http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
개별검색 DB통합검색이 안되는 DB는 DB아이콘을 클릭하여 이용하실 수 있습니다.
통계정보 및 조사
예술 / 패션
<해외전자자료 이용권한 안내>
- 이용 대상 : RISS의 모든 해외전자자료는 교수, 강사, 대학(원)생, 연구원, 대학직원에 한하여(로그인 필수) 이용 가능
- 구독대학 소속 이용자: RISS 해외전자자료 통합검색 및 등록된 대학IP 대역 내에서 24시간 무료 이용
- 미구독대학 소속 이용자: RISS 해외전자자료 통합검색을 통한 오후 4시~익일 오전 9시 무료 이용
※ 단, EBSCO ASC/BSC(오후 5시~익일 오전 9시 무료 이용)
This paper has been empirically studied utilizing a survey to verify university students’ changing perception on unification and to derive some implications needed for future education of university unification. To this end, various perceptions and attitudes related to unification (the need for unification, the degree of interest in unification, etc.) and individual characteristics of students were analyzed, and the factors affecting the need for unification and the degree of interest in unification were verified through a regression analysis of the perception of the North Korean regime, as well as individual tendencies (the postmaterialist values and political ideology). Furthermore, we looked at the subject of unification education that the students want through a logistic regression. The results showed that the postmaterialist values and perceptions of the North Korean regime were the main factors affecting the unification necessity and the degree of unification interest. Furthermore, the more favorable the perception of the North Korean regime, the more interested they were in finding ways to resolve conflicts within the South regarding the North's unification policy, the North's society and culture, the benefits and costs of reunification, and North Korea policy. Therefore, unification education should be implemented by identifying characteristics of students in the future along with preliminary demand surveys of students. 본 논문은 변화하는 대학생 통일인식을 검증하고 대학 통일교육에 필요한 시사점을 도출하기 위해 설문조사를 통해 실증적으로 연구하였다. 이를 위해 통일과 관련된 인식(통일필요성, 통일관심도 등)과 대학생 개인의 성향을 파악하였고, 통일필요성과 통일관심도에 미치는 영향요인이 개인 성향(탈물질주의 가치와 정치이념 등)과 더불어 북한정권에 대한 인식이 무엇인지 회귀분석을 통해 검증하였다. 더 나아가 학생들이 희망하는 통일교육 주제를 로지스틱 회귀분석으로 알아보았다. 분석결과 (1)통일필요성과 통일관심도에 탈물질주의 가치와 북한정권인식이 주요한 영향요인임을 보여주었다. (2)북한정권에 대한 인식이 우호적일수록 통일 장애요인을 남한 내부의 문제에서 찾고 남북한 통일정책, 북한의 사회와 문화, 통일의 이익과 비용, 대북정책 관련 남한 내부의 갈등해소 방안에 관심이 높았다. 따라서 향후 대학 통일교육을 수강하는 학생들에 대한 사전 수요조사와 함께 그들에 대한 특징을 파악하여 통일교육을 시행해야 함을 본 연구를 통해 주장한다.
This year marks the very first year for the public sector to implement Korean unification education obligatorily to its staff members according to the last year’s revised Unification Education Support Act. However, the public sector including local governments do not look like fully prepared to conduct Korean unification education in substance. It is requisite that the public sector should strive to prepare for and engage in Korean unification education more than before in order to enlarge and intensify Korean unification foothold and its discourse. Local governments as frontline public agencies can be the hub to provide Korean unification education in a collaboration with local universities. Local governments are able to support local universities to launch new departments and institutes which research Korean unification by enforcing Korean Unification Education Support Acts. Once these kinds of new platforms are established, local governments can easily utilize these resources and networks to carry out Korean unification education not only for the public sector but also for local citizens. In doing so, local governments can be the sponsor for various research and education on the Korean unification from the grassroots. 개정 통일교육지원법(시행 2018년 9월14일)에 따라 올해는 본격적인 공공부문 통일교육 의무화의 원년이다. 하지만 지방정부를비롯한 전 공공부문에서는 상대적으로 통일교육 인프라 준비가부족한 현실이다. 장기적 관점에서 남남갈등 해소와 통일기반강화를 위해 통일교육에 보다 많은 관심과 지원이 필요한 시점이다. 이러한 장기적 관점의 통일교육 역량강화와 실행을 위해 최일선 행정주체인 지방정부는 통일교육 현장에서 각 지역대학과의 협업을 강화하면서 통일교육과 연구 역량을 배양하는 한편 주민⋅공공부문⋅학교통일 분야에 다양하게 활용할 교육담론과 강사풀(pool) 네트워크를 구성하는 것이 필요하다. 형식적인 면에서 지방정부는 지역대학과 협력하여 통일교육법제의 근거조항을 활용하여 특화된 관련전공과 학과 개설 등 플랫폼 확대를 추진해야 한다. 이를 통해 대학생 통일교육 활성화는 물론이고 해당 대학의 교원과 전문가 그룹을 활용한 초⋅중등 교육과 교사 위탁교육, 공공부문 위탁교육, 평생교육원 등을 통한 일반주민대상 상시 통일교육 등을 다각도로 시행해야 한다. 내용적인 면에서 지방정부와 지역대학은 상호협력을 통해 앞으로 전개될 통일과정에서 남북한 주민이 모두 합의하고 추구할 수 있는 공동의 보편적 가치가 무엇인지를 발굴하고 이를 연구하고 가르치는 역할을 해야 한다. 중앙과 수도권을 넘어 각 지역에서 다방면으로 이러한 논의와 담론이 확산될 때 통일교육은 그 양과 질에서 획기적인 전환이 일어날 것이다.
