KJC Korea
Journal Central

Can human sciences and feminism meet again? Or is it possible that they might encounter each other anew? It is no exaggeration to say that feminism starts from investigating the foundations of human sciences. Feminism has scrutinized and thrown doubt upon the universal premises of traditional human sciences, such as liberty, equality, justice, universality, and more. Why are many feminists then focusing upon the universal subject, that is, the value and the dignity of human beings? Neoliberal society has turned everything into exchange relations. In such societies, the dignity of human beings has disappeared. If the human being disappears, women as part of the human species cannot help but disappear, too. This crisis calls upon the human sciences and feminism to again encounter each other anew. Thus, the purpose of this article is to concentrate on grasping the possibility of humanistic feminism in order to repoliticize depoliticized feminism. Especially focusing on Martha Nussbaum’s concept of fragility, humanity, and narrative imagination, this article tries to grasp the possibilities of humanistic feminism.

Examined in this article, is earlier people’s view of traditional education and culture, which is well reflected in the editorials for education published through the Dae’han Mae’il Shin’bo (The Korea Daily News) around the time of the Eulsa-Year Treaty (1904-1906). The reason for this examination is to find out how Korean people’s modern perspective upon traditions actually formed in a time when Japan was violating Korean sovereignty step by step and the intellectuals’ enlightenment movement was picking up speed and when Korean culture was making more and more contact with Western Civilization daily. To the authors of the editorials examined here, who argued that Koreans should engage in new academic studies in order to found a ‘civilized’ independent country, the traditions and reality of Korea were very negative things. But to be absolutely specific, this criticism was actually within the trend of the time itself, which tended to pursue superficial aspects of traditional academicism, and therefore failed to adapt to the continuously shifting new environment. The editorial authors believed that there were still many terms in which traditional academicism could contribute to the foundation of a civilized and independent new country for the Korean people. They believed that not only the new studies that came from the outside, but also studies from traditional academicism, should be taught in schools, albeit in a condensed and modified form. They were fairly critical of the present reality of Korea, which was being subjected to Japanese imperialism due to Korea’s weak state, but they were also proud of Korea’s past culture. And while considering the officials of the Dae’han Imperial government extremely incompetent, they had faith in the Koreans’ general talents and inherent capabilities. They argued that with the individuals’ capability enhanced through education, a civilized country could be established, and the sovereignty of the country would be restored. The authors’ negative perception of the value of traditional studies and their pride in past culture laid the foundation of the future for which they emphasized the importance of the “Korean Spirit.” And from the belief that individuals’ enhanced capability could lead Korea to civilization and sovereignty, we can see that the enlightenment movement aiming for sovereignty restoration must have played an instrumental part in weakening the traditional consciousness of social classes.

This article argues about the phase transition of water and the destruction of boundaries in Kobo Abe’s texts written in the 1950s from the geopolitical point of view about the postwar period, especially about General Headquarters (GHQ), during the Allied occupation period in Japan. Abe has written about metamorphosis in many of his texts. Metamorphosis has been presented as the process transforming human bodies to things, or presented as the situation itself after the process is completed through the dissolving of boundaries and the reconstruction of the new body. The characters in Abe’s texts are weak and have low-social status, but they have the potential to transform themselves, which shows their dynamism. Heightening the phase transition of things and the violence of the underwater-world, Abe forces us to read the connotations of an unestablished cognition of boundaries shown in postwar society in Japan.

This thesis aims at analyzing the two main characters in Shame to see how postcolonial diaspora’s hybridity is re-translated even though these two characters’ hybridity is repressed in the discourse that seeks a homogeneous society. Based on the experiences of dislocation or movement, the diaspora crosses over geographical and cultural borders, so it naturally produces hybridity or heterogeneity. Dominant ideology tries to hide the diaspora’s hybridity in order to keep its culture pure or homeogenous, which is imaginary and artificial. Contrary to the belief of dominant discourse that the diaspora’s hybridity can be contained in the realm of the borderline, the hybridity may reveal its presence. This paper first tries to figure out the process of translation and the incompatibility of translation related to the diaspora’s hybridity in the postcolonial era. Then, it thoroughly analyzes the two main characters in the novel to capture the moment when the diaspora’s hybridity is controlled or erased by the dominant discourse and how it emerges from the place where it is hidden and makes its voice.

In French, “laïcité” (laicism in English) is a concept denoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs. French secularism has a long history but the current regime is based on the 1905 French law on the Separation of Church and State. During the twentieth century, it evolved to mean the equal treatment of all religions, although a more restrictive interpretation of the term has developed since 2004. The purpose of this study is to inquire into the issue of religion and secularism, which are the most important concepts in understanding contemporary French society, by associating them with the history of France. The concept of laicism has been gradually established in French society over the period of about four hundred years after the Renaissance, though it was decisively contributed to by the Dreyfus Affair in the late nineteenth century and the ensuing Separation of Church and State in 1905. Therefore, this study reveals the meaning of a confrontation between religion and laicism and that of the Dreyfus Affair in France and, furthermore, shows the way these meanings can be stretched by observing cases of Germany. Intellectuals, including André Malraux, made an early prediction that the twenty-first century would be an era of spirituality. And it is true that the religious issue is now at the heart of the most furious debate ever in the process of unifying Europe. Thus, the study also suggests the limits and possibilities of religion in modern society so as to develop new criteria to have a better understanding of contemporary European societies.

Traditionally, Descartes’s ego that implicit in his primary metaphysical principle-cogito ergo sum-, has often been interpreted through Heidegger’s view. His interpretation considered Descartes’s ego as a being to dominate the world through the representing activity. Some postmodern philosophers are based on Heidegger’s this point. So such thinkers are aimed at overcoming Descartes’s theory of the subject. Is such an understanding justifiable? I disagree strongly with it. So in this paper, main idea is to criticize Heidegger’s such interpretation of Descartes. In this regard, we must rely on the French Philosopher Jean-Luc Marion to embody our theme. Marion has re-read Descartes’s Passions of the Soul. Beyond mere reading, through his reading of the Passions of the Soul, Marion has interpreted not the primary metaphysical principle but the ego of auto-affection concerning Descarte’s ego. According to Marion, ego become an existential being with an ethical-axiological aim by his auto-affection. The ego is no longer a subject who represents the world. In this interpretation, Descartes’s ego cannot be understood only as a metaphysical subject. Thus this ego must be recognized as an existential-volitional ego with axiological aims. Throughout this study, we will encounter with a new understanding of Descartes’ ego.