<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [KS] Varieties and taxonomy of evolving Korean
(post-</title></head><body>
<div>Yes, this is an interesting topic, and that short newspaper
article you quote seems right on, at first sight:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Quote from that article:</div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"> "As far
as large social currents are concerned, it's clear that both
intellectuals and the</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"> general
public are now moving from leftwing nationalism to rightwing
post-nationalism,²</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"> Kim Ho-ki
said.</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It is a newspaper article, after all -- and I am not too sure any
of the mentioned scholars mentioned in there (some are on this list)
would be very happy with the markers given to them. The terminology
being used seems somewhat trivialized, or popularized, if you like
that term better. "Post-nationalism" is of course closely
related to globalization. Globalization, however, is in Korean
newspapers, magazines, and the general public being used to equal
something like "having international trade relations with nations
around the world." It is exactly this trivialized version of the
term that makes it so tremendously popular in Korea. Going from here I
see that many of these newspaper debates that one way or the other
relate to globalization are often hard to understand if these specific
Korean definitions of such terms are not being considered as what they
really mean. I don't think that "post-nationalism" in that
article is indeed the same "post-nationalism" that Carter
Eckert talks about in the chapter Will Pore mentioned.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>"Rightwing post-nationalism" seems particular
problematic. That quote somehow indicates that there is no leftwing or
liberal post-nationalism, and that post-nationalism is a 'rightwing'
political affair. That's where the entire statement stops to make
sense to me, and I understand why you say that such articles are
frustrating. You probably know the book _Empire_, a publication by
Harvard U Press (2000), by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Negri, an
Italian philosophy professor and former colleague of Derrida, Foucault
and Deleuze at the Collège International de Philosophie in Paris,
but also a terrorist and member of the Red Brigates who spent a long
prison for his involvement in the Aldo Moro assassination, collaborted
with his former student Michael Hardt, now teaching at Duke U., on
redefining globalization. One of the main points that the authors make
is that there is no right or left anymore. Globalization and
post-nationalism are in Negri's and Hardt's analysis not right or
left, and they are not something that create a right-wing or
neoliberal world either. (For a good summary and longer review see:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000717/aronowitz.) The old terms of
right and left have stopped to apply in this new reality. It just is
not very helpful to use these terms anymore. Such newspaper and
magazine articles certainly show the amazing appetite to use hip
language. I understand. We all wanna be hip.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Frank </div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div>--------------------------------------<br>
Frank Hoffmann<br>
http://koreaweb.ws</div>
</body>
</html>