탈근대, 탈식민, 탈민족 포스트 담론 20년의 성찰 한국에서 포스트맑스주의의 수용 과정과 쟁점들

김정한 ( Jung Han Kim ) 고려대학교 민족문화연구원 2012 民族文化硏究 Vol.57 No.-

This writing scrutinizes the process of how post-Marxism has been accepted in the 1990s in Korea and attempts critical examination of the regarding main issues. Existing socialist countries were collapsing while the social movements in the 1980s were falling. In this circumstances, post-Marxism appeared with the fashion of all sorts of post- discourses in Korean society. However, unlike the radical democratic strategy of Laclau and Mouffe, one of the representative post-Marxism theorists, post-Marxism in Korea aimed at reformist liberalism and anti-Marxism which argued that the revolution of capitalism is impossible or either undesirable. The stance which sticked to classic Marxism was hostile to post-Marxism while the stance which accepted post-Marxism interpreted the post-Marxism of Laclau and Mouffe arbitrarily and perverted the meaning. Accordingly, discussions over post-Marxism expedited impoverishment of the theory and anti-intellectualism which judges everything from the political perspective. Laclau and Mouffe`s theory and strategy were practically excluded from the academic discussions. In this process, ``combination of Marxism and post-structuralism``, the issue Laclau and Mouffe raised did not receive attention at all. Nevertheless, Marxism and post-structuralism both think political practices and resistance based on the universality of the excluded, and this implies that Marxism and post-structuralism have possibility to overcome each other`s limit through communication and discussion.

On a Way to Material Marxism: On or Over Post-Marxism

( Kim¸ Dae-jung ) 동국대학교 영어권문화연구소 2015 영어권문화연구 Vol.8 No.2

This paper delineates how, with advent of (post) structural Marxism, ontic Marxism almost perishes but sustains its life through compromise with post-Marxism. To investigate this, the paper analyzes Louis Althusser’s structural Marxism and Fredrick Jameson's understanding of Althusser’s theories to reveal both theories’ attempt to reexamine and criticize ontic Marxists’ ideas of subject, totality, and history utilizing (post) structural linguistics and relevant theories. Yet, their efforts turns out to be partially successful because of inevitable paradoxes and contradictions in their own projects. Though Althusser tries to re-read and find a true Marxism getting over vulgar one and Jameson tries to reinterpret Althusser’s structural Marxism to suggest a compromised model of post-post-Marxism, it is still questionable if their projects turn out to be successful. Delving into these contentions, this paper pries into the polemics of language, subject, and history, such notions for which structural Marxists have been frequently criticized. In response to the critiques, post-Marxists have defended their positions condescendingly reiterating the recounts of how obsolete subject's language and discourse in structuralism and structural Marxism become. The next examinations target the idea of history, the most problematic concept both for structural Marxists and their critics because historicity and materialism may not be reconciled in contemporary Marxist's theory in spite of Fredrick Jameson's eclectic efforts. This contradiction also suggests that Marxism may not be ontic anymore if we do not accept the ambiguity of history and real praxis. Lastly, this paper explores Merleau-Ponty's theories to find an ontological Marxist theoretical position which might be a possible answer to my question.

