Activist. Kang's Collections

As Doomsday Flops, Rites in Ruins of Mayan Empire

Johan Ordonez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

A ceremony on Friday marking the end of a 5,125-year cycle in the Mayan calendar at Tikal, the ancient Mayan city in northern Guatemala. More Photos »

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

Published: December 21, 2012 4 Comments

FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
SAVE
E-MAIL
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS

TULUM, Mexico — Midway through the supposed end of the world here, searing solar rays blasted a group of people lying on the beach. One of them turned to a visitor and with no trace of apocalyptic agony reported on what was obvious.

Multimedia

Slide Show

Celebrations Around the World of Another Day on Earth

Chatter of Doomsday Makes Beijing Nervous (December 20, 2012)
In Panicky Russia, It’s Official: End of World Is Not Near(December 2, 2012)
Bugarach Journal: For End of the World, a French Peak Holds Allure (January 31, 2011)
IHT Rendezvous: How Was Your Doomsday? (December 21, 2012)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

“Well, we’re still here,” said James Mitchell, a tourist from London who planned to really end his day with drinks at a local bar. “But it is a little peculiar to be here on a date with those numbers.”

The date — 12-21-12 — inspired an Internet-fueled misreading of a Mayan calendar that led many to believe the end of the world would arrive.

NASA, the Vatican, Mexico’s archaeological institute, the Smithsonian Institution, the governments in places likeChina, Russia and France where hysteria took root, all declared it a misunderstanding that would make this, as several debunkers put it, the Y2K of doomsdays.

The date, aside from the winter solstice, merely marked the end of a 5,125-year cycle — the 13th baktun — and the beginning of a new one, according to interpretations of the Mayans’ long-count calendar. Mexico’s government archaeologists actually are not sure if the cycle ended Friday or in a few days.

Still, the prophecy took on a life of its own and gave birth tovigorous tourism campaigns in Mexico and Guatemala, the two countries with the heart of the Mayan empire, which also happen to be trying to burnish an image tarnished by violence.

Ceremonies were held at Mayan and other indigenous ruins, emphasizing the dawn of a new era rather than the collapse of the current one.

“It is more special today because of the date and the Mayan calendar,” said Carlos Zendejas, a shaman and restaurateur known as Charlie who led a New Age ceremony for scores of people dressed in white at the Muyil ruins near here. They filled the air with incense smoke and the sound of chimes, drumming and song.

“This day and this time, this 21st, is where all of the past and all the future meets together,” one participant said. “This is what makes it so powerful.”

Descendants of the Mayans greeted the date with a shrug, or for the dwindling numbers still practicing ancient rites, with solemn, more closed ceremonies. Workers at the Muyil ruins said some priests held rites at dawn in the surrounding forest long before tourists woke up.

Oxlaljuj Ajpop, a Mayan activist group in Guatemala, told reporters there that they objected to the commercialization of the date, but a large public Mayan ceremony was held at Tikal, ancient ruins in Guatemala, at dawn.

Lourdes Macial traveled from Argentina to Tulum, not to witness an apocalypse but because she believed it was a spiritual place and the last city built and inhabited by the ancient Mayans. Its ruins, some of them perched on a beach open to bathers, attract thousands.

“It’s silly to think it’s the end of the world,” she said at the Muyil ruins ceremony. “What is real is the energy that flows here and around the world.

“And,” she added with a laugh, “it keeps flowing.”

Karla Zabludovsky contributed reporting from Mexico City.

무제

무제
(2012. 12. 13)

지난 날 풀릴 것 같지 않아 내버려둔 실타래 뭉치를
오늘 다시 발견했다
왠지 이제는 풀수 있을 것 같은데
이미 내 손엔 실뭉치로 가득하고
풀어보고 싶은데
바라만 볼 수밖에 없구나
돌아서서 거울 앞에 나를 비쳐보니
새하얀 흰동자엔 핏줄기만 피어오른다

