Monthly Archives: January 2014

「コスモポリタン」 イ・マニョル教授、「韓国の未来は朝鮮時代に」

 

「コスモポリタン」

マニョル教授、「朝鮮時代に」

KOREA.NET  

2013年 6月 17日

エマニュエル・パストリッチ(Emanuel Pastreich)、韓国名イ・マニョル(李萬烈)。10年以上韓国に滞在する慶熙大学ヒューマニタスカレッジの教授だ。イェール大学やハーバード大学、東京大学などのほかソウル大学にも在学した。東洋文学を専攻し、特に朝鮮時代の実学者(philosopher and novelist in the late Joseon Dynasty)の「燕巌」パク・チウォン(Pak Ji-won、朴趾源、1737~1805)の「熱河日記(Yeolha Ilgi、Jehol Diary)」などを英語に翻訳するほど韓国と韓国文化に愛情を持っている。彼は現在、韓国文化に関する本を執筆中だ。彼が見て感じて思った大韓民国の姿を綴った『違う大韓民国』で、6月末に発刊される予定だ。

この青い目の外国人には「21世紀のコスモポリタン」の愛称がピッタリだ。50代の米国人男性が、韓国人もピンと来ない朝鮮時代の小説のほか、『金瓶梅(Jin Ping Mei、or The Plum in the Golden Vase)』や『紅楼梦(Dream of the Red Chamber、Hóng Lóu Mèng;)』といった中国の白話小説(Literature in vernacular Chinese)や日本の読み本を、まるで座敷で語りかけるように、美しい韓国語で読み上げる姿は驚きそのものだった。彼と話し合ったテーマは朝鮮時代から21世紀まで多岐に渡った。

○学びの場を求めて中国と日本を経て韓国に安着した姿は、古代・中世の学僧、春秋時代(The Spring and Autumn Period、Chūn–Qiū Shídài, BC770~BC403)と戦国時代の知的遍歴を物語っている。どんな面に韓国文化の活力を感じるのか

‐まず学問の出発は中国から始まり、台湾と日本で留学した。日中韓3国には本質的な違いがある。21世紀の現代は韓国文化が最も魅力的だ。韓国は他の両国に比べ最も健全な政府システム、官民のバランスよく調和のとれた協力体制が備わっている。 Read more of this post

“Profesor estadounidense trata de encontrar en tradiciones olvidadas de Corea el futuro de esta nación” (Español)

Español

“Profesor estadounidense trata de encontrar en tradiciones olvidadas

de Corea el futuro de esta nación”

KOREA.NET

17.06.2013

Emanuel Pastreich, más conocido en Seúl por su nombre coreano, Lee Man-yeol, ha vivido en Corea más de seis años. Es profesor del Colegio de Estudios Internacionales de la Universidad de Kyung Hee, y es el fundador del Instituto de Asia. Pastreich inició sus estudios sobre Asia en la Universidad de Yale, y continuó éstos en la Universidad de Harvard, la Universidad de Tokio y la Universidad Nacional de Seúl. Conforme iba realizando estudios comparados, fue desarrollando un afecto cada vez mayor por la cultura coreana. Hace poco tradujo al inglés cuentos cortos del intelectual y novelista Park Jin-woon (1737~1805).

Pastreich profesa gran admiración por la cultura y literatura de la Dinastía Joseon (1392 a 1910), un periodo que él considera que ha sido subestimado por los coreanos en su precipitada carrera en pos de la modernidad. Actualmente trabaja en un nuevo libro en el que plantea cómo la cultura tradicional coreana podría desempeñar un papel importante en la sociedad contemporánea. El libro en cuestión se titula “Otra Corea”, y en él se abordan facetas de Corea que se pasan por alto y que él considera de gran relevancia para abordar problemas contemporáneos. El libro se publica en coreano y estará a la venta a partir de julio de 2013.

Conversé hace unos días con este estadounidense de ojos azules, alguien a quien sería más exacto llamar ‘cosmopolita del siglo XXI, es un café en Seúl frecuentado por él, Este personaje calvo que lleva gafas y que se acerca a los cincuenta años de edad, me comentó en perfecto coreano varias de sus apreciaciones sobre la narrativa de la época Joseon, las cuales la mayoría de los coreanos desconoce, y ni qué decir las novelas premodernas chinas tales como Ciruelas en una vasija de oro (Jin Ping Mei) y El sueño de la cámara roja (Hong Lou Meng), y narraciones japonesas pertenecientes al género yomihhon del periodo Edo (1603-1867). A lo largo de la conversación, el profesor hizo gala de su vasto conocimiento de la tradición coreana, desde la filosofía y literatura de la Dinastía Joseon, hasta temas relacionados con la sociedad coreana contemporánea.

