1. Yŏn'gyŏngjae Sŏng Hae-ŭng. "Yŏn'gyŏngjae chŏnjip", innŭn sasil ŭl kŭdaero kirok hada -- 2. P'ungsŏk Sŏ Yu-gu. "Imwŏn kyŏngjeji", hŭlkuk kwa chongittŏk in hangmun ŭn anŭrira -- 3. Oju Yi Kyu-gyŏng. "Ojuyŏn munjang chŏnsan'go", pakhak kwa kojŭnghak ŭro modŭn kŏt ŭl pyŏnjŭng hara -- 4. Tasan Chŏng Yag-yong. "Mongmin simsŏ", sidae rŭl ap'ahago paeksŏngdŭl ŭi pich'am han sam e punno haeya handa -- 5. Ch'ujae Cho Su-sam. "Ch'ujae chip", nara ka mangharyŏmyŏn pandŭsi yomul i naonda -- 6. Nakhasaeng Yi Hak-kyu. (...) "Yŏngnam akpu", mal hanŭn cha nŭn choe ka ŏpta -- 7. Kuhwajae Hong Sŏng-mo. "Tongguk sesigi", sot e kadŭkhan kuk ŭl han sutkal ro mat poda -- 8. Hosan Cho Hŭi-ryong. "Sŏgu mangnyŏllok", hanŭl arae kajang t'ongk'wae han il ida -- 9. Sŏp'a Yu Hŭi. "Munt'ong", ilsaeng ŭl nŭl sibi sok esŏ saranne -- 10. Hyegang Ch'oe Han-gi. "Kihak", taedong ilt'ong ŭi isang segye rŭl kuhyŏn hada -- 11. Kosanja Kim Chŏng-ho. "Taedong yŏjido", chido ro ch'ŏnha ŭi hyŏngse rŭl salp'il su itta -- 12. Paegun Sim Tae-yun. "Pongni chŏnsŏ", mani ilgŭlsurok pongni ka tŏuk manajinda -- 13. Suun Ch'oe Che-u. "Tonggyŏng taejŏn", hangmun ŭro marhajamyŏn 'tonghak' irago haeya handa -- 14. Tongmu Yi Che-ma. "Kyŏkch'igo", i ch'aek i ch'ŏllima ka toeji ank'ennŭn'ga? (shrink)

Saram toem ui ttŭt -- In'gan ŭi sahoehwa wa sahoe ŭi in'ganhwa.

Mal ŭi him -- Kŏjinmal ch'ammal kŭrigo ch'immuk.

Nae ka kanŭn mumyŏng ŭi to -- Manyak insaeng i ssaum iramyŏn yonggi rŭl kajyŏra -- To ŭi mal ŭl ch'ajasŏ.

If, today, ‘politics is in culture and culture is relentlessly political’ (Brown, 2002), if the domains of ‘the political’ and ‘the cultural’ can no longer be easily distinguished or kept separate, then contemporary political theory requires an understanding and analysis of cultural politics. This essay undertakes the first stages of such a project by trying to theorize ‘cultural politics’. I argue that ‘cultural politics’ proves to be an object of discourse — it indeed has a certain discursive existence — but (...) not an object of discipline, since no single field or discipline produces it as an object of knowledge. I read this disciplinary failure optimistically, arguing that the study of cultural politics requires a reorientation of theory. The sort of interdisciplinary and multiple-genre work needed to study cultural politics produces a conception of theory as fugitive. Fugitive theory must travel among disciplines, calling on a variety of theoretical and political resources to sustain itself; it refuses the very notion of ‘applied’ theory, insisting that theory ‘is already at work’ in politics (Butler, 1997). To link politics to culture is to practise fugitive theory. And the practice of fugitive theory therefore has the capacity to reveal and explore the workings of cultural politics. (shrink)

Do liberals’ and conservatives’ brain processes differ in moral reasoning? This research explains these groups’ dissimilar moral stances when they face ethical transgressions in business. Research that explores the effects of ideological asymmetry on moral reasoning processes through moral foundations has been limited. We hypothesize two different moral reasoning processes and test them in the South Korean culture. Study 1 uses the neuroscientific method of event-related potentials to explore the dissociable neural mechanisms that underlie Korean liberals’ and conservatives’ moral reasoning (...) processes in business ethical transgressions. Liberals’ early frontal negative-going brain waves showed that they are quick to pass negative judgment by intuitively detecting violations of fairness, while conservatives’ temporoparietal positive-going brain waves showed that they have a higher motivation to respect authority. Both liberals’ and conservatives’ ERP components occur within the first second of the decision-making phase, suggesting the rapid and intuitive nature of moral reasoning processes. Study 2 tests a mediating process and confirms that Korean liberals exhibit the moral engagement strategy, through the fairness foundation. These findings from our interdisciplinary research deepen the knowledge of the complexity of human morality in business ethics research. (shrink)

This paper examines an aspect of the grammar-interaction interface with respect to how participants orient to intra-turn phrasal unit boundaries as a locus that has interactional import for turn and sequence organization in Korean conversation. Phrasal unit boundaries in Korean serve as a space within a turn in which the speaker of the turn in-progress invites the recipient to acknowledge the speaker's point expressed up-to-that-point and collaboratively display his/her understanding thereof. In a sequentially and topically 'ripe' context, such unit boundaries (...) often constitute places where more active participation on the part of the recipient is invited in the form of collaborative completion in which the recipient co-constructs the primary speaker's on-going turn. Phrasal unit boundaries also provide interactional resources which the speaker may exploit to sequentially delete out a problem in talk, e.g., by a sort of tying operation in which a subsequently added phrasal unit ties back to the speaker's previous utterance to the effect that the intervening talk containing a problem is canceled out by way of being shown to have been an interruption of the speaker's turn in-progress. This practice points to an aspect of the way in which the 'agglutinative' grammatical process involving the use of phrasal units shapes interactional patterns as observed in the course of organizing turns/sequences and managing problems in talk. (shrink)

Recent scholars focus mainly on Paul’s use of ‘brothers (and sisters)’ or ‘brother (and sister)’ in Greco-Roman epistolary conventions and cultural backdrops. However, Jewish dimensions (particularly ethnic dimensions) of Paul’s sibling language still remain unexplored in current scholarship. Furthermore, scholars have not drawn much attention to how Jewish letter writers use sibling terms in their letters. This article offers a new interpretation on Paul’s sibling language in light of its Jewish usage. We should note that Jewish letter writers did not (...) address their Gentile letter recipients as ‘brother(s)’. However, Paul did call his recipients ‘brothers’. It is unlikely that Paul employed sibling language without being aware of its common Jewish usage. The author proposes that Paul’s sibling language is used in the context of an ethnic insider designation (shared ethnicity), and that ascribing the title of brother to believers including Gentiles signals the re-definition of the family of Abraham. (shrink)