*주* 스토어

*주*

개인인증

팔로워0 팔로우

소개

등록된 소개글이 없습니다.

전문분야 등록된 전문분야가 없습니다.

판매자 정보

학교정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

직장정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

자격증

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

판매지수

판매중 자료수

13개
전체 판매량

79개
최근 3개월 판매량

0개
자료후기 점수

-
자료문의 응답률

-

전체자료 13개

Summary - Temporarily Yours

Summary: Temporarily YoursJuyoung JeongKorea University Division of International StudiesResearch Question: How have the meaning and the form of prostitution changed in the post-industrial era? How did material structure affect the change? How should prostitution be understood?Research Answer: At the center of prostitution in post-industrial era is the “bounded authenticity”, a term which indicates that via prostitution not only sexual but also emotional relation is built during the service (but removed as soon as it ends). Such changes were made due to many material aspects of contemporary era, e.g. globalization, information technology, urbanization, and so on. It is crucial that we understand such phenomenon while considering the social, economic, cultural, and historical context.Elizabeth Bernstein wrote her book Temporarily Yours after several years of participation and observation in the prostitution industry of San Francisco, Stockholm, and Amsterdam, three cities famous for thend thus attracting a number of tourists. Majority of the book is about (mostly female) ‘sex workers’ in San Francisco, while the other two cities are dealt with in latter parts of the book. After giving an overview of historical changes and status quo of post-industrial sex industry, not only from sex workers’ perspective but also from that of government, the author made a suggestion that aptly understanding the backgrounds, from economic and social to cultural and historical, is crucial in order to come up with a remedy to problems caused by prostitution such as trafficking, violence, and fixation of gender inequality.For example, in San Francisco, prostitutes used to ‘sell their services’ on streets at inner-city tenderloin. Many of them, however, moved out to other parts of the city due to legal changes that prohibited on-street prostitution. The legal change was, interestingly, initiated and supported by three main actors: government, developers, and feminists. Similar was the casee (only) the purchase of sex was criminalized. This fact implies that criminalization of prostitution is not a pure achievement of feminism, but also that of capitalists and other actors. Nor was the new policy succeeded in eliminating prostitution — on-street prostitution only hid indoors. That, however, did not actually make a difference for the government and developers since their goal was simply to get rid of prostitutes form their sight. They did not eagerly try to arrest those who traded sex on internet and indoors. Thereby indoor prostitution was de facto decriminalized. The criminalization and prohibition of prostitution rather led to more threat to sex workers because it increased cost of survival for them – they have to flee and hide, not asking for help, from police. In Amsterdam, where prostitution was legalized, the situation was not too different from the other two cities. Despite the legalization, illegal immigrants were banned from selling sex and a number of regulatiolegal prostitutes. In all three cases, female sex workers, at least some of them, were left in potential danger of exploitation by clients, pimps, intermediary, and even government (in that they criminalized prostitution, whether in whole or partly, and thus punish prostitutes).The moving indoors of prostitution is, however, not only caused by governmental action, according to Bernstein. Sick of commission to and interference from pimps, many on-streets prostitutes longed for independence. The Internet enabled them to reach their customers without having to have pimps. This transformation, in addition, happened in tandem with a change in the meaning of prostitution. For outdoor (modern) sex workers, prostitution was only a job done in public. For indoor (post-industrial) sex workers, however, the distinction between private and public is much blurred. They not only sell physical contacts but also emotional ones – thus bounded authenticity. In order to match the cultural capital, or habfrom middle- or high-class, because now prostitution also involves emotional bonds, demand for sex workers from higher social strata also increased. The author also illustrated that there are many sex workers from middle-class nowadays. Thus, transformation of prostitution in post-industrial era is related to many other aspects, making it intricate to understand.One question I had after finishing reading was, however, that I could hardly see why the author also interviewed (and mentioned that in the book) male and transgender prostitute. That is, the analysis was heavily focused on ‘conventional’ prostitution, which is made between female prostitute and male customer. While I agree that majority of prostitution would be conventional, one characteristic of post-industrial and postmodern era is (re-)emergence of homosexuality, as well as transgender, asexual, bisexual, and other queer movements. The analysis would have been much more ‘complete’ if the author could address such issues a lly.