P: Después de vivir muchos años en China, Japón y los Estados Unidos, ahora se ha establecido en Corea. Ello me recuerda a los eruditos maestros del Periodo de la Primavera y el Otoño de la antigua China (770.403 a. C.), como Confucio, quienes deambulaban por el reino en busca de la sabiduría y de un estado que prestara oídos a sus sensato consejos. ¿Qué es lo que le ha atraído de la literatura coreana,-una faceta del vigor cultural de este país?

R: El camino que he recorrido en mi estudio de Asia empezó por China, concretamente en Taiwán; posteriormente fui a Japón y finalmente, a Corea, siempre tratando de estudiar y acercarme de la mejor manera posible a esta grandiosa tradición. En este momento, al inicio del siglo XXI, la cultura coreana es la más vital y creativa, y fue esa faceta del país lo que más me atrajo. En comparación con China y Japón, Read more of this post

America’s Future Role in Asia (Chosun Ilbo, January 1, 2014)

Chosun Ilbo

January 1, 2014

 America’s Future Role in Asia

(translation of article published in the Korean language)

During his recent visit to Korea, Vice President Joseph Biden remarked, “America is a Pacific power – a resident Pacific power – and we are going nowhere.”

I could not agree more with Vice President Biden. The United States should be a “resident Pacific Power.” Since I started studying Chinese language at Yale University I felt that the future of the United States lay with Asia. I have had the opportunity to learn about that vision of a United States committed to a Pacific age from such Asia experts as Edwin Reischauer, James Laney, Donald Gregg and Ezra Vogel.

But as I imagine the future role of the United States in Asia, I am reminded of what my father told me as a young boy. My father said repeatedly, “Never do the same job for more than one year.” He did not mean you should quit your job every year! What he meant was that although one has the same title in the same organization, one must constantly innovate, transforming how one works and adapting to new issues and circumstances. That advice applies to the role of the United States in East Asia today. That role is vital and increasing in importance. But the nature of that role must shift fundamentally in response to demands of this age. Read more of this post

“Can light be a form of pollution?”

I was very impressed by this recent poster put up by the Ministry of Environment here in the Korea which calls for a greater awareness of light as a form of pollution. As Koreans are often completely unaware of the tremendous waste of energy, and the negative impact on daily life of the needless use of light. I am delighted to see a consensus at last emerging on this critical point.

Subway poster put up by the Ministry of Environment draws attention to light pollution and the waste of energy.

Subway poster put up by the Ministry of Environment draws attention to light pollution and the waste of energy.

Asia Institute with Peter Singer featured in Business Korea (January 2014)

Business Korea

“The State, the Internet, and Cybersecurity with Peter Singer”

Asia Institute Seminar

8 JANUARY 2014

 

On January 2, Dr. Emanuel Pastreich, director of the Asia Institute, sat down with Peter Singer, director of the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence and a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy program of the Brookings Institute. Singer’s research focuses on three core issues: current US defense needs and future priorities, the future of war and the future of the US defense system. Singer lectures frequently to US military audiences and is the author of several books and articles, including his most recent book, Cyber Security and Cyber War (www.cybersecuritybook.com).

 

Emanuel Pastreich: “When you chose to title your new book as Cyber Security and Cyber War did you intend to make a clear distinction between two discrete issues?”

Peter Singer: “Cyber security and cyber war are two separate topics that are related in that within the new domain of cyberspace we see an overlap between what we traditionally refer to as the civilian sphere and the military sphere. Cyberspace is evolving as a realm that includes everything from commerce, entertainment and communications to forms of direct conflict. For example, 98% of all military communications travels through cyberspace, but, at the same time, the cyberspace they are channeling over is primarily civilian owned.

“Let us step back and take a look at this problem in proper perspective. For too long the thinking about cyber security questions have been left to what I call the “IT crowd.” That is to say we have a group of technologists pondering cyberspace and its potential. But at this point in time, whether you are a politician, a general, a business leader, a lawyer, a citizen or a parent, those security questions are clear and present for the rest of us as well. We need to understand cyberspace and commit to planning for a future with it at the center.

