‘Cultural Studies’ as Interdisciplinary Literary Studies

천정환 한국학중앙연구원 한국학중앙연구원 2013 THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES Vol.16 No.2

This paper examines the boundary and status of as well as issues surrounding ‘cultural studies’ (munhwaronjeok yeongu) as an interdisciplinary study and renewal of traditional literary studies. Basically, cultural studies is essentially inclusive and trans-disciplinary. Although cultural studies is in a particular proximity with other fields of research, it neither shares values with nor falls under major disciplines such as Korean literary studies (gungmunhak), Anglo-American cultural studies, or their tributaries including history of everyday life and micro-history. It observes and critically analyzes political aspects and structures of dominance reflected in cultural phenomena. Cultural studies has always been sensitive to ‘democracy from below’ and its culture, and sought ways to make intellectual action against commodification and marginalization of knowledge and cultural system. Until recently, this task has been fulfilled by studies of ‘cultural (munhwaronjeok) literary history,’ cultural history, or popular culture. This paper also outlines the methodology and perspective of cultural studies by discussing the issues and problems regarding texturalism and other theories. It also argues that the neo-liberalist ‘Regime’ has profound influence on interdisciplinary studies in terms of how Korean literary scholars and critics are employed or supported; the transformation in the writing process and the system of struggle for recognition; as well as governing our bodies and micro-relationships.

2019 한국 문화연구, 현황과 과제

천정환 ( Cheon Jung-hwan ) 영미문학연구회 2019 안과 밖 Vol.0 No.46

This paper discusses the changes in the studies of Korean culture since 2010’s. Cultural studies based on Korean literature have three interdisciplinary fields(categories): the research of Korean modern literary history via cultural studies, the studies of Korean modern cultural history, and the studies of ordinary culture. I evaluate the current status of these fields, and examine the tasks in the aspects of institutions and contents. Recently the research of Korean modern literary history via cultural studies left remarkable outcomes especially in the studies of literature and culture in 1960’s and 1970’s, translation culture since the Liberation, female literature and feminism view on the reinterpretation of literature history, the studies of people’s literature(Minjung literature) and labor literature, and the studies of history of cold war culture. The studies of Korean literature will continue to push back the boundaries of ‘literature’ and to transcend nationalism, elitism and androcentrism. Meanwhile ‘literature to culture’ in Korea has kept pace with ‘literature to knowledge.’ In other words, the studies of intellectual history, university history, and cultural history have actively developed on the basis of national research projects. In addition, cultural studies are gradually expanding its boundaries with new methodology, and undeveloped materials and fields. The studies of ordinary culture hold many institutional and theoretical tasks. I looked into the theoretical tasks of the studies of culture stressing on political economic and technoculture paradigm. Cultural studies should become a practical knowledge, going beyond ideological criticism that is easy to be trapped in convention or restoration, and it should create many practical interventions in terms of political economics, scientific technology, and urbanization. Making move conscious efforts to build more camps and strategies for next generations of scholous in the studies of culture will bring a solution to the crisis of the studies of culture.

New Orientations of Cultural Studies in 21st Century China

( Wang Ning ) 한국영어영문학회 2014 영어 영문학 Vol.60 No.2

Cultural Studies is characterized by being opposed to (elite) literary studies not only because it points to popular or non-elite literature which is usually not dealt with by elite literary scholars or comparatists, but also because it severely challenges the established literary canon and even tries to subvert this elite-oriented canon. In addition, Cultural Studies complements literary studies in that it contributes a great deal to the reconstruction of new literary canon by expanding the narrow domain of (elite) literature and its studies. What was not touched upon by traditional literary scholars is now studied by Cultural Studies scholars. In this sense, we should realize that it is not the field of Cultural Studies that occupies the domain of literary studies, but rather, it has expanded its traditional domain and added some new cultural elements. This article will illustrate how the interdisciplinary writings of some of the representative Anglo-American literary scholars have paved the way for effective dialogues between literary studies and Cultural Studies. I argue that the practice of Cultural Studies in China will not only contribute to global Cultural Studies in general, but also carry on equal dialogue with its Western and international counterparts. My purpose is to deal with the challenge of Cultural Studies to comparative literature studies in general before mapping the new orientations of Cultural Studies in 21st century China.

