비판의 ‘편향성’과 잊혀진 질문 ― 당대 중국의 ‘궈모뤄(郭沫若) 현상’

이종민 한국중국현대문학학회 2009 中國現代文學 Vol.0 No.50

The theory of aesthetic autonomy is the perspective which recognizes literature as an expression of individual sensibility independent from politics. As everyone knows, when each field would emphasize its own specialization, the rhetoric of ‘independent from politics’ was usually used in China, however, it does not mean that there is no relation with politics, rather, it should be seen as a strategy that the field would have a right to freely express its own view based on the specialty. From this point, the theory of aesthetic autonomy also required the right that without political bonds, writers could freely express their own views in literary way. Nevertheless, the problem in this view lies in how to valuate the works, such as Guo`s literature, of expressing the voice of the selfless relating to the nation-making beyond the self of the individual. When we uniformly apply the same standard to Guo`s literature, probably, his works may be valuated to be no literary worth, even, have a possibility to be excluded from literary category itself. For instance, so the logic of ‘progress in thought, retrogression in art’ was, and under such a logic, only <the Goddesses> in the May Forth period and as its way of literary thinking the Pantheism, came to have a literary value among the whole literature of Guo. But, from Guo’s own point, if this was the very process of socially expanding the individual by the imitation and appropriation of the western individualism, and through the resistance against suppressive reality, then, I think the way of valuation as that of the theory of aesthetic autonomy should be reserved. Ironically, Guo was a representative figure who claimed the theory of aesthetic autonomy in the May Forth period, and he also supported the literature of expressing individual sensibility and independence of art. However, as many critics point out, it is true that Guo`s real literary activities had a lot of inconsistencies with his claim. I think, one of the major reasons which gave rise to these inconsistencies is the difference of the way of understanding on ‘the inner’ of the individual as a writing space in Guo’s literature. Though Guo in his poetry enthusiastically expressed a rebellious spirit against outside world, however, in a practical life he was merely a weak individual, who was always frustrated by suppressive reality like figures in his autobiographical novels. Guo could not accomplish his ideal of building a liberal society in reality, instead, in his inside made a holy ground called the inner to desire to deconstruct a corrupt world and to realize individual freedom in an imaginary space. Guo`s literature in the May Forth period was created just in the inner as an aesthetic space of the self, however, the inner was never a pure aesthetic space separate from society and politics, but a critical place that in a position of the self superior to outside reality, Guo thought about the matters of individual emancipation, national salvation, peace of the human being and modern China. The inner was also the place in which modern Chinese Literature was born by the literary imagination of the self. The self in literature could freely express its own desire in a superior position, however, the suppressive reality continuously made the self feel its limitation by thoroughly frustrating the self`s ideal. Hence, while the project of aesthetic resistance based on the inner became increasingly nerveless before the undeniable great tradition and reality, eventually in the late May Forth Guo came to feel a sense of disillusion to an extreme extent. Going through this experience of fail, Guo’s aesthetic autonomy combined with Marxism, which awakened him to the fact that his aesthetic autonomy is ineffective in coping with China’s situational crises, then, Guo’s literary thinking came to shift from aesthetic resistance to realistic resistance by discovering the