“The book is structured around approximately sixty central questions concerning the nature and the potential of cyberspace. ‘How it all works? For example, I use the Internet every day, how does it actually work?’ Or ‘What is cyber terrorism?’ ‘I keep hearing about it; is it as bad as some people say?’

“The book then traces the technology back to the ‘who,’ the prominent players in the field and why their dynamics matter. For example, ‘Who is this Anonymous group I keep hearing so much about in the news?’ ‘What is the strategy of the US military for cyberspace?’ ‘What is the Chinese strategy in cyberspace?’

“And then the final third of the book concerns ‘What can we do?’ Those questions range from the personal and organizational to the national, the regional, and the global level. So the book includes everything from how to prevent possible global cyber wars on a massive scale to offering advice on how to protect ourselves and maintain the Internet that we all know, love, and depend on.

“What differentiates this book from my previous books, Wired for War and Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry, is the nature of the debate we are raising. In my previous books whether I was describing private military contractors like Blackwater or the rise of drones, I was trying above all to draw public attention to a new issue of critical importance. For example, when I started working on drones in 2005 it was a new field that called out for attention, for people to realize that drones were real and would matter very soon. In the case of this book on cyberspace, however, the issue is quite different. We all know cyberspace and security is a critical topic. The problem is rather that we simply do not understand it. Not knowing about cyberspace means that we can be taken advantage of. At the individual level we are subject to hackers and false information. And at a higher level, companies and government agencies have profited, frankly, by just making this whole process seem much scarier than it actually is. And then there are the groups that claim to have the “secret sauce,” the “secret recipe” that will solve all the problems of cyberspace. We want to explain cyberspace to people in a manner that builds substantial understanding and also makes for a great read. We include many funny anecdotes, intriguing characters, and jokes that are not found normally in a technology book.”

Emanuel Pastreich: “So, in cyberspace, is there a posse comitatus?”

Peter Singer: “Well, no, there is not. There remain a series of issues that we need to work out. When I say ‘we’ I am talking about communities at every level, from the global down to the national, regional, and individual. We need to think about how agencies and corporations can be made accountable and responsible, but also about what we can do as citizens. For example, what exactly do we mean as a community, as a nation, by ‘cyber war?’ And, in turn, who should we expect to fight it?

“One challenge that we find in this debate that we want to unpack for readers is the wide variety of dissimilar threats that we often bundle together as cyber threats simply because they all take place in cyberspace. For example, one senior Pentagon official cited an enormous number of cyber attacks on the Pentagon when he testified to Congress. The problem was that what he spoke of an “attack” the congressmen listening imagined some existential ‘cyber Pearl Harbor’ or ‘cyber 9-11.’ After all, that is what the secretary of defense had been discussing in various closed hearings. Yet, what the Pentagon official was talking about with these numbers instead was a hodgepodge ranging from attempts at address scans or ‘knocks,’ defamation (i.e., pranks such as changing external user-face websites), espionage (i.e., stealing secrets), and some more aggressive attempts to compromise security.

“That Pentagon official was bundling together everything from the equivalent of a teenage prankster with a firecracker, to a pistol-robber, a terrorist with a roadside bomb, a spy with a hidden gun, and a military armed with a cruise-missile. He was giving the impression that all these ‘attacks’ were basically similar because they all use the technology of cyberspace. But the only similarity between a firecracker and a cruise missile is the use of the technology of explosive materials. Such discussions are not a responsible way to keep the public informed about a critical issue.

“What we need to do is to disentangle our thinking about the nature of the threats and in turn that will allow us to disentangle our thinking about appropriate responses. For example, the US Military Cyber Command and its partner the National Security Agency have taken on a wide range of roles largely because of an overwhelming fear of what cyber attacks could be and also the fact that other agencies lack skill and the budget capacity. They are handling issues, as a result, that frankly are not appropriate to their mandate. ‘Appropriate’ here means in a strategic and organizational sense, and also in a legal sense.

“Think of it this way: Let’s imagine two banks were transferring money between them and one of their trucks was blocked in the street by a group of protesters. Well, no one would say, ‘call in the Army! It is the Army’s responsibility!’ And yet that is how we often react if the issue involves electronic transfers. We have to get over that kind of thinking. This is also huge to the concerns of IP theft and US-China tensions that result from it. It is critical that we disentangle certain subtle but important differences between a ‘9-11’ threat and a ‘death by a thousand cuts.’”