War. Ho Kang

What leads people to wage a war? What justifies waging a war? And is it justifiable to justify waging a war? This moral issue has been raised throughout the human history yet nobody had succeeded in coming up with a clear answer. It was mainly due to the gap – a great ditch – between reality and ideality. Depending on the approach how people attempted to narrow the gap between the two created a variety of perspectives and attitudes on war ethics. On top of that, different interpretation of ideality itself caused a birth of other perspectives. Bellicism, for instance, which was popular from the eighteenth century to mid-twentiethcentury, advocated – even glorified – waging of a war. It was because this view presupposed (idealized) that there is no eternal peaceful condition in the human society – if there is, it is nothing more than an illusion. (cf. Johann Valentin Embser) Rather, it understood that war is an inevitable, ideal, and blessing as an indispensable and stimulating law of development, which must be repeatedly emphasized. (cf. Friedrich Von Bernhardi)

Even so, unlike bellicism, two most distinctive and traditional war theories, namely, Just War theory and pacifism, considered war as an evil, which should be ultimately eradicated and evaded. Although they agreed on the negativity of warfare but they differed from each other with regards to how they relate reality more to ideality. How much they could narrow the gap between those two extremities was the core controversial issue. And it seems like Just War theory is prevailing against pacifism in a sense that people consider Just War theory to be more realistic and applicable to a real situation. That is, people thought Just War theory narrowed the gap between reality and ideality more than pacifism so that they, more likely, adopt the former one rather a latter one for their decision making criteria (cf. Obama administration – war on Iraq). In contrast, people generally regarded pacifism as unrealistic assuming that it maybe only possible in theory not in a real world. Thus, current pacifists such as Richard Norman and Stanley Hauerwas are treated as the outliers.

Even though pacifism has been abandoned in the real world by most of people for its lack of realism but its approach was not been completely disregarded in their thought world. Many of them are still attracted by its spirit of rejecting of all violence, even in self-defense, and moved by the stories and teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, and King. Yet, when it comes to their real life, people choose Just War theory over pacifism thinking that pacifism (absolute self-sacrifice) is impossible to apply to their life. In this respect, Just War theory is like an escape route, or the last resort for incapable human beings who are not at all free from the mindset of self-defense and self-interest. Stephen Carter supported this idea of self-defense which he believed to be natural and axiomatic, by giving a following example: “If you are walking down the street and a mugger attacks you, you might try to flee. If you can’t get away, you will likely try to defend yourself. If you injure your attacker in the process, no jury is going to convict you. No prosecutor is going to try. The law follows what has come to be our shared ethical understanding: you have the right to defend yourself.[1]”

Accepting this fact – human nature, or human incapability – was, actually, a beginning of a realism – that was, at least, what Reinhold Niebuhr argued about. Niebuhr explained why he stood in this “realist” tradition by saying that “Christianity does not hold out redemption from history as conflict, because sinful egoism continues to express itself at every level of human life, making it impossible to overcome the contradictions of human history[2].” Therefore, he criticized pacifists for their excessive confidence in human perfectionism as well as their lack of comprehension on the Reformation doctrine of “justification by faith”. He, basically, accused pacifists for their lack of realism how absurd it is to expect the idealism based on the impossibility to achieve.

But there are some people who actually went against human nature or human incapability but conducted an absolute self-sacrifice. Let’s say you became a conscientious objector during wartime where millions of people including his or her own families were dying from a war. This means that you respected and saved your enemy’s life by your self-sacrificial non-violent action but is it a really just to leave your family members dying from that enemy as well as leaving the country being destroyed? If a Good Samaritan arrived at the site where robberies were still at the scene beating and stealing the Jew, what would he have done? In regards to these issues, unlike pacifists, who still believe that they should not do anything, but many turned to Just War theory standpoint by accepting an inevitability (or, reality) of war. In this respect, Thomas Aquinas said, “war principally not as a means to defend one’s self, but as a sacrifice one makes for others[3].” In the same manner, Martin Luther in the sixteenth century pointed out the unavoidability of war in this way: “What men write about war, saying that it is a great plague, is all true. But they should also consider how great the plague is that war prevents.[4]” He also added that “Christians do not fight for themselves, but for their neighbor. So if they see that there is a lack of hangmen, constables, judges, lords or princes, and find they are qualified they should offer their services and assume these positions.[5]”

Likewise, compared to pacifism that seemed to be unrealistic in terms of lack of understanding of human nature as well as not applicable to protect a bigger humanity, Just War theory was more relevant to the real world by reflecting the human nature. In other words, Just War theory is more likely a humane, or human-oriented perspective so to speak. However, even though Just War theory has been ruled over human ideologies since the fourth century to use of war as a last resort for both Jus ad bellum (Justice in going to war) and Jus in bello (Justice in the conduct of war), but it is so true that this theory has many limitations just as much as pacifism – or, even more.

