Suchergebnisse

In 1942, proletarian writer, Takeda Rintarō, was sent from Japan to the Dutch East-Indies (Indonesia) as part of the Sendenbu (propaganda squad), where he led the literature section in the Keimin Bunka Shidōshō (cultural center) in Jakarta. Jawa sarasa documents Takeda Rintaro's activities and cultural experiences in Java, Indonesia, after he returned to Japan in 1944. Most Japanese literature and cultural writings about Nanyō or Nanpō ("South Islands" - South Asia and the Pacific, including Indonesia) from this era reference the concept of Imperialism in Asia. In the pre-war period, stereotypes such as dojin (local primitive) and tōmin (islander) defined South Island people as being lesser than or "other" than the Japanese people. Japanese literary depictions of tropical Eden's and exotic "uncivilized people" reflect similar perceptions and writings by Western authors towards Asia in the 19th century. This paper explores Takeda Rintarō's perspectives of "otherness" in prewar discourses about Indonesia. Through the influence of "The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" propaganda concept, the ideology of "sameness" was becoming a hegemonic cultural idea in Takeda's writings about Indonesia. Conversely, however, Takeda's depiction of the double-occupation of Java, with the political rule of Holland and economic domination of daily life by Chinese immigrants, implied criticism of Japan's administrative policies regarding economic exploitation in Java. Takeda's criticisms of Japanese policy are bedded in his emotion for the nature, culture and people of Indonesia.

Since 2014, Fuller Magazine has been published for the global community of Fuller Theological Seminary. The sections of Story, Theology, Voice, and Departments are to reflect the life of Fuller in all her permutations: this is who we are, what we are talking about, and who we are becoming together. The editorial content of FULLER magazine reflects the opinions of the various authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the views of Fuller Theological Seminary. Table of Contents STORY 12 We Treat Them With Dignity by Avril Z. Speaks 18 A Home with Heart by Jerome Blanco 24 Seeing their Trauma by Becky Still 28 Northeast of Capitol Hill by Aaron Dorsey THEOLOGY 38 Introduction to "Imagining Hope" by Scott Cormode, Guest Editor 40 A Shared Story of Future Hope by Scott Cormode 47 Hope for the Pain of the Korean Youth 한국 청소년들의 아픔에 대한 소망 by Eun Ah Cho 조은아 54 Black and White by Teesha Hadra and John Hambrick 58 The Role of Mindfulness in the Midst of Pain: The Importance of Present-Focus Attention by Joey Fung 62 Making the Invisible Visible: Prophetic Drama and Social Change by Andre Henry 66 Spirit Outside the Gate: Imagining a Church Without Borders Spirit Outside the Gate: Cómo Imaginar una Iglesia Sin Fronteras by Oscar García-Johnson 70 Pastoring through Political Division: Preserving the Tie that Binds by Scott Cormode, Andrés Zelaya, Suzanne Vogel, Phil Allen Jr., Kevin Haah VOICE 76 Voices on Rest 82 Voices on Repentance DEPARTMENTS 8 From Mark Labberton, President 90 Future of Fuller 93 Recent Faculty Books and Publications 97 Benediction 97 About Fuller ; https://digitalcommons.fuller.edu/fuller-magazine/1015/thumbnail.jpg