Emanuel Pastreich: “That makes sense. I want to come back to the division of labor you hinted at. For example, with regards to the players such as the FBI, the NSA or the army, is there a field, for example, in which the FBI has exclusive dominion? The very terms domestic and international can be ambiguous when we are talking about cyberspace.”

Peter Singer: “You have hit one of the major challenges. Trying to figure out when and where this construct — the notion of a state border — was established back in the 1700s applies, and when it does not, is a major bone of contention. Too often it seems as if cyberspace is a ‘stateless’ domain as some claim. As the adage goes, cyberspace is the ‘global commons.’ So some assume that somehow nations, states, have no role in cyberspace. But the reality is that states matter in cyberspace in two core ways.

“First, what happens in cyberspace has a direct impact on states. Simply put, since our commerce, communications, and infrastructure all depend on the safe, smooth running of that domain, states have to think about cyberspace seriously with an eye towards their own security and stability. They cannot afford not to care. Second, while cyberspace is virtual, the people who design and administer it, and the hardware that runs it, are located within national borders. There is no truly stateless aspect to cyberspace.”

“Let me be clear on this point. I am not suggesting that transnational dimensions are insignificant. They are critical and unprecedented. But the problem is far more complex than it appears at first glance. I am pushing back against the notion that cyberspace is somehow ‘stateless.’”

Emanuel Pastreich: “But we have players these days around the globe who can use randomized data, so it is not so easy to figure out by the servers which particular state he, she, or they are in. So although cyberspace is not stateless, there are ghosts in the machine.”

Peter Singer: “Yes, that is an important challenge. This problem comes up, for example, in the case of not only attribution but also of prosecution for crimes. There is a movie out about Julian Assange, ‘The Fifth Estate,’ that illustrates both sides of this problem. On the one hand, WikiLeaks, the organization, has been able to stay functional because of its transnational presence. Each time a state tries to shut it down, it simply transfers operations or picks up stakes. It also has woven a funding structure into things on which the state depends. It did so with the French banking system, for example.”

Emanuel Pastreich: “The viral effect…”

Peter Singer: “Yes, exactly. On the other hand, Julian Assange the person has been indicted in one state and is stuck in an embassy in another. While the online organization has been able to thrive, some of the individuals involved are subject to the power of the state. The power of the state still matters.

“To return to your question, one of the things that we will have to figure out is: what is the appropriate mechanism for states to cooperate in these domains? What agencies matter? Which is an appropriate response on the state level? And, finally, where is the line between the public and the private? In our book we have chapters in which, as an illustration, we ask whether we need international treaties for cyberspace. Are such treaties even possible? We also consider the dangers of certain international institutions overreaching their mandate and being used to clamp down on freedom of expression online. We see today new coalitions of democratic forces battling authoritarian states over the future of the Internet itself.

“Then at the state level we call for an end to viewing cyberspace through solely a national security or law enforcement framework. There are examples in public health, for example, in which nations are able to cooperate better but also to extend responsibility not just to the government but also to us as individuals. In the case of public health, there are national and international agencies that conduct investigations, research, and carry out the tracking of disease outbreaks. But we do not say that the entire work is up to them. For example, I teach my kids to cover their mouths when they cough, because we teach the importance to our kids of the habits of good hygiene to protect both themselves, but also others. There is an equivalent to cyber hygiene which serves not only to protect youth, but also to teach them that it is their responsibility as good citizens to protect others online. There are some parallels here in terms of protecting your computer from being taken over by a botnet. It is also about protecting the broader Internet.

“The book offers new, creative, different ways at looking at security.”

Emanuel Pastreich: “One of the challenges for us today is the distinction concerning the attribution for various cyber threats. Are these problems a result of a decline of morality, bad behavior, increased corruption, or is this problem simply a product of Moore’s Law? Many crimes are simply easier and cheaper to do today. The problems cannot be stopped easily because they are driven by changes in the playing field itself.”

