Suchergebnisse

International audience ; This paper discusses how the geographical analysis of Korean capital cities helps to reconsider the Euro-centric notion of the capital as a unique and static territorial center linked to the construction of nation states since the modern era. The existence of many historical capitals is a common phenomenon in many Asian countries and was also the case in pre-modern Europe. But in the Korean peninsula since the middle of the 20th century, the partition in two States (the DPRK and the ROK) and the permanent reconstruction of what I call the Korean "meta-nation" reactivated the plurality and the competition of former and present Korean capitals. As the consequence of national division, a strong competition between Seoul and Pyongyang, the two political capitals, had enormous material consequences upon the urban space and architecture, not only in major public spaces, but also in everyday environments (from transportation to housing). The competition also focused, in each Korean state, on former historical cities that were instrumental to legitimizing present states: Kaesŏng in the North and Kyŏngju in the South are symbolic historical places of a unified pre-modern state in divergent national historiographies. That also had important consequences on heritage policies and planning management in those two historical capitals.Beyond the longue durée analysis, those plural Korean capitals are forming the backbone of contemporary territorial structures. As a matter of fact, macro-regional concentrations in the globalized contemporary economies are not anymore organized on single hubs. Rather, they develop in polycentric urban regions (from megalopolis to urban corridors): for example the multipolar Korean capital region around Seoul, or the bi-polar region formed by Pyongyang and Namp'o.The paper thus argues that the capitals of the Korean "meta-nation" can be viewed as an archipelago of cities, an archipelago which is still in the making.The paper then proposes a typological reading of the « archipelago ». First, two types of capitals are very visible in the Korean geo-history. They are the current State capitals, Pyongyang and Seoul, « hyper-capitals » that concentrate major functions (political, economic, cultural, and symbolic) and that are connected to the global system. Historical capital cities (Kaesŏng and Kyŏngju) that legitimate current Korean States are also very visible in the Korean geo-history, while featuring prominently in the global tourist space as UNESCO listed heritage sites. In addition to the visible capitals, this archipelago of capitals includes numerous « shadow capitals » : they are the historical capitals of former Korean States that were then marginalized in South Korean history (such as Kongju and Puyŏ) ; they are mega-projects under constructions in the South Korean territory (Sejong-si or even Songdo) ; they are the capitals of the Korean diaspora (from New Seoul in Los Angeles to Alma Aty in Kazhakstan) ; finally they are the imagined capitals of a hypothetical future unified Korea.The paper concludes that, as long as the Korean border continues to be in the making, the plurality and competition of capital cities will develop, with important consequences on planning and urban policies at the regional and local scales in both Koreas. ; Cet article montre comment le cas coréen bouleverse la notion européo-centrique de « centre unique et statique » qui caractérise l'analyse par les sciences sociales des capitales comme matrice et produit des dynamiques territoriales des États-nations en construction depuis l'époque moderne.Depuis le milieu du XXe siècle, la partition de la péninsule coréenne en deux états (Corée du Nord et Corée du Sud) a réactivé la pluralité des villes capitales du « monde coréen », phénomène que l'on retrouve dans bien d'autres pays d'Asie (notamment la Chine) ou d'autres continents (en Europe par exemple). La division nationale a entraîné l'émulation des centres politiques que sont Séoul et Pyongyang (avec des conséquences matérielles sur l'architecture et le développement urbain). Elle s'est également cristallisée, dans chacune des deux Corées, sur des capitales historiques naturellement articulées aux méta-discours concurrents de l'histoire nationale (Kaesŏng au Nord et Kyŏngju au Sud). Engageant une réflexion intégrant la longue durée à l'échelle de la péninsule, ces villes capitales coréennes plurielles forment également l'armature de structures territoriales très contemporaines : en effet, sur le plan économique notamment, les polarités régionale, macro-régionales, voire globales de la planète ne sont plus structurées par des têtes de pont (hubs) uniques, mais se développent en régions urbaines polycentriques (des mégalopoles aux corridors urbains) – comme par exemple la région urbaine multipolaire dans la région de Séoul, ou le doublet entre Pyongyang et Nampo. Au fond, le monde coréen n'apparaît-il pas comme un archipel de capitales passées, présentes et futures ?M'appuyant sur une typologie des capitales coréennes, je propose donc dans cet article une lecture géo-historique de cet archipel. Les « hyper-capitales » (Pyongyang et Séoul) qui concentrent les fonctions (politiques, économiques et culturelles) nationales et qui sont articulées à un système politico-économique global et les capitales historiques « légitimantes » que sont Kaesŏng et Kyŏngju apparaissent comme deux types de capitales très visibles dans l'histoire et l'espace coréens. Mais cet archipel de capitales comprend, à côté des capitales les plus visibles, des « capitales de l'ombre », capitales que je définis comme « subalternes » dans la géohistoire coréenne. Or ces « capitales de l'ombre » sont nombreuses en Corée : capitales historiques d'États qui furent ensuite marginalisé(e)s (comme Kongju et Puyo), capitales ratées ou oubliées d'un épisode historique et politique éphémère (Suwŏn, Sejong-si), capitales fantasmées (celle(s) de la future et hypothétique Corée réunifiée), capitales annexes en construction (Songdo-si ou également Sejong-si), ou enfin toutes les capitales de la diaspora coréennes (de New Seoul à Los Angeles à Alma Aty au Kazakhtsan).

