중립주의 vs. 비동맹주의: 이론과 실제의 공통점과 차이점

백태열 서울대학교 국제학연구소 2021 국제지역연구 Vol.30 No.4

This study aims at exploring the similarities and differences in theory and practice between neutralism and non-alignment. To this end, it seeks to choose Switzerland and Sweden as case studies of neutralism and India and Egypt as those of nonalignment, respectively, especially from the comparative approach. The author attempts to analyze this study at two different aspects of environment and policy. Here environment is defined as international and domestic situations affecting either neutralism or nonalignment. Policy is referred to as foreign policy based on either neutralism or nonalignment. (...) In conclusion, one of conspicuous similarities is that both of neutralism and nonaligment show the trend to stay away their relationships with powerful countries in international affairs. one major finding from the comparative analysis of this study is that neutralism seeks to play a passive role in the international community, while nonalignment organizes the power and influence to resist the powerful countries, at the same time getting deeply involved with many thorny issues arising from the planet. 본 연구는 중립주의와 비동맹주의의 공통점과 차이점을 논의하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 그러한 목적을 이행하기 위하여 본 연구는 중립주의의 사례로서 스위스와 스웨덴, 비동맹주의 사례로서 인도와 이집트를 각각 선정하여 비교분석의 방법을 선택한다. 본 연구의 비교 대상은 크게 대내외적 배경과 대내외적 정책으로 구분하여 중립주의와 비동맹주의의 공통점과 차이점을 규명한다. 스위스와 스웨덴의 중립주의의 공통점은 양국 모두 외세의 침략과 전쟁, 그리고 지정학적 특성에 기인한다. 반면에 중립주의의 대외정책과 노선의 차이점은 스웨덴의 중립주의 대외정책은 스위스의 그것 보다 훨씬 유연하고 신축적이다. 인도와 이집트의 비동맹주의정책을 추구하는 과정에서 나타난 공통점은 양국 모두 식민지를 경험했다는 점이다. 양국의 비동맹주의노선의 커다란 차이점은 이집트의 경우 비동맹주의의 노선을 통해 중동의 아랍주의를 강화하려는 역할을 하였다. 반면에 인도는 보다 글로벌 차원에서 비동맹운동의 확산을 추구하였다. 마지막으로 중립주의와 비동맹주의의 공통점과 차이점을 요약하면 공통점의 경우 양 이념 모두 강대국에 대한 두려움, 적대감, 그리고 배타주의를 갖고 있다는 점이다. 그러나 비동맹주의는 중립주의 보다 강대국에 대해 강력한 접근을 하였다는 점이다. 주된 차이점은 중립주의의 이념은 대외적으로 정치적 영향력을 지향하지 않았지만 비동맹주의는 제3세계의 이름으로 상당히 왕성한 국제적 역할을 하였을 뿐만 아니라 글로벌 차원에서 세력화하려고 하였다.