Peter Singer: “You ask two very important questions. But let us first try to disentangle a bit. On one hand, we can talk about the motivations of groups like ‘Anonymous’ that have, in many ways, become the bogeymen of the cyber era. In one of the chapters in the book I ask somewhat ironically, ‘Who is Anonymous?’ The book delves into the history of the organization and describes how it operates. What is important to understand is that this organization defies our traditional notion of a top-down hierarchy. Rather, Anonymous is more of a constantly shifting collective. But also, consistently throughout its history, there has been a focus on Internet freedom, Internet good behavior. For example, the public debut of ‘Anonymous’ in the mainstream media came when the group helped to track down a child predator. Later on, the line that connected everything from the operations they carried out concerning the Church of Scientology to their role in ‘Operation Avenge Assange’ in response to the financial supporters of WikiLeaks being challenged, to the many activities being carried out today, was the emphasis on threats to Internet freedom. People can certainly go back and forth debating on whether Anonymous’ has gone too far or not. But the problem is that policy makers talking about cyber security tend to lump together ‘Anonymous’ with Al-Qaeda or Russian criminal organizations. Those are all very different organizations. We need to be clear about the variety of players.

“Regarding your second point, one striking feature of the short history of cyber security and cyber war is rate of the game change in our generation. With regards to technology, security, and war there is a far lower barrier to entry now and, in turn, the greater empowerment of smaller organizations — all the way down to individuals.

“Technological change forms a clear line that connects the past books that I have done on private military contractors, child soldiers, robotics, and now in cyberspace. Several centuries ago, whatever the weapon of war, it required a massive scale to build and operate effectively. Historian Charles Tilly said that ‘War made the state and the state made war.’ There was a centralization of power before. Instead, now, with the new technologies, cyber weapons or drones, a massive organization such as a “Manhattan Project” is no longer needed to produce a small drone or to carry out a cyber attack. While these new weapons have certainly been useful to governments, they have even been even more empowering for small groups and individuals. Some people dismissed users like ‘Anonymous’ as ‘all bark and no bite.’ But, a small group of online individuals, most of whom had never met, have found a way to mobilize and to direct the world’s attention to causes about which they care. That was not possible before.”

Emanuel Pastreich: “You have perhaps a slightly more optimistic view of what is happening. It seems to me that when ‘Anonymous’ carries out their strikes for Internet freedom, there are groups in corporations or in government who go along with them, even support them in their efforts, not because they necessarily believe in the ‘Anonymous’ cause but because it aids them in their particular agenda they are pursuing. Maybe they just want to bring down the NSA so they can get a piece of that enormous budget. It is a bit more complicated than it appears.”

Peter Singer: “Yes, absolutely. It is both a new trend but also the story of politics going back to the ancient philosophers. In discussions about technology we tend to want to focus on the technology itself. Engineers are most comfortable talking about how it works. However, why it matters, in history, always comes back as the critical issue. To understand what is happening in cyberspace and cyber security, we need to understand the people, the organizations, as well as the motivations and incentives that drive them we need a broad perspective. We must get a glimpse at the dynamics going on within a group such as ‘Anonymous’ and how governments are reacting to it. That perspective also helps us understand why certain business sectors, like the financial sector, have done a great deal in protecting themselves in cyber security, while others such as the electrical power grid have not. It all comes down to incentives.”

Emanuel Pastreich: “Maybe you can say a few words about our response. There are at least two problems in terms of security. If one wants to have security in a situation in which a single individual or small group can do an enormous amount of damage, it requires by nature a repressive system. The system has to be capable of being focused and responding very effectively. So, it inherently creates problems. Any response is going to be problematic.

“The second issue concerns the rate of technological change. If technology keeps changing, evolving exponentially, you might make up some treaty on cyber security in 2014 that will be meaningless by 2020 because the nature of cyberspace would have changed so profoundly.

“What are your thoughts on these two questions? First, how do you maintain security without it becoming a repressive system? And how do you maintain standards and the rules in a constantly-changing environment?”

Peter Singer: “The first question, in many ways, again echoes back across the ages before the Internet was ever conceived. The debate over the trade-off of rights versus security is not new. We can see that debate in the writings of ancient philosophers. The way they came down on the issue back then is the way we should come down on it today. Yes, you can live in a system that has no terrorism, where criminals are immediately caught. But, in reality we call those totalitarian regimes. However, you could also live in absolute anarchy, but that is an equally insecure world that does not allow one to exercise the most basic rights as a result. The key is finding that balance. We should not assume we can eliminate all threats. Rather we should accept the reality that threats exist and seek to manage them.