Proletariat as an expanded individual. ... The theory of aesthetic autonomy is the perspective which recognizes literature as an expression of individual sensibility independent from politics. As everyone knows, when each field would emphasize its own specialization, the rhetoric of ‘independent from politics’ was usually used in China, however, it does not mean that there is no relation with politics, rather, it should be seen as a strategy that the field would have a right to freely express its own view based on the specialty. From this point, the theory of aesthetic autonomy also required the right that without political bonds, writers could freely express their own views in literary way. Nevertheless, the problem in this view lies in how to valuate the works, such as Guo`s literature, of expressing the voice of the selfless relating to the nation-making beyond the self of the individual. When we uniformly apply the same standard to Guo`s literature, probably, his works may be valuated to be no literary worth, even, have a possibility to be excluded from literary category itself. For instance, so the logic of ‘progress in thought, retrogression in art’ was, and under such a logic, only <the Goddesses> in the May Forth period and as its way of literary thinking the Pantheism, came to have a literary value among the whole literature of Guo. But, from Guo’s own point, if this was the very process of socially expanding the individual by the imitation and appropriation of the western individualism, and through the resistance against suppressive reality, then, I think the way of valuation as that of the theory of aesthetic autonomy should be reserved. Ironically, Guo was a representative figure who claimed the theory of aesthetic autonomy in the May Forth period, and he also supported the literature of expressing individual sensibility and independence of art. However, as many critics point out, it is true that Guo`s real literary activities had a lot of inconsistencies with his claim. I think, one of the major reasons which gave rise to these inconsistencies is the difference of the way of understanding on ‘the inner’ of the individual as a writing space in Guo’s literature. Though Guo in his poetry enthusiastically expressed a rebellious spirit against outside world, however, in a practical life he was merely a weak individual, who was always frustrated by suppressive reality like figures in his autobiographical novels. Guo could not accomplish his ideal of building a liberal society in reality, instead, in his inside made a holy ground called the inner to desire to deconstruct a corrupt world and to realize individual freedom in an imaginary space. Guo`s literature in the May Forth period was created just in the inner as an aesthetic space of the self, however, the inner was never a pure aesthetic space separate from society and politics, but a critical place that in a position of the self superior to outside reality, Guo thought about the matters of individual emancipation, national salvation, peace of the human being and modern China. The inner was also the place in which modern Chinese Literature was born by the literary imagination of the self. The self in literature could freely express its own desire in a superior position, however, the suppressive reality continuously made the self feel its limitation by thoroughly frustrating the self`s ideal. Hence, while the project of aesthetic resistance based on the inner became increasingly nerveless before the undeniable great tradition and reality, eventually in the late May Forth Guo came to feel a sense of disillusion to an extreme extent. Going through this experience of fail, Guo’s aesthetic autonomy combined with Marxism, which awakened him to the fact that his aesthetic autonomy is ineffective in coping with China’s situational crises, then, Guo’s literary thinking came to shift from aesthetic resistance to realistic resistance by discovering the Proletariat as an expanded individual. B...

