• Asia Marketing Journal
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.93-121
• /
• 2005

본 연구는 시장 경제학의 입장에서 기존의 마케팅 및 마케팅 연구에 대한 분석을 통해 향후 마케팅 연구가 부가 가치 창출에 실질적으로 공헌할 수 있는 방안들을 찾아보고자 하는 시도이다. 이를 위해 첫째, 마케팅 연구가 '응용' 심리학적인 사실 파악 연구에서 벗어나서 판매자와 구매자 모두의 총부를 증대시키는 경영학적 마케팅 연구에로 자신의 정체성을 확립할 것을 제안하였다. 둘째, 마케팅 연구의 심화와 확장을 위해 고객 사이드 쪽만 아니라 모든 시장 참여자들을 마케팅 연구 영역 내에 포함시킬 것, 조직이라는 내부 시장의 마케팅 현상 연구도 할 것, 그리고 비영리 조직들의 마케팅에로도 그 연구 영역을 확장할 것을 제안하였다. 그리고 끝으로 마케팅이 기초하고 있는 시장 원리에 대한 이론적 이해와 자유 시장 경제 체제에 대한 이념적 이해를 바탕으로 향후 마케팅과 마케팅 연구가 인류의 처지 개선에 지속적으로 기여할 수 있음을 주장하였다.

• 한국사회복지학
• /
• 제57권2호
• /
• pp.205-230
• /
• 2005

본 연구는 복지체제와 생산레짐이 서로 연관성을 지니는지, 만약 연관된다면 어떤 방식으로 조응하는지, 그리고 현대복지국가의 두 가지 목표라고 할 수 있는 생산과 분배에서 어떤 차이를 노정하고 있는지에 관한 경험적 분석이다. 본 연구의 분석은 크게 두 부문으로 나뉜다. 하나는 Esping-Andersen의 복지체제론에서 이야기되는 세 가지 체제가 생산과 복지의 포괄적 조응을 담아낼 수 있는가에 관한 군집분석이고, 다른 하나는 이러한 세 가지 체제들이 생산과 복지에 관한 다양한 변수들에 있어 통계적인 차이를 보이는지에 관한 일원분산분석이다. 본 연구의 분석결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 군집분석 결과, 자본주의의 다양성에 관한 논의와 세 가지 복지자본체제에 관한 논의는 하나의 분석틀 안에서 소화될 수 있음이 밝혀졌다. 둘째, 일원분산분석 결과, 생산과 복지에 관한 대표적인 변수들이 세 가지 체제 사이에 상당한 차별성을 보임이 확인되었다. 무엇보다 흥미로운 결과는 사민주의, 보수주의, 자유주의 체제들이 유사한 수준의 경제적인 성과를 보이면서도 분배성과에 있어서는 매우 상이한 수준을 지닌다는 점이다.

• 대한지리학회지
• /
• 제29권3호
• /
• pp.281-296
• /
• 1994

자본주의 사회의 공간구조를 파악하기 위해서는 경제적, 사회적, 그리고 정치적 구 조에 대한 이해가 불가피하다. 내적인 경제, 사회, 정치 현상은 공간구조에 외적으로 그대로 반영되고 있으며, 표면적으로 드러난 공간구조 현상을 설명하기 위해서는 그것에 영향을 주 는 여러 과정들을 구조적으로 파악해야 한다. 자본주의 국가에서 국가는 직.간접으로 공간 경제에 작용하고 지역 불균등 발전에 일조하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 다음과 같은 문제점들 을 제기하고자 한다. 첫째, 경제구조에서의 국가의 역할은 무엇이고 국가 자체가 안고 있는 문제점은 무엇인가\ulcorner 둘째, 공간구조에서의 국가의 역할은 무엇인가\ulcorner 그리고 셋째, 공간형성 에 있어서 가장 직접적으로 영향을 미치고 있는 도시정부를 비롯한 지방정부에서의 도시개 발이나 지역개발정책들은 어떻게 형성되고, 그러한 정책들이 공간에 미치는 영향은 무엇인 가\ulcorner 자본주의 국가의 본질을 파악하기 위하여 국가이론에 관한 여러 쟁점들을 검토하여 보 고, 미국을 사례로 조절론자들의 논의를 배경으로 국가정책과 관련한 도시정책 변화와 그에 따른 도시 및 지역의 불균등 발전을 역사적으로 살펴보고자 하는 것이 본 연구의 목적이다.