급진민주주의적 사회정의와 입법 ―포스트 마르크스주의를 중심으로―

심우민 한국법철학회 2011 법철학연구 Vol.14 No.2

Concerns about justice in Korea has increased recently. This has special meaning in the respect that these concerns are resulted from realistic politics. Generally speaking, the demand for the social justice asks for the management of law on the ground of justice. In the same line, there must be the law-making which fits for this conception of justice. As a matter of fact, many discussions about social justice are related to the legislative issues. The concerns about social justice in Korean society cannot be separated from the orders of capitalism or neo-liberalism. In this respect, we need to concentrate on the theories of Marxism, which provide the critical alternatives for these orders. This article concentrates on the Post-marxist theories among many different readings of marxist theories. Most of theorists of Post-Marxism claim for radical democracy. This article is focusing on these theme; (ⅰ) What does Marx think about the conceptions of justice? The main point of this part is whether there are ideal type of justice in the theories of Marx or not. The writer suggests that Marx criticized the ideological character of justice. And in this respect, (ⅱ) how can we explain Marx’s conceptions of justice in the perspectives on Post-Marxist? In this part, Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau are mainly explained. However, because these scholars concentrate on the political issues, their theories need to be supplied with legal and institutional aspects. Therefore, the writer introduces the theories of legal scholar, Roberto Unger. Those Scholars in these both disciplines suggest the same alternative, “radical democracy”. Finally, (ⅲ) how can the principles of legislation be constructed on the basis on the conceptions of justice within Post-Marxist alternatives, radical democracy? For this explanations, the writer introduces the analyses of Luc Wintgens, who researches in the field of Legisprudence. In his analyses, there are four principles of legislation; The Principle of Alternativity, The Principle of Normative Density, The Principle of Coherence, and The Principle of Temporality. This part mainly explains how these principles can be read in the perspectives of radical democracy. Concerns about justice in Korea has increased recently. This has special meaning in the respect that these concerns are resulted from realistic politics. Generally speaking, the demand for the social justice asks for the management of law on the ground of justice. In the same line, there must be the law-making which fits for this conception of justice. As a matter of fact, many discussions about social justice are related to the legislative issues. The concerns about social justice in Korean society cannot be separated from the orders of capitalism or neo-liberalism. In this respect, we need to concentrate on the theories of Marxism, which provide the critical alternatives for these orders. This article concentrates on the Post-marxist theories among many different readings of marxist theories. Most of theorists of Post-Marxism claim for radical democracy. This article is focusing on these theme; (ⅰ) What does Marx think about the conceptions of justice? The main point of this part is whether there are ideal type of justice in the theories of Marx or not. The writer suggests that Marx criticized the ideological character of justice. And in this respect, (ⅱ) how can we explain Marx’s conceptions of justice in the perspectives on Post-Marxist? In this part, Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau are mainly explained. However, because these scholars concentrate on the political issues, their theories need to be supplied with legal and institutional aspects. Therefore, the writer introduces the theories of legal scholar, Roberto Unger. Those Scholars in these both disciplines suggest the same alternative, “radical democracy”. Finally, (ⅲ) how can the principles of legislation be constructed on the basis on the conceptions of justice within Post-Marxist alternatives, radical democracy? For this explanations, the writer introduces the analyses of Luc Wintgens, who researches in the field of Legisprudence. In his analyses, there are four principles of legislation; The Principle of Alternativity, The Principle of Normative Density, The Principle of Coherence, and The Principle of Temporality. This part mainly explains how these principles can be read in the perspectives of radical democracy.

이분법적 인식론의 극복은 가능한가? ― ‘80년대 인식론’에 대한 비판적 독해

피경훈 한국중국현대문학학회 2011 中國現代文學 Vol.0 No.57

In general, the 80's China is stipulated as “the period of consensus”, and that “consensus” means Westernize mainly understood as process of capitalism. After the Cultural Revolution, China have to overcome the scar that Cultural Revolution brought about, which may be the result of Marxism ― Leninism itself, but the overcoming process is not simple one. To overcome, or as the Chinese intellectuals often had used, to “criticize the feudal” (fansi fengjian) is the total changes of world view. In the period of “socialism”, PRC(People's Republic of China)'s official ideology is Marxism ― Leninism (including Maoism), and “the official ideology” means that Marxism ― Leninism is the only official ideology, another ideologies were prohibited. But the outburst of Cultural Revolution itself proved orthodox Marxism, or at least such kind of attitude, cannot solve every problem, so what the end of Cultural Revolution shows should be understood as the impossibility of total solution of human problem, especially such like “alienation”. From this kind of view, what can be assumed is, after Cultural Revolution, all changes of world view cannot but include some modification of official ideology, Marxism ― Leninism. On these assumptions, we can suppose that the cultural turn of 80's China is very complicated, so the method of researching 80's China must be also more sophisticated. But till these days, the evaluation about 80's China's currents of thought of Chinese intellectuals is somehow simple. For example, Wang Hui in his article, “the situation of contemporary China's thought and its problem of modernity”, he viewed the currents of 80's China as the process of modernization. According to Wang's view, in the whole process of 80's China, there was only one current, modernization which means Westernization(xihua). In He Guimei's view too, the main current in 80's China is understood as modernization, including “culture fever(wenhuare)”, “searching roots fever(xungenre)” and so on, most parts of 80's China's intellectual thoughts is evaluated in the frame of modernization. In their views, socialism period and the New Period(xinshiqi) are totally separated, there is only discontinuity between them. This article against this kind of view point, tries to find out and reread the intellectual discourses in 80's China. In the 80's intellectual discourses, the most important issue is the relationship between tradition(chuantong) and modern(xiandai). For the leading intellectuals in 80's China, Li Zehou and Gan Yang etc., the most important issue for China in post-Mao era is how to handle or settle the identity of China. They tried to overcome the crack which is existing between social period and the New Period, find out the new possibility of China as nation-state. For describing those issues more concretely, we have to enter into the inner logics of intellectual discourses, read out both continuity and discontinuity in the 80's China's intellectual discourses.