이 글은 평화·통일교육 관련 현장 참여자들에 대한 초점집단 인터뷰를 통하여 신자유주의적 혐오의 시대 북한과 통일에 부여된 새로운 위치와 의미를 탐색하고자 한다. 사유재산의 보호와 공정한 자유 경쟁을 인류 번영의 중요한 전제로 삼는 신자유주의 논리는 특정한 방식으로 북한과 통일에 대한 이해를 재편한다. 면담자료는 북한과 통일이 ‘세계 시장’과 ‘자기주도성’이라는 신자유주의 문화논리에 근거하여 이해되는 양상을 드러낸다. ‘선택’과 ‘책임’이 신자유주의적 주체에게 요청되는 자격일 때, 북한은 주체의 자격이 없는 타자로, 대북지원은 북한이 “자초”한 상황에 대한 불공정한 개입으로 이해된다. 전 지구적 자본주의 맥락에서 세계시민사회와 글로벌 시장이 남북관계를 이해하는 상상의 공동체로 등장하지만, 북한은 시장 질서에 자격 없는 주체로 성원권을 가지지 못한다. 관계를 해석하는 맥락이 한반도에서 세계로 확장될 때, 민족주의에 기반한 남북의 필연적인 결합은 약화된다. 한편, 면담자료는 경제적 논리에 근거할 때 통일을 사적 이익침해로, 북한을 제한된 자원을 불공정하게 약탈하는 타자로 의미화 할 위험이 있음을 보여준다. 신자유주의에 근거하여 분단과 평화를 이해하는 방식의 핵심적인 문제는 한국 사회가 가진 역사적, 정치적, 지역적 맥락을 탈맥락화하는데 있다. 통일과 관하여 예상되는 경제적 부담이 남북의 역사적 관계와 한반도에서의 평화의 문제로 맥락화되지 않고, 오직 시장 가치의 문제로 인식될 때, 통일은 비합리적인 선택지이다. 이 글은 신자유주의적 혐오가 분단의 맥락을 복잡화하는 양상을 이해하는데 단초를 제공하고자 한다. This article aims to analyze the newly discovered position and meaning of North Korea and unification in the era of neoliberal hatred through focus group interviews with participants from the field of peace and unification education. The market-oriented logics, which take the protection of private property and free and fair competition as principal premise for humankind prosperity, rearrange the understanding of North Korea and unification in a specific way. The historical, political, and regional contexts of division are blurred and North Korea can be positioned as a competitor in the global market. North Korea’s difficulties are replaced by issues of individual country’s capabilities and ethics rather than the issues of international politics, climate crisis, and the global economy context. In terms of ‘choice and responsibility’, the required qualification of a neoliberal subject, North Korea is understood as an ‘unqualified subject’ and humanitarian aid to North Korea could be an ‘unfair’ intervention for their “self-inflicted” issue. In the context of global capitalism, world civil society and the global market newely emerged as “imagined communities” to understand inter-Korea relations, in which North Korea does not have membership to belong. When the context of the relationship expands from the Korean Peninsula to the world, the inevitable bond between the two Koreas based on nationalism is mitigated. On the other hand, the order under neoliberalism shapes the pervasive understanding of unification based on economic logics in the field of peace and unification education. However, market-centered logics can redefine unification as an unreasonable option that is expected to infringe on the right to private interests, and the idea of North Korea as the “other” that can plunder limited resources.