International audience ; This paper discusses how the geographical analysis of Korean capital cities helps to reconsider the Euro-centric notion of the capital as a unique and static territorial center linked to the construction of nation states since the modern era. The existence of many historical capitals is a common phenomenon in many Asian countries and was also the case in pre-modern Europe. But in the Korean peninsula since the middle of the 20th century, the partition in two States (the DPRK and the ROK) and the permanent reconstruction of what I call the Korean "meta-nation" reactivated the plurality and the competition of former and present Korean capitals. As the consequence of national division, a strong competition between Seoul and Pyongyang, the two political capitals, had enormous material consequences upon the urban space and architecture, not only in major public spaces, but also in everyday environments (from transportation to housing). The competition also focused, in each Korean state, on former historical cities that were instrumental to legitimizing present states: Kaesŏng in the North and Kyŏngju in the South are symbolic historical places of a unified pre-modern state in divergent national historiographies. That also had important consequences on heritage policies and planning management in those two historical capitals.Beyond the longue durée analysis, those plural Korean capitals are forming the backbone of contemporary territorial structures. As a matter of fact, macro-regional concentrations in the globalized contemporary economies are not anymore organized on single hubs. Rather, they develop in polycentric urban regions (from megalopolis to urban corridors): for example the multipolar Korean capital region around Seoul, or the bi-polar region formed by Pyongyang and Namp'o.The paper thus argues that the capitals of the Korean "meta-nation" can be viewed as an archipelago of cities, an archipelago which is still in the making.The paper then proposes a typological reading of the « ...

In this article, intellectual capital is seen as complementary capacities of competence and commitment. Based on theoretically and empirically robust human capital theory, we define intellectual capital as individuals' complementary capacity to generate added value and thus create wealth. Resources are then perceived to be both tangible and intangible. This view is an extension of human capital theory to include the intangible capacities of people. Implications for future research are discussed.

The Capitol Steps, a musical political satire group composed of Congressional staffers-turned-comedians, satirizes the people and places that once employed them. The Capitol Steps are a troupe of Congressional staffers-turned-comedians who travel the country satirizing the very people and places that once employed them. The Steps perform over 500 shows a year all over the country. Since they began, the Capitol Steps have recorded 25 albums, including their latest, "Four More Years in the Bush Leagues." They've been featured on NBC, ABC, CBS and PBS, and can be heard 4 times a year on National Public Radio stations nationwide during their "Politics Takes a Holiday" radio specials. The Capitol Steps were born in December 1981. Since then, the Steps have had over 5,000 performances in 49 states. The group now has 22 cast members, 5 of whom are on stage for any one show. The material is updated constantly whether to include George Bush's latest geography lesson "Korea" (to West Side Story's "Maria") or their own patriotic American in "God Bless My SUV." Whether it's politicians or the Supreme Court, the Capitol Steps are equal opportunity offenders.