방법으로서의 문화연구와 중국문학

임춘성 중국학연구회 2017 중국학연구 Vol.- No.79

Although the ‘cultural studies’ turn’ has been around for a long time, the acceptance of it has been slow in Korean Chinese literature. This article critically searched the fact that the cultural studies of the Birmingham school focused on popular culture research as a reaction to criticism of popular culture as anarchy at the stage of ‘study of culture’, and proposed to break the barriers of high culture and popular culture and to carry out interdisciplinary research on the good culture. From the ‘study of culture’ of Leavisism to the ‘cultural studies’ of the Birmingham school, it is time to move on to the ‘cultural studies of culture’ stage. This results in an emphasis on ‘cultural studies as a method’. In this paper, we present ‘cultural studies of culture’. This is to break down the barriers between the existing high culture and popular culture, ‘study of culture’ and ‘cultural studies’, and to research culturally it by submitting a new culture concept that encompasses high culture and popular culture. If the Birmingham school, which criticized it and advocated ‘study of culture’ centering on popular culture, was in the second stage, now we need to move on to the new third stage. This is an extension of the research subject from the viewpoint of the existing ‘cultural studies’, and it is advantageous to establish the research methodology from the viewpoint of ‘study of culture’. ‘문화연구로의 전환’이 일어난 지 오래되었지만 한국 중문학계에서는 그 수용이 더딘 편이었다. 이 글에서는 ‘문화의 연구’ 단계에서 대중문화를 무정부 상태라고 비판한 것에 대한 반발로, 버밍햄학파의 문화연구가 대중문화 연구에 중점을 두었던 사실을 비판적으로 포착해서, 새로운 단계의 문화연구는 고급문화와 대중문화의 장벽을 타파하고 양성문화에 대한 학제간 융복합적 연구를 진행할 것을 제안했다. 리비스주의의 ‘문화의 연구’로부터 버밍햄학파의 ‘문화연구’로, 이제 다시 ‘문화에 대한 문화연구’ 단계로 나아가자는 것이다. 이는 ‘방법으로서의 문화연구’에 대한 강조로 귀결된다. 이 논문에서는 ‘문화에 대한 문화연구(cultural studies of culture)’를 제기한다. 이는 기존의 고급문화와 대중문화의 구분, ‘문화의 연구’와 ‘문화연구’의 장벽을 타파하고, 고급문화와 대중문화를 아우르는 문화 개념을 새롭게 제출하면서 그것을 ‘문화적으로’ 연구하자는 것이다. 고급문화 중심의 리비스주의가 1단계였고, 이를 비판하고 대중문화 중심의 문화연구를 제창한 버밍햄학파가 2단계였다면, 이제는 고급문화와 대중문화를 구분하지 말고 양성문화를 발굴하고 악성문화를 지양하는 새로운 3단계로 나아갈 필요가 있다. 이는 기존의 ‘문화연구’의 입장에서 보면 연구의 대상을 확장하는 것이고, ‘문화의 연구’의 입장에서 보면 연구 방법론을 확립하는 장점이 있다.