First of all, Just War theory attacked pacifism for its lack of understanding of human incapability. (cf. Reinhold Niebuhr) But this challenge is self-contradictory since Just War theory also lacks understanding of the human inability. Simply put, Just War theory never had been applied to a real situation. The purpose of war (right intention), for instance, as Luther puts it, “has to do with a work of love for other neighbors[6].” David Baer and Joseph Capizzi maintained that “the intention for going to war be so understood is an expression of love for the enemy just to the extent that the lasting order be one that encompasses the interests of the enemy.[7]” But let’s look at the reality. Think about wars happened in human history. We do not need to go too far but think about wars and conflicts occurred within ten years – to name a few: Iraq War (2003- ), Shia insurgency in Yemen (2004- ), Civil war in Chad (2005–2010), Lebanon War (2006), War in Somalia (2006–2009), Gaza War (2008- ), Libyan civil war (2011- ), and so forth. Did any of these wars and conflicts applied right intention (love for their neighbors) to initiate the war? I doubt it. Who would think that the United States started a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq for the love of neighbors or for their benefits per se? Foreign policy of each government has always operated by the national interest. “The first and most vital task of government is the security of the nation.[8]” Apparently, in reality, practicing a foreign policy, including waging a war, had nothing to do with a universal welfare or, interest of others (loveing neighbors). In this perspective, Stanley Hauerwas refuted Just War theory by saying, “the idealism of such "realist" justifications of just war is nowhere better seen than in these attempts to fit just war considerations into the realist presuppositions that shape the behavior of state actors.[9]” Moreover, there was a slippery slope problem in regards to the work of prevention of war. Since national defense has been not only a key responsibility but also just cause, it was by no means clear how much and when a government should use of violence against other powers such as preemptive attacks. Too early, too late, too much, or too short will always bring about a problem morally and realistically.

This ambiguity, however, caused a bigger problem that people may and actually used Just War theory as a foundation to justify their warfare. Iraq war, for example, according to Stanley Hauerwas, did not meet the Just War category. Hauerwas presented three reasons what made it possible for the United States conduct the second war against Iraq: “First of all, America had a military leftover from the Cold War, which was a war that was fought according to an amoral realism. In addition to that, America could go to war in Iraq because nothing prevented America from going to war in Iraq. Finally, the war was justified as part of a war against terrorism.[10]” However, Hauerwas rebutted that it is unclear to fight a just war against terrorism. It was because a just war supposed to have an end but war on terrorism, apparently, has no end. Another reason he argued why the Iraq war was not a just was relevant to the Civil War. Hauerwas asserted that “Americans are a people born of and in war - particularly, the Civil War - and only war can sustain our belief that we are a people set apart.[11]” And he quoted Harry Stout who explained “the Civil War began as a limited war but ended as total war[12]” which led Americans to pursue even more devastating total wars in the twentieth century. “They thought they must go to war to insure that those who died in our past wars did not die in vain. Thus American wars are justified as a "war to end all wars" or "to make the world safe for democracy" or for "unconditional surrender" or "freedom"[13].” This implies that many wars during and after the twentieth century Americans waged were not really based on Just War theory but was a product of a national heritage transcended from the founding fathers: “A free people ought to be armed” said George Washington.

Therefore, it can be concluded that Just War theory is de facto irrelevant to reality. Although it sounds more plausible and applicable compared to pacifism but there is no virtual difference – it failed to narrow the gap between realism and idealism. Rather, Hauerwas insisted that “attempts to justify wars begun and fought on realist grounds in the name of just war only serve to hide the reality of war.[14]” Pointing out limitations of Just War theory, Hauerwas, indeed, finalized his argument by addressing that pacifists are “real” realist. Despite accepting the “realism” associated with Augustine, Luther, and Niebuhr whom has taught us about how the world works, but Hauerwas realized the “real” realism does not remain in this world but in Jesus Christ.