Since 2014, Fuller Magazine has been published for the global community of Fuller Theological Seminary. The sections of Story, Theology, Voice, and Departments are to reflect the life of Fuller in all her permutations: this is who we are, what we are talking about, and who we are becoming together. The editorial content of FULLER magazine reflects the opinions of the various authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the views of Fuller Theological Seminary. Table of Contents STORY 12 A Beautiful Tapestry storyteller: Tamara Johnston Mcmahon 18 More Than a Bible Club storyteller: Kaitlin Schluter 22 Meet Lillian Ateh storyteller: Lois Bock 24 Translating Lament storyteller: Michael Wright THEOLOGY 32 Introduction by Kara Powell, Guest Theology Editor 34 Growing Young by Kara Powell, Brad Griffin, Jake Mulder 40 Walking with Ethnic Minority Youth on the Identity Formation Journey by Marcos Canales 44 Moving from Performance to Purpose in Youth Sports by Benjamin J. Houltberg 48 Thriving in Urban Ministry: Exploring the Role of Pain and Hope in the Journey of Faith by Christin J. Fort 52 Revisiting Our Response to Children Suffering Globally by David H. Scott 56 Naming, Navigating, and Re framing Depression in the Lives of Teenagers by Rhett Smith 60 An Invitation to Thrive: Helping Young People Find Their Coordinates by Pamela Ebstyne King 62 Navigating a Digital Media World with Teenagers by Art Bamford 66 What Parents Need to Know—and Do—About Teenage Sexuality by Clifford and Joyce Penner 70 Adoptive Youth Ministry: Integrating Emerging Generations into the Family of Faith by Chap Clark 74 Where Do Twentysomethings Fit in Our World Today? by Steven C. Argue VOICE 78 The Psalms 84 Political Civility 90 Pop Culture DEPARTMENTS 8 From Mark Labberton, President 96 New Faculty 96 Recent Faculty Books and Publications 98 Benediction 98 About Fuller Theological Seminary ; https://digitalcommons.fuller.edu/fuller-magazine/1006/thumbnail.jpg

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

학위논문 (석사)-- 서울대학교 대학원 : 철학과(서양철학전공), 2012. 2. 정호근. ; The objective of this thesis is to elucidate the concept of the general will and to make Rousseau's point clear by refuting criticisms which determine the general will as totalitarianism. To this end, I would like to reconstruct the concept of the general will by focusing on Rousseau's paradoxical expression of 'forcing to be free'. Because I think that it is possible to get a correct understanding of the general will through paying attention to this phrase. There are two kinds of 'forcing to be free' in the theory of Rousseau's General will. One is found in the notorious passage arguing that whoever refuses to obey the general will must be forced to be free in the Book 1 chapter 7 of On Social Contract. The other is implicit one in the passage discussing the conditions of the general will in the Book 2 chapter 3 and Book 2 chapter 7(part 4 chapter 8). I would like to examine these problems respectively and try to show that Rousseau's ultimate point consists in not 'forcing' but 'freedom'. Conclusively, the authentic difficulty of interpreting of