레비나스의‘ 가족’에서 분리와 거리두기의 관계윤리 = The Relational Ethics of Separation and Distancing in E. Levinas’ ‘Family’

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In this article, I looked into the meaning of separation of family that Levinas argued in others ethics. And I related it to the concept of distancing which I once proposed as an attitude of relational ethics.
Levinas brings the concept of ‘family’ as a typical metaphor representing his others ethics, while through it he lets us notice the danger of self-identification with others, and he proposes the primary process of separation in the relation of others. If separation does not properly work, others are owned, controled, and totalized by ourselves. Thus the concept separation can be a way by which we can go to and meet others.
Separation has the same meaning with distancing. If there is no process of distancing by the substantial change of my ‘ethical body.’ I cannot hold an appropriate relation to others. That is, it is necessary to escape from the familiarization in which the subject of me was already deepened. The process of separation and distancing means the change of the ethical attitude.
The well known representative image of family is familiarization. But if we leave it alone, we cannot have a proper relation to the family members and cannot secure the ethical relation of love and care. The happiness of family is open, and that is not matter here though. Ironically the basic nature of the family rather depends on the proper relation from escaping the familiarization. Above all it should be developed in the form of separation and distancing.
Separation is the characteristic concept of Levinas, while distancing is a concept extracted from the Confucian idea of Jing(敬) that I gave it much significance. In this article, I did not put a full-scale comparison of both. I rather anticipated to find a common sense of both. I, with both concepts of separation and distancing, proposed a sort of ‘ethical effects’ from the familiar place of family, and I hope it might be my genuine interest.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김연숙, "타자윤리학" 인간사랑 2002

2 레비나스, 엠마누엘, "존재와 다르게; 본질의 저편" 인간사랑 2010

3 레비나스, 엠마누엘, "존재에서 존재자로" 민음사 2009

4 레비나스, 엠마누엘, "윤리와 무한" 다산글방 2005

5 박연규, "유가적 몸과 관계적 자아 - 경(敬)의 ‘거리두기’(Distancing)의 관계성을 중심으로 -" 한국양명학회 (28) : 329-357, 2011

6 박연규, "유가의 관계 자아에서 타자와의 거리두기와 낯설게 하기 - 유가적 가족의 재구조화를 위하여 -" 한국공자학회 (28) : 2-35, 2015

7 박영옥, "에마뉘엘 레비나스－분리와 회귀로서의 현상학적 방법에 대하여" 한국현상학회 (39) : 147-173, 2008

8 레비나스, 엠마누엘, "시간과 타자" 문예출판사 2009

9 손영창, "레비나스의 타자성의 관점에서 본 가까이 있음(proximité)과 책임성의 의미" 대동철학회 (45) : 235-268, 2008

10 김연숙, "레비나스, 타자의 얼굴과 사랑의 윤리; 타자라는 문제 설정" (9) : 2004

11 마리안느 레스쿠레, "레비나스 평전" 살림출판사 2006

12 김연숙, "레비나스 타자윤리에서 ‘대면적 관계윤리’에 관한 연구" 19 : 2000

13 김연숙, "가족의 타자윤리적 이해: 엠마누엘 레비나스의 사상을 중심으로" (5) : 2000

14 김민영, "‘분리séparation’를 통한 레비나스의 주체성 이해" 대한철학회 104 : 47-70, 2007

15 Levinas, E., "Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority" Springer 1980

16 Levinas, Emmanuel, "Outside the Subject" Stanford Univ Press 1993

17 Levinas, Emmanuel, "Humanism of the Other" University of Illinois Press 2005