• 대한지리학회지
• /
• 제38권
• /
• pp.15-36
• /
• 1988

In this paper, I consider the development of methods in contemporary human geography in terms of a dialectical relation of action and structure, and try to draw a new horizon of method toward which geographical research and spatial theory would develop. The positivist geography which was dominent during 1960s has been faced both with serious internal reflections and strong external criticisms in the 1970s. The internal reflections that pointed out its ignorance of spatial behavior of decision-makers and its simplication of complex spatial relations have developed behavioural geography and systems-theoretical approach. Yet this kinds of alternatives have still standed on the positivist, geography, even though they have seemed to be more real and complicate than the previous one, The external criticisms that have argued against the positivist method as phenomenalism and instrumentalism suggest some alternatives: humanistic geography which emphasizes intention and action of human subject and meaning-understanding, and structuralist geography which stresses on social structure as a totality which would produce spatial phenomena, and a theoretical formulation. Human geography today can be characterized by a strain and conflict between these methods, and hence rezuires a synthetic integration between them. Philosophy and social theory in general are in the same in which theories of action and structural analysis have been complementary or conflict with each other. Human geography has fallen into a further problematic with the introduction of a method based on so-called political ecnomy. This method has been suggested not merely as analternative to the positivist geography, but also as a theoretical foundation for critical analysis of space. The political economy of space with has analyzed the capitalist space and tried to theorize its transformation may be seen either as following humanistic(or Hegelian) Marxism, such as represented in Lefebvre's work, or as following structuralist Marxism, such as developed in Castelles's or Harvey's work. The spatial theory following humanistic Marxism has argued for a dialectic relation between 'the spatial' and 'the social', and given more attention to practicing human agents than to explaining social structures. on the contray, that based on structuralist Marxism has argued for social structures producing spatial phenomena, and focused on theorising the totality of structures, Even though these two perspectives tend more recently to be convergent in a way that structuralist-Marxist. geographers relate the domain of economic and political structures with that of action in their studies of urban culture and experience under capitalism, the political ecnomy of space needs an integrated method with which one can overcome difficulties of orthhodox Marxism. Some novel works in philosophy and social theory have been developed since the end of 1970s which have oriented towards an integrated method relating a series of concepts of action and structure, and reconstructing historical materialism. They include Giddens's theory of structuration, foucault's geneological analysis of power-knowledge, and Habermas's theory of communicative action. Ther are, of course, some fundamental differences between these works. Giddens develops a theory which relates explicitly the domain of action and that of structure in terms of what he calls the 'duality of structure', and wants to bring time-space relations into the core of social theory. Foucault writes a history in which strategically intentional but nonsubjective power relations have emerged and operated by virtue of multiple forms of constrainst wihthin specific spaces, while refusing to elaborate any theory which would underlie a political rationalization. Habermas analyzes how the Western rationalization of ecnomic and political systems has colonized the lifeworld in which we communicate each other, and wants to formulate a new normative foundation for critical theory of society which highlights communicatie reason (without any consideration of spatial concepts). On the basis of the above consideration, this paper draws a new norizon of method in human geography and spatial theory, some essential ideas of which can be summarized as follows: (1) the concept of space especially in terms of its relation to sociery. Space is not an ontological entity whch is independent of society and has its own laws of constitution and transformation, but it can be produced and reproduced only by virtue of its relation to society. Yet space is not merlely a material product of society, but also a place and medium in and through which socety can be maintained or transformed.(2) the constitution of space in terms of the relation between action and structure. Spatial actors who are always knowledgeable under conditions of socio-spatial structure produce and reproduce their context of action, that is, structure; and spatial structures as results of human action enable as well as constrain it. Spatial actions can be distinguished between instrumental-strategicaction oriented to success and communicative action oriented to understanding, which (re)produce respectively two different spheres of spatial structure in different ways: the material structure of economic and political systems-space in an unknowledged and unitended way, and the symbolic structure of social and cultural life-space in an acknowledged and intended way. (3) the capitalist space in terms of its rationalization. The ideal development of space would balance the rationalizations of system space and life-space in a way that system space providers material conditions for the maintainance of the life-space, and the life-space for its further development. But the development of capitalist space in reality is paradoxical and hence crisis-ridden. The economic and poltical system-space, propelled with the steering media like money, and power, has outstriped the significance of communicative action, and colonized the life-space. That is, we no longer live in a space mediated communicative action, but one created for and by money and power. But no matter how seriously our everyday life-space has been monetalrized and bureaucratised, here lies nevertheless the practical potential which would rehabilitate the meaning of space, the meaning of our life on the Earth.