연극에 대한 문화연구적 접근 -"이론" 도입의 한계를 중심으로-

김용수 ( Yongn Soo Kim ) 한국연극학회 2010 한국연극학 Vol.0 No.40

Cultural Studies built on the critical mind of New Left exposes the relationship between culture and power, and investigates how this relationship develops the cultural convention. It has achieved the new perspective that could make us to think culture and art in terms of political correctness. However, the critical voices against the theoretical premises of Cultural Studies have been increased as its heyday in 1980s was nearly over. For instance, Terry Eagleton, a former Marxist literary critic, declared in 2003 that the golden age of cultural theory is long past. This essay, therefore, intends to show the weak foundations on which the approaches of cultural studies to theatre rest and to clarify the general problem of their introduction to theatre studies. The approach of cultural studies to theatre takes the form of `top-down inquiry` as it applies a theory to a particular play or historical period. In other word, from the theory the writer moves to the particular case. The result is not an inquiry but rather a demonstration. This circularity can destroy the point of serious intellectual investigation as the theory dictates answers. The goal-oriented narrow viewpoint as a logical consequence of `top-down inquiry` makes the researcher to favor the plays or the parts of a play that are proper to test a theory. As a result it loses the fair judgment on the artistic value of a play, and brings about the misinterpretation. The interpreter-oriented reading is the other defect of cultural studies as it disregards the inherent meaning of the text, distorting a play. The approach of cultural studies also consists of a conventionality as it arrives at a stereotyped interpretation by using certain conventions of reasoning and rhetoric. The cultural theories are fundamentally the `outside theories` that seek to explain not theatre but the very broad features of society and politics. Consequently their application to theatre risks the destructive criticism, disregarding the inherent experience of theatre. Most of, if not all, cultural theories, furthermore, are proven to be lack of empirical basis. The alternative method to them is a `cognitive science` that proves scientifically our mind being influenced by bodily experience. The application of cultural materialism to Shakespeare`s <King Lear> is one of the cases that reveal the limits of cultural studies. Jonathan Dollimore and Water Cohen provide a kind of `canonical study` in this application that is imitated by the succeeding researchers. As a result the interpretation of <King Lear> has been flooded with repetitive critical remarks, revealing the problem of `top-down inquiry` and conventional reasoning. Cultural Studies is antipodal to theatre in some respect. It is interested chiefly in the social and political reality while theatre aims to create the fiction world. The theatre studies, therefore, may have to risk the danger of destroying its own base when it adopts cultural studies uncritically. The different stance between theatre and cultural theories also occurs from the opposition of humanism vs. antihumanism. We have to introduce cultural theories selectively and properly not to destroy the inherent experience and domain of theatre.

수잔 리 포스터를 중심으로 시작된 일련의 무용 문화연구 경향 연구

김현정 한국무용예술학회 2006 무용예술학연구 Vol.18 No.-

A Trend of Cultural Studies of Dance Initiated by Susan Leigh FosterHyun Jung Kim, Ph.D.LecturerSungkyunkwan University, Suwon University, and the Korean Natioinal University of the ArtsThis paper aims to explore how the critical issues of cultural studies have influenced the recent development of dance studies in the United States. Cultural studies is an umbrella term that includes theoretical approaches drawn from poststructuralism, postcolonialism, multiculturalism, contemporary Marxism, new historicism, semiotics, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, and feminism. Cultural studies, which investigates the natural as a social, cultural, historical construction, has strong effects on methodologies in dance field as well as the humanities. Susan Leigh Foster initiated a trend of interdisciplinary dance scholarship in 1986 and since then some scholars have facilitated it following the theoretical approaches of cultural studies. The dance scholars examine dance as an embodied social, cultural practice. They enable dance studies previously marginalized within the academy to be a major academic discipline. Dancing bodies as a primary text manifest or subvert meaning and identity.In South Korea, more and more universities have offered cultural studies programs. The interdisciplinary programs are based on art history, film studies, gender studies, popular culture, and mass media, not on dance field. Considering the stagnant situation of domestic dance academy, it is necessary to apply the debates of cultural studies to dance scholarship. Cultural studies opens up a possibility for dance scholarship to go into wider academic communities.

