• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.33 no.spc
• /
• pp.709-719
• /
• 1998

오늘날 세계는 물질적으로 풍요롭게 되었지만, 생태위기의 발생과 더불어 환경문데를 둘러싼 불평등이 감소하기 보다는 오히려 증대하고 있다. 21세기를 위한 새로운 패러다임으로서 생태학은 이러한 불평등을 극복하기 위한 지식 및 실천으로서 '환경정의'의 개념 또는 이론을 필요로 한다. 진정한 환경정의론은 한편으로 생태학의 규범적 측면들을 발전시키면서 다른 한편으로 이의 이데올로기의 동원을 막을 수 있는 이론적 및 실천적 토대가 될 것으로 기대된다. 환경정의에 관한 개념적 연구는 주로 사회정의에 관한 철학적 전통, 특히 자유론, 공리주의, 계약론을 포괄하는 자유주의적 정의론, 맑스주의적 정의론 및 포스트모던 정의론 등에서 도출된 주요 개념들을 자연환경에 확대시키고자 한다. 환경정의에 관한 몇몇 학자들, 대표적으로 벤쯔(Wenz), 하비(Harvey), 로와 그리슨 (Low and Gleeson) 등은 다양한 전통을 위에서 제시한 (환경)정의론들을 면밀히 고찰하여, 이들 각각의 한계를 제시하거나 문제점들을 지적하고, 나아가 이들을 종합하고자 했다. 이들의 연구는 환경정의에 관한 다양한 이론들의 특성을 이해하는데 많은 도움을 주지만, 그 자체로 일관성 있는 이론으로 발전하지는 못했다. 이 글에서 제시되는 환경정의론은 인간들 간의 관계, 자연과 인간들 간의 물질적 관계, 그리고 상징적 관계 등에 상응하도록 정의를 3가지 차원, 즉 분배적 정의, 생산적 정의, 승인적 정의로 구분하고자 한다. 이들은 각각 필요의 원칙, 노동의 원칙, 그리고 의사소통의 원칙에 기초하며, 또한 각각 자유주의적, 특히 롤즈의 정의론, 맑스주의 정의론, 그리고 비판이론이나 포스트모던 정의론에서 많은 시사점들을 얻을 수 있다.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.161-191
• /
• 2018

In the beginning of the 20th century, post-colonialism has directly raised questions about western-centered universalism. One of its main achievements is that the political liberation of a colonial society does not guarantee the social, economic and cultural liberation of a society. Therefore, the discourse of liberation in the Western society, in particular, Marxism, nationalism, feminism and postmodernism, cannot be directly applied to the non-Western society. As a result, Western and non-Western societies are unfortunately dreaming of different futures and liberation; therefore, a'geopolitical dialogue' is needed between them. However, the theorists' efforts for postcolonial liberation failed to distinguish themselves from the western-centric traditions. It is also true that they have, in conjunction with these traditions, established their own power. As we know, many of the postcolonial criticisms somehow had relations with the West. This study will re-read the postcolonial thought of $Aim{\acute{e}}$ $C{\acute{e}}saire$, the father of the so-called $N{\acute{e}}gritude$, as a 'non-western resistance discourse'. Through this process, we have a chance to reflect on $C{\acute{e}}saire$ and his postcolonial thoughts.

• Korea journal of population studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.5-37
• /
• 2000

In this paper we have reviewed major theories of international migration by three phases of migration : initiation, perpetuation, and adjustment. Through the review it is found that factors affecting the three phases are not mutually exclusive but interrelated, and argued that for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomena we need a theoretical guideline useful to locate all the important factors associated to the entire process of migration. Neoclassical economic theory which has played a leading role in migration research. fails to be such a guideline. since it is grounded on the unrealistic assumption of rationality and does not take into account for historical-structural factors, as neo-Marxian theorists have claimed. Two major Marxian theories, dual labor market theory and world system theory, have been successful to identify macro-structural factors that induce main flows of international migration, but do not so in exploring situational factors affecting the process of migration, especially social and cultural factors. Accordingly this study proposes that in order to grasp international migration process comprehensively we need to research the phenomena in view of action system theory, that is, to study migrants\` economic, political, social, and cultural situations inclusively.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.52 no.2
• /
• pp.38-61
• /
• 2019

Up until the early twentieth century in Germany, there were two research trends: 1) emphasizing objectives and making detailed observations of archaeological artifacts and sites, 2) tracing the remains of specific nations or ethnic groups and defining their temporal-spatial boundaries by conducting research on material culture in terms of nationalism or ethnocentrism. After the Second World War ended and Germany was divided, West German archaeology focused on observations of artifacts and sites, cataloging them, and doing research on chronology and distribution following their own traditional methodologies. East German archaeology attempted to prove the developing process of history and its Marxist principles based upon material culture and to examine the historic value of inherent specific cultural heritage based on criteria regarding how it corresponded to socialism and contributed to the development of socialism. Nevertheless, East and West German archaeology shared traditional archaeological methods inherited from German archaeology since the nineteenth century, and contact between archaeologists in West and East Germany continued to a degree. Furthermore, East German archaeology produced significant archaeological achievements acknowledged by West German and European archaeologists. These facts provided the momentum to complete rapid incorporation of the archaeologies of West and East Germany in spite of a one-sided process imposed by West German archaeology. In the case of Korea, it seems necessary to make an effort to share common research history and traditions and to encourage mutual academic exchange (e.g. joint excavation and archaeological research). Furthermore, it is also imperative to have open-minded attitudes toward accepting substantial results and interpretations achieved by North Korean archaeologists under scrutiny when and where necessary, despite seeming to have been fossilized by Marxism and Juche ideology. Any efforts to narrow the gap in archaeological research and conservation of cultural heritage between the archaeologies of South and North Korea should be made immediately. The case of Germany demonstrates how such a project could proceed efficaciously.