Rousseau's logic is that nevertheless 'forcing to be free' is necessary to the production of the general will, he permit the possibility of failure of this process in practice. Rousseau's theory of the popular sovereignty argues that the foundation of legitimacy of the state does not consist in the divine or natural foundation but in the autonomous will of the people. Despite this theoretical postulate, the people appear to not only rational and social unity, but also always potentially the multitude as disordered gathering of individuals who are vulnerable to a capricious passion. On the one hand, the people's general will should make a society legitimate, particular deliberation of the people may be contingent and could make an erroneous decision on the other. As a result, Rousseau introduces the legislator or the civil religion which is external to a people in order to transform a multitude into unified people. However, because of the very reason that people are still and always multitude, they consequently could not obey this foreign authority so the problem regarding difficulty of self-ruling of the people remains unsolved. At a glance, Rousseau's theory of popular sovereignty seems to optimistic assertion that the people should and could govern itself. But Rousseau's pessimistic claim that the ideal people cannot be naturally given, but must be constructed by constant effort should not be overlooked as well. Finally, the introduction of the legislator or the civil religion is not contradictory to the principle of popular sovereignty because the success or failure of this heteronomous agency is uncertain and the popular sovereignty keeps still its autonomy. The problems are described as follows: the general will aiming at common good could fell to mere will of all by acquiring of a particular will possessed by some individuals. In the same way, the people who should be unitary and organic are degenerated into a blind multitude and the citizen who must be active and rational in the collective deliberation into a passive, passionate subject. The principle of the popular sovereignty claiming that good law makes a good people but the origin of the good law must be also the people, and the fact that primitive people does not have any capacity to legislate such good law is the source of the circular logic Rousseau engages. It also suggests that the self-ruling of the people is not easily attainable project by the introduction of the legislator or the civil religion because after the initial social contract, passionate, irrational and apolitical properties of the human being who had had those attributes in the state of nature cannot be completely eradicated. So the state of the society in Rousseau is more vulnerable than the traditional reading in that there is always the danger of reemergence of the state of nature. The fact that the sovereignty belongs to the people but the people do not have such capacity to exert the sovereignty is the central ambiguity derived from the theory of popular sovereignty in Rousseau. Rousseau's democracy as self-ruling of the people, therefore, remains always incomplete, contestable and unfinished democracy. This paradox of Rousseau is