Global Warming and Climate Crisis have been seriously touched with the discourse aabout Aptocalyso of Earth’s extinction. Some prefers to call this era “Anthropocene” in which the human being has hugely intervened in many ways, especially through the industrialization, to influence the path of Earth geology. Under this situation, recently the Earth Jurisprudence or Earth Law movement have been organized in various countries over the world, arguing that the lawful qualification should be endowed with even the non-human being (nature). These are closely related with new- Materialism involving a prepositions of inter-species thinking, ontological flat, horizontal ontology etc. Earth Jurisprudence has insisted that all creatures have possessed their own right; a. being, b. habitating c. differentiation and performing their own role. In this paper, I have reviewed the content of Earth Jurisprudence, tracing it’s geneology, and have attempted to make an analysis of several controversial themes; the ground of right of nature, the ecological ethic, biocracy and governance etc.

Social life, specifically, daily life, is always fluid and complex. Individuals in society have always been recognized as context-binding and seemed explainable. The explanation of personal life by capital and power is clear but simple. Its simplicity is useful in explaining human behavior. However, this method has no choice but to reveal limitations in capturing a specific, diverse, and fickle life of real life. Everydaylife always begins with criticism of the individual as a being dominated by a huge structure. However, the fact that daily life is against capital and power and has its own autonomy is also evident in social change and daily revolution. Humans are not only passive beings by such structures. In East Asian social thought, the viewpoint of the unified view of world perspective shows the insight of Eastern thought. The social view of the unified view of world and the world view the viewpoint of the unified view of world differ from the perspective of Western philosophy of discrimination between subjects and objects, and division between objects and subjects. The whole cannot be separated from the individual. The beginning of this perspective is a methodology and epistemology that goes beyond the difference between time and space between the East society and the West society. The perspective of separation and discrimination and the perspective of unification between parts and whole, individuals and society have fundamental differences in capturing daily and specific lives. Humans are also the existence of needs, but recognizing that desire as a prerequisite for life and seeing it as a human being itself present different perspectives. Therefore, the daily perspective and the perspective of seeing humans, society, and individuals as one whole are connected to each other and allow them to better capture specific lives. Social inequality, domination by power, and social conflict are taken for granted in the division between individuals and structures, and individuals and subjects. Individual poverty is the cause and result of social poverty. You always commit the error of grasping human life in a dichotomy and dual way through the domination of everyday life by a huge structure. Daily life has always changed its structure and resisted power while resisting huge structures, power, and capital. This emphasizes the need for a unified perspective. Therefore, sociology of everdaylife and East Asian social thought have more contact points and associations in methodology and epistemology.

This study is about universal basic income, which has recently been under discussion in South Korea. Discussions on universal basic income in Korea are still underway. There is a lot of research underway in academia, and controversy over pros and cons in society. Through various discussions, I would like to play a role in providing various “discourses” so that they can come to conclusions that many people can accept. The purpose of this study is to link the justification of Donghak/Cheondogyo’s ideas and universal basic income. To achieve this purpose, I first looked at the core spirit of universal basic income that the Western discussion began. As a result, the concept of universal basic income has already existed in Western cultural norms. Just the context shifted. And it was confirmed that the core spirit was derived from the Christian spirit, the root of Western culture. For this reason, universality has been secured for the connection between religion and universal basic income. Next, I looked into the link between Donghak/Cheondogyo, a traditional Korean idea, and universal basic income in terms of legitimacy. As a result, it was confirmed that “reducing the number of people suffering through institutional roll” is a key idea for both Donghak/Cheondogyo doctrine, “교정쌍전(Gyojeongssangjeon)” and universal basic income. “교정쌍전(Gyojeongssangjeon)” means that religion and politics develop together. Donghak/Cheondogyo was put into practice with this background of thought. These practice cases do not “individually receive a certain amount of money without any conditions” which is the definition of universal basic income. However, it was confirmed that the core spirit, “Let’s reduce the number of people suffering through the system,” was shared. In other words, it is resolving inequality. To examine and explain the universal basic income, which is a Western concept, as a Korean traditional idea, is not to argue that Korean traditional ideas are as good as Western ones. In addition, it is difficult to explain Korean society with Western ideas, so it is not to reject them and pursue Korean traditional ideas. This is to confirm that both Western and Korean traditional ideas have the universality of thinking about humanity. In other words, whether it is Western or Korean traditional ideas, it is to confirm the “something” that is intended to be implemented through universal basic income. And that “something” is, in the end, “resolving inequality.” Therefore, universal basic income is not for welfare or benefits, but for the purpose of alleviating inequality. In terms of the legitimacy of universal basic income, I think the doctrine of religion and Eastern thought can help. This is because Western Christianity, where “everyone is equal in front of God,” and Eastern Cheondogyo, where “individuals have God in each of them,” all value equality.

The Mental Health Welfare Act 2017 was a comprehensive institutional response to the international organization’s problem-posing regarding the difficulties in social life experienced by the mentally disabled and policy proposals by domestic academia and activists. However, the reality is that even after the enforcement of the Mental Health Welfare Act, the framework of welfare for the mentally disabled is not far from the previous method of isolation and hospitalization treatment. It requires that the new concept and practice of welfare for the mentally disabled be based on doubts about the effectiveness of isolation and treatment for the mentally disabled and social reflection on human rights violations. This article examines the basis and possibility of a shift in the paradigm of mental health services for mental disorders through Bethel House’s self-directed research model. First, to clearly present the new message and its meaning raised by ‘self-directed research model’ as a paradigm, it will be introduced to the paradigm change process of the mainstream welfare paradigms for the mentally disabled, ‘biomedical model’ and ‘social model’. Then, the self-directed research model’s theoretical and practical implications and contents are reviewed as a new paradigm. Finally, we consider the direction of ideological systematization, which is essential for the self-directed research model to establish itself as a new paradigm in the practice of mental health services for mental disorders. The paradigm is beyond deinstitutionalization and community care. As citizens who enjoy daily life, mentally disabled people are connected to people while participating in economic activities in the community, actively communicating with others through their social roles and looking into their pain. It embodies normalization and social integration by touching the inner spirit’s pains that have not been explored with close people. In this regard, as a new paradigm for mental health services for mental disorders, the self-directed research model is a practical model created in the lives of the mentally disabled. Also, it refers to the knowledge and lifestyle itself, which are produced from self-help (helping and encouraging themselves) and autonomy (making their own decisions and treating themselves) activities.

This study examines the effect of youth migrants’ experiences of discrimination based on religion on their life satisfaction in South Korea by period in 2018 and 2020. Considering the social context of each period in which discrimination against foreigners occurred, the year 2018 marked the period of an influx of Yemen refugees on Jeju Island, which led to a rapid spread of anti-Islamic sentiment. In 2020, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in racial discrimination against foreigners. Therefore this study makes a comparative analysis in the years 2018 and 2020 by considering the social context of the respective periods. Specifically, the impact of immigrants’ religious affiliation on the relationship between their experiences of discrimination and life satisfaction was examined after categorizing their religious affiliation into “Christianity,” “Buddhism,” “Islam/Hinduism,” and “No religion.” According to the analysis results, in both 2018 and 2020, the experience of discrimination among young migrants was found to have a negative effect on life satisfaction, thus supporting the first research hypothesis. In addition this negative effect was more prominent in the Islam/Hindu group in 2018, the second hypothesis was selected.