中立主義에 對한 美蘇의 外交 政策 小考

李正植 慶北專門大學 (영주경상전문대학) 1981 慶北專門大學 論文集 Vol.3 No.-

The word "neutralism" is a newly-minted term which has been used since World War II, relating to the new phenomenon of neutralism that came out in international politics after the war. Neutrality in international law is defined as "the position of the third power that does not participate in a war in case it breaks out." Whether a country will assume a neutral position in wartime depends upon the given circumstances. whereas, if a particular country is considered neutral its neutrality is determined by means of a treaty of agreement concluded by the countries involved. There are two patterns according to which a country may be called a permanent neutral state: One pattern, for example, is that of Switzerland maintaining neutrality for herself under all circumstances, and with which the other countries have already made up a treaty of a permanent neutralism. This is a quarantee of freedom from military agression. Austria is the other pattern of a neutral country which in spite of gaining the approval of other related countries, may not necessarily be assured of permanent neutrality. What has been called the neutralism of the Cold War since World War II is used for foreign policy under the principle that a neutral country takes neither side of the US and the USSR. Accordinely, the term neutralism has varied meanings; Nehru, Premier of India, rejected the term and instead called a policy of his own "a non-aligned policy." As another instance President Nasser insisted on calling it "a positive neutralism," while Presidcnt Tito gave it the name of "an active coexistence." US and USSR foreign policy on neutral states may be summarized as follows; at the very beginning the United States took a stand of isolationism in addition to neutralism. However, the US, having become a superpower, was compelled to give up isolationism and neutralism as well, because she could not maintain such policies for the benefit of the whole world. The United States today takes the position of emphasizing the guiding principle of the UN Charter which rules out any neutral idea, and it also raises an objection to neutralism in general in accordance with the principle of collective security. Though standing against neutrality in principle, the United States can not take the opposite position of assuming a hostile or indifferent attitude toward neutral states. The point at issue is that the US becomes rigid in foreign policy, regarding her interests in other countries with which she maintains diplomatic relations. The US unfavorably ctriticizes any country that is not in accord with her interests and doesn't have a proper understanding of the state of affairs under which a particular neutral state is placed. India, adjacent to superpower China, suffered from injuries of European imperialism no less than those of communism, as has Egypt. And Yugoslavia only tries to shake off the yoke of USSR. To maintain her own securty and under the influence of the two blocs the US would not change her deisions to protect free democracy to the bitter end by means of the organization of regional collective security. The USSR has always, if necessary, adopted a policy of neutrality for the good of her own since World War I . The USSR policy of neutrality has been nor only violated but destroyed whenever she wants and in her own interests. Since the USSR has already become a superpower struggling for supreme power in the world War II she is no longer in need of the policy of neutralism, In addition the USSR has concluded that it is a criminal act for a country in the Communist bloc to stand for neutralism. Neutrality is not permitted. The following historical facts prove this: in 1948 Yugoslavia was removed from the membership list of the Cominform, and in 1956 Hungarians were severely suppressed by the USSR. Furthermore, she had a strict opposition to the proposal of China that Republic of China should be neutralized and her subjugation of Tibet by force of arms examplifies the fact. Hence, we can see that the goal is to protect her interests, to fortify the unity among communist countries, and to plan the undermining of capitalist nations. The foreign policy of the USSR to take advantage of neutralism by way of the campaign and the means by which she has as her ultimate object the unification of the world undes communism. At the same time she cries out for peaceful coexistence of the two political systems. Therefore, it may be concluded that the two superpowers stand against neutralism. But newly independent nations, however, want the aid of both sides, East and West in order that they strive for economic development and a better national standard of living. First of all, it is desirable that international tensions be relaxed so that new emerging countries can maintain their political independence and also achieve their economic independence. For the realization of this, the new emerging countries are forced to turn down neither of the two military alliances of the US and the USSR, and take a stand of neutralism instead. However, the minimum requirments to adopt neutralism as a nation's foreign policy as follows: First, the nation ought to establish a decisive independent spirit to maintain neutralism; second, the nations varied requirements of geography, history, and economic strategy should correspond to the maintenance of neutralism; and third, the interests of the countries concerned should also correspond with one another in their neutralization. In short, if a nation adopts neutralism as her basic foreign policy simply because she finds it desirable to take the stand of neutralism for all that the nation does not meet the above requirements, it is obvious that in the light of the world history her stand of neutralism under such sircumstances does not grarantee her peace and security, but bring about danger.