“It is all about building structures and incentives that will allow you to manage the world better. In the book we present fifteen things we can and should do to respond to cyberspace, everything from building appropriate institutions in government and global institutions to local community activities. We see the effort to establish better security as both a public and private problem. We must establish the right incentives, build better information sharing systems, and increase transparency. We need to set up clear norms for accountability and reliability. There are many cyber-people problems for which we need to train experts at all levels to respond. There is so much that we can and should do.

“But we also should not let fear steer us solely. The book opens with a description of how each of us remembers as young boys or girls the first time we saw a computer. I was seven years old when I first saw a computer. I am now thirty-eight. My dad took me to a science museum and there I took a class to learn how to program computers to do an amazing thing: print out a smiley face. That is the beginning of the book. We circle back to that same moment at the end of the book. Imagine if my dad had told me at the age of seven, ‘This thing, the computer, it is going to allow people to steal your identity. It is going to allow militaries to carry out all new kinds of war. It may even allow terrorists to turn off the power grid or steal everyone’s money.’ My little seven year-old self would have said, ‘Oh my God, Dad, we must stop this computer, do not turn it on.’

“Of course, looking back at that, we accept these risks because of all the great things that we can do with computers. I can track down the answer to almost any question on line. I am friends with people around the world I have never met. To me, what has played out over the last thirty years is exactly the same thing that we will witness in the future. We have to accept and manage the risks because of all the great things we can do with this technology.

“That is where we have to be mindful of the people who are trying to steer us in the wrong direction, whether it is the people who are trying to make cyberspace too insecure a space, or the people who are trying to make it too secure but do away with the freedom and great features in it by just militarizing this space.

“Regarding your second question concerning whether technological change could lead to outdated treaties or laws practically the very next day, you have hit it exactly right. Cyberspace is a constantly-evolving medium, and indeed the Internet that we know and love today will be quite different five years from now. Everything from the users, to the language of the Internet, to the mentality of online freedom, will change.

“Also, many parts of the Internet are going mobile. And in the future the Internet will be woven into things. Cisco estimates that over the next few decades we will go from having a couple billion devices online, essentially each person behind a device, to seventy-five billion devices online. That means that it will not be just people behind those devices carrying on conversations—it will be things talking to each other.

“One cannot legislate a too-defined law that will not remain relevant. That would not be a good strategy. It also ignores the ‘reality’ of today. You are not going to find the United States, Russia, South Korea, North Korea, China, or Brazil all agreeing on the exact language of some treaty right now. That does not mean that you do not need a building of new laws, norms, and codes for conduct and behavior. In the United States, our Congress has not passed new major cyber security legislation since 2002. What we are pushing for globally and nationally is not to rewrite all law, but, rather to graft new law to previous legal precedents. Rather than plant an entire new tree, instead we should graft new legal developments for cyberspace onto an old, healthy tree. That is, determine what works, affirm the common values that we all hold, and then build off of that. That is the pathway to success.”

Emanuel Pastreich: “Yes, right. When I wrote an article some time ago entitled ‘Constitution of Information,’ the first point I stressed was one could not write such a constitution unless the writer actually had stakeholders involved in the discussion. It would just be an academic exercise to talk about an ideal world. The real process requires actually getting the people who can make decisions that represent active organizations involved.”

Peter Singer: “Absolutely.” Read more of this post

세계한류학회 기념포럼 기조연설 (임마누엘 페스트라이쉬) 2014년 1월 20일 (월) 2-5

세계한류학회

한류의 동향과 전망

시간: 2014년 1월 20일 (월) 2-5

장소: 한국프레스센터 기자회견장 (19층)

 

이만열 (기조연설) “선비와 한류”

세계한류학회

The Daejeon Mug Cup

The Daejeon Mug Cup, produced in commemoration of Daejeon’s remarkable ecological foundations as the intersection of the Gancheon River, the Daejeoncheon River and the UDeungcheon River, is now available in two colors (front in English; back in ideographs).

 

The price is 10,000 Won per mug.

We encourage all interested parties to use our logo to create your own mug cups and other commemorative materials. Just let us know.

