Yunhyae Kim

Our economic cooperation is marked by hierarchical relationships. Most people work under the authority of unaccountable managers, while a minority of wealthy investors shape the future of productive enterprises. Yet, economic hierarchy is rarely considered as problematic as political hierarchy such as oligarchy or restrictions on voting rights. Democracy is thought to impose demanding requirements on state political institutions, but at best overridable recommendations on economic institutions. Behind this view lies the idea that the democratic state controls and regulates the economy from a higher standpoint of equality. However powerful economic superiors may be, they are ultimately subject to a political system that treats everyone as equals. Thus, democratizing the economy is unnecessary; political democracy can justify economic hierarchy. I call this line of thought the State-above-the-Economy Argument. My dissertation argues against it, in favor of what I call a dual-core theory of democracy. My argument proceeds in three steps. First, I clarify the political nature of the modern economy and the kind of justification it demands. Our economic cooperation is structured through asymmetrical subjection to power and authority, effected through society’s overarching institutional framework. These institutionalized relations of subjection constitute an informal political system, which must therefore be evaluated according to the principles of democracy, not just efficiency. Second, while economic institutions are often thought to be exempt from the requirements of democracy by virtue of being governed by a democratic state, I argue that this view is mistaken. The democratic state is itself constrained in its power, legitimacy, and knowledge by the very economic structure it is supposed to govern. Democracy’s demands on the economy cannot be outsourced to the state; economic institutions themselves must be brought within the scope of democratic justification. Finally, how are we to recover the democratic ideal in light of the economy’s profound constraint on politics? A common response demands moral discipline: economic actors must subordinate themselves to the sovereign democratic state’s will. I reject this view. Contestation in and through the economy, when properly structured, can be a force for democracy. Thus, the question is not whether but how economic rights constrain political decision-making. Rather than seeking to insulate politics from economic power, we must theorize democracy as a justifiable form of interdependence between the state and the economy.

Malang City has evolved into a prominent hub for students. Embracing this new role, it has become a sought-after destination for learners from outside Java who wish to pursue their education at local universities. The influx of international students brings a vibrant intercultural dynamic to the city, affecting both the local community and the students themselves. As these students undergo the adaptation process to integrate and thrive in their new environment, they often face challenges such as culture shock, which arises from insufficient preparation and knowledge about their new surroundings. Culture shock can be minimized in the process of student adaptation by the application of intercultural communication, which can bridge the constraints of understanding in society. This research aims to examine the impact of intercultural communication on the adaptation process of Hindu students in Malang City, focusing on how it can reduce the incidence of culture shock. Employing a qualitative-interpretative approach, the research gathers data through comprehensive and interactive interviews based on the informants' personal experiences. Informants are selected using purposive sampling, and data is analyzed using the Miles and Huberman framework, which involves data collection, reduction, and interpretation. The outcomes highlight that culture shock among Hindu students in Malang City is influenced by internal factors, including personal abilities, insufficient factual information, and experiences in intercultural social interactions. While external factors include language, food, customs, and climate. The phases of culture shock development in the adaptation process include the optimistic phase, cultural phase, recovery phase, and adjustment phase. The duration for students to transition from experiencing culture shock to achieving adaptation ranges from one month to a year. Effective intercultural communication plays a crucial role in this adaptation process, helping to reduce the impact of culture shock by facilitating stages of convergence, divergence, and maintenance.

Many liberal egalitarians argue that workers today are subjected to the authority of their bosses and that justice demands that the employment relationship be reformed. But why? What is unjust is not subjection to authority as such but subjection without adequate justification. In this article, I argue that the justificatory demand raised by subjection to workplace authority has not been well understood, primarily because the nature of the subjection itself has been misunderstood. According to the standard view, workplace subjection consists in the fact that managers issue orders backed by sanctions. I challenge this view by reconstructing the libertarian-economic theory of the firm, which construes managerial authority simply as a division of labor. I propose an alternative account, according to which workplace subjection consists in living under a society-wide arrangement that compels most workers to work under a boss. My argument reorients theorizing about justice at work from a narrow focus on corporate governance towards a broader theory of a just social system, incorporating the role of the state, class, the power of investors, and the social purpose of labor.