The way of life and thought of Jesus Christ was, literally, anti-human nature, or unrealistic from the worldly view. Unless people experience a fundamental paradigm shift by the power of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to see the Kingdom of God in this world, it is impossible to neither understand nor accept and follow the way of Jesus. “Jesus gave us a new way to deal with offenders – by forgiving them. He gave us a new way to deal with violence – by suffering. He gave us a new way to deal with money – by sharing it. He gave us a new way to deal with problems of leadership – by drawing on the gift of every member, even the most humble. He gave us a new way to deal with a corrupt society – by building a new order, not making the old. He gave us a new pattern of relationship between man and woman, between parent and child, between master and slave, in which was made concrete a radical new vision of what it means to be a human person. He gave us a new attitude toward the state and toward the enemy nation.[15]” John 18.28-38 clearly revealed “how Jesus's kingdom is not like other kingdoms of this world, but rather his kingdom is one that is an alternative to the kingdoms of this world.[16]” When Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the King of the Jews?” (v33) Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world.” (v36a) Again, Pilate asked Jesus, “So you are a king?” (v37a) and Jesus replied, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” (v37b) Finally, Pilate questioned Jesus, “What is truth?” (v38) We could find this answer from John 14.6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Jesus Christ is the “real” reality who called his followers to be the part of his body and blood (Church). That is, we, as a church body, are the “real” realism that needs to be an alternative of “faked” realisms in this world that has nothing to do with narrowing the gap between the reality and ideality. Unless we realize the “real” reality we are not be able to reach to the idealism. “When Christians lose that reality, that is, the reality of the church as an alternative to the world's reality, we abandon the world to the unreality of war.[17]” The Church is the hope in this world.

Bibliography

1. Stanley Hauerwas. “War and the American Difference” MI. Baker Academic. 2011.

2. Stephen L. Carter. “The Violence of Peace” NY. Beast Books. 2011.

3. Stanley Hauerwas. (April 2012) “What's love got to do with it? The politics of the cross.” ABC RELIGION AND ETHICS. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). [http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/05/3471386.htm]

4. Trevor Sather. Editor. “Pros and Cons” (18^th ed.). Routledge. NY. 1999. p29-30.

5. Sangryuel Kwon. “Moral Theological Study on Just War Theory” (Masters Thesis). The Graduate School, Catholic University of Daegu. Daegu. 2004.

6. Sangjin Kim. “Just War Theory and Humanitarian Intervene” (M.Div Thesis). Methodist Graduate School. Seoul. 2008.

7. Lecture note.

8. NRSV Bible.

[1] Stephen L. Carter. “The Violence of Peace” NY. Beast Books. 2011. p13

[2] Stanley Hauerwas. “War and the American Difference” MI. Baker Academic. 2011. p23

[3] Stephen L. Carter. “The Violence of Peace” NY. Beast Books. 2011. p160

[4] Ibid. p22

[5] Stanley Hauerwas. “War and the American Difference” MI. Baker Academic. 2011. p23

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid. p25

[8] Stephen L. Carter. “The Violence of Peace” NY. Beast Books. 2011. p7

[9] Stanley Hauerwas. “War and the American Difference” MI. Baker Academic. 2011. p25

[10] Ibid. p26

[11] Ibid. p27

[12] Ibid. p27

[13] Ibid. p32

[14] Ibid. p34

[15] Stanley Hauerwas. (April 2012) “What's love got to do with it? The politics of the cross.” ABC RELIGION AND ETHICS (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) [http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/05/3471386.htm]

[16] Ibid.

[17] Stanley Hauerwas. “War and the American Difference” MI. Baker Academic. p34

<가족의 재편> ①핵가족마저 분열하는 사회

(자료사진)

미혼 확산·출산 기피에 1~2인 가구 증가세 뚜렷

20년 뒤에는 10가구 중 7가구꼴 1~2인 가구 전망

(서울=연합뉴스) 기획취재팀 = 핵가족이 무너지고 있다.