This paper aims at explaining how the two Koreas have been gradually inclined to shape peaceful coexistence formula, which would set aside for a while (at least for one generation period arguably) complete political unification in which the entire territory of the Korean peninsula and people would be unified as one state, operated as one system, ruled by one central government, while no local government would have autonomous authority in the areas of diplomacy and national defense. Chronological comparison of the unification policies of the two Koreas will prove that the ultimate goal of unification intended to build one political entity based upon 1 nation-1 state-1 system-1 government formula has been weakened. While formulae suggesting interim states or middle steps such as 1 nation 1 state-2 systems-2 governments formula, in which priority remains peaceful coexistence and the authority of central government is symbolic have become stronger. The Korean peninsula was legally divided when the United Nations held elections in South Korea and a capitalist state led by Syngman Rhee was born in August 1948, and a communist government led by Kim Il-sung was formed one month later in the north. At the nascent stage of division in late 1940s, South Korean leader Syngman Rhee and North Koreas Kim Il-sung did not want to remain behind the demarcation line, but rather vigorously grope for opportunities to scoop the other side of the peninsula by force. Consequently the Korean War broke out on 25 June 1950, the war which the Kim regime elected as a means to unification of the country. Before the South Korean student revolution toppled Rhee from the power in 1960, the Rhee regime insisted on its northward marching policy of unification(Pukchin Tongil), and the Kim Il-sung regime, too, did not abandon its banner to communize the peninsula by force. One year later General Park Chung-hee launched a coup and civilian discourses on unification were strictly prohibited during his ruling period, the sixties and seventies, Park did not raise a banner of northward marching policy to unification. Rather he emphasized peaceful unification in 1961 and proposed to the north in 1970 that Pyongyang must renounce its communist unification policy by military means or violent revolution. He also proposed both Koreas compete constructively to demonstrate which system and society had better conditions for the Korean people. Even if he did not scrape the idea of complete unification to build a single political entity, it is remarkable that Park replaced his predecessors northward marching policy to peaceful course of unification. A significant change was also discovered in the northern part. Although the idea did not abandon completely to form a single political entity, Pyongyang proposed an idea of the Koryo Federation System as an interim stage before reaching the perfect unification in 1960. On 23 June 1973 the Kim Il-sung regime once again offered the Koryo Federation System advocating that the existing institutions of the two sides remained intact. It should be noted though, that at the time being Kims real purpose was not to herald new unification policy, but to avoid the South Korean proposal to join the United Nation separately. To sum up, in spite of disputes, this period saw active exchanges of unification policies and political contests that intended to show the superiority of the its own proposals compared to the other. Regardless of real intentions, the July 4th Joint Statement, issued simultaneously in Seoul and Pyongyang in 1972, for the first time agreed to the three principles of unification: (1) unification should be achieved independently, without reliance upon outside force or its interference; (2) reunification should be achieved by peaceful means, without recourse to the use of arms against the other side; (3) great national unity should be promoted first of all as one nation, transcending the differences of ideology and system. In 1980s the Chun Doo-hwan regime did not move forward. It emphasized peaceful unification formula, not peaceful coexistence itself, but made a little but significant change when it attempted to view unification as process and procedure: basically, though, no clear cut was found from his predecessors unification policy. 1 nation-1 state-1 system-1 government formula had been unaltered. Kim Il-sung slightly moved further from his initial idea of the Koryo Federation system in 1980 by suggesting 1 state-2 systems-1 federal government, where a single central government would be built, but 2 different systems would be allowed to coexist. The Roh Tae-woo government advocated the Korean Common Wealth as an interim unification system, which is in reality 1 symbolic state-1 de facto system-2 interim governments formula. It of great significance the fact that in this idea unification could be defined from confederation level. The Kim Young-sam government developed the Korean Common Wealth to a little more explicit formula of 1 nation-1 state-2 systems-2 governments. After coming to office President Kim Dae-jung has not set forth his own unification policy. The reconciliation and cooperation policy towards the Norththe Sunshine policies not the unification policy per se, but it is close to a peace management policy by engaging a staggering northern neighbor. Peaceful coexistence is the first priority in his mind, since it is his belief that only co-existence would allow the unification of the peninsula someday in the future. Responding to Rohs proposal, Kim Il-sung also took tactical change in 1991. His federation was to be based upon 1 nation-1 state-2 systems(or institutions) -2 governments. Most importantly he suggested setting aside the institutional unification theory, in the belief that 1 state-1 institution idea would encourage nothing but continual division and confrontation for the future generation of Koreans. This suggestion signified disadvantage to the position of the North in world politics vis-à-vis with the South. Since then the North Korean unification policy downgraded the status of the federal government, so it would not retain authority over foreign affairs. To conclude, the unification Policies of the two Koreas have been converging on the notion that each system should be maintained rather than choosing one system. Peaceful coexistence has become the single most supreme and common concern for the leadership of the two Koreas in the Post-Cold War period.
