'꽃과 칼'의 일본 문화 분석

### 베네딕트의 "국화와 칼": 일본 문화에 대한 분석
* 📚 카렐 반 볼페렌은 **베네딕트의 책이 일본 문화에 대한 설득력 있는 분석**과 현대 일본 이해와의 관련성을 높이 평가합니다.
* 🎎 베네딕트의 책은 **아마에의 개념과 일본 문화에서 아마에가 갖는 의미**, 특히 서양 이데올로기와 관련된 일본인의 독특한 사고방식에 대해 설명합니다.
* 🗡 이 책은 **'국화와 칼'이라는 은유**를 통해 일본 문화의 복잡성을 탐구하며, **꽃을 감상하고 칼을 다루는 마음가짐**을 살펴봅니다.
* 🌸 일상적인 행동을 통해 일본 문화를 이해하려는 베네딕트의 접근 방식은 **단순하고 특정 역사적 측면을 다루는 데 있어 깊이가 부족**하다는 비판을 받습니다.
* 📖 이 책은 전쟁에서 일본의 역할에 대한 묘사와 문화적 상대주의 개념에 대한 접근 방식이 **한계와 편견**을 인식하고 있다는 평가를 받고 있습니다.

베네딕트의 '국화와 칼'에서 일본 문화에 대한 심층적인 분석을 살펴보세요. 게임에서의 수치심부터 전시 행동에 이르기까지 일본인의 사고방식과 사회의 복잡한 면모를 살펴보세요.

Team, today we will read Benedict's The Chrysanthemum and the Sword together. It is evaluated as the best book that analyzes Japanese culture. Karel van Wolferen said, One of the pleasures is seeing today's Japan through the framework analyzed in this book, which is quite convincing. In games, the feeling of shame is a big deal. Especially if you don't understand the concept of amae, you can't feel my consciousness. This part implies that when Japan continues to make derogatory remarks and lead things in a negative direction, it fits perfectly into that framework. Let's hear from Teacher 2 whether he thought Benedict's analysis was appropriate or if he saw any issues. If you look at Chapter 10 of this book, Benedict presents a dilemma and discusses it beautifully. Benedict probably felt the same way.

In the past, Seoulites found it difficult to understand the unique mindset, ethics, and way of life of Japanese people. Among them, Benedict emphasizes that it is particularly strange to Westerners. For example, in the case of Americans, they classify people as liberals, conservatives, or moderates according to their ideologies. Therefore, liberals act in a way that suits liberalism, and conservatives engage in political or social activities according to their own ideologies. It is natural. Socialists, on the other hand, act in all areas according to socialist beliefs. However, when looking at the Japanese people, there is no such categorization. For instance, even during the war, Japanese soldiers later fought with all their might.

And based on the absolute obedience to the Japanese Emperor, not only the Kamikaze Special Attack Corps but also those who were deeply immersed in the war to the extent of even carrying out suicide attacks, but once they became prisoners of war, well, not everyone was like that, but some prisoners surprisingly changed their attitude to actively cooperate with the Allied forces. For them, it was difficult to understand the attitude of these Japanese people. Therefore, in order to analyze this, Van der Luft, in a very famous passage, talks about this. People who have read it have no concept of ultimate guilt, no inner sense of guilt based on a 4-base of guilt. They don't have this kind of consciousness. Now, how will other people perceive me if I experiment with Japan, or how will others criticize or view this as a bad behavior?

So, when we come out of our village, we act based on the age of 70, so there is a part that prepares for it. Therefore, as it becomes too famous, it tends to lead the argument to that side throughout the whole book. However, on one hand, there is a aspect of explaining the behavior and thinking of Japanese people, but on the other hand, there seems to be a bit of an aspect that is not so ordinary. I had this thought. Benedict, when it comes to approaching Japanese culture, compares it to the culture of America, and Japan doesn't really like regulations like rules or regulations. It's very simple. Because you can't agree, and you can't really grasp the civilization and then proceed with culture like this. Such an explanation should be possible within. Especially, in a culture where the original sin culture exists due to Christianity, the culture where the consciousness of the original sin is very active, the previous culture is...

Friends, teachers, and so on, you can talk like this, but in fact, strictly speaking, my deliberate approach is not that. Because when explaining the numerical culture, as emphasized in the fate of contraction, virtues that heroes in the Bronze Age possess are highlighted. And as the Iron Age comes, respect for ancestors, respect for laws, and emphasis on contracts are emphasized, and now the relationship of obligations and rights is somewhat emphasized. However, the problem is that when Japan entered the Second World War, there was no empire, and this complex legal system has become similar to everything. I think there is almost no way to properly explain Japan in this system, which has become a part of the numerical culture. Some people, in some cases, for example, really follow that logic led by Japan through batteries.