미국의 인류학자 조지 피터 머독이 저서 '사회 구조(Social Structure·1949)'에서 '핵가족(Nuclear Family)'이라는 용어를 썼을 때만 하더라도 그는 핵가족이 붕괴하는 현상을 상상조차 하지 못했을 것이다.

부모와 미혼자녀로 구성된 핵가족은 '더 쪼갤 수 없는, 가족의 최소 단위'로 여겨졌기 때문.

핵가족 형태의 가족은 근대 이전에도 있었으나 근대 산업사회의 도래와 함께 일반화했다. 남편은 밖에서 돈을 벌고 아내는 가사를 맡는 '역할 분담' 모델을 기반으로 해 사회에 노동력을 공급하는 기초단위 역할을 한 것이다.

그러나 이제 핵가족마저 파편화하고 있다. 핵가족의 범주에서 벗어나는 1~2인 가구가 이미 전체 가구의 절반에 이르렀고 이런 추세는 앞으로 가속화할 전망이다.

학계 일각에서는 전통적 대가족과 핵가족에 이어 1인 가구가 '제3의 가족' 형태로 등장했다면서 가족 구조의 '혁명'이라고 일컫고 있다.

이 혁명은 인구 고령화, 사별에 따른 독거노인의 증가에만 기인하는 게 아니라 자발적 또는 비자발적 비혼(非婚)의 증대, 출산ㆍ양육 기피, 이혼의 증가 등이 복합된 결과다.

◇1인 가구 증가의 핵심은 미혼 확산 = 회사원 김지연(32·여·가명)씨는 이른바 '골드미스'다. 결혼을 하지 않겠다는 신념도 없지만, 꼭 해야겠다는 생각도 없다.

"현재의 내 생활이 편하고 앞으로도 혼자 잘 꾸려나갈 수 있을 것 같아요. 결혼한 선배들을 보면 애 키우기도 너무 어렵고, 육아와 일을 병행하기도 어렵고…. 아이한테 투자할 돈과 시간, 에너지를 나를 위해 쓰면 그것도 나름대로 재미있지 않을까 생각해요. 물론 좋은 남자를 만나면 결혼하고 아이를 낳을 수도 있겠죠."

김씨처럼 결혼 적령기를 맞이하고도 결혼하지 않는 미혼인구는 1인 가구 증가에 '1등 공신'이다.

통계청의 '2010 인구주택 총조사'에 따르면 2010년 우리나라의 가구 수는 총 1천733만9천가구로 이 가운데 1~2인 가구가 48.2%에 이른다. 2인 가구가 420만5천가구(24.3%), 1인 가구가 414만2천가구(23.9%)였다.

전통적 표준가구에 해당하는 4인 가구(부부 + 미혼자녀 둘)는 22.5%(389만8천가구)로 그다음이었다. 2005년 조사까지만 해도 4인 가구가 27.0%로 가장 큰 비중을 차지했는데 1~2인 가구에 밀린 것.

20년 전인 1990년 '4인 가구(29.5%)-3인 가구(19.1%)-5인 가구(18.8%)'가 주류였던 점에 비춰보면 급격한 변화를 실감할 수 있다. 1990년 1인 가구와 2인 가구의 비중은 각각 9.0%, 13.8%에 불과했다.

핵가족 해체 현상은 가구의 구성 유형에서도 확인된다.

전체 가구 가운데 부부 가구가 17.5%, 독신 가구가 23.9%, 편부모 가구인 모자가구와 부자가구가 각각 7.2%, 2.0%로 이를 모두 합하면 50.2%에 달한다. 과반이 전형적인 핵가족의 범주에서 벗어난 것이다.

1~2인 가구가 이처럼 급증한 이유는 뭘까?

한국개발연구원(KDI) 김영철 부연구위원 등이 작성한 '가구 유형 변화에 대한 대응방안'에 따르면 최근 10년 사이 1인 가구 증가에 가장 크게 기여한 요인은 미혼율 증대다.