중립불가능의 시대와 회색의 좌표―이병주의 "관부연락선", "지리산"에 나타난 지식의 표상을 중심으로―

이광욱 고려대학교 민족문화연구원 2019 民族文化硏究 Vol.84 No.-

This study aims to establish Lee’s awareness of the problem in The Gwan-Bu Ferry Ship and The Mountain Jiri. The main characters of the two novels are portrayed as those who try to maintain neutrality in the face of intense ideological confrontation. This attitude has been a target of criticism, referred to as ‘gray thinking’. However, Lee’s neutrality should be seen as a product of his will to maintain his faith, even while enduring criticism from both sides, and a problem of colonialism that has still not been overcome after liberation. What’s noteworthy is that Lee Byung-joo spends considerable weight on portraying the main character’s intellectual bias and self-consciousness as an intellectual in the process of shaping neutrality. Yoo Tae-rim and Park Tae-young are figures who experienced an intellectual hiatus through the end of the colonial era, when the public education system collapsed. Even school institutions at the end of the Japanese colonial era were reduced to a channel for mobilizing student soldier, and reading, which was the only way to satisfy their intellectual yearnings, was often considered rebellious action regardless of the content of the book. To intervene in the distribution of knowledge in these times is soon was forced to as a political context. Furthermore, the novel, The Gwan-Bu Ferry Ship and The Mountain Jiri can be seen as a kind of relationship. Yoo Tae-rim and Park Tae-young share common ground in that they were the so-called student soldier generation, but their subsequent moves show a significant contrast. Yoo Tae-rim become a teacher after liberation and meddles students who are differentiated according to the ideologic side logic and tries to maintain a balanced view. However, with the assassination of Yeo Un-hyung, he is now engaged in a campaign against the single government in earnest, and he is missing along with the Korean War. The second half of The Mountain Jiri begins at the point where the epic of The Gwan-Bu Ferry Ship has stopped, after which Park Tae-young takes the path of being a partizan alone, criticizing liberalism, nihilism and communism. The fundamental desire he found at the end of his last intellectual quest was to have a status as an agent who was not subjugated to anything. Although their story boils down to the failure of neutrality, Lee wanted to show that failure in novel was not a failure as a novel. 본고는 <관부연락선>과 <지리산>에 나타난 이병주의 문제의식을 규명하고자 한 연구이다. 두 소설의 주동인물인 유태림과 박태영은 극심한 이데올로기 대립 속에서도중립성을 지키려는 인물로 그려진다. 이러한 태도는 ‘회색의 사상’이라 일컬어지면서비판의 대상이 되어 왔던 것도 사실이다. 그러나 이병주가 내세운 중립주의는 양 진영으로부터의 비난을 감내하면서라도 자신의 신념을 견지해 나가고자 하는 의지의 소산이며 해방 후에도 여전히 극복되지 못한 식민성에 대한 문제제기라고 보아야 한다. 주목할 것은 이병주가 중립주의를 형상화하는 과정에서 주인공의 지적 편력과 지식인으로서의 자의식을 묘사하는 데 상당한 비중을 할애한다는 점이다. 유태림과 박태영은 공적 교육 시스템이 붕괴된 일제 말기를 거치며 지적 공백기를 경험한 인물들이다. 심지어 일제 말기의 학교기관은 학병을 동원하기 위한 창구로 전락하게 되었으며, 그들의 지적 갈망을 채워줄 수 있는 유일한 경로였던 독서는 책의 내용과 관계없이 불온하게 여겨지는 경우가 많았다. 이러한 시대 상황 속에서 지식의 유통망 속에 개입하는행위는 곧 정치적인 것으로 맥락화될 수밖에 없었다. 더 나아가 <관부연락선>과 <지리산>은 일종의 짝패 관계를 형상화하고 있는 소설이다. 유태림과 박태영은 이른바 학병세대였다는 점에서 공통점을 지니지만 이후의 행보는 유의미한 대조를 보여주기 때문이다. 해방 후 교사가 된 유태림은 진영논리에 따라분화된 학생들을 중간자적 입장에서 중재하며 균형잡힌 시각을 유지하기 위해 노력한다. 그러나 그는 여운형 암살 사건과 함께 본격적으로 단정반대 운동에 뛰어들게 되고, 한국전쟁과 함께 행방불명된다. <지리산>의 후반부는 <관부연락선>의 서사가 멈춰선 그 지점부터 시작되는데, 결국 박태영은 자유주의, 허무주의, 공산주의를 모두 비판하며 홀로 ‘빨치산’이 되는 길을 택한다. 그가 지난한 지적 편력의 끝에서 발견한 근본적 욕망은 어디에도 복속되지 않는 주체로서의 지위를 갖는 것이었다. 비록 그들의이야기는 중립주의의 실패담으로 귀결되지만, 이를 통해 이병주는 소설 속에서의 실패가 소설로서의 실패가 아님을 보여주고자 했다.