1980년대 시의 자율성 연구를 위한 시론(試論)-황지우의 시와 시론을 예시하여

이승은 국어문학회 2024 국어문학 Vol.86 No.-

1980년대 문학 장의 주된 논의는 대개 정치성의 관점에서 이루어졌다. 개성과 활기로 가득 찼던 당시의 문학 장을 온전히 설명하기 위해서는 배제되었던 또 하나의 관점인 시의 자율성 측면에 주목할 필요가 있겠다. 따라서 이 글은 1980년대 시의 자율성 연구를 위한 방법적 시도로서 황지우의 시와 시론을 살펴보았다. 한국 현대문학사에서 문학의 자율성 개념은 문학의 정치성과의 관계 설정 속에서 자신의 위상을 확보했던 것이지만 대개의 경우 정치성의 미달태로 취급되는 경향이 “습관”화되어 왔고, 1980년대도 예외는 아니었다. 이번 논의에서 황지우의 시론을 분석하여 “있”음을 있다고 자율적으로 선택하여 발화하는 주체의 실천력으로써 그간의 “습관”적 담론의 틀을 벗어나는 사유의 순간에 주목해보았다. 시인이 본 것을 표현하는 행위 자체가 황지우에게는 ‘시적인 것’에 해당하기 때문이다. 황지우가 말하는 “시적인 것”이란 시적 행위로서 존재하는 자율성인 것이다. 이러한 자율성으로 말미암은 실천행위로부터 정치적인 해석도 가능해진다고 볼 수 있다. 이 지점은 정치적 개인이 출현하는 자리이기도 할 것이다. 이렇듯 자율성이 갖고 있는 실천성에 주목하여 황지우의 시와 시론을 논의하는 것은 1980년대라는 상황을 보다 입체적으로 분석하는 틀을 제공할 수 있을 것이다. 가령 기존의 정치성의 관점에 의해 가려졌던 ‘개인’이 드러남과 동시에 그 개인이 얼마나 개인적이었으며 또 얼마나 정치적이었는가 하는 것도 자율성의 관점에 의한다면 보다 입체적으로 드러날 수 있을 것이다. 요컨대 1980년대의 개성과 자율을 갖춘 개인은 공동체와 연결됨으로써, 자유로운 정치적 선택을 하는 자율성에 의한 개인이었음을 논할 수 있을 것이다. The main discussions in the literature field in the 1980s were usually conducted from the perspective of politics. In order to fully explain the literary field of the time, which was full of individuality and vitality, it is necessary to pay attention to the autonomy aspect of poetry, another aspect that was excluded. Therefore, this article examines Hwang Ji-woo's poetry and poetic theory as a methodological attempt to study the autonomy of poetry in the 1980s. In the history of modern Korean literature, the concept of literary autonomy secured its status in the relationship between literature and politics, but in most cases, the tendency to treat it as if politics were underdeveloped has become a “habit,” and the 1980s was no exception. . By analyzing Hwang Ji-woo's poetics, we focused on the moment of thought that escapes the framework of the previous “habitual” discourse as the power of praxis of autonomously choosing and uttering “existence” as being. This is because the very act of expressing what the poet sees is considered ‘poetic’ for Hwang Ji-woo. The “poetic thing” that Hwang Ji-woo talks about is the autonomy that exists as a poetic act. It can be said that political interpretation becomes possible from praxis resulting from this autonomy. This point may also be the place where political individuals emerge. In this way, discussing Hwang Ji-woo's poetry and poetic theory by paying attention to the praxis of autonomy can provide a framework for analyzing the situation of the 1980s in a more three-dimensional manner. For example, while the ‘individual’ who was obscured by the existing perspective of politics is revealed, how personal and how political that individual was can be revealed in a more three-dimensional way through the perspective of autonomy. In short, it can be argued that an individual with individuality and autonomy is simultaneously an individual connected to the community and a ‘free’ individual with autonomy to make free political choices.

자원봉사자들의 만족도에 영향을 미치는 변수들에 관한 연구 : 개인 자율성, 개인 역량, 조직 역량을 중심으로

이경훈 ( Lee Kyung-hoon ) 극동대학교 사회복지연구소 2019 글로벌사회복지연구 Vol.9 No.1

This study sought to examine antecedents that influence volunteer satisfaction. The main antecedents are individual autonomy, individual competence, and organizational capacity, which have received little research attention so far in the studies of volunteer satisfaction. To test the three main hypotheses, this study conducted a multiple regression analysis, using the survey data with 245 volunteers belonging to 31 city and county community service centers in Gyonggi province. The empirical results are as follows. First, in the relationship between individual autonomy and volunteer satisfaction, it was found that the higher the individual autonomy of volunteer activities was perceived as, the greater the volunteers’ satisfaction was. Second, individual competence did not have a statistically significant association with volunteer satisfaction. Third, regarding the effect of organizational capacity, the greater the capacity of a community service centers was perceived as, the greater satisfaction the volunteers felt. These findings suggest that, in order to facilitate volunteer activities through volunteer satisfaction, community service centers’ capacity to effectively support individual volunteers is of critical importance, along with volunteers’ individual autonomy.