포스트-소비에트 러시아 마르크스주의에서의 ‘소비에트 문제’, 혹은 소비에트 연방의 사후의 삶

박노자(저자),배새롬(역자) 상허학회 2021 상허학보 Vol.62 No.-

이 논문은 포스트—소비에트 시기에 부상한 러시아어권 마르크스주의, 또는 신마르크스주의 학파의, 소비에트 경험에 관한 서로 다른 마르크스주의 이론들을 (다른 과거 동구권의 마르크스주의 전통에 대한 언급과 동시에) 다루고 있다. 고전적인 소비에트 식의 ‘마르크스—레닌주의’를 한쪽으로 밀어두고 비판적이며, 포스트—소비에트적 마르크스 주의에 집중하면, 이 이론들이 ‘근본적 거부주의’ 혹은 ‘테르미도르적’인 이론으로 분류될 수 있음을 이 글은 보일 것이다. 전자는 카우츠키를 비롯해 초기에 레닌을 반대한 이들의 중대한 비판과 같은 선상에서 1917년 10월 혁명의 사회주의적 성격을 전면적으로 부정한다. 후자는 혁명이 적어도 사회주의 지향적이기는 했다고 정의하지만, 여기서 더 나아가 여러 종류의 ‘국가자본주의’론, 그리고 스탈린주의적 사회들이 본질적으로 정통적 자본주의와는 다른 포스트 혁명적 산업주의의 특별한 종류라고 정의한 여러 이론가들로 이분화 된다. 그럼에도 대부분의 비 판적 포스트—소비에트 마르크스주의자들은, 소비에트 타입의 통치 체제가 점점 심화된 계급 분화를 향해 진화해 갔었다는 것에 동의한다. 그러나 소비에트 타입의 관료는 즉자적 계급이나 대자적 계급이라기보다 형성 중인 계급(class-in-the-making)이었다는 것을 기억해야 하며, 이 논지는 소비에트 타입의 산업주의와 정통 자본주의 사이의 유사점보다는 차이를 우선에 두었던 이론가들의 작업에서 더 자세히 설명된다. The present article is dealing with different Marxist theories on the Soviet experience, which emerged in post-Soviet Russophone Marxist or neo-Marxist scholarship (concurrently with some reference to Marxist traditions in other former Eastern bloc countries). The article demonstrates that these theories — if we leave the remaining ‘Marxist-Leninists’ of the classical Soviet type aside and focus on critical, post-Soviet Marxism — may be classified into either ‘fundamentally rejectionist’ or ‘Thermidorian.’ The former, in line with the seminal criticisms by K.Kautsky and other early opponents of Lenin, reject the socialist nature of October 1917 Revolution outright. The latter mostly define the Revolution as at least socialist-oriented, but further bifurcate into different varieties of ‘state capitalism’ thesis and a number of theorists defining the Stalinist societies as special varieties of post-revolutionary industrialism essentially different from orthodox capitalism. Most critical post-Soviet Marxists agree, however, that the main vector of Soviet-type regimes’ evolution indeed pointed towards increased class stratification. However, it has to be remembered that Soviet-type bureaucracy was a class-in -the-making rather than a class-in-itself or a class-for-itself, and this point is further elaborated in the works of these theorists who prioritize the differences rather than similarities between the Soviet-type industrialism and orthodox capitalism.