전후 아시아에서 ‘중립’의 이몽과 비동맹운동―한국전쟁 종전에서 인도 요인을 중심으로

백원담 역사문제연구소 2022 역사비평 Vol.- No.138

This study discusses how Asian factors worked in the course of the Korean War and before and after it. I tried to raise it by focusing on the Indian Factor. In the harsh conditions of the violent post-war reorganization of the post-war order in Asia, where the Cold War has been devastated by the Indonesian War, Indochina War, and the Korean War, Prime Minister Nehru of India tried not to follow the path of historical misfortune in Asia again. Thus, he took the lead in advocating for the problem of restructuring Asia led by Asia. It has a huge impact across Asia, which was struggling with the task of forming a modern nation-state through decolonization. Here, the Indian factor can be summarized as the representation of Asia as a peace zone, the submission of neutralism as a response to the globalization of the Cold War, and the formation of a new sphere of influence through Asian regionalization as a non-aligned movement. Nehru’s position was raised in the course of the Korean War as a paradox of the Asian peace zone, raising the question of the transformation of war into an international war, and ending the war. Nehru led the Asian peace process through ceaseless mediation efforts through the United Nations and solidarity among Asian countries. Therefore, this study considered the question of how Nehru’s neutralism as a discourse on Asian peace was carried out in the Korean War, and how it resulted in the non-aligned movement. And I tried to explain that it is the phase that drives the post-Cold War from the early stage of the global Cold War as an Asian intervention by Asia. 이 연구는 한국전쟁과 그 전후가 전개되는 과정에 아시아 요인은 어떻게 작동하였는가를 인도요인(Indian Factor)으로 집중하여 제기하고자 하였다. 인도네시아전쟁, 인도차이나전쟁, 한국전쟁 등 냉전이 열전화한 아시아에서의 폭력적 전후 질서의 재편이라는 엄혹한 상황에서, 인도의 네루 수상은 아시아의 역사적 불행이라는 전철을 다시 밟지 않기 위해 애썼다. 그리하여 그는 아시아에 의한 아시아의 주도적 재구성문제를 선도적으로 주창하였다. 그것이 탈식민화를 통한 근대적 국민국가 형성 과제에 부심하고 있던 아시아 전역에 일으킨 파장이 크다. 여기서 인도요인은 평화지대로서 아시아의 표상화, 냉전의 세계화에 대한 대응으로서 중립주의의 제출, 비동맹운동으로서 아시아지역화를 통한 새로운 세력권의 형성 등으로 집약할 수 있을 것이다. 네루의 이러한 입장은 한국전쟁 과정 속에서 아시아 평화지대의 역설과 전쟁의 국제전으로의 전화에 대한 문제제기, 전쟁종식 등으로 제기되었다. 네루는 UN을 통한 부단한 중재노력과 아시아의 국가간 연대를 통해 아시아 평화프로세스를 주도해나갔다. 따라서 이 연구는 네루가 아시아 평화담론으로서의 중립주의를 한국전쟁에서 관철해가는 가운데, 그것이 어떻게 비동맹운동으로 귀결되는가하는 문제를 고찰하였다. 그리고 그것은 아시아에 의한 아시아 개입으로서 세계적인 냉전의 초기 단계에서부터 탈냉전을 추동하는 국면임을 해명하고자 하였다.