독후감/창작| 2016.07.10| 2페이지| 1,000원| 조회(109)

사회학, 독후감, 매춘, 인류학, bernstein, 요약, summary, Temp..

미리보기

닫기
Summary - Shock Doctrine

Summary: Shock DoctrineJuyoung JeongKorea University Division of International StudiesResearch Question: How has neoliberal ideas affected the world? Does neoliberalism, as its proponents argue, lead to more efficient, more prosperous, and freer world?Research Answer: Neoliberals believed that in order for a country to prosper, market must be deregulated and the government should rather remain standing back. Using the logic of neoliberalism, wherever there is a crisis, “disaster capitalists” stepped in and turned it into an economic “opportunity” to take the easy money from the government. Starting from Latin America, they exploited various parts of the world. Wherever disaster capitalists flooded in, the economy rather failed and most people could not even maintain basic level of living.The book begins with two doctors: Ewen Cameron and Milton Friedman. Though the former was a medical doctor, and the latter a doctor of economics, they had one thing in common: they both believed that a was needed to modify the nature of a person or a society. In mass scale, Friedman’s prescription was adopted as a guideline for the U.S. government, while it was Cameron’s “shock therapy” which was used to actually carry out the guideline in micro scale.It was in Latin America that their method was actually implemented for the first time. To give a shock, neoliberals first used dictatorship in Chile, and then developed their “weapon” to a subtler one in Bolivia “a civilian coup d’etat, one carried out by politicians and economists in business suits” (p. 154). Capitalists, of course, welcomed such neoliberal trend. Naturally, then, it evolved into corporatism, where corporations are closely connected to the government, and with their wealth, they are able to control the direction of policies. In Iraq after the U.S. invasion in 2003 and in South Asia after the tsunami in 2004, for example, the disaster capitalists made a number of contracts with the (American) government so that they coceive the easy money, which was collected from the taxpayers in the U.S., in the name of reconstruction.We could see, however, that Friedman was wrong. Such massive privatization, government outsourcing, or letting market do its work on its own, only led to even worse life for 99% of the people, who had to be left in the aftermath without any help nor profit.Nowadays, it is common that disasters or wars turn into a real opportunity for corporations, while they become even severer catastrophes for the others, as Klein clearly demonstrated with a vast amount of examples. Though, fortunately, the world does not seem like to be ever more “liberalized” as Friedman wished. The “Shock” is wearing off in Latin America and in Thailand, for example, according to the author. Latin Americans showed how to live in democratic socialist way, and the Moken people from Thai is a good example of how to coexist with the government in the state of crisis. There Klein saw a hope of an alternative to neolibm, a better future.Although the author provided an immense amount of facts to support her argument, many of them seemed unnecessary; many of them were just repetition. She did not ‘develop’ her argument; rather, she focused on providing anecdotes, facts, names of people, locations, or firms, and quotes and citations. Because of such writing strategy, while it was quite easy to read compared to research articles or academic books, the insight provided by the author was not that much for the length of the book.In addition, if I were to summarize the book in two words, my choice would be “conspiracy theory”. Though the Chicagoans were described evil, I do not believe they actually were the framing of the book itself was strongly biased against neoliberals. The question of ‘real intention’ behind neoliberal policies in crisis is to be answered by analyzing the realpolitik, the thoughts of key figures such as Friedman himself, Pinochet, or Paul Bremer. Of course, describing the difficultiese had to suffer has value in itself because it denounces the unjust, unjustifiable reality. It, however, cannot attest the real motive properly, or, at least, directly and clearly. Seeing a crater, one may conclude that a bomb had exploded, and that thus reconstruction is required. This simple fact does not, however, enable one to judge whether it was an accident or a terrorist attack. At least, one needs to do an in-depth investigation which also includes close inquiry about political situation, general knowledge about the region, relations between the region (victims) and others (suspects), and so on. Klein indeed did some analysis about such issues, but it was not enough, I think. Focusing too much on anecdotes, she could not keep the balance between mere description of facts and in-depth analysis.One more thing to point out is that the author tended to reduce every single issue to neoliberalism or disaster capitalism. The politics behind all those events she described were hardly med.

