지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
From its inception, the ROK had faced widespread, heated Korean opposition to the polity. In this situation, the ROK employed the familialization strategy, i.e. the strategy of representing/constructing the ROK as a family state. This strategy was evident, for example, in the ordinary use of kukka(國家) for the state, which is an amalgam of kuk (國, country) and ka(家, family). After this linguistic familialization, the ROK adopted Jus-Sanguinis Nationality Law which stipulated that the prerequisite for the ROK citizenship was “the same blood.” In the light of our current discussion, this legal code produced its effect that the ROK was “the house of the Korean nation.” Then, the ROK authentically constructed its house by setting up the head of the house or family. The ROK loyalists put the coronal of family headship on President Rhee, calling him as "the national father"(國父, kukpu). Again, the ROK legalized Tan’gun(檀君) as National Grandfather(國祖, kukcho), for example, by official proclamation of National Foundation Day(開天節, Kaech’?nj?l) as a national holiday. Finally, the ROK let South Korean people form their filiation with National Father and share blood lineage with National Great Grandfather, which meant that the people turned into their son and offspring. Now, the family of the ROK was completed.
This state projects of familializing the ROK rendered “an abstract, ideal appellation” of the state and the ROK in particular easily understandable and imaginable to the ordinary Koreans. More importantly, the projects helped the ROK represent itself as a genuine nation state not only in the sense that it was the house of the Korean nation but also in the sense that it patronized the Korean genealogy and history, generally speaking, the Korean culture. This greatly benefited the ROK which had been tormented with the contemporary accusation that the ROK was not a nation-state but a regional and factional polity. At the same time, it served to the ROK state project of transforming South Korean into the disciplined political subject of ROK kungmin(國民) while turning its rule into a disciplinary rule, so that ultimately it could lead the ROK to assume a modern statehood. In a word, the familialization strategy helped the ROK to assume a modern nation-statehood.
Yet, the familialization strategy never had a solid foundation nor was it well established. Its fragility was palpable in the very pillars per se, such as, National Father. The father-to-be, President Rhee, was disqualified for his un-Korean characteristics. Moreover, the head of this familial lineage, the Great Grandfather Tan' gun, was also a controversial figure and failed to inspire political consensus. Besides these problems arising from personified components of the strategy, there remained other pitfalls for the familialization strategy. The strategy was developed around the idea of an extended patriarch-oriented family. The patriarch, however, had already lost his socioeconomic, moral, and national prestige during the post-colonial turmoil. Also in the turmoil, family itself, extended one or nuclear one, lost its prestige as a referent of the familializing strategy. These thingsaltogether revealed how frail the ROK strategy was at the very moment of its articulation and also afterwards.
More serious than what we have seen so far was that the familialization and other strategies of the ROK undermined the basic assumption of the familialization strategy, threatening to invalidate the strategy. Somewhat ironically, the familialization strategy itself relegated the existing family to the “private”(私, sa) and transforming it into an object to be imbued with nationalism and patriotism, and to be led and rectified by state-centric campaigns with the result that the family lost its prestige. Moreover, other state project of representing the ROK as a genuine nation-state totally denied the fundamental assumption of the familialization strategy. For example, the project of representing the ROK as a national Self required a national Other and thus constructed the ROK’s political rivals as a national Other for the reason of ideology. (This Other-construction was practically urged by the ROK’s security interest.) Now, ideology occupied a more primary place than “blood,” which the family and the familialization strategy stood. This meant that other requirements for the above project invalidated the ideational underpinnings of the same project. It was this implosion of the state project that constituted the ‘realities’ not simply of the projects but also that the ROK faced.
This state projects of familializing the ROK rendered “an abstract, ideal appellation” of the state and the ROK in particular easily understandable and imaginable to the ordinary Koreans. More importantly, the projects helped the ROK represent itself as a genuine nation state not only in the sense that it was the house of the Korean nation but also in the sense that it patronized the Korean genealogy and history, generally speaking, the Korean culture. This greatly benefited the ROK which had been tormented with the contemporary accusation that the ROK was not a nation-state but a regional and factional polity. At the same time, it served to the ROK state project of transforming South Korean into the disciplined political subject of ROK kungmin(國民) while turning its rule into a disciplinary rule, so that ultimately it could lead the ROK to assume a modern statehood. In a word, the familialization strategy helped the ROK to assume a modern nation-statehood.