『사상계』 기행문에 나타난 아시아 리저널리즘의 재편양상과 재건의 젠더

김복순 한국여성문학학회 2016 여성문학연구 Vol.39 No.-

Travel essays of 『Sasanggye』 was very different from those of another magazines. They were not just for travels, and were kind of inspection reports, academical exchanges and academical (random) interviews. Travel essays on the western depicted western societies as ‘universal’, ‘developmental’ based on orientalismic point of view. Ideas about reorganization of regionalism were not to be found, and the gender of ‘development(reorganization)’ was man. Travel essays on the sub-western were deeply directed for Japan's ‘postwar universality’, and ideas of the gender were not to be found. Travel essays on the non-western drived national point of view anew, and wills about reconstructing universality through reorganizing regionalism were confirmed. With structuralizing backwardness=feminity=underdevelopment, advancement=masculinity=development equations, sexual metaphor was drived. 『사상계』기행문은 여타 잡지의 기행문과 매우 달랐다. 순수 여행담 성격의 글이라기보다 시찰담, 학술 교류, 학계 방담의 성격이 강하였다. 이는 『사상계』가 스스로를 ‘종합학술지’로 규정하고 근대화 전략의 토대를 ‘학술교양’에 두고 있었던 점과 상통한다. 서구/아서구/비서구 기행문은 저마다 다른 방식으로 ‘근대’ ‘국민국가’ ‘발전’에 대해 상상하고 있음을 보여 주었다. 서구 기행문은 오리엔탈리즘 시선으로 서구를 한결같이 ‘보편’으로, ‘발전’으로 표상하고 있었다. ‘제국주의의 눈’으로, 저개발의 후진국인 한국이 ‘발전’하려면 서구의 문명(화)을 수용해야 하다는 것을 여러 형태로 역설하였다. 식민주의가 비판되지 않았으며, 반공주의가 근대화와 결합하면서 ‘승공’(勝共)으로 가치화 되고 있었다. 따라서 리저널리즘에 대한 재편의식은 거의 발견되지 않았다. 문명론적, ‘발전(재건)’의 젠더는 남성이었다. 아서구 기행문은 피식민의 피해의식을 봉인하고 제국주의 및 식민주의를 해금시킴으로써, ‘전후 일본’의 리저널리즘적 재편 욕망인 ‘새로운 아시아 보편’에 의식・무의식적으로 내면화된 지식인의 사유를 환기하였다. 이는 일본 내에서 ‘전후 일본’이라는 내러티브가 전쟁책임과 가해의식을 봉인하고, 스스로를 피해자로 규정・연출한 것과 동궤였다. 젠더의식은 특별히 드러나지 않았지만, 이 때의 ‘비(非)젠더’란 남성젠더적인 것이었다. 비서구 기행문에서는 새로운 민족적 관점을 충동하면서 리저널리즘의 재편을 통해 보편을 재구성하려는 의지가 확인되었다. 리저널리즘에 대한 적극적・수동적 사유가 둘 다 목도되었는데, 구체적으로는 네 개의 ‘아시아 리저널리즘’으로 구분되었다. ‘냉전(반공) 우선성’의 아시아 리저널리즘, ‘발전론 우선성’의 아시아 리저널리즘, 우선성이 작동하지 않은 채 ‘냉전과 발전론이 결합’한 경우, ‘중립주의’의 아시아 리저널리즘이 그것이다. ‘반제국(식민)주의 우선성’은 아이러니컬하게도 존재하지 않았다. 이는 냉전(반공)을 ‘과잉전유’한 한국의 특수성을 반영하는 부분이라 할 수 있다. ‘발전론 우선성’의 경우 발전의 핵심은 ‘경제력 성장’이었지, 센(Sen)이 말하는 ‘자유의 신장’과는 거리가 있었다. 중립주의는 아시아 리저널리즘을 가장 적극적으로 사유하는 것이었으나, 리저널리즘을 재편하고 보편을 재구성 하는 탈식민적 사유에까지는 도달하지 못한 일정한 한계를 지니고 있었다. 여기서는 후진성=여성성=저개발, 선진성=남성성=발전이라는 성적 은유가 작동하고 있었다. 『사상계』 기행문에서 ‘발전(재건)론’은 젠더의제가 실종(소거)된 기획이었다.

정치적 중립주의와 시민교육: 사회복지에 대한 프레이리의 비판을 중심으로

유범상 서강대학교 생명문화연구소 2024 생명연구 Vol.71 No.-

This study is a critical study of political neutralism with a focus on social welfare in Korea. Korean social welfare, like civil servants and teachers, takes a political neutralist stance. Political neutralism actually means uncritical acceptance of the regime's position and has a tendency to depoliticize it. In this context, Korean social welfare follows the position of residualism, and social welfare is practiced by providing services based on sympathy and charity. The purpose of this paper is to criticize Korea's social welfare from a political neutralist standpoint and seek alternatives to overcome it. To this end, this paper focuses on Freire's theory and seeks to develop discussions based on it. Freire criticized political neutralism as the logic of the oppressor, perpetuating an unjust order of inequality and class conflict, and subjecting citizens to a culture of silence and horizontal violence. In particular, social welfare was seen as a fictional tolerance and a strategy of the oppressor. This paper analyzed Freire's criticism by applying it to Korea's social welfare stance, that is, political neutralism and residualism. This paper proposed transforming social welfare into class politics toward institutionalism based on social rights and presented the content and direction of civic education.

