Frankly speaking, I was not able to complete Bauman’s two books. Because I got them the last Monday and it was boring to keep reading due to my physical condition of my right ankle’s pain. Besides, I felt Bauman’s idea has pointed out in Globalization was not up to date and he focused on critique of economical problems, which are external phenomena. He mentioned at the introduction of the Globalization piece that he tried to question of our times. I agree to it, but we, educators, should have criteria to solve the problems. I hope he evoked something at the end of his books. So I wrote this focusing my thought of internal issues in consuming life and globalization.
I think, if one is not living with his/her own eyes/perspectives, life would be consuming. Everybody has one’s own eyes but I mean it in terms of psychological realm of one’s identity.
It is easy and clear to say borrowing two visual materials of the catholic angels. The image of the white female angel is a western people’s image which is the icon of others’ eyes(culture) in my eastern point of view. Korean catholic love this icon and believe as a symbol of their ideal idol. This is the power of western culture. They are merely sacrifice of the culture’s power. The formidable is that it has already become their belief/life, hopefully, a part of their life.
My mother, sister and brother’ family except me are catholic. I am wondering that it is impossible to say this point to them. There is one Korean catholic church in Minnesota. The architecture of the church (even Korean) is same as the western church. There is a little difference to build a church according to a financial situation. Here again, the economical condition has launched which I wanted to ignore. I have to admit that Bauman’s critical view centered in economic is inevitable situation of our materialized world.
What we can learn from the trial and error of the past? It is to know the next step and not to repeat the trial and error. It is important to be aware of what the problems are? We have to extract the essence of the society from the critical viewpoint and learn not to the past trial and error is essential component for our times.
It is a matter how to teach the way of seeing, starts seeing through critical gaze in cultural contexts and then one’s eyes, which are able to see hidden meaning of our modern material world. My concern in education is how to teach spirituality in our fast changing society. And also we, Korean lost out spirituality in turmoil of modernization because of our uncritical acceptance of American educational system.
2008년 9월 24일 수요일
2008년 9월 17일 수요일
4. feminist theory by Maricarmen Martinez
Maricarmen Martinez
Firestone's and Wilson's views on the Oppression of Women
Firestone claims that reproductive biology causes the oppression of Women. She uses several premises to support this claim, among them, Marilyn Frye's definition of oppression and Marx's method for the elimination of oppression. The definition of oppression that Firestone takes from Frye is: oppression is a socio-political system designed to purposely confine, shape, manipulate or reduce a particular class or caste of people solely on arbitrary grounds and for the advantage, of another class. The oppressive system uses barriers to confine the oppressed class or caste. These barriers take the form of norms, laws, procedures, and societal practices which prevent the oppressed class or caste to develop its full potential and achieve freedom. Thus, practices or behaviors such as rape and domestic abuse, as well as social norms that guide motherhood, serve as barriers against women. These barriers which are built into the system, are not immediately perceived but a closer look at the organization of society might reveal their existence. For Firestone, as well as for Frye, a woman in an oppressive society is somehow like a bird in a cage. If someone sees a birdcage he or she wonders why the bird does not fly away. This is so because, the wires that make up the cage cannot be seen from a distance. However, a step back will soon show that the wires interconnect and intersect. The same is true for women. It is therefore, necessary to pay close attention in order to see the patterns of confinement that society devises for women. Since Firestone shares with Marx the premise that every form of oppression is unjust, as well as his method of finding the cause of oppression to eradicate it, she goes on to find the cause of the barriers that confine women.
Firestone examines the different barriers that confine women such as all forms of sexual aggression as well as the limitations associated with menstruation, child bearing. She claims that the common denominator of these barriers is that they are caused by reproductive biology. Firestone argues that women are physically weakened by their reproductive biology and that the male dominated society arbitrarily takes advantage of this fact, and even makes that weakness more drastic. Thus, men used the weakness of women, which results from their reproductive biology to create a sexual division of labor. This allowed men to be explorers of their environment and confined women to domestic chores and raising the children. Thus, female reproductive biology causes the unequal distribution of power in the biological family. Furthermore, the reproductive biology of women also causes that they are psychologically weakened. Men created a society defined in terms of gender roles that prescribe that women should behave as "passive" females or act" feminine" and that they should "dominate' by men. This society also encourages heterosexuality as the sexual practice that guarantees that women should remain confined by their reproductive biology and which allows men to continue to control the reproductive biology of the women.