자율성과 공동체주의적 생명윤리

유수정(Yoo, Sujung),최경석(Choi, Kyungsuk) 한국생명윤리학회 2013 생명윤리 Vol.14 No.1

이 글은 생명윤리 담론에서 중요한 역할을 수행해온 자율성 존중의 원칙을 비판적으로 고찰하고, 자율성의 근대적 이념을 부정하지는 않지만, 생명윤리담론에서 자율성 존중의 원칙은 사실상 자유 존중의 원칙에 가까운 것이었다고 비판한다. 자율성이 지나치게 강조되었던 것은 자유주의적 개인주의가 사회이념으로 자리 잡는 사회상의 반영이기도 했다. 그러나 자율성을 중심으로 한 기존의 자유주의적 개인주의적 생명윤리 담론은 생명윤리적 쟁점들이 지닌 사회적 측면에서의 문제들을 제대로 다루지 못하게 하는 한계가 있다. 따라서 이 논문은 생명윤리적 쟁점들에 대한 새로운 접근방법을 모색할 필요가 있다고 주장하며, 이러한 새로운 접근방법으로서 공동체주의에 주목한다. 이 글에서 지지하는 공동체주의는 권위주의적 공동체주의가 결코 아니며, 자율성이라는 개인선과 공동선의 균형을 추구하는 공동체주의이다. 칼라한의 견해에서 주목할 수 있듯이, 공동체주의는 첨단 의·생명과학기술들의 수용과 관련하여 “그 기술이 우리 모두에게 무엇을 의미할 것인가?”라는 질문부터 제기함으로써 생명윤리적 쟁점들에 대한 새로운 접근방법을 제시한다. 이것은 자유주의적 개인주의자들이 어떤 새로운 기술이 단지 개인들에게 유용하다거나 어떤 의미를 지니는지 살펴보고, 그 기술의 수용 여부를 결정하는 것과는 다른 접근이다. 아울러 칼라한은 자유로운 선택 중에서도 무엇이 좋고 나쁜 선택인지 구별하는 것까지 자율성 개념이 확장되어야 함을 주장한다. 공동체주의가 생명윤리적 쟁점들에 대해 어떤 새로운 구체적인 해결책을 제시하는 것은 아니지만, 생명윤리적 쟁점을 형성하는 새로운 방식을 제시하고 있다는 점에서 공동체주의는 주목할 만한 가치가 있다. 따라서 공동체주의적 관점에서는 생명윤리학에서 답해야 하는 문제들이 지금과는 다르게 형성될 수 있고, 이러한 문제들이 지금과는 다르게 해결되어야 함을 공동체주의는 시사하고 있다. This paper critically considers “the principle of respecting autonomy” which has played an important role in bioethical discourse. Although not rejecting the modern ideal of autonomy, this paper argues that the principle of respecting autonomy is no more than that of respecting freedom. The overestimation of autonomy reflects the social atmosphere in which liberal individualism had become an ideology. However, liberal individualistic bioethical discourses based on autonomy has their limitation in that it does not fully deal with social problems embeded in bioethical issues. Thus, this paper argues that we need to explore a new approach to bioethical issues and to note a communitarian approach as a new one. Communitarianism this paper supports is not an authoritarian one, but responsive one that pursues the balance between individual good like autonomy and common good. As Callahan points out, communitarianism suggests a new approach by raising the question, “What will a new technology mean for all of us together?” This is different from liberal individualistic approach that raises whether a new technology is useful for an individual and what it means for him/her and decide whether to adopt it. In addition, Callahan argues that autonomy should be broaden to encompass an analysis of what constitutes morally good and bad free choices. This shows that communitarianism worries about the position in which the principle of respecting autonomy is understood to be that of respecting freedom. Communitarianism is valuable in that it provides new approaches that forms bioethics issues, although it produces a new concrete solution. Communitarian perspectives suggest that different bioethical issues may be raised and we may solve them differently.