平和共存論에 關한 一考察

李正植 慶北專門大學 (영주경상전문대학) 1977 慶北專門大學 論文集 Vol.1 No.-

Under the threat of devastating nuclear war, Politicians and critics of the two power blocks of the East and West have been deeply concerned in peaceful coexistence and cooperation, one of the fundamental issues of modern times. Thus, peace has become the primary requirement in present day. And there lias developed an extensive trend to avoid warfare caused by difference in doctrine, ideology and social system, which urged active development of peaceful coexistence. The major purpose of this paper is to understand current state of international situation, changing from dipolarism to polycentrism, as a way of rasping our present situation, by means of investigating the general idea of peaceful coexistence and its ideological foundation, and comparing the relation between the Peaceful coexistence of earlier period and that of post-World War II, and between the latter and neutralism. For the peaceful coexistence to be established, some claim a new ideology be emerged out of capitalistic ideology and that of Communism. Others hold it based on the confrontation of political ideologies; others as the keynote of foreign policy. And there are still others who believe it can prevent wars between the socialist states and capitalistic ones. In terms of Marx-Leninism, it implies the possibility of peaceful coexistence between the two systems of socialism and capitalism for a considerably long period. Today it indicates peaceful corelation between democracy and Communism. And coexistence has functional concept, coming between cooperation and antagonism as a form of political processes. Being similar to neutralism it is a limited form of cooperation and avoidance of disputes. Peaceful coexistence between the two blocks can't be considered as nothing but a tactics of Soviet's foreign policy, and hence, just as a historical event. But it should have ideological foundation to regulate the international relations of the future. How can it last without such a foundation? For the human beings of today, who are confronted to the threat of nuclear weapons, Peaceful coexistence should, in common, a basis of thought to guard the dignity and rights of themselves. The origin of peaceful coexistence can be found in the foreign policy of English administrators who had observed French Revolution: It sprang out of the distress of England's foreign policy to cope with the revolutionized France. It has hence been developed, via usual way England has taken, in the choice of hard or soft line in her foreign policy. The claims of peaceful coexistence presupposes the two blocks, a revolutionary one and one opposing to it. Today the relations between the USV and Soviet are the very point of the matter, but in the view of foreign policy, the problems the USA have against Soviet are comparable to those England had against Francefifty years ago. In the view of Soviet, peace is indispensible for the socialist states to build up massive industries and socialistic orders, and to undertake inner innovations both physically and spiritually. Besides, maintenance of peace makes it possible for them to introduce advanced scientific outcomes. The capitalistic states, on the other hand, worry the damage wars may bring about, insecurity resulting from the upswing of the working class, and the loss, of Russian market by the hostile relation with Soviet, Thus, Peaceful coexistence was brought forth by the need and quest of reality of the two blocks. However, it was Geneva Conference that initiated the two blocks to put an end to cold war and to turn towards peaceful coexistence. At the 20th convention of Communists, held in Feb., 1956, Khrushchev made an assertion that there was no way but to take peaceful coexistence, concentrating attention to the enlarged forces of Communism and pacifism. Asserting that wars aren't unavoidable, despite of imperialism, he made a report which sounded to have modified the basic proposition of Marx-Leninism. But peaceful coexistence of Soviet is, considering her viewpoint of realization of Communism, coexistence for a long term and peaceful competition. Therefore, peaceful coexistence, so long as it goes with policy of power, can't be a guarantee of the peace of the world. And so, it is not desirable for the USA and other western states to boycott Soviet's suggestions for peace, but they should cope with them, showing sincerity in inteinatioanl relations and giving more attractive plans of financial aids or proposal for peace to western countries or Asian and African peoples. In a word, though the Soviet's peaceful coexistence may be nothing but a tactics, Peaceful coexistence is an objective quest of present times of appaling nuclear age, and it can't be under the sway of the change of power of any nation.