10년간 1인 가구가 191만7천가구 늘었는데 그 가운데 미혼 상태의 1인 가구가 88만6천가구 늘어 증가분의 46.2%로 가장 많았다. 사별은 22.3%, 이혼은 17.6%였다.

미혼 1인 가구 증가는 남성에서 더 두드러졌는데 남성 1인 가구 증가의 54.5%가 미혼 탓이었고 이혼 탓인 경우는 19.0%였다. 여성은 미혼이 37.6%, 사별이 36.0%, 이혼이 16.2%를 차지했다.

2인 가구의 증가 원인으로는 '자녀 분가'에 따른 고령부부의 증가와 이혼ㆍ분가 확산에 따른 편부모 가구의 증가가 꼽혔다. 10년 사이 증가한 2인 가구 중 부부만으로 이뤄진 2인 가구가 61.5%를 차지했고 모자가구가 18.7%, 부자가구가 7.0%를 차지한 것이다.

◇20여년 뒤에는 10가구 중 일곱이 1~2인 가구 = 통계청의 '장래가구추계: 2010∼2035년'은 더 어두운 미래를 제시한다.

2035년 국내 총 가구는 2천226만1천가구로 30%가량 늘지만, 평균 가구 구성원 수는 2010년 2.71명에서 2035년 2.17명으로 줄어든다.

1인 가구가 34.3%(762만8천가구)로 늘어 가장 보편적인 가구 형태로 자리 잡고 2인 가구(34.0%·757만9천가구)가 그 뒤를 잇는다. 3인 이상 가구 비중은 31.7%에 그친다.

10가구 중 7가구꼴로 전통적인 '표준가족' 범주에 들지 않는 1~2인 가구인 셈.

가족 구성원을 기준으로 유형을 나누면 2010년에는 '부부 + 자녀' 형태의 가구가 37.0%로 가장 많았으나 2035년에는 20.3%로 비중이 작아진다.

대신에 1인 가구(34.3%)와 부부로만 이뤄진 2인 가구(22.7%)가 1, 2위가 된다.

통계청 관계자는 "부부 가구는 자녀를 갖지 않은 가구보다는 주로 자녀를 독립시킨 뒤 노부부만 남은 가구가 크게 증가할 것"이라고 설명했다.

특히 앞으로 증가할 1인 가구는 미혼보다는 고령화 탓이 될 것으로 통계청은 분석했는데 통계청 관계자는 "2035년까지 65세 이상 1인 가구는 연평균 9만5천가구씩 늘어 전체 1인 가구 증가의 68.3%를 차지하게 될 것"이라고 말했다.

◇선진국 이미 거쳐 간 길…한국은 '과속' = 1인 가구 증가는 우리나라만의 상황이 아니다. 가깝게는 일본부터 유럽·북미 선진국들이 이미 겪은 현상이다. 그만큼 되돌리기 어렵다는 의미를 내포한다.

KDI의 '가구 유형 변화에 대한 대응방안' 보고서에 따르면 영국의 경우 2006년 기준 1~2인 가구가 전체 가구의 65%를 차지했고 3~4인 가구는 29%에 불과하다.

독일은 2005년 기준 1~2인 가구가 71.4%, 3~4인 가구가 24.8%였으며 가장 먼저 가족 해체가 진행된 북유럽 국가 중 한 곳인 스웨덴의 경우 2009년 이미 1인 가구의 비중이 48.6%에 달했다.

김연수 KDI 부연구위원은 "유럽에서도 만혼, 이혼 증대, 고령화, 독거노인의 증가 등으로 말미암아 1~2인 가구가 늘고 있다"며 "다만 유럽은 이런 변화가 점진적이었던 데 비해 우리는 급속하게, 압축적으로 겪고 있다는 점이 차이"라고 말했다.

또 박선영 한국여성정책연구원 선임연구위원은 "1인 가구의 부상은 대가족, 핵가족에 이은 제3의 가족 혁명이라고 할 만하다"며 "기존 개념과 다른, 다양한 형태의 가족이 늘어나는 현실을 인정하고 정책적 대응에 나서야 한다"고 지적했다.

sisyphe@yna.co.kr