http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
<기획논문 - 도봉 지역의 문화 인물 탐구> 추모, 기억, 그리고 역사 ― 추모공간으로서의 강북
윤지관 덕성여자대학교 인문과학연구소 2013 인문과학연구 Vol.18 No.-
이 발표는 서울에서 강북지역이 가지는 추모공간으로서의 성격을 어떻게 이해할 것인가를 주제로 한다. 과거는 현재 속에 구조적으로 결합되어 있고 현실을 구성하는 주요요소로 현실의 일부라고 할 수 있고, 추모나 애도는 현재를 이 과거와 관계맺고 이해하는 방식이다. 역사적으로 강북지역이 추모의 공간으로 작용한 것은 서울에서 그것이 차지하는 주변적인 위치와 지형적 특성에 기인한다. 여기에는 서구와는 달리 죽은 자에 대한 기억을 의례화하고 추모의 시공간을 양식화함으로써 일상에서 격리하고자 하는 유교적인 이념이 깔려 있다. 이 지역이 4.19묘지 및 독립열사들의 묘역 등 근대 이후 추모의 장소들이 되고 있는 것은, 일상 속에서 삶과 죽음, 역사와 현재의 관계를 재사고하고 재구성하는 활동을 가능하게 한다는 점에서 이 지역의 문화를 더 심도 있게 만드는 토대가 되고 있다. This presentation tries to elucidate how to understand the Kangbuk Region in Seoul as a place for mourning. While the past is structurally combined with the present and constitutes an immanent part of the present, mourning can be understood as a way to relate the present to the past. Historical establishment of the Kangbuk Region as a mourning area has been resulted by its position as periphery to the capital and its topographies. Ideologically the Confucian ideas, by making the memory of the dead be formally ceremonial to distance it from the ordinary life of the living people, influenced to endow such regionality to this area. The fact that the region has kept the same characteristics to the traditional role after modernity in such mourning sites as the 4.19 National Cemetery and the group of graves for eminent nationalists who contributed to the establishment of the modern Korea, has a great cultural significance for its functions to make us rethink and reformulate the relation between the living and the dead, history and present.
윤지관 영미문학연구회 2015 안과 밖 Vol.0 No.39
Any understanding of and response to the crisis of the humanities in Korea cannot be sufficiently practical without facing the government-led reconstruction of universities that is actually threatening to destroy some fundamentals of the humanities. In the process of reducing the total numbers of students or entrance quotas of universities, the reconstruction has been primarily directed toward industrial needs in society, which means downsizing or reformulating such seemingly unprofitable sectors of universities as liberal education and the humanities. Governmental funding for universities has also been concentrated on promoting the “academy-industry cooperation” through such projects as Creative Korea and PRIME, while funding for the humanities is not only insignificant in scale compared with the technology areas of universities but furthermore has a deteriorating effect in its anti-humanist purpose: its emphasis on student training not for critical minds but jobs. Even the so-called “law for promoting the humanities,” which the current Ministry of Education has proposed, appears to be designed to camouflage an industry-oriented anti-humanities reconstruction. In this crisis of the humanities, which leads to a crisis of the university as a whole, the scholars of the humanities have a responsibility to take action to prevent the government-led reconstructing process and formulate an alternative policy that can enhance the publicness of universities.