독후감/창작| 2016.07.10| 3페이지| 1,000원| 조회(94)

독후감, 요약, summary, Klein, 논픽션, 쇼크 독트린, Shock Do..

미리보기

닫기
Summary - The Democracy Project

Summary: The Democracy ProjectJuyoung JeongKorea University Division of International StudiesResearch Question: How had Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement developed? How are we to build a truly democratic society?Research Answer: OWS did not take place out of nothing – there were a long history of anarchism with a number of precedents (e.g. the movements in Greece, Spain, and elsewhere). It was a very meaningful movement in that it showed the possibility of an alternative form of society, which is anarchic and democratic. The democracy as we understand nowadays, especially in the USA, is not actually democratic. A truly democratic society must be built based on the principle of equality and freedom.After the financial crisis hit the world economy in 2008, the countries that suffered most reacted with austerity plans. It was the trigger for the backlash against neoliberalism and the revival of anarchism. At the peak of the movement was Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, which began in 20st, with small ‘a’, as he stressed a couple of times in the book, participated from the very early stage of the movement.As one of the “founding fathers” of OWS, the author provided in-depth analysis of pretty much everything of the movement. For example, the ideological origin, that is history of anarchism in general, the tactics and strategies adopted, and the future implication of the movement.Moreover, in the latter half of the book, the author introduced various tactics and strategies that prospective anarchist may actually apply or at least refer to. There were, for instance, detailed explanation and suggestions on how to organize and operate a large group of people efficiently while preventing a hierarchy from emerging, or how to deal with the existing political structure (i.e. the government). The author, in the end, illustrates his ideal society, where true communism is realized, though it would not be completely new as we are already living in quite a communist way in everydathe book is somewhat confusing; and second, the author is way too optimistic, I think. When I just finished the first chapter of the book, I expected a reportage on OWS. Then it gradually changed into an introductory textbook of anarchism. Starting from addressing the standpoints of contemporary political parties in the USA, the author moved on to history of the USA, “democracy”, and social movements in general, and then concluded with how to make a society based on ‘true’ democracy and anarchism. The author was so ambitious that he touched upon everything: current issue, history, and theory. Indeed, the reportage on OWS was interesting, and the latter half of the book was eye-opening. Was it, however, neatly organized? It is a mystery why Graeber devoted almost 100 pages on both the field report on OWS, and history, theory, and practices of anarchism equally. As a reportage, the latter half of the book was unnecessary; at least, it was unnecessarily detailed. As an introduction to anat to catch the interest of the readers, I think, as it is a recent issue and closely related to our everyday life (at least for the US citizens), but it was too deep in detail, with hundreds of jargons and proper nouns. If I had bought this book after skimming only few pages in a bookstore, it would not have fulfilled my expectation; or, rather, it might have ‘overfilled’. Even so, such structural matter does not diminish the quality of contents itself. It is a useful book, only that it is not very efficient.Secondly, the author seemed to be too optimistic about the human nature. Of course, even he himself admitted that there will always be problems, no matter what kind of society it is. He believes in the technical progress; in the rationality and reasonableness of people; and in the values that people pursue. None of these promise a rosy future. Technology, even if we assume that it somehow keeps progressing, is itself value neutral. An atomic bomb, for example, might have brought thty in East Asia. Robots and AIs may realize the ideal communist society. At the same time, however, they may fix the gap between classes, by serving as a tool of enforcement for the rich, who will then become unbeatable. In addition, as a student, I have learnt not to believe in good human nature, from my experiences in group projects – when we do not have to, we rarely do voluntarily the things that we can do, as long as we do not have an incentive. At the end of the book, the author refers to family as an example of already existing communist society. Can we treat others, not only neighbors but also those whom we have never meet nor will ever meet, like our family, or even friends? That is unlikely. For example, on the internet, where almost nothing is enforced and everyone is quite equal (and very often anonymous), it is more difficult to find a family-like, and open, most importantly, community than a ‘battlefield’ community. True, one may not have to be so pessimistic; equally trutic.