‘신자유주의적 개인주의’와 자율성 존중의 원칙

김문정 한국의료윤리학회 2016 한국의료윤리학회지 Vol.19 No.3

While the principle of autonomy is widely regarded as a fundamental principle of biomedical ethics, it is not completely clear how that principle should be understood. The purpose of this article is to identify a reasonable concept of autonomy within the context of contemporary neo-liberalist individualism. Neoliberalism developed out of the liberal tradition that emphasizes individual rights and freedoms. However, the concept of autonomy at the root of this rights-based view has been transformed through the quantitative expansion of, and qualitative changes to, individualism. In this article I discuss and reconsider the meaning of autonomy in terms of “an individual” as reflected in the spirit of neo-liberal individualism. I argue that while competition and accumulation are thought to be virtues of contemporary life, liberty should be understood, not in terms of liberty from interference, but rather in terms of liberty from the severe inequalities caused by the dominant social relations. This notion of liberty as non-domination is central to a more robust and meaningful principle of autonomy. 본 연구는 신자유주의적 개인주의 시대에 적합한 자율성의 논의를 주목적으로 한다. 이러한 논의를 토대로 생명의료윤리 영역에서 강조되는 ‘자율성 존중의 원칙’이 재조명될 필요가 있다고 보기 때문이 다. 이에 필자는 자유주의적 개인주의에서 근본적이고 포괄적인 변화를 가져온 신자유주의적 개인주의 에 대해 고찰하였다. 신자유주의는 개인의 권리와 자유를 강조하는 자유주의 전통을 이어받고 있다. 그 렇지만 개인주의의 양적 팽창과 질적 변화를 통해 과거의 그것과는 분명 다르게 변모, 변질되었다는 사 실에 주목해, 그동안의 자유주의적 개인주의의 관점에서만 이해되고 검토되어 왔던 자율성의 개념을 오늘날 현대사회, 특히 신자유주의적 개인주의 신조가 반영된 개인과 그러한 구조에 둘러싸인 개인의 삶의 조건들 속에서 새롭게 고려되어야 할 자율성의 의미에 대해서 논의하였다. 결론은 다음과 같다. 오 늘날 경쟁과 축적의 미덕의 시대에 단지 타인으로부터의 간섭과 방해의 부재가 아니라 지배관계에 현 존하는 극심한 불평등으로부터 벗어나는 것, 즉 개인적 삶의 취약성과 불확실성을 넘어서 지배와 피지 배가 존재하지 않는 영역으로 들어서는 것이야말로 자유로운 삶을 영위하는 것이라고 할 수 있다. 이때 비지배의 자유는 다양한 상황과 조건들에 처한 인간들의 자율성을 회복하는 데 하나의 시대적 응답이 될 수 있을 것이다.

코기토, 소유적 개인주의, 예속적 주체화 ―서양 근대에서 개인과 개인주의―

진태원 ( Jin¸ Tae-won ) 고려대학교 민족문화연구원 2020 민족문화연구 Vol.89 No.-

In this paper, I will first look at the dominant narratives of philosophical discourse on the individual in the modern Western philosophy (especially one derived from Heidegger), and examine its blind spots and paradoxes. Then I will review other issues concerning individuals as political subjects that are missing from these narratives on the basis of an interpretative framework of ‘possessive individualism’ which will demonstrate the ambivalence of modern political subjects. Third, we will look at the problem of assujettissement (subjectification), which Althusser and Foucault have suggested in their own ways. The concept of assujettissement is a strong challenge to Western philosophical and political modernity in that it overturns modern philosophical and political narratives, showing that individuals as autonomous entities are in fact subjugated and reproduced in the reproduction mechanism of domination. The conclusion of this article is that the theory of relational autonomy may be one alternative to the theory of sovereign individuality in today’s age, which can be characterized as the postmodern or neoliberal one.

