과거청산 작업에서 진실말하기와 대항 내러티브 주체의 형성 (The Truth-telling and Formation of Counter-narrative Subject during Past Liquidation in Korea)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국사연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국사연구 / 153호 / 191 ~ 237페이지
· 저자명 : 김무용

초록

Grobally, ‘past liquidation' has been processed since the latter half of 1980, and evaluated as an alternative for the realization of transitional justice and the achievement of democracy through the clearance of violent past. In Korea, this project has been executed by the truth reconciliation commission(TRC from below) which was established as the temporary state organization. The work for truth revealing was mainly implemented by truth-telling or storytelling through truth-gathering work, and composed of ‘statement investigation' which was combination of oral testimony and written testimony.
The purpose of statement investigation as the state documents was to verify the truth of oral testimony and written testimony by victims. During these processes, victims' experiences and telling were re-established as the public evidences for present facts or juridical judgements.
Furthermore, these statements of victims have expressed the characters of event stories which included victims' personal life and pain. These were the base of connection for victims' traumatic past to reconciliation of present and future. However, the work for statement investigation has revealed the problems that did not describe the institution, culture and everyday lives under state's violence because it extremely simplified to personal relation between state and victims or perpetrators and victims.
The story of victims shows us the power and meaning of testimony in the history of oral history. The victims stated their own experiences and pains related to the past massacre. Through these processes, their personal stories changed to public discourse by the state. Even though these are only the forms of ‘determination for truth's verification', these mean that victims' collective experiences and histories were recognized publically.
According to the statements of victims which were investigated and filed by TRC, their collective discourse can be characterized as purification and victimization. The formation of this discourse in the victims' culture was very important element for the formation of identity of the bereaved families. They could realize the political meaning of their experiences and be formed as the subjects for the counter-discourse against public discourse that defined them as impure and communized persons by dominated powers.
TRC verified the victims on the base of the statements or testimonies. Furthermore, it defined the victims as the massacred people, and got rid of the terminologies like ‘impure element', ‘the red' or ‘the enemy' as the heritage of anti-communism. Through these processes, the counter-discourse of the bereaved families has been formalized as the purification/victimization discourse. Therefore, this purification/victimization discourse is the result of public facts that victims' testimonies have been recognized socially by the efforts of TRC. In addition, it also can be understood as a sort of ‘learned memories or testimonies'.
However, the maximization of P/V discourse which emphasizes on unilateral sacrifice or damage resulted in elimination or peripheralization of dissatisfaction and resistance discourse. These mean that previous resistance discourse or resistance memory could not be included in the public realm through the institutionalization, or only be remained in peripheral sector.
The bereaved families' truth-telling behavior about their experiences and past in spite of dangers and difficulties can be considered as struggle for restoration of their world which was broken and distorted by the state violence. The testimony or truth-telling is the formation process of their counter-narririve in the public domain.
Generally, TRC was perceived as a way for coordination of the memories between victims and perpetrators. This is similar to the role of other countries' TRC that was the conduits of collective memory, or form of remembering past violence. This was also the formation process of new collective memory. In this process, TRC was served as a stage for mutual competitions and conflicts of various memories between victims and perpetrators, the persons who wanted to remember and the persons who wanted to forget. The testimonies and statements in TRC were so called the process of struggle among hostile memories. Besides, they functioned as the reformation of collective memory through the revealing of diverse and mutual conflicted memories.
The public memory as a new collective memory has been more increased by the institutionalization of memory. This is a sort of ‘institutionalized memory’ of civilian genocide. However, this institutionalization of remembering has the possibility of the pressure against the peripheral memory (so called, resistance memory) as the name of reconciliation and integration of nation. Furthermore, it also has the possibility of making memory and history from the above.

영어초록

Grobally, ‘past liquidation' has been processed since the latter half of 1980, and evaluated as an alternative for the realization of transitional justice and the achievement of democracy through the clearance of violent past. In Korea, this project has been executed by the truth reconciliation commission(TRC from below) which was established as the temporary state organization. The work for truth revealing was mainly implemented by truth-telling or storytelling through truth-gathering work, and composed of ‘statement investigation' which was combination of oral testimony and written testimony.
The purpose of statement investigation as the state documents was to verify the truth of oral testimony and written testimony by victims. During these processes, victims' experiences and telling were re-established as the public evidences for present facts or juridical judgements.
Furthermore, these statements of victims have expressed the characters of event stories which included victims' personal life and pain. These were the base of connection for victims' traumatic past to reconciliation of present and future. However, the work for statement investigation has revealed the problems that did not describe the institution, culture and everyday lives under state's violence because it extremely simplified to personal relation between state and victims or perpetrators and victims.
The story of victims shows us the power and meaning of testimony in the history of oral history. The victims stated their own experiences and pains related to the past massacre. Through these processes, their personal stories changed to public discourse by the state. Even though these are only the forms of ‘determination for truth's verification', these mean that victims' collective experiences and histories were recognized publically.
According to the statements of victims which were investigated and filed by TRC, their collective discourse can be characterized as purification and victimization. The formation of this discourse in the victims' culture was very important element for the formation of identity of the bereaved families. They could realize the political meaning of their experiences and be formed as the subjects for the counter-discourse against public discourse that defined them as impure and communized persons by dominated powers.
TRC verified the victims on the base of the statements or testimonies. Furthermore, it defined the victims as the massacred people, and got rid of the terminologies like ‘impure element', ‘the red' or ‘the enemy' as the heritage of anti-communism. Through these processes, the counter-discourse of the bereaved families has been formalized as the purification/victimization discourse. Therefore, this purification/victimization discourse is the result of public facts that victims' testimonies have been recognized socially by the efforts of TRC. In addition, it also can be understood as a sort of ‘learned memories or testimonies'.
However, the maximization of P/V discourse which emphasizes on unilateral sacrifice or damage resulted in elimination or peripheralization of dissatisfaction and resistance discourse. These mean that previous resistance discourse or resistance memory could not be included in the public realm through the institutionalization, or only be remained in peripheral sector.
The bereaved families' truth-telling behavior about their experiences and past in spite of dangers and difficulties can be considered as struggle for restoration of their world which was broken and distorted by the state violence. The testimony or truth-telling is the formation process of their counter-narririve in the public domain.
Generally, TRC was perceived as a way for coordination of the memories between victims and perpetrators. This is similar to the role of other countries' TRC that was the conduits of collective memory, or form of remembering past violence. This was also the formation process of new collective memory. In this process, TRC was served as a stage for mutual competitions and conflicts of various memories between victims and perpetrators, the persons who wanted to remember and the persons who wanted to forget. The testimonies and statements in TRC were so called the process of struggle among hostile memories. Besides, they functioned as the reformation of collective memory through the revealing of diverse and mutual conflicted memories.
The public memory as a new collective memory has been more increased by the institutionalization of memory. This is a sort of ‘institutionalized memory’ of civilian genocide. However, this institutionalization of remembering has the possibility of the pressure against the peripheral memory (so called, resistance memory) as the name of reconciliation and integration of nation. Furthermore, it also has the possibility of making memory and history from the above.

참고자료

· 없음