Once Firestone shows that reproductive biology causes the oppression of women, she moves on to say that the endorsement and use of reproductive biology as an institution is politically dangerous. Reproductive biology causes oppression and every form of oppression is unjust. Therefore, Firestone proposes to eliminate reproductive biology and that women should take control of their reproductive biology. Human beings are not controlled or obliged by their biology. Historically, we have used technology to liberate ourselves from the threats of nature and also for our freedom and well being. We can and should use technology to liberate us from the confinement brought upon us by nature. The oppression of women will cease if we eliminate reproductive biology and substitute it by artificial reproduction. With the elimination of reproductive biology, the sex/gender system and the institution of heterosexuality will collapse.
A conservative such as Edward Wilson would criticize Firestone's argument by showing that the differences based on reproductive biology are not oppressive, but necessary. Wilson defends this claim by using an "efficiency argument". This type of arguments states that society should encourage and enhance all that is useful and beneficial to it. For Wilson, the biological or natural differences of men and women as well as the institutions based on them should be encouraged, since what is at stake is the natural order of evolution. This order is useful and efficient at preserving the human species and producing a rich and diverse variety of human beings. Therefore, encouraging and enhancing the sexual differences should preserve this order, even if this implies sacrificing individuals that would rather be doing other things than those determined by their sex.
Firestone has a way to avoid the criticism from Wilson by restating that the proposal is guided by the ethical principle: "Every form of oppression is unjust". As human beings we should enhance and foster any practice that help us eliminate oppression. Our commitment is with other human beings and not with nature. Firestone could also argue that the fact that the differences between men and women are necessary does not prevent them from being oppressive, just as the undeniable fact that is necessary to die does not make death less sad, and some could say unfair.
Wilson could argue back that in order us to be committed to each other qua human beings rather than mere biological species; we have to exist as a species. This implies that we are not going to develop practices such as artificial reproduction that could endanger our life in the Planet. Yet, Firestone could argue that artificial reproduction is functionally equivalent to natural reproduction. What are artificial are the means of reproduction and not the result of reproduction. People and not robots are the results of artificial reproduction. A technology designed to liberate women from reproduction is still reproduction. An artificial reproduction that will wipe out a species is a contradiction in terms. As for diversity, people will continue to be as diverse as the DNA allows them to be. Again, Firestone does not talk about the result of the reproduction, which is always going to be people, but of eliminating natural reproduction as the ONLY way of propagating the species.
Firestone's and Wilson's views on the Oppression of Women
Firestone claims that reproductive biology causes the oppression of Women. She uses several premises to support this claim, among them, Marilyn Frye's definition of oppression and Marx's method for the elimination of oppression. The definition of oppression that Firestone takes from Frye is: oppression is a socio-political system designed to purposely confine, shape, manipulate or reduce a particular class or caste of people solely on arbitrary grounds and for the advantage, of another class. The oppressive system uses barriers to confine the oppressed class or caste. These barriers take the form of norms, laws, procedures, and societal practices which prevent the oppressed class or caste to develop its full potential and achieve freedom. Thus, practices or behaviors such as rape and domestic abuse, as well as social norms that guide motherhood, serve as barriers against women. These barriers which are built into the system, are not immediately perceived but a closer look at the organization of society might reveal their existence. For Firestone, as well as for Frye, a woman in an oppressive society is somehow like a bird in a cage. If someone sees a birdcage he or she wonders why the bird does not fly away. This is so because, the wires that make up the cage cannot be seen from a distance. However, a step back will soon show that the wires interconnect and intersect. The same is true for women. It is therefore, necessary to pay close attention in order to see the patterns of confinement that society devises for women. Since Firestone shares with Marx the premise that every form of oppression is unjust, as well as his method of finding the cause of oppression to eradicate it, she goes on to find the cause of the barriers that confine women.