독후감/창작| 2016.07.10| 3페이지| 1,000원| 조회(81)

민주주의, 독후감, 요약, 무정부주의, summary, Occupy Wall St..

미리보기

닫기
Summary - Free to Choose

Summary: Free to ChooseJuyoung JeongKorea University Division of International StudiesResearch Question: What shall be done to let a society prosper to its maximum?Research Answer: The government should keep some distance and concentrate on guaranteeing that the market functions according to its own logic. Governmental intervention will only lead to inefficiency and even to unfairness.When people voluntarily cooperate, it benefits both parties; otherwise, it does not. That is what the authors are arguing throughout the book. To be specific, the authors mainly dealt with the socialist/Keynesian/interventionist/etc. approach, which argued for further government involvement in the market.Many, especially at the time of the writing, believed that government should intervene to ‘correct’ market failures, to offset the ‘unfairness’ caused by unregulated market, and to provide public services of high quality in low prices. The ‘socialists’, as the authors pointed, maintain that if well designhave to worry about being fired; the old about sustain a living; parents about their children’s education and social integration; consumers about dangerous, untested, or unreasonably expensive products; and so on.The authors refuted such beliefs that governmental intervention, as if so destined, will only lead to further inefficiency and unfairness. The reason lies in the fact that government is, at its best, only an agent of its clients – the citizens. All the reasons and evidences the authors provide in vast amount in criticizing the socialist arguments can be summarized this way. However well designed a socialist institution is, as long as it does not grant the decision making power to the taxpayers, those who pay for the costs of the institution in the end, it will always involve severe inefficiencies. Hardly anyone would expect ‘A’, who spends money of ‘B’ for the sake of ‘C’ and who is supervised by ‘D’, to do its best to maximize its efficiency and fairness. That is at the core king power back to the taxpayers. That is, not necessarily by privatizing all the areas of a society; rather, by simplifying welfare programs so that the administrative cost, which is deemed unproductive, is minimized; by introducing a voucher plan, so that taxpayers can choose where to use their voucher for, while maintaining public institutions as they are and thus making them compete with each other; and so forth. In case of inflation, the government shall realize the reality and admit that the only way to prevent it from causing serious problem is to face higher level of unemployment (and lower level of political support) for short term. Of course, the suggestions the authors made were quite bold, especially when the time of writing is concerned. That is why they emphasized the importance of shifting the public opinion. If intellectuals succeed to persuade the public, their opinion will change; if public opinion change, so does the opinion of politicians; if politicians change theits of memo on my phone while reading the book; I had so many points that I wanted to criticize. As it is not possible to list them all due to the limit of space and lack of deliberation, suffice it to say they were mostly concerned with minor issues related to definition (understanding) of some terms, and specific logics or assumptions the authors used in suggesting a solution. Especially when the authors were criticizing the ‘socialist’ solutions, I was more than ready to refute their arguments. The thing is that, however, the solutions they themselves advised were mostly acceptable even from my point of view. When they first introduced the idea of basic income, for example, I was surprised, or rather embarrassed, to find that such suggestion was given by Milton and Rose Friedman, very well-known neoliberals. If the same proposal was made in today’s Korea, it might even have been categorized as ‘commie’. I label myself as a moderate left-wing, and I was already for the very proposal. I have seen.There was only one exception: the case of education, especially that of higher education. I could not agree with the authors when it comes to basic understandings of the problems, definitions, and functions of educational institutions and logic they provided for the solutions. To name only one of many, the authors seem to consider universities only as a ‘training center’, which is deemed valuable only when it improves economic productivity of its graduates. I do not completely reject such a view; indeed, universities do and should serve such functions, too. What is more important, however, is its function as the factory of knowledge, where we can deepen our understanding of humanity. That is of value in itself; no economic calculation is needed. Deeper understanding in humanity may lead to a positive economic result, but that is another story.Even so, the book was overall very logical and consistent. Emotionally, probably because of my political orientation, I consistentlyo.

