The present study aims to examine the cultural implications of “we” politics in both textual and visual representations in the 2021 Caldecott Medal-winning book We Are Water Protectors. Specifically, it focuses on the Korean translation of the book and its reviews, which emphasize the abstract notion of “we” while downplaying the political significance of “I” emphasized in the original work. This essay suggests that the writer and the illustrator highlight the importance of individual agency in social solidarity and resistance whereas the Korean translation obscures this theme by focusing solely on “we” politics. Through a comparative analysis, this study aims to explore the different cultural ideologies at work in the two versions in terms of global citizenship education and multiculturalism so as to indicate the complex interplay between cultural representation, language, and ideology in children’s picture book.
The aim of this essay is to critically examine the aporias in Jürgen Habermas’s concept of “universal consensus,” which has played a central role in the discussion of deliberative democracy. The first section analyzes the constitutive lacuna and exception, the fundamental dilemma in political ontology that impede the realization of practical universal consensus due to the enduring and irreconcilable political conflicts embedded in democratic conditions and contexts. The second section delves into the fallacy of universal consensus and its psychoanalytic significance, illuminating how Lacanian notion of fantasy constructs illusory plenitude, manipulates causality, and validates the substantive pursuit of elusive substance. Drawing upon Immanuel Kant’s notion of aesthetic consensus and common sense, which posit an imaginary common consensus shaped by affective reactions, the following section serves to examine an intersection between Kantian aesthetics and the conceptual and practical aporias of Habermas’s philosophical and political notion. Lastly, this essay concludes by suggesting affective hegemony as a new framework for comprehending the intricate dynamics of modern affective politics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.