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)
Rising such unexperienced problems as the posthuman or the posthumanity, it is necessary to reflect the classical study of humanities to conceptualize the humanity anyway. Thereby if we will draw a new study of humanities, it may be called the ‘posthumanstudies’ to mean “humanstudies after humanstudies” literally. The posthumanstudies discovered in such way make their appearance in two mode: the posthumanstudies and the posthuman-studies. On the one hand, the post-humanstudies always will try to break down every attempt to define the humanity and the posthumaniy conceptually, by criticizing the attitude of the classical study of humanities to conceptualize the humanity. On the other hand, the posthuman-studies will try to inquire into various posthuman images that can not to be defined conceptually, by adjusting their own course according to critical attitude of the post-humanstudies. 포스트휴먼이나 포스트휴머니티와 같은 새로운 문제들은 어떤 식으로든 인간의개념화를 지향하는 고전적 인문학에 대한 반성을 촉발한다. 이에 따라 우리가 어떤 새로운 인문학을 그려본다면, 그것은 문자적으로‘ 인문학 다음의 인문학’을 의미하는‘ 포스트인문학’일 것이다. 그런데‘ 포스트인문학’은‘ 포스트-인문학’과‘ 포스트인문-학’으로 분석될 때 좀 더 선명한 의미를 드러낸다. 포스트-인문학은 인문학 본래의 비판정신을 자신의 활동 자체까지 비판하는 철저한 비판정신으로 되살려낸 인문학으로서, 휴머니티나 포스트휴머니티를 개념화하려는 모든 시도에 저항한다. 포스트인문-학은 포스트-인문학의 태도나 방법에 따라 자신의 진행을 반성적으로 조정함으로써 어떤 식으로도 개념화할 수 없는 질료적인 포스트휴먼 이미지들을 탐색한다.
The so-called “crisis of the humanities” can be understood in terms of an asymmetry between the natural and social sciences on the one hand and the humanities on the other. While the sciences approach topics related to human experience in quantificational or experimental terms, the humanities often turn to ancient texts in the search for truths about human experience. As both of these approaches have their own unique limitations, overcoming or rectifying the asymmetry between them is desirable. The present article seeks to do just that by advancing and defending the following two claims: a) that the humanities are ubiquitous wherever language is used, and b) that anything that can be experienced by humans is in need of interpretation. Two arguments are presented in support of these claims. The first argument concerns the nature of questions, which are fundamental marks or manifestations of human language. All questions are ultimately attempts to find alternative meanings or interpretations of what is presented. As such, in questioning phenomena, one seeks to transcend the oppression of imposed structures and in doing so reveals one’s humanity. Second, all phenomena are textual in nature: that which astrophysicists find in distant galaxies or which cognitive neuroscientists find in the structures of the human brain are no less in need of interpretation than the dialogues of Plato or the poems of Homer. Texts are ubiquitous. The implications of these two arguments are identified and discussed in this article. In particular, the ubiquity of humanity and textuality points to a view of human nature that is neither individualistic nor collectivist, but rather integrational in suggesting that the realization of oneself is inseparable from the realization of all others (成己成物).
In this article, I try to think about research methods in our trans-humanities agenda by bringing the meaning of the prefix “trans-” into focus. For this purpose, the concepts of “transculturation” and “transculturality” in cultural and literary studies should be analysed. For example, there is the oldest concept of “transculturation,” from the Cuban anthropologist Fernando Ortiz in the 1940s, which was incorporated and further developed within the realm of literary studies by the Urguayan critic Angel Rama in the 1970s, as well as the concept of “transculturation” used by the German philosopher Wolfgang Welsch and the discussions concerning his concept in German cultural and literary studies. On the basis of this paper’s analysis, the meaning of the prefix “trans-” in our trans-humanities agenda can be modified in accordance with cultural and scholarly contexts. The trans-humanities are trans-scholarly, which means that this sort of humanities crosses the boundary between the real world and the academy and has relevance to reality beyond the walls of the university. The boundary between outside reality and the academy is permeable, so the humanities of this sort are communicable and interactive. Additionally, the trans-humanities are transdisciplinary, a point relevant to research methods. In order to research phenomena in the glocal area, the disciplines must be open, communicating and cooperating with other disciplines.
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.