37.
Representation is control. The power to represent the world is the power to represent us in it or it in us, for the final stage of representing merges the representor and the represented into one. Imperializing cultures produce great works of art (great representations) which can be put to work intellectually as armies and trading houses work militarily and economically.
(A) That is because unless we can control the world intellectually by maps we cannot control it militarily or economically. Mercator, Molière, Columbus and Captain Cook imperialized in different ways, but they all imperialized, and ultimately the effectiveness of one depended upon and supported the effectiveness of all the others.
(B) Similarly the US form of contemporary colonization, which involves occupying economies and political parties rather than physical territories, is accompanied by the power of both Hollywood and the satellite to represent the world to and for the US.
(C) Shakespeare, Jane Austen and maps were as important to English Imperial power as was the East India Company, the British army and the churches of England. It is no coincidence that modern Europe, the Europe of colonization, was also the Europe of “great art,” and no coincidence either that it was the Europe of great map makers. [3점]
① (A) - (C) - (B) ② (B) - (A) - (C)
③ (B) - (C) - (A) ④ (C) - (A) - (B)
⑤ (C) - (B) - (A)
[38 ~ 39] 글의 흐름으로 보아, 주어진 문장이 들어가기에 가장 적절한 곳을 고르시오.
38.
Jacques Derrida argues that instead of one line between Man on the one side and Animal on the other, there is a multiple and heterogeneous border; beyond the edge of the “so-called human,” we find a heterogeneous plurality of the living.
Language, and the word “animal,” deceives us. The word “animal” categorizes all non-human animals and distances humans from other animals. ( ① ) Seeing all other animals as one group in contrast to humans reinforces anthropocentrism, which contributes to the legitimization of practices in which other animals are used for human benefit. ( ② ) To account for this multitude, using the word “animot” has been proposed. ( ③ ) In speech it refers to the plural, the multiplicity of animals, which is necessary because there is no one “animal.” ( ④ ) The “mot” in “animot” refers to the act of naming and the risks involved in drawing a distinction between human and animal by the human. ( ⑤ ) It reminds us of the fact that it is a word for animals, not a reference to an existing group of animals.