collectivism. Life in the barracks means living, eating, training, and sleeping together under constant rules. Soldiers quickly learn that the needs of the group outweigh the desires of the individual. Survival, efficiency, and success depend on compliance with orders and loyalty to the unit.
The emphasis on hierarchy is central. In the army, rank determines authority absolutely, and questioning orders is rarely tolerated. While this structure ensures discipline in the military context, it also spills into civilian life. Many Korean workplaces mirror this dynamic: managers give instructions that subordinates are expected to follow without debate, and team harmony is often valued above individual expression.
This is not to say the influence is wholly negative. Soldiers often speak of the camaraderie and loyalty they experienced during service. The friendships forged in difficult conditions are lifelong bonds, sometimes described as stronger than family ties. The sense of “brotherhood” learned in the army reinforces the cultural code that collective goals matter, and that loyalty to one’s peers is a virtue.
Leadership training is another lasting influence. Young men who serve as squad leaders or platoon leaders carry that experience into their professional lives. The military’s model of leadership emphasizes decisiveness, responsibility for others, and a willingness to endure hardship on behalf of the team. This has shaped the Korean corporate world, where leaders are often expected to embody authority, resilience, and sacrifice.
At the same time, cultural shifts are underway. Younger generations, especially Millennials and Gen Z, often prefer horizontal communication and more egalitarian teamwork. They challenge the rigid hierarchies that their elders, shaped by military codes, continue to uphold. This generational tension reflects an evolving society: one still deeply marked by the military experience, but increasingly willing to redefine leadership in more flexible and inclusive terms.
Work Culture and Hiring Practices
The impact of military service extends directly into career opportunities. Job applications in Korea routinely include a section for military history, and employers often see completed service as proof of discipline and adaptability. Some companies openly list “completed service preferred” as a hiring condition.
During job interviews, candidates may be asked about their army experiences. How did they handle conflict? Did they serve in leadership roles? How did they adapt to stress? These questions are not trivial. Employers use them to gauge a candidate’s character, assuming that the discipline of military life translates into the workplace.
But the effects are not uniformly positive. Service often interrupts academic or professional trajectories. University students put their studies on hold, and workers leave jobs mid-career. When they return, they may find it hard to regain momentum. In particular, employees from smaller companies often cannot return to their old positions, forcing them to start fresh elsewhere.
Moreover, the influence of military culture permeates workplace rituals. Office hierarchies, drinking customs, and deference to seniors are often described as echoes of barracks life. In many offices, juniors pour drinks for seniors at company dinners, use honorifics carefully, and avoid contradicting higher-ranking colleagues—behaviors that mirror military etiquette.
Because of this cultural expectation, men who never served, whether due to disability or other reasons, may be subtly regarded as outsiders. They are sometimes perceived as lacking a shared “qualification” that validates full membership in workplace culture. This illustrates how military service functions as an unofficial credential—a social code that goes beyond the law to shape perceptions of competence and belonging.
Changing Military Culture and Human Rights
The Korean military has not been free of controversy. For decades, it struggled with issues of hazing, abuse, and harsh discipline. Stories of senior soldiers bullying juniors, and tragic cases of suicide, shocked the nation and fueled demands for reform. For many young men, fear of abuse was as daunting as the physical hardship of service itself.
In response, significant reforms have been implemented. Soldiers’ pay has been raised substantially, living conditions have improved, and smartphone access is now permitted for limited hours—a revolutionary change compared to the past, when contact with the outside world was severely restricted. These measures provide psychological relief and make service less isolating.
The introduction of alternative service for conscientious objectors is another milestone. For decades, those who refused service on religious or ethical grounds faced imprisonment. Now, they can fulfill their duty through community service or work in correctional facilities. While critics argue that alternative service remains overly punitive, the change reflects a society gradually embracing diversity of belief and individual rights.
Conversations about gender and inclusivity are also growing. South Korea’s declining birthrate and shrinking manpower pool have led to debates about whether women should also be conscripted. While the idea remains controversial, it highlights the tension between traditional codes of duty and modern principles of equality and fairness. At the same time, advocacy groups continue to push for recognition of LGBTQ+ soldiers, challenging the military to confront longstanding discrimination.
These reforms and debates suggest that the social codes of military service are evolving. They are moving away from a narrow focus on obedience and endurance, toward a broader concern with dignity, fairness, and human rights.
Conclusion
Military service in South Korea is not just about defending the nation. It is a cultural institution that has shaped social expectations, workplace norms, leadership styles, and even debates about fairness and identity. It has created enduring codes: the belief that duty must be fulfilled, that hierarchy must be respected, and that loyalty to the group is essential.
At the same time, Korea is changing. As society becomes more democratic, diverse, and globally connected, these military codes are being reinterpreted. Service is still a badge of responsibility, but it is also being scrutinized through the lenses of equality and human rights. The tension between tradition and reform defines the future of how military service will shape Korean life.
For outsiders, understanding these dynamics is crucial. It explains why fairness in conscription is such a sensitive issue, why authority and hierarchy are so embedded in Korean workplaces, and why the army continues to leave marks on identity long after soldiers hang up their uniforms. Military service is not just about the military—it is about how a nation defines duty, belonging, and what it means to be a responsible member of society.