문화콘텐츠연구의 방법론 설정을 위한 시론

임대근 인문콘텐츠학회 2022 인문콘텐츠 Vol.- No.64

For the past 20 years, cultural contents studies have dealt with cultural contents as Langue and Parole. This article argues that cultural contents as Langue or Parole should be viewed as a ‘whole’ and a series of flows. Cultural contents studies lie on the historical flow of science since modern times. It is a concept that follows cultural anthropology that liberates the concept of culture geographically and transversely and the cultural studies that liberates class and longitudinally. The term of ‘contents’ emerged after work-text-media and became a concept representing the 21st century. Cultural contents studies began by encompassing various academic disciplines and interdisciplinary research. In order to discuss the methodology of cultural contents studies, it is necessary to examine interaction of the object, purpose, and the subject of studies. The objects of cultural contents studies are cultural contents as Langue and Parole. Cultural contents is a broad concept encompassing the production and reception. Narrowly, it refers to specific individual or plural products presented as a result of planning and production. Cultural contents studies are not a discipline, but should be conducted as interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies. The setting purpose of studies is closely related to the project of studies. Academia should set the final task for the cultural contents studies. First, it should be noted the relationship between the principle of cultural contents as Langue and Parole of various forms and genres. Second, cultural contents should constitute the context of production and reception within the contemporary category. Third, cultural contents should explore how to reproduce cultural resources contemporary. Fourth, it is necessary to analyze the structure of cultural contents as Parole produced according to the principle of cultural contents. Fifth, cultural contents studies should utilize the experiences of various disciplines in the 20th century that existed in the form of divisions in a transdisciplinary way. 지난 20년간 문화콘텐츠연구는 랑그로서의 문화콘텐츠, 파롤로서의 문화콘텐츠를 다루어왔다. 이 글은 랑그 또는 파롤로서의 문화콘텐츠를 ‘전체’이자 일련의 흐름으로 보아야 한다고 주장한다. 또한 이런 바탕 위에서 문화콘텐츠연구에 대한 학문적 접근을 시도해야 한다고 주장한다. 문화콘텐츠연구는 근대 이후 학문의 역사적 흐름 위에 놓여 있다. 그것은 문화 개념을 지리-횡단적으로 해방한 문화인류학과 계급-종단적으로 해방한 문화연구를 이어 나타난 개념이다. 또한 ‘콘텐츠’는 작품-텍스트-미디어에 뒤이어 출현하여 21세기를 대표하는 개념 가운데 하나가 되었다. 문화콘텐츠연구는 다양한 학문 분과를 포괄하는 학제적 연구의 형식으로 시작되었다. 문화콘텐츠연구의 방법론을 논의하기 위해서는 연구대상, 연구목적, 연구주체의 상호작용을 살펴보아야한다. 문화콘텐츠연구의 대상은 랑그와 파롤로서의 문화콘텐츠다. 문화콘텐츠는 광의적으로 문화콘텐츠의 생산과 수용을 아우른다. 협의로는 기획과 제작의 결과로서의 제시된 특정한 개별적 혹은 복수적 생산물을 일컫는다. 문화콘텐츠연구는 분과학문이 아니며, 학제적 연구, 초학제적 연구(transdisciplinary studies)로서 수행되어야 한다. 연구목적의 설정은 연구과제와 긴밀히 관련된다. 학계는 문화콘텐츠연구의 최종 과제를 설정해야 한다. 첫째, 문화콘텐츠[langue]의 원리와 다양한 형태 및 장르의 문화콘텐츠들[parole]의 관계에 주목해야 한다. 둘째, 문화콘텐츠를 동시대적 범주 안에서 생산과 수용의 맥락으로 구성해야 한다. 셋째, 문화콘텐츠가 문화자원을 어떻게 동시대적으로 재생산할 것인지에 관해 탐구해야 한다. 넷째, 문화콘텐츠의 원리에 따라 생산된 파롤로서의 문화콘텐츠가 갖는 구조에 대한 분석이 필요하다. 다섯째, 문화콘텐츠연구는 분과의 형식으로 존재했던 20세기의 다양한 학문의 경험을 초학제적으로 원용해야 한다.

