바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • P-ISSN0023-3900
  • E-ISSN2733-9343

East Asian Patterns of Individualization and Its Consequences for Neighborhood Community Reconstruction

Korea Journal, (P)0023-3900; (E)2733-9343
2018, v.58 no.1, pp.41-69
https://doi.org/10.25024/kj.2018.58.1.41

  • Downloaded
  • Viewed

Abstract

This paper attempts to articulate the concepts of individualization and neighborhoodcommunity reconstruction in close relations as dual aspects of the same coin—considering the strong community reconstruction experience in East Asia. So far,seldom has it been attempted to draw out this reciprocal relation in empiricalresearch. Individualization has been widely discussed but with negligible attentionto community reconstruction, and vice versa. Against this, the author attempts tograsp individualization and community reconstruction as concomitant historicalchanges in East Asia. The findings are as follows: first, through a review of the mainoutcomes of the researches on individualization in the West and East Asia, it turnedout that individualization in the East is “family-oriented” or “community-oriented”individualization, different from that of the one-way development in the West. Second,through a review of empirical researches on consequences of individualization oncommunity life— such as mutual help and solidarity— it turned out that consequencesare mostly negative in East Asia. This enforced individualization tends to increasethe level of anxiety in everyday life while the integrative function of the communitydecreases, leading to neighborhood community reconstruction efforts for the desirablefuture of the city.

keywords
individualization community reconstruction anxiety of everyday life family risks social governance East Asia

Reference

1.

Ahn, Hyun-Chan, Sung-Nam Wui, and Chang-Bok Yoo. 2016. Maeul gongdongche (Neighborhood Community). Seoul: Seoul Institute.

2.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 2001. The Individualized Society. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.

3.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 2002. “Foreword, Individually, Together.” In Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2002).

4.

Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Translated by Mark Ritter. London: Sage Publications.

5.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 2016. The Metamorphosis of the World. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.

6.

Beck, Ulrich, and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim. 2002. Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

7.

Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabeth. 2008. “Family Life Today.” Gender and Society 7.1.

8.

CCCPC (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China). 2013. “Decision of the CCCPC on Some Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Deepening the Reform.” Adopted at the third plenary session of the 18th CCCPC. http://english. court.gov.cn/2015-10/08/content_22130532.htm.

9.

Chang, K., and M. Song 2010. “The Stranded Individualizer under Compressed Modernity: South Korean Women in Individualization without Individualism.” British Journal of Sociology 61.3: 539–564.

10.

Ge, Tianren. 2014. “The Fragmentation and Governance of Community.” PhD diss., Tsinghua University (in Chinese).

11.

Giddens, Anthony. 1992. Structural Transformation of Intimacy: Sex, Love and Eroticism in Modern Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

12.

Han, Sang-Jin. 2017. “The Historical Context of Social Governance Experiment in East Asia: The Challenges of Risk Society.” Korea Journal 58.1 (spring): 12–41.

13.

Han, Sang-Jin, and Young-Hee Shim. 2010. “Redefining Second Modernity for East Asia: A Critical Assessment.” British Journal of Sociology 61.3: 465–488.

14.

Han, Sang-Jin, and Young-Hee Shim. 2016. “Dual Individualization in East Asia: Individualization in Society and in the Family.” In Liberalism and Chinese Economic Development, edited by Gilles Campagnolo. Oxford: Taylor and Francis.

15.

Han, Sang-Jin, Young-Hee Shim, and Jung-Su Kim. 2017. “Action Theoretical Approach to Community Reconstruction in Seoul and Beijing: The Analysis of Push and Pull Factors.” Paper presented at the Kick-off Seminar of Global Research Network 2017 on Individualization and Community Reconstruction in Seoul, Beijing, and Tokyo, Seoul National University. November 19.

16.

Han, Sang-Jin, Young-Hee Shim, and Young-Do Park. 2017. “Jungguk sahoe hyeopchi-ui yuhyeong-gwa teukseong: Beijing-si-ui sahoe hyeopchi silheom-eul jungsim-euro” (Typology and Characteristics of Social Governance in China). Working paper 2016-cr-22, Seoul Institute.

17.

Ishida, Mitsunori et al. 2010. “The Individualization of Relationship in Japan.” Soziale Welt 61 (3/4): 217–235.

18.

Jo-Han, Hye-jeong. 2013. Preface of In Seoul-si hyeopdong johap baekseo (White Paper on the Maeul Communities of Seoul). Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government.

19.

Kim, Chang-Hyun. 2014. “Setagaya gucheong ilbon maeul mandeulgi sarye” (The Case of Machizukuri in Setagaya Ward). https://m.blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=ch kim0531&logNo=20202429811&proxyReferer=https%3A%2F%2Fm.search.naver. com%2Fsearch.naver%3Fquery%3D%25EB%25A7%2588%25EC%259D%2584%25EB%25A7%258C%25EB%2593%25A4%25EA%25B8%25B0%2B%25EC%2584%25B8%25ED%2583%2580%25EA%25B0%2580%25EC%2595%25BC%26where%3Dm%26sm%3Dmtp_hty. (accessed October 23, 2017).