En este artículo se buscan establecer las bases para una transformación del tradicional triángulo comunicativo emisor-mensaje-receptor, por un esquema que haga alusión a la dinámica social de la comunicación relacionada con lo público: actores-escenarios-sentidos. De esta forma, es posible conformar guías para la acción y encontrar en los actores ciudadanos de comunicación, la conformaciónde un capital social para la democracia. ; This paper aims to establish the basis for a transformation of the traditional message-emitter-receiver communication triangle to one that makes reference to the social dynamics of public communication: actors-stages-senses. As such, it is possible to develop a series of guidelines on how to act and find the conformation of a social capital for democracy in the citizen actors of communication.

En este artículo se buscan establecer las bases para una transformación del tradicional triángulo comunicativo emisor-mensaje-receptor, por un esquemaque haga alusión a la dinámica social de la comunicación relacionada con lopúblico: actores-escenarios-sentidos. De esta forma, es posible conformar guías para la acción y encontrar en los actores ciudadanos de comunicación, la conformaciónde un capital social para la democracia. ; This paper aims to establish the basis for a transformation of the traditional message-emitter-receiver communication triangle to one that makes reference to the social dynamics of public communication: actors-stages-senses. As such, it is possible to develop a series of guidelines on how to act and find the conformation of a social capital for democracy in the citizen actors of communication.

The inhabitant of cities, formerly considered to be subject to the vagaries of the policies of all kinds which governed the city tends, since contemporary times and in connection with the development of new technologies, to become a "discreet" actor. At the same time as cities acquire new functionalities by being technologically advanced, the inhabitants, by equipping themselves with technologies, are able to interact with public actors. But this capacities are not uniformly distributed. This is why we are referring here to the notion of "urban digital capital" as an element of explanation of the various capacities of the inhabitants to master their social and political integration in the city. ; El habitante de las ciudades, anteriormente considerado como sometido a los caprichos de las políticas de todo tipo que regían la ciudad, tiende, desde la época contemporánea y en relación con el desarrollo de nuevas tecnologías, a convertirse en un actor "discreto". Al mismo tiempo que las ciudades adquieren nuevas funcionalidades volviéndose más tecnológicas, los habitantes, equipándose a sí mismos con tecnologías, son capaces de interactuar con los actores públicos. Pero estas capacidades no están distribuidas uniformemente. Es por eso que aquí evocamos la noción de "capital digital urbano" como un elemento de explicación de las diversas capacidades de los habitantes para dominar su integración social y política en la ciudad. ; L'habitant des villes, autrefois considéré comme étant soumis aux aléas des politiques de toutes sortes qui régissaient la ville tend, depuis l'époque contemporaine et en lien avec le développement de nouvelles technologies, à devenir un acteur « discret ». En même temps que les villes acquièrent de nouvelles fonctionnalités en se technologisant, les habitants, en s'équipant eux-mêmes de technologies, sont capables d'interagirent avec les acteurs publics. Mais ces capacités ne sont pas uniformément distribuées. C'est pourquoi nous évoquons ici la notion de « capital numérique urbain » comme élément d'explication des diverses capacités des habitants à maîtriser leur insertion sociale et politique dans la ville. ; O habitante das cidades, anteriormente considerado sujeito aos caprichos das políticas de todos os tipos que governavam a cidade, tende, desde os tempos contemporâneos e em conexão com o desenvolvimento de novas tecnologias, a se tornar um ator "discreto". Ao mesmo tempo em que as cidades adquirem novas funcionalidades por serem tecnologicamente avançadas, os habitantes, equipando-se de tecnologias, são capazes de interagir com atores públicos. Mas essas capacidades não são distribuídas uniformemente. É por isso que estamos nos referindo aqui à noção de "capital digital urbano" como um elemento de explicação das várias capacidades dos habitantes para dominar sua integração social e política na cidade