One of the distinctive features of Korean culture is that it does not emphasize honor. If you say that you value honor, some people will talk about it, but strictly speaking, it's not about honor or dishonor. It's a story of respect. It's about receiving sincere motivation for human relations. After all, it's still in the process of growing while receiving protection from the U.S., so in this aspect, it is still in the process of becoming something. If we look at whether Japan has exported, it means whether they truly respect honor. I definitely don't think so. What's interesting about this book is that the author went to Japan and conducted a cultural study.

In the survey, it was not the discovery of the original form of a Japanese word, but rather during World War I, the United States entrusted the research field to make it easier to wage war to control Japan. Knowing this passage also makes reading this book very interesting. Second, after such events, whether it's related to war or not, how did those who study internet driving see it? Actually, anthropology itself, in a way, to understand societies other than Westerners, whether it's a society of memorial culture or a society with a different individualistic culture, in order to understand societies other than the West, developed disciplines such as anthropology. Especially in the age of imperialism, in order to understand other societies, whether from a perspective of conquest or a purpose of missionary work, the developed discipline was actually anthropology.

It seems a bit difficult for our family to deny that it is a discipline mobilized for the same political purposes. However, as I read this book, I found it interesting. Indeed, this country, the United States, is quite a sophisticated country. Eventually, Benedict was asked to write a play, and soon the war will come to an end. Then, after the war, how to manage and govern Japan? To efficiently manage, one must understand the city, the Japanese people, and the Japanese culture. Benedict, who received this research assignment, may have simply complied with the authorities' wishes and presented it appropriately. In my opinion, she objectively viewed the culture based on cultural relativism principles.

In order to understand the culture of Japan from the perspective of the Japanese themselves, rather than from the perspective of Westerners, one must make considerable efforts even under difficult conditions. Moreover, now they are clearly stating their methodological principles and these points that cannot be ignored actually left a deep impression. During my presidency, even at that time, when the United States was already making plans on how to deal with the entire Pacific and the world powers, the structure of the powers was changing. The Soviet Union was entering from Vladivostok, and when China was heading towards the same direction, if Japan were to be directly managed by the United States, this would be another story due to various reasons. In this regard, the basis for the U.S. to become the hegemon of the Pacific lies in the document provided by the Allies. I think this way. Therefore, military purposes are somewhat ahead in this regard.

In that aspect, we find it very interesting to read, but there is some lack of academic depth. Let's hear what you think about this. In fact, there is criticism that it cannot be highly evaluated for this report for war support, which some people criticize. Actually, this is now the most important methodological principle or ideology, related to cultural relativism. So, if this work is used for the purpose of war, instead of objectively approaching one's research subject in a culturally relativistic way, it can describe or evaluate the subject according to the idea of the enemy. Wouldn't it mean the principle of cultural relativism no matter what? Currently, this seems to be the criticism. So, I think there is some validity in this criticism.

However, on the other hand, if we look at it from a different perspective, anthropology is now somewhat related not only to humanities but also to any academic nature. When we talk about academia, it should be objective. We should try to approach any subject or fact objectively, excluding prejudices. Therefore, when we talk about freedom, it is said that in modern humanities, the very concept of freedom itself can rather be a departure. From the perspective of modern humanities, freedom cannot be absolute from society. Instead, the academic discipline of humanities inevitably becomes intertwined with the values of the culture or community it belongs to. Therefore, in the field of humanities, it is necessary to clearly reveal what values they are pursuing. In fact, Benedict wrote this book based on certain values.

Rather than the problem itself, how well one is aware of the value and how critically one tries to understand one of its values, Benedict has made efforts in this regard. In fact, this point should now be a key point in the evaluation. From that perspective, it seems that Benedict has maintained a fairly critical approach in his own way over the past 70 years, continuously raising the fact itself. I would like to evaluate it in that way, as the teacher said, talking about culture from a quite universal perspective is like talking about Paris. Chinese see it as Chinese, English see it as English, and Japanese see it as 1 minute. That's the same thing. It's because the characteristics they have are dark. Benedict analyzed Japan and observed Japan, and in this technique, in fact, there are many issues and difficulties. In other words, what she had in the part of anthropology, which was mostly primitive.

Describing races or small-scale countries and approaching some people through their characteristics and emotions, the features of those are directly related to Japan. However, the problem is that some parts have been missed. For example, when Japan was fighting against the 6th, it was a war of imperialism. Therefore, the part that dealt with Japan as a small race and the perspective that dealt with that in childhood is not captured. There are larger parts that have not been mentioned here. Perhaps those parts are not mentioned here, so we can understand Japan through this book. It is almost unreasonable to say that this book reveals Japan. Therefore, saying that this book signifies Japan is a bit biased towards the advantages and characteristics that the Japanese possess. However, how those work is not clearly explained.