박정희 정권하의 국가와 노동관계

신치호(Shin Chi-Ho) 고려대학교 노동문제연구소 2008 노동연구 Vol.16 No.-

이 글은 박정희 정권의 권위주의체제하에서의 노동정책과 노동운동을 둘러싼 국가와 노동의 관계를 검토하였다. 제3공화국하의 국가와 노동관계는 군사정부에서 개정한 노동관계법과 신설된 국가기구를 중심으로 국가가 노동통제를 제도화하였다. 박정희 정권은 유사민간정부 구성 이후에는 노동의 탈정치화를 기반으로 행정적 중립주의와 부분적 국가코포라티즘(국가조합주의)의 노동통제방식을 구사하였다. 노조 활동은 어용화된 한국노총의 지도하에 정치적ㆍ조직적 공간 모두 약간 보장되거나 취약한 상태에 처하였다. 유신체제하의 국가와 노동관계는 국가가 법적ㆍ행정적ㆍ이념적 통제에 긴급조치와 국가보안법 등의 초법적 기제를 결합시켜 노조 활동을 전면 중단하거나 억압하였다. 국가는 노동에 대해 노조 활동을 고립시키는 전면적 억압이라는 배제적인 시장기제적 노동통제방식을 구사하였고, 노동은 이에 맞서 파업과 단체행동, 나아가 반체제 민주화운동을 전개하는 정치적ㆍ조직적 공간을 스스로 확대시켰다. 종합하면, 박정희 정권하의 국가와 노동관계는 정치과정론의 분석시각인 정치체제와 계급연합정치 및 위기상황이란 독립변수에 의해, 국가의 노동정책이 중립적→포섭적→억압적으로 변모하였으며, 노동의 정치적ㆍ조직적 공간도 약간 보장→축소 내지 약화→(자발적) 확대되었다. 특히 유신체제의 말기에, 노동부문은 반체제 민주화운동에 집중하면서 정치적ㆍ조직적 공간을 대폭 확대시켰다. The purpose of this study is to examine the state and labor relations which surround the labor policy and labor movements under the authoritarian system of Park Chung Hee regime. The state and labor relations under the Third Republic systematized state labor control by the labor act amendment and new-established state apparatuses from the military government. Park Chung Hee regime of the Third Republic used the labor control style of ‘administrative neutralism’ and ‘partial state corporatism’ with depoliticization of labor. And the activities of labor unions under the lead of Hankook Nochong(Federation of Korean Trade Unions) guided by state were weak in both side of the political and organizational spaces. Under the Yushin system, the activities of labor unions were wholly discontinued and repressed. While Korean state combined the Special Measures for Safeguarding National Security and the National Security Act with legal, administrative, and ideological controls. Korean state controled the activities of labor unions within the wholesale and exclusive repression by market mechanism. On the contrary, labor organizations enlarged the political and organizational spaces through the strikes, collective actions, and anti-regime democratization movements. Synthesized, the state and labor relations under Park Chung Hee regime were reexamined by three independent variables like ‘political regime,’ ‘politics of class coalitions,’ and ‘crisis of circumstantial setting’ of the political process perspective. The state’s labor policy transfigured “neutral → inclusive → repressive,” and also the labor’s political and organizational spaces were “some guaranteed → abridged or weakened → (voluntarily) magnified.” Specially, in the end of Yushin system, the labor organizations enlarged the political and organizational spaces through anti-regime democratization movements.

탈젠더화를 꿈꾸는 여성 로커의 목소리 - 밴드 새소년 황소윤의 사례

권현석 한국문화융합학회 2022 문화와 융합 Vol.44 No.5

To create the trend of today’s sonic degenderization is ‘gender neutralism.’ This perspective refers to one that aims not to lean on either masculinity or feminity. It is shown in an interesting way in the scene of ‘female-participatory rock’ in the area of popular music that forms part of the sonic world of young people in their twenties. That music has refuted a long-standing gender stereotype that ‘rock is a male genre.’ This movement is subtly sensed in the voice of female rockers. A typical example is offered by Hwang So-yoon, a vocalist and guitarist of the Korean indie rock band Se So Neon(New Boys), Against this background, this paper aims to look at how gender neutralism is displayed through voice, looking at a case study of Hwang. To this end, this study intends to employ an ‘semiotic-vocal approach.’ This is a methodology to examine how a gender-related view of vocalization is shown semiotically and vocally. With this approach, this research finds three things. First, from a ‘vocalism’ seeking degenderization, Hwang forms a ‘sonic semanticity’ of lyrics in a complex way. Second, she produces a ‘convergent and divergent’ voice using a mix of masculine, true voice and feminine falsetto. Third, through those practices, Hwang constructs the self or the other as an ‘existence’ that goes beyond masculinity and feminity. Those practices imply an extension of a boundary area of a rock society pursing degenderization.