Daejeon mug cup 2014

“한류의 위기와 기회” ( 중앙일보)

중앙일보

한류의 위기와 기회

2014년 1월 7일

 

임마뉴엘 페스트라이쉬 (이만열)

 

유튜브에서 싸이의 ‘강남 스타일’ 동영상이 십억 번 이상 클릭된 것에 한국 사람들의 자부심이 얼마나 대단할지 충분히 짐작이 간다. 대단한 역동성과 창의성이다. 하지만 싸이의 최근 비디오 ‘젠틀맨’을 보고 나는 분명 한류가 올바른 길을 가는 게 아니라는 생각이 들었다. 물론 한국인 친구들은 싸이의 동영상이 강남의 물질주의 풍조에 대한 풍자라고 설명한다. 사실 싸이가 그런 의도를 갖고 있었을지도 모르지만 외국인으로서 그 동영상을 본 나의 솔직한 느낌은 소비문화에 대한 찬양과 여성에 대한 모욕적인 취급이었다.

오늘날 한국에서 절박한 이슈는 속도나 양이 아닌 방향성이다. 한국문화가 아무리 역동적이라도 분명한 윤리적 메시지를 담지 못한다면, 즉 한류를 즐기는 세계인들에게 단순한 수동적 소비를 넘어 무엇인가 사회에 공헌할 수 있는 영감을 줄 수 없다면 종국적으로 한국 문화의 영향력은 제한될 수밖에 없다. 한류의 융성에 기뻐하기 이전에 역사적으로 경제·문화대국들의 영고성쇠(榮枯盛衰)와, 비전이 없어서 아예 사라져 버린 문화들을 기억해야만 하는 이유도 여기에 있다.

예를 들면 17세기 청나라를 이끈 만주족은 강력했다. 한족(漢族)마저 만주족 문화에 압도돼 변발 풍습까지 Read more of this post

The Open Closet in Seoul

The Open Closet is an NGO that has recently been set up in Seoul, with support from Seoul Metropolitan City to allow people to share clothing that they do not need every day. The focus starting out is on formal clothes that young people may need for job interviews.

 

The description on the website of the Open Closet explains.

 

“The ‘Open Closet’ started from the idea that people could just open up their closets and simply share all of their clothes. But we realize that the concept of a ‘common economic system’  is so ambiguous in Korea that just saying people will share all their clothes is just not feasible. So we reduced the range of the clothes to be shared. We thought, what sort of clothes are most crucial, and for which people? When we pondered the question, what came to mind naturally was formal clothing for interviews. Many believe that formal clothes that they buy they will continue to wear even after they are successful in their application, but we have observed that often those close are just kept in the closet. A donation of those formal clothes that ‘sleep in the closet’ can help out youth who are seeking employment these days in these difficult times.”

The Open Closet is an NGO run together with support from Seoul Metropolitan City that permits people to share clothes with each other. The present focus is on providing formal clothes for youth who are interviewing for jobs.

The Open Closet is an NGO run together with support from Seoul Metropolitan City that permits people to share clothes with each other. The present focus is on providing formal clothes for youth who are interviewing for jobs.

“一触即发的数据危机:我们是否需要一部信息宪法?” (亚洲研究所报告)

 logo in Chinese

“一触即发的数据危机:我们是否需要一部信息宪法?”

 

贝一明 (Emanuel Pastreich)

所长

亚洲研究所

 

(翻译:赵寒玉)

 

最近,涉及美国司法部监听美联社和福克斯新闻的丑闻使得近年来隐私和言论自由所遭受到的侵蚀为人瞩目。但是,在将这些事件简单归咎于司法部长埃里克·霍尔德(Eric Holder)和其手下的道德败坏之前,我们也应反思促成这一事件和成千上万与之类似问题的技术革命。看来,政府官员认为信息可以被轻易收集和操纵是件很令人着迷的事。以获取和加工信息的技术的更新速度,现在美国和全世界执法与情报部门所拥有的技术也将很快被个人和小团体所掌握。

我们必须知道如何面对当前的信息革命,并主动构建全球性机制以确保我们的社会和政府在这段混乱和令人不安的时期能持续正常运转。计算机的强大功能在突发猛进,这意味着变化发生的速度远远超过人类政府缓慢前进的步伐。我们需要创造全新的制度来应对这场巨大而长期的危机。这不是通过在国土安全部新增一个部门或者依靠谷歌就能解决的问题。

我们别无选择。轻视这场危机就意味着容许那些见不得光的机构通过收集和扭曲信息来为自身牟取更大的权力。 Read more of this post