In fact, we receive very little from the government regarding flowers. What's interesting is that the title of this book itself is a symbol. Gukhwa refers to a sense of beauty and aesthetics that we often associate with Japan. It implies a certain sensibility or taste. Of course, there are also elements of aggression and powerlessness associated with that time. The author is trying to explain how we now view Japan using this metaphor. But another important point is that as you progress to the latter part of the book, the metaphor slightly changes its meaning. The significance of the second gukhwa symbolizing a sword is elaborated on, and the author discusses whether there is a metaphor that you consider more important if you have read many books about national swords. Let's listen to the story. This book originally had various titles. The first proposed title was:

South Korea and Japan initially tried to title this book together, but then the research topic in Japan changed again. Later, they changed the cultural pattern in Japan and so on. Eventually, by chance, they simply called it 국화와 칼 (Gukhwa and Kal) and that's how the title of this book was decided. From that perspective, the title of this book itself was also decided very coincidentally. Why has the phrase 국화와 칼 (Gukhwa and Kal) become widely used as a symbolic expression for this book now? Because anthropology as a discipline seeks to understand the essence of culture through trivial and everyday examples. Benedict herself did not focus on any political system or economic structure to grasp the core of Japanese culture, but rather on people's everyday behaviors.

When it comes to grasping the essence of culture, there is a considerable tendency to simplify it and focus on restoration. Therefore, even within Japanese society alone, it is a very complex society. Japan has gone through a society that has historical layers, so there are differences in samurai culture and peasant culture. As a result, there are various cultural gaps. Benedict's book tends to be quite simple in how it approaches this, and it is somewhat related to the characteristics of anthropology. This point should be noted. The title Flowers and Swords, in my opinion, does not limit the scope. The book, which is titled Flowers and Swords, emphasizes the mindset of admiring and cultivating flowers and the mindset of sharpening and handling swords.

The story is not the same as the one in Japan. Actually, now, Japanese people are revealing their true feelings. Even if the rust melts, if you sharpen the rust, the fall will be revealed, and the sword will shine like metal. Now, in terms of the refinement of this mindset, it is related to the national sword, and it showed that the essence of Japanese people's mindset is like this, but actually, in the process, the advantages that the guests have should be well described. However, a sword is not a tool for polishing the mind. When you say sharpen the sword, it means there is an enemy, and then it is a weapon used in war. When the sword is drawn, it appears, and when it is wielded, it is a phenomenon that occurs. When using a sword like this, any issues are not mentioned in general. So, from the beginning to the end, there is no part related to the national sword in the book. The rust was only used as a metaphor to help the national sword.

I think like this. Also, I have slightly different thoughts. In fact, there was a sword. Because in the first chapter of the book, the author talks about the background and methodology of writing this book, and from chapter 2, it starts discussing war. Japanese people face Western armies, such as the United States, and talk about how they engage in combat in a different way. Even though their physical military strength may be weak, they emphasize that they can win by enduring it with some kind of mental strength. They also mention the story of the Kamikaze Special Forces, emphasizing the mindset of enduring thoroughly. Titles connecting to the absolute obedience to the Emperor are mentioned, and stories of samurai are also included. Therefore, with a thorough spirit of endurance, it seems a bit difficult to see the story about the sword missing. It is difficult to see. Sohee, that's the favorite and soul of Japan.

The speaker came to explain that the Japanese are the sick ones who accept the technological or materialistic color of the extreme rightists, but in fact, there is a part called the Hwawon, which is when they fought against the Sixth and endured until the end. This part was also made during the Manchurian Incident, where most of the Japanese who were sitting on the gold enjoyed it. When you look at it, in fact, there is no analysis of how much this sword malfunctioned, how much the arrest worked, and what kind of right-wing it created. This is the part I wanted to point out now, and in that respect, only the positive technology of the Japanese politicians remains, so I think this book is strictly speaking like a national language. When you originally had it, the meaning of the popularity 4 is a book with a lot of hidden meanings. This is what I wanted to say now.

This is a part. Yes, then in the end, one line. Oh, I got a perfect score of 5 bookmarks. Can I give bookmarks like this? Let's find out once. I read and fight. A ray of light. Yes, it's a bookmark. Now, if you write a report like this, you will become a famous person. This enlightening book. How about the other two books? Let's listen once. Will it be behind the color for me? Will any of them become subordinate? However, the fact is that this book is too easily forgiving about Japan's responsibility for war. If I summarize it in one line, there is no one who can be summarized in one line. Now, let's summarize that one line. So, I will give 3 colors. Yes, Bukkakal is a book that is both close and distant, the first button to understand Japan, different from other books. Take a breath and read it. I hope it will be a good opportunity to understand Japan. That's all for the debt. [Music] Uh.