deduced from the consistent, thorough accomplishment of the principle of the freedom. In other words, Rousseau's premises arguing that the legitimacy of the politics does not have any transcendent and ultimate ground and its source is a unique source of will of the people as free being even permit the freedom to refuse their freedom. That is to say, individual citizens must be forced to be free but also can have the (natural) freedom not to be forced to have (civil and moral) freedom. In short, as though effective denaturalization is necessarily required to make man into citizen, it remains a process without a priori guarantee. Thus, the binary oppositions which support Rousseau's whole system, such as oppositions between the society and nature, the people and multitude and the general will and the will of all always have the possibility of confusion in practice. That danger renders the general will only transient or temporary in the conflictual process of politics. The fundamental problem of politics suggested by Rousseau is that the passage from the state of nature to the state of society is necessary, but is also very difficult and could not be achieved entirely. In conclusion, all these considerations show that Rousseau's political philosophy does not defense the alleged totalitarianism but is the philosophy of 'freedom' in the strict and consistent sense of the word. ; 본 논문의 목적은 을 중심으로 루소의 일반의지 개념의 정체를 해명하고, 이를 전체주의로 규정하는 비판들로부터 루소의 논지를 명료하게 하는 것이다. 이를 위해 나는 '자유롭도록 강제'된다는 루소의 역설적인 표현을 중심으로 일반의지 개념을 재구성하고자 하며, 이 점에 주목할 때 비로소 일반의지 개념에 대한 정확한 이해가 가능하다고 본다. 루소의 일반의지 이론에서는 크게 두 가지의 '자유롭도록 강제됨'이 나타난다. 하나는 일반의지를 거부하는 자들이 자유롭도록 강제되어야한다고 주장하는 1부 7장의 주장이며 다른 하나는 2부 3장 및 2부 7장(4부 8장)에서 일반의지의 성립 조건을 논의하는 대목에서 드러난다. 나는 이들을 각각 살펴보고 루소의 궁극적인 강조점은 강제가 아니라 자유에 있음을 보여주고자 한다. 결론적으로, 루소의 논리를 따를 때 나타나는 진정한 난점은 자유롭도록 강제하는 과정이 일반의지의 산출을 위해 필수적임에도 불구하고, 실천적으로는 이것이 실패할 수 있는 여지를 허용하는 데에 있다. 루소의 인민주권론은 국가 정당성의 토대가 신적인 것이나 자연적인 근거에 있다는 견해를 부정하고 인민의 자율적인 의지가 정치적 권위의 원천이라고 주장한다. 그런데 인민은 항상 이성적이고 사회적인 질서정연한 통일체인 것이 아니라 또한 잠재적으로 정념에 좌우되기 쉬운 개인들의 무질서한 모임으로서 다중으로 현상하기도 한다. 즉 한편으로 인민의 일반의지는 사회를 정당한 것으로 만드는 조건이지만, 다른 한편으로 인민들의 개별 심의는 우연적이며 오류를 범할 수 있는 것이다. 따라서 루소는 다중을 인민으로 만들기 위해서 입법자와 시민종교와 같은 인민 외부의 권위를 도입한다. 그러나 인민은 그들이 다중이라는 바로 그 이유로 이러한 외부적 권위에 복종하지 않을 수도 있기 때문에, 인민이 스스로를 통치하는 것에 관한 난점은 해결되지 않는다. 일견 루소의 인민주권론은 인민이 인민 자신을 통치해야 한다는 낙관적 주장으로 보이지만, 인민은 그 자체로 주어지거나 발견될 수 없으며 다만 이상적 인민으로 구성되어야 한다는 루소의 비관적 주장 역시 간과되어서는 안 된다. 결국 입법자나 시민종교의 도입은 인민주권의 원리와 상충되는 것이 아닌데, 이러한 타율적 장치의 성공 여부는 불확실하여 인민주권은 여전히 그 자율성을 지니기 때문이다. 문제는 공동이익을 지향해야 할 일반의지가 각 개인이 갖는 특수의지의 득세에 의해 한갓 전체의지로 전락할 위험, 통일적이고 유기적이어야 할 인민이 무지몽매하고 개별적인 다중으로 전락할 위험, 집단적인 심의에 있어 능동적이고 합리적이어야 할 시민이 수동적이고 정념에만 사로잡힌 신민으로 전락할 위험에 있다. 좋은 법이 좋은 인민을 만들지만 좋은 법의 출처는 또한 인민이어야 한다는 인민주권의 원리, 그리고 최초의 인민은 그러한 입법을 할 수 있는 역량을 가지지 못하는 다중이라는 상황이 루소가 사로잡힌 순환 논리의 원천이다. 그런데 사회계약 이후에도 인간이 자연 상태에서 갖던 감성적, 비합리적, 비정치적 속성은 완전히 해소되지 않으며, 이는 입법자나 시민종교 같은 장치를 통해서도 인민의 자기통치가 온전히는 달성될 수 없는 난제임을 보여준다. 이처럼 루소의 사회 상태는 항상 부분적으로나마 자연 상태가 돌발할 수도 있는 위험을 갖는다는 점에서 취약한 것이다. 주권은 인민에 속하지만 인민은 스스로를 직접 통치할 수 있는 역량을 결여한다는 것이 루소의 인민주권론이 보여주는 애매성이다. 그러므로 인민의 자기통치로서 루소의 민주주의는 항상 불완전하여 계속해서 갱신되고 수정되어야 하는 미완의 민주주의로 남는다. 루소에서 이러한 역설은 자유의 원리를 일관되게 관철시키게 됨에서 귀결된다. 