특성화고 남학생들의 진로결정에 있어 개인주의-집단주의 성향과 학교생활만족도와의 관계 : 진로결정자율성의 매개역할

김미선,남숙경 한국교육방법학회 2013 교육방법연구 Vol.25 No.4

본 연구는 특성화고 남학생들의 진로결정에 있어 개인주의-집단주의 성향과 학교생활만족도와의 관계와 진로결정자율성의 매개역할을 알아보았다. 경상남도 J시에 소재한 특성화고 2, 3학년 남학생 416명이 참여 하였으며, 연구 결과 진학 및 취업 진로결정 집단에 따라 변인들 간의 관계가 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 우선, 진로결정 집단간의 평균차이를 살펴보면, 진학집단과 취업집단의 진로 결정자율성의 하위변인인 확인된 조절과 학교생활만족도에서, 진학집단과 취업집단의 평균차이가 통계적으로 유의한 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 진학 집단의 경우, 개인주의만이 진로결정자율성의 내적 동기와 유의한 정적인 상관관계를 가지고 있는 것으로 나타났으며, 취업집단의 경우, 집단주의만이 진로결정자율성의 확인된 조절과 진로결정자율성의 내적 조절 두 개의 변인과 정적으로 유의한 상관을 가지고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 개인주의-집단주의 성향과 학교생활만족도간의 관계에서 진로결정 자율성의 매개효과를 살펴보면, 진학집단에서는 진로결정자율성의 내적동기가 개인주의와 학교생활 만족도간의 관계에서 유의한 매개효과를 가지고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 반면, 취업집단에서는 집단주의와 학교생활만족도간의 관계에서 매개변인인 진로결정자율성의 확인된 조절이 진로결정자율성의 내적 동기와 더불어, 유의하게 매개효과를 가지고 있는 것으로 나타났다. The purpose of this study was to examine vocational high school male students’ decision making factors between a career decision while entering a college and a career decision while attaining a job. We examine the mediated effect of career decision making autonomy in the relationship between individualismcollectivism and school life satisfaction. There were statistical significant mean differences in the identified regulations of career decision-making autonomy of the groups and in the school life satisfaction between a career decisions. In addition, the identified regulation of career decision-making autonomy in the student group for college admission had meaningful mediating effects on the relations between those two variables. There was also a meaningful mediating effect of an identified regulation of career decision-making autonomy in the student group for employment as well as the intrinsic regulation of career decision making autonomy.

자치, 그리고 공동체주의 논거와 실천모색

임승빈 ( Lim Suhngbin ) 한국자치행정학회 2019 한국자치행정학보 Vol.33 No.3

Despite the common sense that there is a need for citizens to actively participate in the development of democracy and local governmen that has developed over the last two hundred years, it is worth mentioning that democracy is a crisis of participatory democracy beyond the crisis of representative democracy. the conglomeration of the increase of the indifferent participant in the area of extreme selfishness are prominent.Therefore, this paper begins with a logical re-examination of liberalism and Communitarianism which is the basis of autonomy. If we aim for autonomous community rather than selfish local autonomy, we must clearly emphasize the latter in the question of whether it is laissez-faire autonomy or Communitarianism autonomy. But in our reality, it is not true that it is reasonable for local autonomy to move towards individualism, which seeks the uniqueness of each locality, emphasizing the spirit of community rather than selfish. In conclusion, in addition to the emphasis on direct democracy, such as SNS, to complement the agenda in order to prioritize the communitarianism that creates a “common good” in the Communitarianism, The method of electing the residents in each district is Insist in the same way as the civil jury system.

서구사회 개인화 논의에 대한 여성주의적 고찰

신경아(Shin Kyung-Ah) 한국여성연구소 2012 페미니즘 연구 Vol.12 No.1

이 글은 그동안 주로 남성 사회과학자들에 의해 논의되어온 개인화 이론을 여성주의의 관점에서 검토하고 재해석하는 데 목적이 있다. 서구사회의 개인화 논의가 갖는 남성중심적 성격을 밝히고 여성주의 이론에서 개인화 논의는 어떻게 전개되어야 하는지 주요 쟁점과 방향을 논의하고 있다. 이를 위해 먼저 서구 사상사에서 ‘개인’ 개념이 갖는 이론적 함의를 살펴보고 20세기 후반의 개인화에 대한 서구 학자들의 논의를 검토한 후 여성주의의 관점에서 문제점을 제시하였다. 결론적으로 이 글은 후기근대 사회의 개인화란 근대적 남성주체의 구조적 쇠락(衰落)을 의미하며, 자율성과 책임을 모두 고려하는 여성주의적 개인 개념이 필요함을 제기하고 있다. This paper has reviewed the individualization thesis in western Europe theorized by Giddens, Beck, and Bauman in the feminist perspectives. It has two kinds of discussions, which one is to reveal the androcentric bias in the theory and the other is to show how the individualization thesis can be developed including women’s experiences and ways of thinking. In order to make a reinterpretation of the individualization thesis in feminist perspectives, this paper investigates the concept of individual in the history of western ideas at first. Then, it throws light on the individuality in late modernity so that may find the problems and contradictions within the theory. In a conclusion, this paper interprets the individualization in late modernity as the structural declination of a modern androcentric subject, and insists on the introduction of the feminist concept of individual accepting responsibility as well as autonomy.