20분만에 읽는 명저 한 권! 루스 베네딕트의 『국화와 칼』

We Deliver Knowledge for All
모두에게 지식을!
[한국방송통신대학교 출판문화원] 공식 유튜브채널입니다.

▶방송대 생활의 모든 팁
▶출판문화원의 모든 책
▶KNOU위클리의 모든 정보
등 다양한 영상으로 인사드리겠습니다.

여러분들의  따뜻한 관심과 사랑 부탁드립니다😍

※콘텐츠와 무방하거나 불쾌감을 주는 욕설 및 악성 댓글은 삭제될 수 있습니다.

Copyright 2019. bctv. All rights reserved.


방출티비

베네딕트의 <국화와 칼>에 나타난 일본 문화 분석

베네딕트의 책은 일본 문화, 특히 '아마에'라는 개념과 일본인의 독특한 사고방식에 대한 설득력 있는 분석으로 호평을 받고 있습니다.

이 책은 또한 서양인이 일본인의 행동과 사고를 이해하는 데 직면하는 어려움에 대해서도 논의합니다.

또한 베네딕트는 일본 문화와 미국 문화를 비교하면서 특히 기독교의 원죄 의식의 맥락에서 규칙과 규정에 대한 접근 방식의 차이점을 강조합니다.

시대를 관통하는 일본 문화의 진화

청동기 시대는 영웅의 덕목을 강조한 반면, 철기 시대는 조상, 법, 계약에 중점을 두었습니다.

제2차 세계대전 중 일본 문화의 복잡성은 이 틀 안에서 설명하기 어렵게 만듭니다.

이 책은 제1차 세계대전 중 미국의 일본 문화 연구와 인류학이 비서구 사회를 이해하는 데 미친 영향에 대해 논의합니다.

제2차 세계대전 이후 미국의 의뢰를 받은 루스 베네딕트의 일본 문화 연구도 살펴보고, 문화 상대주의 원칙에 기반한 그녀의 객관적인 시각을 강조합니다.

방법론적 원칙이 일본 문화 분석에 미치는 영향

특히 변화하는 세계 권력 역학을 고려할 때 일본 문화를 현지인의 관점에서 이해하려면 상당한 노력이 필요합니다.

이 보고서가 전쟁 지원에 활용되는 것은 학문적 깊이와 문화적 상대주의가 부족하다는 비판이 있습니다.

반면에 인류학은 문화적 가치와 얽혀 있음에도 불구하고 객관적일 것으로 기대됩니다.

인문학 분야에서는 연구에서 추구하는 가치를 투명하게 밝히는 것이 중요합니다.

베네딕트는 지난 70년 동안 일본의 문화를 분석하는 데 비판적인 접근 방식을 취했지만, 일본의 제국주의 전쟁과 같은 중요한 부분은 놓쳤습니다.

'국화'는 일본의 아름다움과 미학을 상징하는 동시에 후반부에서는 국검의 은유를 파헤칩니다.

저자는 일본이 어떻게 인식되는지 설명하고자 했지만, 책에서 일본의 역사와 특징이 명확하게 설명되지 않은 부분도 있습니다.

"꽃과 칼"이라는 책의 우연한 제목

이 책의 제목인 '국화와 칼'은 우연하게 선정되었지만, 일상적인 예를 통해 일본 문화를 단순하게 이해하는 데 중점을 두었기 때문에 이제는 이 책을 상징적으로 표현하는 제목이 되었습니다.

'꽃과 칼'이라는 제목은 꽃에 대한 동경과 칼을 갈고 닦는 것을 강조하여 일본인의 사고방식을 반영하지만 이 책에서 탐구한 복잡한 문화를 완전히 표현하지는 못합니다.

이 책에서 은유로 사용된 칼은 일본 문화에서 상징적인 의미에도 불구하고 국검이나 전쟁과 직접적인 관련이 없습니다.

일본의 전쟁과 지구력에 대한 이 책의 초점

이 책은 육체적 힘보다 정신력을 강조하는 일본의 전쟁 방식에 대해 설명합니다.

또한 가미카제 특수 부대와 사무라이의 이야기를 다루며 인내라는 주제를 강조합니다.

이 책은 일본도의 영향에 대한 분석이 부족하고 일본의 전쟁 책임에 대해 관대하다는 비판을 받고 있습니다.