타이완 문화연구의 쟁점과 전망 ― 문화연구라는 정향(定向)과 인터아시아적 전화 문제

백원담 한국중국현대문학학회 2012 中國現代文學 Vol.0 No.63

This paper examines the current status and the future prospects of cultural studies in Taiwan as a way of capturing the ‘figure’ to understand the history of Taiwanese cultural studies since the 1980s. Here, the ‘figure’ refers to the ‘dialectics of seeing’ in Benjamin’s sense which is established through in the constellation between the past and present. What trajectory has Taiwanese cultural studies followed in Taiwanese society and what questions can it pose to Korean cultural studies? I would argue that to answer these questions is to read those that have not been written via the relocation of similarity, to achieve a new language for interpretation and mutual understanding of reference systems, and to set up the foundation of an inter-Asian relationship. A few notable historical moments, such as the experience of Japanese colonialism and independence, America's dominance of the Cold War world system, and similar situations of division,compressed modernization driven by the Third World model, the experience of discipline by authoritarian regimes and, most of all,the critical moment of 1987 that led to the lifting of martial law in Taiwan and the establishment of the 1987 system in Korea,make us understand the common arguments of nationalism,modernity, and state violence in both countries. The comparison of the two countries through concrete phenomena enables us to reflect on the structural location and modernity of the Third World: that is, Asia and its subsequent historical experience that contributed to the rather ‘unique’ or central phenomenon in modernity’s construction of Asia. However, the 'reflection' has been achieved through a comparison of Asia to the West, recognised as ‘universal’,in order to examine its backwardness. As a result, it has been the source of an unbalanced Asian academia. Any knowledge production or attempts to introduce cultural phenomena in an academic way ignores the tension between different countries and is likely to produce the ideological effects of power inequality that speak for cultural identity(uniformality) by becoming simply theoretical journeys or settling into a cultural diversity position. Therefore, this paper focuses on the relocation of similarity between Korea and Taiwan in order to understand the issue of historical continuity and the isomorphous structure of the two countries throughout the modernized journey of colonialism and the Cold War that has been somewhat overlapped. Cultural studies in Taiwan is still in progress with the purpose of defining locality and research continues to mediate between different fields and relocate itself in various locations. It is Taiwanese cultural studies that determines the level of cultural practices based on the relationship between culture and society, or historically constructed cultural or power relationships. By uncovering a new form of cultural production, Taiwanese cultural studies suggests a new trajectory for (re)conceptualising Asia as a mutual reference system and leads to the deterritorized self-expanding nature of Taiwanese cultural studies. It has to be argued that such an open structure accepts various reference systems via the construction of constant tension within the antagonism of ‘the Southward advance discourse’. On the other hand, this open structure has the possibility of being influenced by China and Chinese society which could become another ‘universal’. In this sense, the work of deconstructing another mythical imagination, an imagination of multi-layered correlation, needs to be continued. Moreover, it is the time to capture ‘the figure’ of the trajectories of the ‘relocation of similarity’initiated and mostly driven by Chen, Kuan-Hsing in Taiwan. Is Taiwanese cultural studies looking through imperial eyes, another knowledge reconstruction post for the southward advance discourse?Or is this a emerging point of spatial practices heading towards a model of new equal rela...

중국의 비판적 · 개입적 문화연구

임춘성(YIM, Choonsung) 한국문화연구학회 2013 문화연구 Vol.2 No.1

이 글은 2001년 11월 창설된 상하이대학교 ‘중국당대문화연구센터(Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, CCCS, 이하 ‘센터’)’와 설립자 왕샤오밍 (王曉明) 및 ‘상하이 문화연구 그룹’에 초점을 맞춰 중국의 문화연구 상황을 고찰하려는 목적을 가지고 있다. 우선 중국의 문화연구 상황을 개괄한 후 제도와 교육에 초점을 맞춰 ‘센터’와 ‘문화연구계’의 변천과정을 고찰하고 ‘센터’의 연구 작업을 ‘비판적 분석’과 ‘촉진적 개입’의 절합으로 총괄해 단계별로 살펴보며, 각 주제별 연구 성과들을 고찰할 것이다. 나아가 이들의 연구 및 교학 활동을 ‘학파(school)’로서의 가능성에 초점을 맞춰 전망해 본다. This study aims to analyze the current status of cultural research in China with a focus on Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies(CCCS) of Shanghai University established November, 2001, as well as its founder WANG Xiaoming and the Shanghai Cultural Studies Group. After introducing how cultural studies has been conducted in China, the transition process of CCCS and the cultural studies group will be reviewed highlighting the system and the training. The research conducted by CCCS is summarized as an articulation of critical analysis and accelerating intervention and it will be observed in stages, while the fruits of research is examined in different subjects. Furthermore, the prospect of such studies and academic activities as ‘school’ shall be contemplated upon. The Shanghai Cultural Studies Group lead by WANG Xiaoming conducts group studies by establishing an encampment. The articulation of critical analysis and accelerating intervention is the group’s most profound characteristic. It also creatively inherits the revolutionary tradition of China to integrate it with the critically accommodated cultural studies. The group is future-oriented as it combines its studies and the academics in between systematization and utilization of the system. Culture defined by the Group is in fact expansive and diverse, its coverage starting from the local Shanghainese culture to the new dominant culture of the contemporary world as well as the socialist culture. The contemporary production mechanism of the new dominant culture and disclosing its operation methods in particular are the central theme of this group. For this purpose, it conducts studies on media including television and the internet, real estate market and advertisements, the new village for laborers during socialist period, factory culture, residential culture of the young generation, web literature, the new urban spaces, etc. The theme of research focuses on Shanghai but in fact it covers the issue of urban-rural conflict and socialist culture too. The insight and intellectuality is utterly global. The group utilizes critical field study method and the contents overlap with participant observation and ethnography methodology of anthropology. Naturally the group’s fundamental concern is ‘To which direction China shall proceed’.

