‘헤게모니 균열’의 문제설정에서 본 현대한국 정치변동의 재해석: 그람시의 헤게모니론의 재해석에 기초하여 (Re-analysis of the contemporary political change in Korea from the perspective of the ‘fissure of hegemony’―based on the re-interpretation of the A. Gramsci’s theory of hegemony)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 경상국립대학교 사회과학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 마르크스주의 연구 / 5권 / 1호 / 90 ~ 133페이지
· 저자명 : 조희연

초록

이 글은 그람시의 헤게모니에 대한 논의를 출발점으로 하여 그것을 재구성하는 방식으로 ‘헤게모니 균열’의 분석틀을 설정했다. 그람시의 논의를 확장하게 되면, 헤게모니의 구성적 과정은 세 가지로 정식화할 수 있다. 즉 지배적 집단의 이해와 지향이 보편화되는 과정, 지배적 집단이 호명하는 집단성이 종속적 집단의 정체성을 규정해가는 집단화의 과정, 이러한 보편화와 집단화를 근거짓는 경제적 이해관계의 접합과정이 바로 그것이다. 그런데 이 글이 독창적으로 주목하는 것은, 헤게모니는 영속적인 과정이 아니라 변화하는 유동적 과정이라는 점, 그래서 헤게모니의 구성적 과정과 동일한 세 가지 차원에서 균열이 나타나게 된다는 것이다. 즉 종속적 집단과 지배적 집단의 요구와 지향의 괴리가 부각되게 되는 ‘탈보편화과정’, 지배집단이 구성한 집단적 정체성에 대한 종속집단의 귀속이 균열되는 ‘탈집단화과정’, 그리고 물적 조건의 변화에 따라 지배집단과 종속집단의 이해관계의 균열이 현재화되는 과정 등이다. 헤게모니의 형성이 ‘동일성의 정치학’이 작동하게 되는 것이라고 한다면, 헤게모니의 균열은 ‘차이의 정치학’이 작동하게 됨을 의미한다.
이런 논의 위에서 현대 한국의 정치변동을 개발독재의 헤게모니화 과정 및 그것의 균열과정, 87년 6월 민주항쟁 이후의 수동혁명적 민주화과정에서 시민사회의 출현과 민주개혁을 둘러싼 시민운동의 구성적 출현, 수동혁명적 과정의 균열에 대응하는 시민운동의 확대와 다양화, 97년 반독재 민주정부의 출현 이후 반독재 민주주의의 헤게모니의 균열과정을 살펴보고자 했다.

영어초록

This paper starts with the A. Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and reconstructs it to cover the ‘fissure of hegemony’ or crisis of hegemony. If we base ourselves on the Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and expand it, we can reformulate the process of hegemony formation as three different dimensions. The first dimension is the process of universalization, in which the interest and orientation of the dominant group are generalized to accepted by the subordinate group as those of their own. The second is the process of collectivitization, in which the collective identity(e.g. nation) called by the dominant group are accepted by the subordinate group with the result to define the collective identity of the latter. The third is the process of convergence of different economic interests of the dominant and subordinate groups. For example, in the earl stage of economic modernization process driven by the bourgeoisie, the proletarian people found their economic interest identified with that of the bourgeoisie. Beyond this discussion, this paper pay a new attention to the crisis or fissure of the hegemony, which means that the hegemony is not a stable one but a very fluid one, necessarily exposed to its crisis.
This kind of fissure or crisis occurs on the same 3 dimensions. On the first dimension, there happens the process of de-universalization, in which the conflict and tension between the interests and orientations of the dominant and subordinate groups are perceived and brought to the fore. The subordinate group members do not accept the dominant discourse any more. On the second dimension, there happens the process of de-collectivitization, in which the commitment of the people of the subordinate group to the dominant collective identity is weakened. In addition, on the third dimension, the commonness of the interests of the dominant and subordinate groups gets smaller in the material change. The contradiction between them are manifested and conflict between them becomes more rampant. This means that, while the politics of the sameness works in the process of hegemony formation, the politics of difference works in the process of hegemony fissure or crisis.
Based on this kind of theoretical discussion, this paper goes on to analyze how the developmentalist hegemony has been formed under the developmental dictatorship in the 1960s and 1970s, and how such hegemony came to crisis in the late 1970s and 1980s. Confronted with the crisis of breakdown of the military dictatorship, the dictatorial government accepted the popular demand for democracy in the form of June 29 Declaration, by the help of which the anti-dictatorial democracy became a new hegemonic spirit, or the world view in the broader sense. Under the background of such a change, it was analyzed how the new citizen who shares the common interest and orientation in enhancing the transparency, democratic reform of the dictatorship legacy and construction of the democratic system, as the democratization of the passive revolution type proceeds. Thereafter, this paper goes on to analyzed how the hegemony of the anti-dictatorial democracy group has been disintegrated, after the emergence of the anti-dictatorship government in which some forces f the former anti-dictatorial opposition group keeps the state power. In concrete, the democracy discourse as perceived hegemonic began to be disintegrated. People began to say that democracy, transparency, and morality does not feed people. In addition, the hegemonic collective identity of the citizen began to be weakened, because the citizen has been fragmented by the so-called neo-liberal globalization into e.g. regular and irregular workers or Korean workers and migrant workers as excluded by ethnicity. Finally, Because it seemed to the ordinary people that the support of anti-dictatorial democratic government does not guarantee their economic interests further, most of them began to support the neo-conservative government, defecting from the support of it. It meant that the convergence of economic interest among ordinary citizens in the stage of the democratic reform after 1987 has come to disintegration. In this analysis, the hegemony is the job of the relation between social and political groups in conflict and hegemony implies the potential of fissure and crisis in it.

참고자료

· 없음