건강가정 보호의 법적 계보: 건강가정기본법의 ‘건강가정’ 개념에 대한 계보학적 담론분석 (Legal Genealogy of the Protection of Healthy Homes: Genealogical Discourse Analysis of the Concept of ‘Healthy Homes’ as in the Framework Act on Healthy Homes)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국가족법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 가족법연구 / 26권 / 3호 / 217 ~ 254페이지
· 저자명 : 이소영

초록

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.

영어초록

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.

참고자료

· 없음