즉 정치의 정당성에는 어떠한 선험적이고 궁극적인 토대도 없다는 것, 인민은 자유로운 존재로서 그들의 의지만이 정치적 정당성의 유일한 원천이라는 루소의 전제는 그들이 스스로의 자유를 거부할 자유마저도 허용한다. 다시 말해 각 개인은 일반의지의 실현을 위해서 자유롭도록 강제되어야 하지만, 이들은 '자유롭도록'(즉 시민적 자유와 도덕적 자유) 강제되지 않을 수 있는 자유(즉 자연적 자유)를 가질 수도 있다. 요컨대 인간을 시민으로 만들기 위해서는 효과적인 탈자연화가 요구되지만, 이는 보증없는 과정이다. 따라서 루소의 체계를 떠받치는 이항대립, 즉 사회와 자연, 인민과 다중, 일반의지와 전체의지는 항상 실천적으로는 혼동될 위험을 가지며 이러한 위험은 일반의지가 정치의 갈등적인 과정 속에서 단지 일시적으로만 가능한 것으로 만든다. 루소가 보여주는 정치의 근본 문제는 자연 상태로부터 사회 상태로의 이행이 필수적이지만, 동시에 이것이 매우 어렵고 온전히 달성될 수 없다는 것이다. 결론적으로 이러한 탐구는 루소의 철학이 전체주의를 대변하는 것이 아니라 여전히 '자유'의 철학이며, 그것도 매우 일관적인 의미에서 그러함을 보여준다. ; Master

학위논문(석사)--서울대학교 대학원 :사회과학대학 정치외교학부(외교학전공),2019. 8. 박성우. ; The study of Rousseau's international politics can largely be divided into two main branches: Realism with a pessimistic view towards peace in international politics and Cosmopolitanism via education as depicted in Emile. However, neither interpretation exhaustively covers Rousseau's international political thought. Accepting the framework that International Political Thought should coherently and consistently interpret the individual, national, and international levels of politics, this thesis embodies Stoicism's 'Theory of Oikeiosis' to assess Rousseau's international political thought, focusing on Emile. This study pays attention to Emile because the study of humans embodied in the work contains both a discussion of all three layers – the individual, national and the international - of Rousseau's international political thought, and enough materials to infer his 'Politics of Survival.' Previous studies of Emile has primarily been published by cosmopolitans to invoke idealistic ideas such as conscience, morality, and patriotism. If put under a more realist lens, however, the same ideas could be interpreted as a part of living his life for Emile, or the individual, under the goal of self-preservation. Early in his life, Emile grows up with only negative education as an isolated individual and learns how to live alone. Later, Emile gradually learns how to interact with the society, breaking from his isolated shell to live as a part of a community. In this process, Emile establishes a political society and utilizes concepts that he garnered while in it, such as morality and religion, according to his goal of self-preservation. Although Emile fulfills his duties as a citizen of a Republic, ideas such as civic virtue and patriotism that were created within the country do not initially extend to the outside world. With time, however, Emile's world view expands to encompass the entire human population, and Emile comes to care for even communities outside of his direct community. When the idea of a confederation of countries to resolve the state of war outside of the community turns out to be unfeasible, Rousseau adopts a new solution for the international political situation which is for each individual to strive to do their best in the given situation such as by finding a safe place for his or her freedom of survival. This thesis scrutinizes Emile to depict this process, of the individual striving for survival beyond the community and extending to the nation, international politics, and the entire universe. This research interprets Rousseau's international political