독후감/창작| 2016.07.10| 2페이지| 1,000원| 조회(109)

경제학, 독후감, 요약, summary, Friedman, Free to Choo..

미리보기

닫기
Summary - Multitude

Summary: MultitudeJuyoung JeongKorea University Division of International StudiesPart 1Research Question: How is the state of war nowadays? How has the characteristics and strategies of each side of the war changed? Particularly, how has the form of the resistance changed?Research Answer: The war is the new normal – it is constant, never-ending nowadays. The distinction between inside and outside (of the Empire), and thus that between police and military and that between war and peace, is blurred. From the perspective of Empire, the war is outsourced, and it is fought bodiless against abstract enemies. On the other hand, the resistance is becoming ever more distributed so that there is actually no central authority or hierarchy but networks.Multitude is a book sequel to Empire, a book written by same authors, and a book that introduced the concept of Empire, a complex of dominant nation-states, powerful international organizations, multinational corporations, and so on. In the part 1, ned the subjectivity in people (multitude), a call for democracy. This common desire enabled cooperation of diverse movement groups – examples given by the authors include “environmentalists with trade unionists, anarchists with church groups, gays and lesbians with those protesting the prison-industrial complex” (p. 86).Overall, I think, the book (part 1) clearly reveals that the authors’ broad and deep understanding of today’s world and its history. Reading even only part 1 was like reading a whole book. Their taxonomy of resistance, however, seems to be based on a prejudice, a belief that the history follows certain pre-determined path, that is the history is preordained. Although the authors explicitly negated such critic (p. 93), it is not as persuasive as they seem to believe.That is because they did not pay that much attention to the differences among the numerous examples, and rather focused on defining each step in the development of the resistance. In other words, they supposer the influence of capital and collaborate in common project. Global society rest upon the division of labor among (neoliberal) actors on each level of global socio-economic relations. In this context, the multitude comes into being and develops through distributed network of communication across the world to transform the society(s).The authors moved their focus onto the multitude in part 2, Multitude, as the title of the chapter apparently suggests. Multitude is a class, they define, which consists of all those who collaborate in a common project based on common condition, i.e. working under the influence of capital. Unlike conventional way of defining a group of people, such as people (as a political term), mass, proletariat, and so on, the singularity of each individual is well preserved while the commonality is also maintained in the multitude. In addition, the multitude is an open and expansive concept.It is in contrast to modern understanding of society that in nowadays postmodty’ of the group must be clear-cut as much as possible. That is, it must be easy to tell whether an individual is a member of the group or not. One example is a standard based on territory. If one is born in the territory, i.e. within the territorial boundary, one is a member; if not, one is not a member. Such a principle, or “the focal principle”, to cite H. E. Goemans, a political geographer, is a very powerful tool to provide a group of people with an identity along which they can be mobilized.In addition, though it is not an unavoidable or fundamental problem, the struggle against the enemy (also not very clearly defined) must be very carefully carried out. That is, such struggle can be very easily appropriated, whether intended or not. A ‘support’ or ‘collaboration’ based on misunderstanding can even turn out to be a friendly fire.Part 3Research Question: What is democracy? What is the problem with conventional from of democracy? How is the democracy of the multitude different froept of democracy, and of course the theory of it too, must change together. Required is a new framework that can enable the true democracy of the multitude.Conventional framework of democracy is, in fact, not so different from that of aristocracy and even monarchy. These political frameworks all share the concept of sovereignty. What differs is the matter of who has the sovereignty. As a result, there has always been a power relation, a relation between the rulers and the ruled.The bilateral relation is, however, no longer necessary. The multitude, the ruled, is now (probably) capable of living on its own. That is, an autonomy is possible, and the ruler class is under threat of subversion, much bigger one than ever. Timing is crucial, the authors wrote, and that is the issue we have to think of, as well as the plan for realizing the true democracy.As the authors approached the end of their book, the text became much denser and abstract than previous parts. Many conceptual issues were ak.

독후감/창작| 2016.07.10| 4페이지| 1,000원| 조회(87)

사회학, 독후감, 요약, summary, 다중, multitude, Negri, Ha..

미리보기

닫기