Firestone examines the different barriers that confine women such as all forms of sexual aggression as well as the limitations associated with menstruation, child bearing. She claims that the common denominator of these barriers is that they are caused by reproductive biology. Firestone argues that women are physically weakened by their reproductive biology and that the male dominated society arbitrarily takes advantage of this fact, and even makes that weakness more drastic. Thus, men used the weakness of women, which results from their reproductive biology to create a sexual division of labor. This allowed men to be explorers of their environment and confined women to domestic chores and raising the children. Thus, female reproductive biology causes the unequal distribution of power in the biological family. Furthermore, the reproductive biology of women also causes that they are psychologically weakened. Men created a society defined in terms of gender roles that prescribe that women should behave as "passive" females or act" feminine" and that they should "dominate' by men. This society also encourages heterosexuality as the sexual practice that guarantees that women should remain confined by their reproductive biology and which allows men to continue to control the reproductive biology of the women.
Once Firestone shows that reproductive biology causes the oppression of women, she moves on to say that the endorsement and use of reproductive biology as an institution is politically dangerous. Reproductive biology causes oppression and every form of oppression is unjust. Therefore, Firestone proposes to eliminate reproductive biology and that women should take control of their reproductive biology. Human beings are not controlled or obliged by their biology. Historically, we have used technology to liberate ourselves from the threats of nature and also for our freedom and well being. We can and should use technology to liberate us from the confinement brought upon us by nature. The oppression of women will cease if we eliminate reproductive biology and substitute it by artificial reproduction. With the elimination of reproductive biology, the sex/gender system and the institution of heterosexuality will collapse.
A conservative such as Edward Wilson would criticize Firestone's argument by showing that the differences based on reproductive biology are not oppressive, but necessary. Wilson defends this claim by using an "efficiency argument". This type of arguments states that society should encourage and enhance all that is useful and beneficial to it. For Wilson, the biological or natural differences of men and women as well as the institutions based on them should be encouraged, since what is at stake is the natural order of evolution. This order is useful and efficient at preserving the human species and producing a rich and diverse variety of human beings. Therefore, encouraging and enhancing the sexual differences should preserve this order, even if this implies sacrificing individuals that would rather be doing other things than those determined by their sex.
Firestone has a way to avoid the criticism from Wilson by restating that the proposal is guided by the ethical principle: "Every form of oppression is unjust". As human beings we should enhance and foster any practice that help us eliminate oppression. Our commitment is with other human beings and not with nature. Firestone could also argue that the fact that the differences between men and women are necessary does not prevent them from being oppressive, just as the undeniable fact that is necessary to die does not make death less sad, and some could say unfair.
Wilson could argue back that in order us to be committed to each other qua human beings rather than mere biological species; we have to exist as a species. This implies that we are not going to develop practices such as artificial reproduction that could endanger our life in the Planet. Yet, Firestone could argue that artificial reproduction is functionally equivalent to natural reproduction. What are artificial are the means of reproduction and not the result of reproduction. People and not robots are the results of artificial reproduction. A technology designed to liberate women from reproduction is still reproduction. An artificial reproduction that will wipe out a species is a contradiction in terms. As for diversity, people will continue to be as diverse as the DNA allows them to be. Again, Firestone does not talk about the result of the reproduction, which is always going to be people, but of eliminating natural reproduction as the ONLY way of propagating the species.
2008년 9월 15일 월요일
3. Hidden Korea
Culture
Korean Culture:
Three Mrs. Kims dressed in traditional hanboks
Like all agricultural societies, Korean life has always centered on tightly knit families. Large families have been prized and over many centuries families intermarried within the regions of Korea to form large clans. Family names reflect this. A dozen family names predominate, especially Kim, Park, Lee, Kang, and Cho. But Kims from the city of Pusan in the south are not the Kims from Seoul and all the Kims know exactly which group they belong to. Custom forbids people marrying within their own clan, no matter how distant the cousin might be. In order to know who is who, families and clan keep detailed genealogical records that might go back many hundreds of years. Even in today's westernized Korea many people can still recite the glorious history of their clans and take pride in them.
.
