도시공동체의 친밀성과 공공성 (Intimacy and Publicness in Urban Communities)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서울대학교 철학사상연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 철학사상 / 49호 / 311 ~ 340페이지
· 저자명 : 정성훈

초록

최근 한국에서는 서울시의 마을공동체 만들기 사업, 정부의 협동조합기본법 제정 등 도시공동체의 공공성을 인정하는 것으로 보이는 지원 사업들이 늘어나고 있다. 이것은 공공성을 더 이상 관공성으로 간주하지 않는 인식 전환에 따른 것으로 보인다. 이 글은 이러한 인식 전환에 기여한 하버마스의 공론장 이론을 비판적으로 검토한 후 도시공동체 활성화를 위해서는 공공성과 함께 친밀성을 동시에 고려해야 함을 주장한다. 고대의 폴리스/오이코스 구별을 상기시킴으로써 공/사 구별의 지형 변화에 영향을 미친 아렌트의 성과를 이어받으면서도 하버마스는 근대의 친밀 영역으로부터 새로운 공공 영역이 떠올랐다는 점에 주목했다. 하지만 19세기 말 이후 부르주아 공론장의 위축 과정을 진단하면서 하버마스는 친밀 영역의 재편 가능성과 문예적 공론장의 기능적 등가물에 대한 모색을 하지 않는다. 필자는 친밀 관계들에 기초한 도시공동체가 초보적 공론장들의 형성에 기여하고 있다는 점을 밝히고 있다. 그리고 이를 기초로 도시공동체에 대한 관의 지원 정책이 유의해야 할 지점들 몇 가지를 밝히며 글을 마무리하였다.

영어초록

A recent trend of urban policies in Korea is promoting urban (small) communities. By example, launching "Community-Building Program" of the Seoul Metropolitan Government(Mar. 2012) and enforcing "Basic Law of Cooperatives"(Dec. 2012). This trend could be regarded as recognizing the publicness of urban communities. It results from the conceptual change of the public(公共), which is not equated with the official(官公). The philosophical theory of the public would be a factor of bringing about this change. In regard to the concept of the public, Hannah Arendt and Jürgen Habermas are two of the most influential theorists in Korea.
In respect of understanding publicness of 'modern' society, Habermas' theory of public sphere(Öffentlichkeit) is more appropriate than Arendt's. He shows that modern bourgeois public sphere has been risen from intimate sphere. Nevertheless, his pessimist perspective of post-bourgeois(since late 19th century) public sphere in <Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit> and his rationalistic conception of life-world(Lebenswelt) in <Theorie des kommunikative Handelns> have two weak points.
In his theory,(a) the functional equivalent of literal public sphere in post-bourgeois epoch is absent.
In 18th century, literal public sphere was the bridge between intimate sphere and political public sphere. The functional equivalent suggested by Habermas in 1990s is civil society, but it is far from intimate relations.
(b) The alternative vision of intimate sphere after romantic love is absent.
Habermas identifies intimate sphere with families, and devaluates the meaning of neighborhood relations. Therefore, he can not see the possibility of the alternative intimate communities.
I see the possibility of alternative intimate sphere in Korean new urban communities, by example, "Sungmisan community"(Mapo-Gu, Seoul), "Jaeminan community"(Gangbuk-Gu, Seoul). The seeds of these communities are "communal childcare cooperatives"(共同育兒 協同組合) established in mid-1990s. The need of childcare assembled the members of these cooperatives, and the growth of the intimacy within the members developed the more kinds of cooperatives. The expanded communities gradually have participated in public affairs, and in this participation women have been grown to the autonomous persons.
I think that urban communities based on intimate relations are some of the functional equivalents of literal public sphere in 18th century. Most of urban communities can not start with the public concerns. Closed intimate communities gradually would be open and seek public value. Therefore, urban policies have to consider two values of urban communities simultaneously. One is intimacy, and another is publicness. One-sided emphasis on publicness might destroy the potential of intimate communities.
A recent trend of urban policies in Korea has a risk of weakening intimacy. One example is social cooperatives. "Social Cooperatives" by the basic law of cooperatives is distinguished from (general) cooperatives. From establish step, social cooperatives are forced to do public service. Another example is directly-funding for urban communities. The dependence on funding by government might have destructive effects on intimate relations.

참고자료

· 없음