RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재

        건강가정 보호의 법적 계보

        이소영(Lee, So-young) 한국가족법학회 2012 가족법연구 Vol.26 No.3

        In terms of state’s legal protection, most common case of such rhetoric being used would be correlated with socio-economical injustice, which is rooted in the political-economic structure of society. Meanwhile second dimension of state’s legal protection rhetoric is correlated with cultural-symbolic injustice. My critical questioning was, what if such petition for minority rights ― both at socio-economic level and at cultural-symbolic level ―of seeking to solicit state’s recognition, is but to add up to the genealogy of how the state tames minority subjects as docile citizens? Wouldn’t it serve as handy tool for the state to decide what forms of identity may be legitimated, thereby drawing yet another line between the ‘adoptable’ and the ‘non-adoptable’s? In this aspect, the very notion of legal protection may be interpreted as the orientation of discrimination. This would constitute the third dimension of state’s legal protection, the aporia of protection as a cause of discrimination. Among various laws involved with family ideology of protection, I chose to go in depth with the concept of ‘heathy homes’ as detected in the clauses of the Framework Act on Healthy Homes, how it reproduces and proliferates protection discourse in law. State’s protective intervention, entwined with the residues of colonial adoption of the Western modern law during and post colonial periods as well as cultural traces of traditional familism, appears not only in family law that resides in Civil Code but also in various family-related acts that are classified elsewhere. The ideology of family would remain compellingly strong despite, or perhaps because of, the virtual changes in forms of ‘family’, with the belief that keeping it strongly-tight would contribute to solve social problems. Ultimately, what I tried to illustrate was that, arguing in favor of expanding the definition of ‘healthy home’ through legal amendment in order to recognize various non-heterosexual relationships and partnerships into the concept of ‘healthy homes’ will not be a fundamental solution to deconstruct connotations between heteronormativity, gender, family and the nation-state, for it also is vulnerable to paradoxical consequences of normalization and exclusive inclusion.

      • KCI등재

        법이 부착한 ‘부랑인’ 기표와 그 효과: 형제복지원 기억의 재현과 과거청산 논의의 예에서

        이소영 한국법철학회 2014 법철학연구 Vol.17 No.2

        This article aims to deal with the signifié of vagrant that legal mechanism has attached, and its effect in the construction of social memory. While focusing on the case of human rights abuse at Hyungjae Welfare House(Hyungjae Bokjiwon) that had been revealed to the public in 1987 and referred to as Korean Auschwitz or Korean Holocaust, the article tries to raise following research questions - how did legal mechanism of the Instruction(Anweisung) of the Ministry of Home Affairs No.410(enacted in 1975) constitute dominant representation of vagrant during 70s and 80s, and in what forms has such dominant representation been stamped and carved into the voice of victims today as well as into the cultural remembrance of Hyungjae Welfare House?The research starts by problematizing the tendency revealed in majority of media coverage in 1987, that they had focused not on the ills of involuntary confinement itself but solely on the fact that many ‘healthy and sound’ citizens were also confined there by being falsely taken as vagrants. Through examining various cultural representations―media coverage including news reports, editorials and correspondence columns, investigation report by the opposition party, and the sentencing by Supreme Court―this research aims to figure out what would have been the signifiant of the signifié vagrant at the time, that was placed at the antipodes to the signifiant such as ‘heathy and sound citizen’, ‘normal person’, ‘man in the straight lane’ etc. Moreover it illustrates how the dominant representation of Instruction(Anweisung) of the Ministry of Home Affairs No.410 affected in drawing a binary code between normal/ abnormal and in segregating each performers into non/vagrant subject. Besides, this research aims to demonstrate the effect that such signifié of vagrant has on the representation of victims' remembrance today, after 26 years have passed from then. In other words the article analyses how, in the Hyungjae Welfare House memory which returned to the public discourse as an object of ‘coming to terms with the past by means of law’, the (effect of) vagrant signifié is carved into the victims' voice and makes un/conscious repetition of non/vagrant identity in their narratives, such as “I was not a vagrant, but a student,” “I was just an ordinary citizen” or “I was a diligent member of this society.” 본고는 ‘한국의 아우슈비츠’ ‘한국의 홀로코스트’로 회자되는 형제복지원 사건을 예로 하여 법이 부착한 ‘부랑인’ 기표와 그 효과에 관하여 다룬다. 내무부훈령 제410호(1975년 제정)의 법적 규제가 어떻게 부랑인에 대한 지배적 재현을 구성하였으며, 그 지배적 재현이 어떻게 다시금 피해자의 목소리와 사회적 기억에 각인되는가가 본고에서 제기하는 고유한 연구질문이다. 본고의 문제의식은 시설감금과 폭력, 노동착취와 국가보조금 착복이 문제시되었던 1987년 형제복지원 사건에 관한 당시 언론보도의 초점이 ‘부랑인 아닌 이들도 억울하게 수용’에 일관되게 맞추어져 있었다는 데 대한 의문에서 출발하였다. 여기서 민간인, 정상인, 멀쩡한 사람 등으로 호명된 이들과 반대짝에 놓인 부랑인은 무엇을 표상하였는가? 또 부랑인 시설수용을 규정한 내무부훈령 제410호는 어떻게 정상인/비정상인을 가르고, 주체를 비/부랑인으로 각각 분리하는 효과를 가져왔는가? 본고에서는 먼저 형제복지원이 사건화된 1987년의 언론보도, 사설·논평·독자투고, 사건조사 보고서, 대법원 판결문 안에서 ‘부랑인’이라는 기표가 무엇을 표상하였으며, ‘자활을 통해 노동시장으로 편입되어야 할 대상인 동시에 공적 공간에서 배제되어야 할 대상’으로 부랑인을 주체화하는 매커니즘이 형제복지원 사건 이전과 이후를 관통하며 어떻게 부랑인이라는 기표에 각인되었는지를 살펴보았다. 아울러 26여 년이 지난 현재, 법이 부착하였던 그 ‘부랑인’ 기표가 피해자 기억의 재현에 있어 무엇을 말하지 않게 혹은 못하게 하는지 다루고자 하였다. 즉 형제복지원 기억이 과거청산의 대상으로 다시금 소환된 오늘날, 그러한 부랑인 기표(의 효과)가 피해자의 현재 목소리에 각인되어 “부랑인이 아닙니다” “일반시민이었다” “성실한 이 사회구성원이었습니다”의 반복으로 나타나는 양상을 읽어내려는 것이다. 이로써 비부랑인 수용자를 ‘부랑인으로 몰린 억울한’ 피해자로, 부랑인 수용자를 ‘적절한 교화와 보살핌을 받지 못한 애처로운’ 피해자로 각각 새겨넣음(mark)으로써, 부랑인을 벌거벗은 생명으로 기입하는 ‘권력의 폭력적 본성’ 대신 비부랑인까지 부랑인 범주에 밀어넣은 ‘권력의 현현으로서의 폭력’에만 방점이 찍히게 만드는 담론 효과를 분석하였다.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