본 연구는 작센-안할트주의 사례를 중심으로 통일 이후 신연방주의 학교시스템의 구축 과정과 발전방향에서 나타난 경로의존성의 메커니즘을 분석했다. 본 논문의 연구방법으로는 문헌조사와 작센-안할트주 교육부의 자료 및 통계자료를 토대로 분석했다. 작센-안할트주, 작센주, 튀링겐주는 ‘2유형 학교시스템’을 도입, 브란덴부르크주, 메클렌부르크-포어포메른주는 ‘3유형 학교시스템’을 구축했다. 그렇다면 5개의 신연방주들은 왜 상이한 학교구조를 구축했으며, 이들 주의 발전경로는 어떠한 형태의 변화를 가져왔으며, 변화의 원인은 무엇이었는가? 라는 문제의식을 바탕으로 작센-안할트주의 학교 구축과정과 발전방향에 미친 상황요인 등을 분석하고자 한다. 연구 결과 작센-안할트주의 학교시스템의 변화와 발전경로의 모습은 정당 메커니즘과 권력 재생산 메커니즘의 영향아래 지속적으로 재생산되고 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 지금까지 각 주의 발전경로 과정의 사례 연구가 거의 드물고, 특히 국내의 경우 신연방주에 나타난 경로의존성에 대한 연구가 많지 않기 때문에 본 연구에서는 작센-안할트주의 사례를 집중적으로 분석하고자 한다. 이를 통해 앞으로 남·북한의 교육 분야의 통합을 준비함에 있어 시사점을 얻고자 한다. This study analyzed the development trajectory of the Saxony-Anhalt’s school system since Germany’s unification process. After the unification of Germany, the question of in how far the historical process of the implementation and dissolution of the three-tiered school system or two-tiered school system into integrated secondary schools in Saxony-Anhalt. And then how can explain that Saxony-Anhalt determine how an existing institutional path is ending and being replaced with a new one? How can it difference between institutional innovation with an existing institution and how to a new path? This study explores these questions by examining the pattern of institutional change in the German school system. This case study was constructed through an extensive literature review, secondary dater from different governmental offices and with thesenpapier. The results show Saxony-Anhalt has taken drastic measures such as it has affected the school curriculum and the school structure was changed. Also, it brought the change of the school system. Implications for the integration of the Korean school system in the face of the coming unification process.
This paper attempts to explore possible measures for secure domestic social support and public opinion to help establish economic community between North and South Korea.To this end, the paper suggests that it is important to realize how vulnerable the divided economy is, and that it is inevitable for the two Koreas cooperate each other.We have to emphasize that, first of all, the South Korean economy in divided situation is doomed to be affected by any of North Korean threats; Secondly, the inter-Korean economic cooperation is a long-term national strategy preparing post-unification era; Thirdly, it is mutually beneficial and complementary exchange in econmic field; And lastly, huge military spending could be diverted to industrial development. We also should remember how much Korea, especially South Korea, has been impoverished by this current divided system.South Korea has been geographically closed up completely like an island, so that closedness and exclusiveness dominate Korean mentality.More than that, the divided system created insecurity and distrust among national people.We need to stress that we should dismantle the divided system in order to improve the quality of life in social and cultural areas. When we focus on the process of unification, we need to construct inter-Korean economic cooperation in order to reduce the possible inequalities caused in the process of economic community.From the long-term perspective, we also need to ensure democratic law and procedures to resolve political and ideological conflicts between the two Koreas.Above all, we should try to resolve antagonistic sentiment and open hostilities which are the most serious impediment in building North-South economic community.By doing these efforts, all in all, it is aimed to expand the national community which is based on shared value of the people, while, at the same time, it is conducive to enhancing understanding of heterogeneity between North and South Korea.