• 국제지역연구
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.129-153
• /
• 2010

이 글에서 다루고자 하는 주요 퍼즐은 '왜 영국은 19세기 말 ~ 20세기 초 기간 동안 다른 국가와 달리 초국적기업이 출현하는 일반 구조를 발전시키지 못했는가?'이다. 이에 대해 필자는 비록 완전한 대답은 아니지만 근본적으로 영국 사회의 속성을 보여주는 '사회적 구성(Social construction)'의 맥락에서 그 원인을 규명하고자 한다. 이러한 목적 하에 이 글은 사건을 둘러싼 행위자들의 이해관계와 (사건에 대한)통제력이 빚어내는 사건의 가치 상승효과를 고려한다. 이 글의 결론은 다음과 같다: 첫째, 영국 사회 내에 팽배해 있었던 산업자본주의에 대한 경멸과 대기업 및 초국적 기업 육성의 필요성에 대한 영국 정부의 불식, 그리고 신사적 지배층의 확산과 더불어 수반된 시티의 상업-금융 자본가들의 영향력 확대 등도 영국 기업의 초국적화를 가로막았다. 둘째, 영국의 정치적 지배구조와 경제구조의 토대는 지속과 변화를 동시에 보여주었다. 1850년 이래 영국 사회구조는 점진적으로 시티의 상업-금융 자본가들의 영향력이 강화되는 구도로 형상화되었다. 그리고 그 결과는 제조업체의 초국적화가 아닌 금융서비스업의 초국적화였다. 셋째, 영국 엘리트 집단들이 주도한 사회연결망의 형상은 단절과 연계로 구분되는 행위자들의 이해관계와 통제력을 통해 구성된다. 서로의 이익이 상호보완적이었던 것과 달리 통제력의 차원에서 초기에는 지주계급과 상업-금융 자본가들의 자발적 동기에 기반 한 의도된 연계가 형성되었으나 결국 통제력의 소유는 산업자본가들을 배제한 채 상업-금융자본가들에게로 이전되어 사회연결망의 재구축이 이루어졌다.

• 대한지리학회지
• /
• 제28권3호
• /
• pp.213-226
• /
• 1993

본 연구는 서울시 도심재개발을 대상으로 도시공간의 재편과정에 내재하는 정치.경제적 논리를 규명함으로써 도시의 형성과 변화가 사회구조의 산물임을 밝히고자 하였다. 서울시의 도심재개발 사업은 1970년대 전반부터 생산과정의 분화가 이루어짐에 따라 대기업 본사가 도심으로 집중하는 상황에서 시작되었다. 또한 도심재개발은 1980년대 불황국면에 접어들면서 더욱 활발해졌는데, 이는 불황시기의 유휴자본의 문제를 도시공간을 재개발하는데 투자하여 극복하려는 논리에 근거한 것이었다. 그리고 도심재개발은 이를 전체적인 수준에서 주관하고 토지소유권의 통합, 토지수용권의 인정, 제 3개발자 인정, 재정. 세제상의 혜택, 건축규제의 완화 등 법적. 행정적 지원기관인 서울시의 정책과 맞물려 있었다. 그 결과 생활터전으로써의 도심은 업무공간으로 단순화되고, 도심인구의 空洞化現象은 더욱 심화되었다.