연구논문 : 잉글랜드 내전기 스티븐 마샬 (Stephen Marshall)의 적(敵) 담론

정영권 ( Young Kwon Chung ) 영국사학회 2013 영국연구 Vol.29 No.-

잉글랜드에서 1640년에 혁명이 일어났고 이것은 1642년 여름에 내전으로 이어졌다. 하지만 대대수의 국민들은 전쟁을 원치 않았고 이를 후원하는데 있어서도 소극적이었다. 그러나 소수는 전쟁을 원했고 이를 위한 준비를 앞장서서 하기 시작했다. 이런 맥락에서 가장 중요하게 대두되는 것 중 하나는 퓨리턴 성직자들의 역할이다. 이들은 의회, 군대, 지방, 교구 등 나라 각처에서 사람들에게 의회가 추구하는 종교 및 정치 개혁의 정당성을 호소했고 전쟁에 적극적으로 참여할 것을 역설했다. 본 연구는 가장 영향력 있던 퓨리턴 성직자중 하나였던 스티븐 마샬의 종교담론에서 나타난 적의 개념을 집중적으로 조명하고자 한다. 특히 그가 적을 어떻게 정의 했으며 적과 아군의 관계를 어떻게 보았고 더 나아가 전시에 하나님의 사람들 즉 아군으로부터 요구되는 행동에 대해 어떻게 생각했는가를 구체적으로 분석하고자 한다. 종교담론을 연구하는 것은 비단 17세기 잉글랜드의 종교를 고찰하는데 국한되지 않는다. 그 당시 종교사상은 사회 전 영역을 설명하는 핵심적인 분석의 틀을 제공해주었기 때문에, 종교 사상체계를 이해하는 것은 당시 사람들 생각의 많은 영역을 이해할 수 있게 해준다. 따라서 퓨리턴들의 적의 개념은 그들이 왜 개혁을 위해 전쟁을 마다하지 않았는가를 보여줄 뿐만 아니라 더 나아가 자신들이 살고 있는 세계를 바라본 시각에 대한 이해를 높여줄 것이다. The English Revolution commenced in late 1640, and this eventually led to a Civil War a few years later. Although the war lasted for seven years and wrought much devastation in its wake, the picture of England differed markedly just several years prior to it. There were no doubt conflicts in the religious, political, and social spheres during the preceding decades, but they did not create enough fireworks to warrant a war, and of the magnitude witnessed during the 1640s, as the only means of a resolution. To reflect such a situation, the Civil War did not get underway for almost two years after the Revolution. Against this backdrop, how an internecine warfare that embroiled the entire country for almost a decade got started in the first place becomes not an easy question to answer. It has been suggested that a zealous minority of English people supporting either the parliament or the king fan the flames of war, actively encouraging and driving others to military confrontation. The enthusiastic minority included people from all ranks of society, and the ministers were no exception. The charismatic minister, Stephen Marshall stands out among them. Marshall commanded respect as an inspirational preacher and his numerous publications helped him cast a wide net of influence, arguably unmatched by his godly colleagues. This article examines Marshall`s writings to explore his concept of ``enemy``, in particular. The war created a sharply polarized atmosphere, and many Puritan preachers including Marshall engaged in a discourse and rhetoric which reflected such a climate. They delivered sermons which left little room for compromise and unilaterally commended the cause of the parliament. A detailed analysis of Marshall`s writings and especially the pattern of argument he employed to shape people`s perception of the enemies of the parliament will thus shed light on how a minority of clergymen contributed to the process of preparing for and actually fighting a war that so many people sought to avoid. Although how the godly perceived themselves and developed a relationship with hostile neighbors during the decades prior to 1640 have been extensively explored, how such a self perception and relationship with opponents changed or reinforced themselves in the crucible of war have not been adequately examined. This article seeks to remedy this historiographical neglect and offer an initial exploration of the issue.