다문화사회에서 자아의 경계

현남숙 ( Hyun¸ Nam-sook ) 한국가톨릭철학회 2012 가톨릭철학 Vol.0 No.19

이 논문의 목적은 ‘집단문화’와 ‘개인의 자율성’ 사이에서 다문화사회의 자아 개념을 서사적 정체성으로 규명해 보는 데 있다. 다문화사회의 갈등은 다양한 양상으로 드러나지만 갈등의 중핵에는 정체성의 문제가 있다. 이러한 문제에 대해 공동체주의는 자아의 경계를 집단 정체성 내부로 제한하며, 자유주의는 자아의 경계를 집단 정체성 밖으로 밀어낸다. 대표적으로, 테일러는 개인의 행위에는 그가 속한 문화집단의 강한 가치평가가 개입한다고 본다. 한편 킴리카는 개인은 사회고유문화를 공유하지만 자신의 선택에 따라 언제든 집단의 문화를 개정할 수 있는 것으로 본다. 하지만 두 입장 모두 자아의 경계 문제를 해결하는 데 이르지 못한다. 테일러의 경우, 집단문화가 갖는 강한 가치평가 기제는 개인의 자율성의 심급을 조명하지 못한다. 킴리카의 경우, 개인은 언제나 사회고유문화에서 자유로울 수 있는 것으로 보아 자아의 경계가 갖는 복잡성을 보여주지 못한다. 이러한 상황에서 벤하비브의 ‘정체성에 관한 서사적 모델’은 자아의 경계 문제를 설명하는 데 도움을 준다. 그녀는 집단문화의 서사 안에서 개인의 이야기가 도출되는 자기해석의 역동적 과정을 보여준다. 자아의 경계 혼란은 다문화사회에서 문화적 소수자인 이주자들에게서 더욱 심각하다. 다문화사회에서 자아의 경계를 분석해 보는 것은 다양한 문화적 배경을 가진 이주자들의 정체성 이해와 그들을 위한 정책에도 도움을 줄 수 있을 것이다. The purpose of the present paper is to pin down the concept of self in the multicultural society, while characterizing it as the narrative identity between the group culture and an individual’s autonomy. Conflicts in the multicultural society turn up in various ways, but the problem of identity is at the core of the conflicts. Regarding the problem, communitarians tend to confine a self’s boundary to the internal part of collective identity. Whereas liberalists tend to push the self’s boundary out of the collective identity. As a typical example, C. Taylor claims that a cultural group’s strong evaluation system is involved in an individual’s action and behavior. Meanwhile, W. Kymlicka asserts that an individual, although he or she shares its own social culture, can still revise its group culture at his or her own will. But the two positions above cannot come up with a solution to ‘the problem of boundaries of self’. For C. Taylor’s case, a collective culture’s strong evaluation commitments cannot illuminate the distinct features of individual’s autonomy. For W. Kymlicka’s case, since an individual can always be free from the societal culture, it cannot cope with the complexities associated with the boundaries of self. Under these circumstances, S. Benhabib’s ‘narrative model for identity’ helps to describe the boundaries of self. She shows us a dynamic process of the self-interpretation in which an individual’s story is drawn from the group culture narrative. Nowadays, confusions about the boundaries of self are becoming more serious in the cultural minorities in the multicultural society. The analysis of the boundaries of self helps us to understand the identity of the immigrants with various cultural backgrounds, and to make proper policies toward them.