Couple on their way to Ch'usok ceremony
Confucian Ideas:
Already male centered, Korean society became highly patriarchal when the Confucian system was imported from China and made the official state belief system in about 1390 A.D. Order and authority are the hallmarks of Confucian thought. Fathers are responsible for their families and must be both obeyed and revered by everyone. Even ancestral fathers are honored. The custom is called filiopiety and even today elements of it remain among Koreans. Traditionally, older people are accorded honor. For instance, at dinner the eldest person sits first and eats and drinks before anyone else can begin. Anyone older must always be addressed with honorifics, even among acquaintances. No one would think of calling an older person by their first name, much less a grandfather or grandmother. Bowing to them is the really traditional way of greeting. Hard work, obedience to family, protection of the family, and proper decorum among family members are very much Korean values, even in the modern world.
.
Mrs. Kim teaches her grand-daughter the art of cooking
Women and Village Life:
Today, women are in every occupation, from government officials to business persons and professors. In traditional Korean society, women had set roles. They were expected to stay at home, to raise their children, keep house and prepare meals. In farming villages they also worked in the fields. When women married they came to live in their husbands' houses, but always kept their own family names. Once in their husbands' homes, they became part of the extended families. Not only were they to obey the eldest males in the family and their husbands, but to take commands from the eldest woman. As in many traditional societies, the oldest women within the household, a grandmother, for instance, had great power over the rest of the women and children. And, more than one son would think twice about disregarding the wishes of a powerful grandmother.
The idea of cooperation based on a system of authority worked in the old villages. Villagers often banded together to help one another in times of need and for important events. If a member might need help in a harvest or perhaps house repairs all the rest would gather to help. When a village needed a new well or a bridge, for example, everyone pitched in to build them. For important occasions such as funerals, weddings, or major birthday party (usually when a man reached the age of 60), villagers often pooled their moneys to make a grand party. That sense of solidarity with one's neighbors and even one's nation still flows through Korean life today.
For more information on this subject:
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/STUDENTS/Hwang/home.htm http://www.joins.com/kwin/index.html
this is the PBS online video. the title is Hidden Korea. i have chosen Korean culture, confucian ideas, and women and village life amongst several subject .
2008년 9월 12일 금요일
2. orientalism and turning it back
The title of my work is “Orientalism and Turning It Back”. I am trying to say with my work. I expressed my cultural notion in viewing the term ‘Orientalism’ which is a view-point which is watching us -me- from western-centered thought and language. I started rethinking the word and writing down my thoughts as they have pop out from my mind, then drawing as what my thought means into images and texts on my pictorial space.
I wrote my Korean translation on the drawing.
Orientalism: Knowledge about orient. Orient is far. A thing which is far looks small from western point of views. The orient looks small, so it is small with them that means orientalism. No. it is not small from my eyes, rather the western looks small. The glass of Orientalism is not truth, it looks only small by the western eyes.
The following is the paired drawing ‘And Turning It Back’: A thing which is far far from my point of view looks small. The western which is far should look small. But why does the western look big and a thing which is far look bigger?
Behind the transparent screen on the drawing I wrote.
Why do I look me small, but I sometimes look me big. Who am I?
No. No. No. … Why I cannot see mine and I can see better the thing which is far. It was due to the glasses of education which I have learned and constructed make me small even though it is close but look larger rather the western which is far.
I wrote my Korean translation on the drawing.
Orientalism: Knowledge about orient. Orient is far. A thing which is far looks small from western point of views. The orient looks small, so it is small with them that means orientalism. No. it is not small from my eyes, rather the western looks small. The glass of Orientalism is not truth, it looks only small by the western eyes.
The following is the paired drawing ‘And Turning It Back’: A thing which is far far from my point of view looks small. The western which is far should look small. But why does the western look big and a thing which is far look bigger?
Behind the transparent screen on the drawing I wrote.
Why do I look me small, but I sometimes look me big. Who am I?
No. No. No. … Why I cannot see mine and I can see better the thing which is far. It was due to the glasses of education which I have learned and constructed make me small even though it is close but look larger rather the western which is far.
피드 구독하기:
덧글 (Atom)