20.

Kim, Eui-Young, and Joo Hee Han. 2008. “Gyeolsache minjujuui-ui silheom” (Associative Democracy: Case of Seongmisan Mountain). Hanguk jeongchihakoebo (Korean Political Science Review) 42.3: 143–166.

21.

Kim, Ji Young. 2016. “Sedosi-ui honja saneun saramdeul” (People Living Alone in Three Cities). Research report. ISDPR. Seoul: Seoul National University.

22.

Lee, Chang-Gon. 2014. “Seoul seongmisan maeul-eun real utopia-ui han jeunggeo” (Seongmisan Community of Seoul Is an Evidence of Real Utopia). Hankeyreh. http://m.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/647855.html?_adtbrdg=e#_ adtLayerClose. (accessed 21 July).

23.

Lee, Y. J., and H. Koo. 2006. “Wild Geese Fathers’ and a Globalized Family Strategy for Education In Korea.” International Review of Development and Planning 28.4: 533–553.

24.

Li, Qiang. 2016. “Social Governance and Qinghe Experiment.”『领导文萃』(Leadership Digest): 7–22. (in Chinese).

25.

Li, Qiang, Lu Zheng, and Hao Wang. 2018 . “Bringing Society Back In: The New Qinghe Experiment and Social Governance in China.” Korea Journal 58.1 (spring): 72–92.

26.

Morita, A. 2009. “Difference in the Conceptions of Self as Subject of Human Rights between the West and Japan: Can Confucian Self Be Strong Enough to Exercise the Positive Liberty in the Authoritarian Society?” Paper presented at the Twenty-fourth IVR World Congress, Beijing, 202 Thinkshop.

27.

Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2013. Seoul-si hyeopdong johap baekseo (White Paper on the Maeul Communities of Seoul). Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government.

28.

Setagaya City. 2013. “Setagaya City Basic Plan.” Tokyo: Setagaya City.

29.

Shim, Young-Hee. 2011. “21 segihyeong gongdongche gajok model-ui mosaek-gwa jiwon bang-an” (Toward a Community-Oriented Family Model of the Twenty-First Century: From a Perspective of Second Modernity and Individualization Theory). Asia yeoseong yeongu (Journal of Asian Women) 50.2: 7–44.

30.

Shim, Young-Hee. 2013. “Gaeinhwa-ui duyuhyeong-e gwanhan yeongu: ‘gajokjungsim saengjon jihyanghyeong-gwa hwanghon mit gajeongnae ihonhyeong-eul jungsim-euro” (Two Types of Individualization: Family-Centered Survival-Oriented Type and Twilight Divorce Type). Sahoe-wa iron (Society and Theory) 23: 277–312.

31.

Shim, Young-Hee, and Sang-Jin Han. 2010. “‘Family-Oriented Individualization’ and Second Modernity: An Analysis of Transnational Marriages in Korea.” Soziale Welt 61.3&4: 237–255.

32.

Shim, Young-Hee, and Sang-Jin Han. 2013. “Individualization and Community Networks in East Asia: How to Deal with Global Difference in Social Science Theories?” In Theories about and Strategies against Hegemonic Social Sciences, edited by M. Khun and S. Yazawa, 197–214. Tokyo: Center for Glocal Studies, Seijo University.

33.

Shim, Young-Hee, Myoung-Soo Kim, and Byung-Soo Kim. 2014. “Two Dimensions of Family Risk in East Asia: Variations and Contextualization.” Development and Society 43.2: 239–267.

34.

Suzuki, Munenori et al. 2010. “Individualizing Japan: Searching for Its Origin in First Modernity.” British Journal of Sociology 61.3: 513–538.

35.

Taniguchi, Hiromi, and Gul Aldikacti Marshall. 2016. “Neighborhood Association Participation and Formal Volunteering in Japan.” Voluntas 27: 695–723.

36.

Wui, Seong-Nam. 2011. “Seongmisan maeul-ui uisa sotong-gwa uisa gyeoljeong” (Communication and Decision Making in Seongmisan Community). In Minjujeok uisa gyeoljeong-gwa uisa sotong (Democratic Decision Making and Communication), 33–60. Korea Democracy Foundation.

37.

Wui, Seong-Nam. 2013. “Dosi sok-eseo hamkke saranamgi” (Surviving Together in an Urban City). Hwanghae munhwa (Hwanghae Review) 80: 61–78.

38.

Yan, Yunxiang. 2010. “The Chinese Path to Individualization.” British Journal of Sociology 61.3: 489–512.

39.

Yan, Yunxiang. 2014. “Of the Individual and Individualization: The Striving Individual in China and the Theoretical Implications.” In Futures of Modernity, edited by Angelika Poferi et al. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag.

40.

Yoo, Chang-Bok. 2010. Urin maeul-eseo nonda (We Play at Maeul). Seoul: Another Culture.

41.

Yoo, Chang-Bok. 2012. “Relations, Communication and Cooperative Operation-Case of Seongmisan Maeul.” http://www.brixtongreen.org/seoul-city-visits-brixton- green-social-innovation-mayor/. (accessed October 23, 2017).

Korea Journal