‘한국적 급진민주주의론’의 급진성과 주체성 연구

류석진(Seok-Jin, Lew),방인혁(In-Hyuk, Bang) 비판사회학회 2012 경제와 사회 Vol.- No.93

본 논문은 성공회대학교 민주주의연구소의 연구팀 ‘데모스’가 민주주의 위기에 대한 대안으로 제시한 급진민주주의론의 급진성과 학문적 주체성을 비판적으로 검토한다. 급진민주주의론은 근본으로의 회귀가 아닌 미래와의 연대를 급진화라고 본다. 이 지점에서 급진민주주의론은 마르크스주의를 본질주의적이고 환원주의로 비판하는 포스트 마르크스주의와 조우한다. 이런 급진민주주의론의 전제는 마르크스의 사상은 물론이고 마르크스주의 내부에서도 본질주의와 환원주의에 대한 비판이 지속되었다는 점에서 과도한 일반화라는 비판을 면할 수 없다. 급진민주주의론의 학문적 주체성에 관한 질문은 협소한 이론적 토착성에 관한 것일 수는 없다. 따라서 이 글에서는 급진민주주의론의 학문적 주체성을 판단하기 위해, 이론 및 실천의 양 측면에서 그 이론이 전거로 삼은 그람시의 헤게모니 개념이나 포스트 마르크스주의에 대한 주체적 파악에 입각한 것인지를 고찰한다. 그 결과 한국적 급진민주주의론은 한국의 민주주의와 자본주의 발전 수준과 위상에 근거하는 것으로 재구성되어야 한다고 본다. 이상의 비판적 평가에 기초하여 본 논문은, 현재 한국 사회의 민주주의 위기에 대응하는 대안적 사회이론은 현상의 배후에 존재하는 자본주의적 모순을 극복할 수 있는 계급중심성을 견지해야만 한다고 주장한다. 즉 계급적대를 중심으로 다양한 사회적 적대들이 그것을 매개로 하여 나타나는 현상들에 조응하는 연대성의 방안을 마련하는 대안적 민주주의론의 필요성을 주장한다. This paper critically reviews the theory of radical democracy that has been suggested as an alternative to the crisis of democracy by the research team ‘Demos’ of ‘Democracy and Social Movements Institute’(DaSM) affiliated with Sungkonghoe University. The theory of radical democracy advocates that the radicalization of democracy is not ‘a return to the essence’ but ‘a joining up with future’. This is the exact point where the theory of radical democracy encounters post-Marxism which bitterly criticizes Marxism on the grounds that Marxism is essentialism and reductionism. However this premise of the theory of radical democracy is the reason why it has been criticized as an excessive generalization, because various trends in the tradition of Marxism as well as Marx’s idea has consistently criticized essentialism and reductionism. The question of the academic subjectivity of the theory of radical democracy should not be about it’s parochial theoretical autogeny. Thus this paper inquires, at theoretical and practical aspects, whether the theory of radical democracy has subjectively grasped Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and post-Marxism that it has adopted as it’s theoretical references, in order to check whether it is academically subjective or not. In conclusion, this paper argues that the theory of Korean radical democracy must be reconstructed as one based on the developmental level and status of Korean democracy and capitalism. Based on the critical review of the theory of radical democracy, this paper maintains that an alternative social theory to be able to cope with the present crisis of Korean democracy must stick to the stance of the class-centrality. In other words, this paper advocates an alternative theory of democracy that could correspond with various phenomena of social antagonism that are be revealed through the medium of class opposition.

탈근대론과 한국 지식문화(1987∼2016)-전개 과정과 계기들

천정환 ( Cheon Jung-hwan ) 민족문학사학회·민족문학사연구소 2018 민족문학사연구 Vol.67 No.-

이 글은 한국 탈근대론의 전반적 전개과정과 그 학문적 공과를 보기 위한 관점을 제시하는 시론이다. 탈근대론의 전체 경과를 본다는 것은 1987년 이후부터 현재에 이르는 한국 학계와 담론장 전체의 지형도를 그려보는 일과 다르지 않은 일이다. 이 글은 1980년대 말에서 1990년대에 출현한 학계와 담론장의 잡지를 살피는 것을 주요한 방법으로 삼았다. 이 글에서 파악한 ‘한국 탈근대론’은 여섯 가지 계기(moment)의 것으로 이뤄진 것이다. 즉 포스트-마르크스주의, 문화주의, 탈근대 역사학, 탈근대 국문학, 페미니즘, 생태주의 등이다. 이 글은 탈근대론의 형성과 전개과정을 기술한 후 위의 조류들이 각각 어떻게 해당 분야나 전 시대 마르크스ㆍ레닌주의와의 관계 속에서 ‘탈근대론’으로서의 함의와 효과를 갖게 되었는지를 논하려 했다. 더불어 이 글은 탈근대론의 효과나 ‘공과’에 대한 평가의 시각을 제시하고자 민족주의 문제와 지식인의 존재 양식 변화를 통해 오늘날 한국 지식문화의 특징을 논했다. This article tries to provide a perspective on the overall process of Korean postmodern discourse and its academic results. Reviewing the whole history of postmodern discourse is not different from drawing a map of Korean academia and the whole discourse field from 1987 to now. As a method, the author examines an academic circle that appeared between the end of 1980’s and 1990’s, and magazines on postmodern discourse field. The postmodern discourse in Korea is consist of six moments : post-Marxism, culturalism, postmodern history, postmodern Korean literature, feminism, and ecology. While reviewing postmodern discourse, this article shows how post-Marxism, culturalism, feminism, and ecology interact with Marxist-Leninism, then positioned and implied as a ‘post modernism.’ In order to provide a perspective on evaluating effects and merit and demerit of postmodernism, this article also discusses features of Korean knowledge culture through nationalism issues after 21st century.