문화콘텐츠연구의 학문적 위상

임대근(Great Root Woods) 인문콘텐츠학회 2015 인문콘텐츠 Vol.0 No.38

이 글은 21세기 이후 출현한 새로운 경향으로서 문화콘텐츠연구의 학문적 위상을 문제화한다. 문화콘텐츠 현상은 문화에 대한 산업적, 기술적, 정책적 필요에 따라 등장했기 때문에 오랫동안 그 학문적 체계를 구축하는 일을 중요하게 여기지 않아왔다. 따라서 개별적인 문화콘텐츠 현상에 대한 연구는 다수 축적돼 있으나, 그 학문적 위상을 체계적으로 구성하고자 하는 노력은 상대적으로 미약했다. 이 글은 근대이후 학문적인 맥락 속에서 문화콘텐츠연구가 역사적 단절 가운데 불현듯 출현한 입장이나 태도라고 간주하지 않는다. 오히려 그것은 근대 이후 학문이 실천적으로 축적해 왔던 다양한 성과들을 계승하는 한편 그 한계를 극복하려는 시도로서 간주되어야 한다고 주장한다. 따라서 이 글은 근대 이래 문화를 학문적으로 대상화했던 네 가지 사례를 살펴보았다. 분과학문으로서는 문화인류학과 사회학, 상호 학문적(학제적) 연구로서는 지역연구와 문화연구가 그것이다. 이들은 각각의 성과와 한계를 문화콘텐츠연구에 물려주었고, 문화콘텐츠연구는 이들을 계승하거나 극복하는 과정에서 학문적 정체성을 구성해가고 있다. 그 결과로서 이 글은 다음을 주장한다. 첫째, 문화콘텐츠연구는 기존 분과학문과는 다른 학문적 경향이다. 둘째, 오늘의 시점에서 문화콘텐츠연구는 현실적으로 상호 학문적(interdisciplinary) 연구이지만, 이상적으로는 기존 분과학문들의 단순한 결합을 넘어서는 초학제적(trans-disciplinary) 연구를 지향해야 한다. 셋째, 문화콘텐츠연구는 그 자체가 하나의 단일하고 궁극적인 학문적 목적을 향해서 나아가지는 않는다. 그것은 세계의 다양한 현상들이 서로 교차, 삼투, 결합되면서 빚어내는 상상력 넘치는 새로운 경관들을 실천적으로 논의하는 과정이 되어야 한다. 무엇보다 이 글은 문화콘텐츠연구에 있어서 무엇보다 중요한 것은 우리가 어떠한 ‘꿈’을 구현할 것인가에 관한 ‘가치’의 발견이라고 믿는다. This article problematizes the academic positioning of cultural contents studies as a new academic trend emerged in the 21st century. Since the phenomena of cultural contents had generally appeared according to industrial, technological and policy needs for culture, establishing an academic system about them has not been considered as important for a long while. Accordingly, even though there are considerable studies on individual phenomenon of cultural contents, efforts to systematically define their academic position have been relatively insubstantial. Yet this article does not see cultural contents studies as a sudden stance or attitude that appeared from some historical rupture against a continuing modern academic context; cultural contents studies rather should be taken as an effort to inherit various scholarly achievements made since the modern era and to overcome their limitations. To substantiate this argument, this article reviews four academic cases that exemplify academic objectification of culture since the modern era: as a discipline, there are cultural anthropology and sociology; and as interdisciplinary studies, there are area studies and cultural studies. These four fields handed over their respective achievements and limitations to cultural contents studies, which, in turn, is establishing its own academic identity in the process of inheriting or overcoming them. Consequently, this article argues: first, that cultural contents studies is an academic trend different from any other existing disciplines; second, that it is only realistic that this field should be interdisciplinary in these present times; and third, that cultural contents studies does not move toward a single, ultimate academic purpose?it should be a process where diverse global phenomena cross paths, permeate and combine with each other, with practical discussions on the new, imaginative landscapes they have created. Most importantly, the single most critical element in cultural contents studies should be to identify ‘values’ concerning the kind of ‘dreams’ we are trying to materialize.