• 미술이론과 현장
• /
• 제2호
• /
• pp.169-190
• /
• 2004

The purpose of this article is to delve into the problems of originality of the artwork by examining issues of reproduction within the contemporary art market. In contemporary arts, especially in terms of art production and consumption, we can't overlook society and its economic structure and its connection with of capitalism. As the purity of art creation has turned into an exchange value, art, especially an object as artwork, has fallen into the status of production in an economic marketing system. Walter Benjamin mainly referred to that point in his thesis Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, which originated the sociology of plastic arts. This thesis, published in 1936, traced how the artistic functions of photograph and movie had been changed through the social development. His main concerns were movie and photograph but what I am concentrating from his point of view, is that even in the field of plastic arts, the manufacture of reproduction has been practiced as a primary method within the social and political contexts and development. Though I am referring to this in the main body of this article, reproduction in contemporary art strongly needs a new definition since it has been spread all over like a newest virus, not only by collector's personal taste or hut also by commercial circulations of these reproductions to the public. This relates to Benjamin's argument about the value of an exhibition at a museum(Ausstellungswert). Since the function of an artwork has been one of cultural industry, the manufacturing of reproduction raises unexpected problems, such as, the originality of the artwork, the value of an exhibition at a museum, its achievement as documentary and as a territory of art criticism. In this point of view, I want to inquire into the value and criteria of an exhibition in contemporary art through the review of the definitions and the intrinsic attributes of reproduction. Somehow in a broad sense, the reproduction is a product coming out of representation or copy (replica) of an original art work or an model. Therefore, the problems it presents differ from the Simulacre, which is an image without an original one. In terms of the Meanings of reproduction, we can distinguish it as reproductions, copies, and productions. These types of reproductions are not the original artworks reflected by the creative intention of the artists. For example, a publishing company reproduced some of lithographs of Salvador Dali in the 1960s. They are commercial copies in the form of representation or reproduction with no artistic and creative intention of the artist. However, In despite of this theoretical basis, reproductions of the famous artists are still displayed without any verification for of the public's quest for the artworks. Moreover, many commercial companies that are planning to exhibit art works of the world-famous artists only for their profits keep trying to speak ill of and judging by the law the honest art critics' articles which discuss the true values of exhibition. If freedom of expression is one of the ideals of democracy, even the judgment of the originality of the artworks should be freely expressed.

• International Journal of Costume and Fashion
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.15-33
• /
• 2011

The late $19^{th}$ and early $20^{th}$ centuries of Korea were the times when the Confucianism (牲理學) ideology was shaken heavily under the influences of modernism and capitalism by Western and Japanese military and political-economic forces. Under such circumstances, alteration of clothing was much influenced by ideologies than changes in social structure or technological advance. In this study, an ideology was defined as "the force which drives people into a particular social order". Ideologies were postulated as an ongoing process of socialization with dialectic features rather than being a static state. Comparative analyses on conflict structures and different clothing patterns symbolizing the ideologies of the Ruling (支配) and the Opposition (對抗) were conducted. Investigating dresses as representations of ideologies is to reconsider the notion of dichotomous confrontation between the conservatives (守舊派) and the progressives (開化派) and a recognition of Koreans' passively accepting modernity during the Japanese occupation. This may also have contributed to enlightening Koreans about modernization. Here are the results. First, the theoretical review found that ideologies were represented by not only symbols of discourse, but also dresses, and that dresses embodied both physical and conceptual systems presenting differences between ideologies and their natures, Second, during the late 19th century Korea, conflict between conservatives' Hanbok (韓服) and progressives' Western suits (洋服) was found. Moderate progressives showed their identity by "Colored Clothing" (深色衣), and radical progressives by black suits with short hair (黑衣斷髮) or by western suits (洋服). The ultimate goal of both parties was a "Modern Nation". With these efforts, pale jade green coats and traditional hats symbolizing the nobleman class was eliminated within 30 years from 1880 to 1910, and then simple robes and short hair emerged. However, the powerful Japanese army had taken over the hegemony of East Asia, and Korea was sharply divided into modernization and pro-Japanese camps. Third, during the time of Japanese colonial rule, the dress codes having set by the modernization policies during the time of enlightenment were abandoned and colonial uniforms for the colonial system was meticulously introduced. During this period, Western or Japanese-style uniforms were the symbol of the ruling ideology. In the mean time, Hanbok, particularly "White Clothing (白衣)", emerged as a representation of the opposition ideology. However, due to Japan's coercive power and strong zeal for "Great orient (大東亞)", white clothing remained as a mere symbol. Meanwhile, Reformists (實力養成論者) movement toward improving quality of life followed a similar path of the Japanese policies and was eventually incorporated into the ruling ideology. Fourth, dresses as representations of ruling ideologies were enforced by organizational powers, such as organizations and laws, and binding policies, and changes in such dresses were more significant when the ruling ideologies were stronger. Clothing of the opposition ideology was expressed as an aggregation of public consciousness. During the period, the subjects of ruling ideology and the objects who were granted modernization benefits were different although their drives for colored clothing with short hair (色衣斷髮) for modernization were similar.