문화대혁명의 종결을 전후로 한 마르크스주의와 사회주의 개념의 전환에 관하여

皮 坰 勳 ( Pi Kyung Hoon ) 현대중국학회 2021 現代中國硏究 Vol.23 No.1

이 글은 ‘문화대혁명’이 종결되는 시점인 1976년을 전후로 마르크스주의의 해석방식과 ‘사회주의’라는 개념의 규정 방식이 어떻게 전환되는지를 추적하는 것을 주요 목적으로 삼고 있다. 주지하듯 1949년 성립된 ‘중화인민공화국’은 마르크스-레닌주의를 핵심 강령으로 삼았고, 사회주의와 공산주의로의 이행을 최종적인 목표로 삼고 있었다. ‘문화대혁명’은 이러한 목표에 도달하기 위한 급진적이면서도 극단적인 방법이었다고 할 수 있을 것이며, 때문에 ‘문화대혁명’은 사회주의와 공산주의로의 이행에 관한 급진적인 해석이 모든 사회적, 정치적 공간을 장악했던 시기였다. 하지만 1976년 마오쩌둥의 사망 이후, 그러한 급진적인 이행의 시도는 중단되었고, 이후 마르크스주의 해석 방식을 비롯해 사회주의라는 개념 자체에 대해서도 상당한 수정이 이루어지게 되었다. 1976년에서 1978년 사이에 진행된 마르크스주의에 대한 해석 방식의 전환 그리고 사회주의 개념을 규정하는 인식론적 구도의 변화는 ‘사회주의 중국’에서 ‘포스트 사회주의중국’으로의 전환을 분석, 설명하는 데 있어 매우 중요한 축선이라고 할 수 있을 것이다. 이에 본 연구는 ‘문화대혁명’ 시기 발간되었던 극좌파 간행물과 ‘문화대혁명’ 종결 이후 간행된 간행물을 비교함으로써 마르크스의와 이행의 해석이 어떻게 전용되었는지 그리고 그러한 전환에 따라 ‘사회주의’라는 개념이 어떻게 전환되었는지를 추적하고자 한다. The main purpose of this article is to trace how the Marxist interpretation method and the definition method of the concept of ‘socialism’ change around 1976, when the “Cultural Revolution” ends. As is known, the “People’s Republic of China” established in 1949 made Marxism-Leninism as its core program, and its final goal was the transition to socialism and communism. It can be said that the “Cultural Revolution” was a radical and extreme way to reach this goal, so the “Cultural Revolution” was a period when a radical interpretation of the transition to socialism and communism took over all social and political spaces. However, after Mao Zedong’s death in 1976, attempts to make such a radical transition ceased, and significant modifications were made to the concept of socialism itself, as well as the Marxist interpretation. The shift in the way Marxism was interpreted between 1976 and 1978 and the epistemological structure defining the concept of socialism were very important in analyzing and explaining the transition from ‘socialist China’ to ‘post socialist China.’ It may be called an axis. Therefore, this study compares the extreme left publications, which were published during the “Cultural Revolution” and the publications published after the end of the “Cultural Revolution”, to see how the interpretation of Marxism and the transition was diverted and such a transformation. This article will trace how the meaning of Marxism and the concept of ‘socialism’ were transformed according to the following.