thought as 'International Political Thought of Survival' by repurposing cosmopolitan internal mechanisms as tools for survival, while also distinguishing itself from realism by underlining Rousseau's negative pacifism. As such, this thesis provides a balance between the cosmopolitan and realist interpretations of Rousseau's international politics and also attempts to bridge the rift between his national and international political thought by extracting 'survival' as a consistent idea embedded throughout the levels. Moreover, this study criticizes the realist international political theorists' arbitrary selection and selective interpretation of Rousseau and argues the need for a more diversified approach to Rousseau's international political thought. ; 루소의 국제정치관에 대한 연구는 크게 국제정치 상황에서 평화를 비관적으로 바라보는 현실주의와 『에밀』에서의 교육을 통해 국제적 평화를 이룰 수 있다는 세계시민주의의 두가지 갈래로 나눌 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 해석들이 가지는 문제점은 루소의 정치사상이 두 극단의 측면을 모두 지니고 있는 점을 포괄하기 어렵기에, 루소의 국제정치사상을 좀 더 잘 이해할 수 있는 모습으로 재해석할 여지를 준다. 특히 국제정치사상이 개인과 국가 그리고 국제정치의 일관성있는 해석을 가져야 한다는 틀에 입각하여, 스토아사상에서 비롯된 '자기화 이론'을 참고해 『에밀』을 중심으로 루소의 국제정치사상을 살펴본다. 본 연구가 『에밀』에 주목하는 이유는 이 저작에서 드러나는 인간학이 루소 국제정치사상의 여러 층위(개인-국가-국제관계)에 대한 논의를 모두 포함하고 있으면서, '생존의 정치학'을 설명하기에 적합한 내용을 담고 있기 때문이다. 흔히 『에밀』은 세계시민주의자들에게 주로 사용되어 양심이나, 덕성, 애국심 등의 관념을 이상주의적 관점으로 해석하는 데 활용된다. 그러나 『에밀』의 내용을 좀 더 현실주의적 차원에서 논의해본다면, 이들은 모두 자기보존이라는 목표 아래 에밀 개인이 삶을 살아내기 위한 과정의 일부로 볼 수 있다. 초기 에밀은 고립된 개인으로서 소극적 교육을 받으며 자라는데, 이동안은 혼자서 사는 법을 배운다. 이후 에밀은 점차 주변 사회와 관계하는 법을 배우게 되는데, 인간의 마음과 사회를 알아가면서 점점 고립된 인간을 지나 공동체에서 살아가는 법을 깨닫는다. 주변 사회를 알아가게 된 에밀은 정치공동체를 세우고 그 안에서 배운 도덕성과 종교 등의 관념을 자신의 생존방식에 맞게 사용한다. 공화국 내 시민이 된 에밀은 책임감으로 국가 내에서의 의무를 다하지만, 시민적 덕성이나 애국심 등 한 국가 안에서 만들어질 수 있는 관념들은 외부 세계까지 확장되지 않는다. 그렇지만 에밀의 세계관은 인류 전체를 포함하는 인식으로까지 확대되고, 에밀은 공동체 밖의 공동체를 신경쓰는 인간이 된다. 공동체 밖의 전쟁상태에서 국가적 연합은 하나의 해결책으로 제시되지만 이는 실현불가능한 것으로 판명나고, 루소의 국제정치적 해결책은 '생존의 자유'를 위해 가장 안전한 장소를 찾는 등 개인이 생존을 위해 계속적으로 주어진 바에서 최선을 다하는 노력의 방식을 채택하고 있다. 결과적으로 본 연구에서는 『에밀』을 통해 개인이 공동체를 넘어 국가와 국제정치 그리고 우주 전체를 아우르는 세계관 안에서 생존이라는 목표를 위해 달려가는 모습을 보여준다. 본 연구는 세계시민주의자들이 사용하는 내적 기제들을 생존을 위한 도구적 측면에서 활용하면서도, 소극적 의미의 평화론을 통해 현실주의와도 거리를 두며 '생존의 국제정치사상'으로 루소 국제정치사상을 재해석하고 있다. 이는 횡으로는 루소 국제정치관의 해석에 대한 중도적 균형을 잡으면서도, 종으로는 생존이라는 매개를 통해 국내정치와 국제정치 간의 균열을 메울 수 있는 가능성을 제시한다. 더불어 본 연구는 지금까지 현실주의 국제정치이론에서 루소의 정치사상을 부분적으로 인용해왔던 것에 대해 비판을 던지면서 루소 국제정치사상을 좀 더 다각적으로 접근할 필요가 있음을 주장한다. ; Ⅰ. 서 론 1 1. 문제제기와 연구질문 1 2. 기존문헌 검토 및 분석 3 1) 루소의 국제정치관에 대한 연구 3 2) 루소의 국제정치를 현실주의 관점에서 바라본 연구 7 3) 루소의 국제정치를 세계시민주의 관점에서 바라본 연구 9 4) 본 연구의 방향성: 루소의 국제정치사상 재해석 12 3. 본 연구의 접근법 14 1) 일관성의 국제정치사상 14 2) 스토아철학과 히에로클레스의 동심원 16 4. 논문의 구성 18 Ⅱ. 예비적 고찰 21 1. 『에밀』의 중요성과 해석방법 21 2. 생존의 정치학 25 Ⅲ. 개인에서 공동체로 31 1. 고립된 개인과 소극적 자유 31 1) 소극적 교육 31 2) 고독한 인간 33 2. 인간의 마음을 알아가는 것 35 1) 생존과 자기애 35 2) 사회를 알아가는 것 38 Ⅳ. 공동체 속의 개인 41 1. 도덕성과 종교의 역할 41 1) 동정심을 기반으로 한 양심과 이성의 작용 41 2) 도덕성과 종교의 관계 45 3) 정치공동체 안에서 일반의지의 역할 47 4) 정치와 종교 49 (1) 정치적 도구로서의 시민종교 50 (2) 입법과 통치에서의 종교 활용 52 2. 이상국가 속의 개인 55 1) 이상국가의 설립 가능성 55 2) 공화국과 시민적 덕성 58 3) 애국심과 세계시민주의 60 Ⅴ. 공동체 밖의 개인 64 1. 인식의 확장 64 1) 공동체 밖의 공동체 64 2) 우주적 질서에 대한 인식 66 2. 국가적 연합과 영구평화를 위한 해결책 69 3. 생존을 위한 계획 73 1) 가장 안전한 장소 73 2) 소극적 평화론과 생존의 의미 76 Ⅵ. 결 론 78 1. 생존의 국제정치사상 78 2. 본 연구의 목적과 함의 79 참고문헌 82 Abstract 88 ; Master