한국 현대 생태시 연구 -생태맑스주의적 관점을 중심으로-

정연정 ( Yeon Jung Jung ) 한국현대문예비평학회 2011 한국문예비평연구 Vol.- No.34

1980년대 후반부터 맑스적 입장에서 생태문제를 해명하는 것에 대한 관심이 본격화되었다. 그 후 맑스의 사상이 생태계에 대한 풍부한 사유를 내포하고 있음을 입증하고 이를 바탕으로 맑스의 이론에 의거하여 현재의 생태문제를 해명하는 노력이 지속되어 왔다. 분명한 것은 맑스가 말했던 ``자연의 인간화와 인간의 자연화``라는 유명한 구절이 맑스의 이론체계에서 생태학 문제들을 이해할 수 있는 단초를 제공했다는 것이다. 더구나 맑스의 이론은 ``인간 해방``을 목표로 하고 있기 때문에 맑스의 철학적인 인간학은 생태학적 문제를 해명하는 분석을 시도할 수 있는 개념을 가지고 있어서 생태학적 맑시즘의 흥미로운 통찰을 엿볼 수 있다 인류가 직면한 생태위기가 현재의 자본주의적 생산양식에 의해 전면화된 것이라고 본다면, 자본주의의 운동 법칙을 해명함으로써 그 파멸적이고 착취적 본질을 드러내고자 했던 맑스의 이론체계는 생태문제의 본질과 대안을 설득력 있게 제시할 수 있는 유용한 분석 틀이라고 할 수 있다. 그러므로 본고는 맑스 경제학 체계 내로 생태문제를 수용하여 이론화한 생태맑스주의적 관점으로 한국생태시를 고찰하였다. ``생태맑스주의``의 문학적 적용은 확장된 생태학으로서 생태문학의 질적 변화를 의미한다. 그러므로 생태맑스주의 비평 역시 우리가 처해 있는 시대 상황을 정확하게 투영하는 것은 물론이고 미래 지향적인 해결책까지도 제시할 수 있다. 이런 점에서 생태계위기의 원인과 회복에 초점을 맞춘 ``한국 현대시의 생태맑스주의적 고찰``은 생태비평에 있어서 질적 변화를 위한 첫 시도로서 유의미하다. In the late 1980s, a growing number of people have raised interests in explaining ecological issues from the Marxist perspectives. Since then, various efforts have been made to prove that Marxism contains abundant thoughts on ecosystem and to explain the present ecological issues based on Marxism. The famous phrase ``humanization of the nature and naturalization of human beings`` by Marx clearly provided clues to understanding ecological issues in Marxism. Furthermore, as Marxism aims at liberalizing human beings, Marxist philosophical anthropology is based on a concept of analyzing ecological issues, which reveals interesting Marxist insights into ecology. If ecological crises facing the human race were aggravated in the wake of the capitalist mode of production, Marxism can be considered as a useful framework that suggests the true nature and alternatives with regard to ecological issues. Marxism aims to unveil devastating and exploitative nature through the explanation of the laws of motion of capitalism. This study examines Korean ecological poetry from the Marxist perspectives by including related issues in the Marxist economy. Literary application of ecological Marxism considers qualitative change in ecological literature as extended ecology. In this regard, the ecological Marxist criticism not only accurately reflects the present times but also suggests future-oriented resolutions.. This study focuses on figuring out the cause of ecological crises and the recovery of an ecosystem. Therefore, ``An Eco-Marxist Study on Korean Contemporary Poetry`` is meaningful as the stepping stone to make a qualitative change in the eco-criticism.

레이몽 부동과 자유주의

민문홍(Min Moon-Hong) 한양대학교 수행인문학연구소 2008 수행인문학 Vol.38 No.2

This article describes the characteristics of contemporary liberalism by means of the social theory of Raymond Boudon, one of France’s leading contemporary sociologists. Having made a unity of his sociological thought, it examines his liberalism through the following five chapters: a definition of modern liberalism; anti-liberalist thoughts in post-modern society; the mechanism of diffusion of anti-liberaist thoughts; a case of a successful paradigm of sociology; expansion of liberalism and human sciences’s task for the future. After this analysis, it suggests three theses as a conclusion. Firstly, Boudon’s sociology demonstrates the advantage of methodological individualism in comparison with methodological holism in explaining the various phenomena of modern society. This advantage is rooted in the fact that liberalism recognizes, better than any other thoughts, the complexity of social system and phenomena. His methodology in particular has a strong point in explaining the microbasis of macrosocial phenomena by linking social phenomena in macrodimension to individual autonomy and preferences in microdimension. Secondly, Boudon successfully criticizes the various thoughts of methodological holism-neo-marxisms, secular structuralism, and so on-by emphasizing the fact that these thoughts consider the individual as a simple support of social structure and rules. In this sense these thoughts have a weak point in explaining the complexity and uncertainty of post-modern society. And this means that they ignore the liberty and autonomy of an individual action in treating social phenomena. Thirdly, Boudon’s sociology has contributed to the expansion of liberalism in post-modern society in three domains, which are as follows: modern sociological theories with his sociological paradigm of “perverse effects”; the ideological debate in post-modern society with his methodological individualism; the diagnosis and the reform of civil society in the post-modern era with liberal perspective sociology.