Yet, the familialization strategy never had a solid foundation nor was it well established. Its fragility was palpable in the very pillars per se, such as, National Father. The father-to-be, President Rhee, was disqualified for his un-Korean characteristics. Moreover, the head of this familial lineage, the Great Grandfather Tan' gun, was also a controversial figure and failed to inspire political consensus. Besides these problems arising from personified components of the strategy, there remained other pitfalls for the familialization strategy. The strategy was developed around the idea of an extended patriarch-oriented family. The patriarch, however, had already lost his socioeconomic, moral, and national prestige during the post-colonial turmoil. Also in the turmoil, family itself, extended one or nuclear one, lost its prestige as a referent of the familializing strategy. These thingsaltogether revealed how frail the ROK strategy was at the very moment of its articulation and also afterwards.
More serious than what we have seen so far was that the familialization and other strategies of the ROK undermined the basic assumption of the familialization strategy, threatening to invalidate the strategy. Somewhat ironically, the familialization strategy itself relegated the existing family to the “private”(私, sa) and transforming it into an object to be imbued with nationalism and patriotism, and to be led and rectified by state-centric campaigns with the result that the family lost its prestige. Moreover, other state project of representing the ROK as a genuine nation-state totally denied the fundamental assumption of the familialization strategy. For example, the project of representing the ROK as a national Self required a national Other and thus constructed the ROK’s political rivals as a national Other for the reason of ideology. (This Other-construction was practically urged by the ROK’s security interest.) Now, ideology occupied a more primary place than “blood,” which the family and the familialization strategy stood. This meant that other requirements for the above project invalidated the ideational underpinnings of the same project. It was this implosion of the state project that constituted the ‘realities’ not simply of the projects but also that the ROK faced.
#문화
#가족
#가족국가
#국조
#국부
#단군
#이승만
#프란체스카
#대한민국국민
#민족
#민족국가
#민족의 아
#민족적 타자
#표상
#확대가족
#핵가족
#안정화정책
#혈연
#사상
#배제정책
#근대국가
#내파
#Culture
#cultural state project
#family
#a family state
#familialization strategy
#national ancestor
#national father
#Tan'gun
#Syngman Rhee
#Francesca Rhee
#ROK kungmin
#the nation
#a nation-state
#national Self
#national Other
#representation
#extended family
#nuclear family
#stabilization policy
#exclusive policy
#blood lineage
#ideology
#a modern state
#implosion
목차
Ⅰ. 서론 : 국가/문화, 가족
Ⅱ. 가족국가로서의 대한민국의 형상화와 그 의미
Ⅲ. 가족국가의 균열
Ⅳ. 결론 : 민족국가화 전략의 상호 충돌과 內破
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
설립 초기 대한민국의 북한 실지화(失地化)와 조선민주주의인민공화국 타자화(他者化) (1948.8~1950.6)
사학연구
2007 .12
-
민족은 국가를 넘을 수 있는가
황해문화
2006 .06
-
한국 가족문화와 기독교
한국기독교신학논총
2005 .10
-
한국사회의 가족해체와 가족신학의 정립의 필요성
장신논단
2010 .12
-
시각문화 속에 투영된 현대 한국의 가족 이미지
인문콘텐츠
2014 .12
-
The Definitions of Individuality and ROK Kungmin (國民) in the Political Philosophy of the Incipient Republic of Korea
International Journal of Korean History
2011 .02
-
‘한국(지역)맞춤형’ 다문화가족 모형을 지향하며
철학논총
2012 .07
-
Family System
Korea Journal
1977 .05
-
가족 의사소통에 대한 구성원들의 인식 연구 : 대학생 자녀를 둔 가정을 중심으로
국어교육연구
2015 .06
-
영화〈가족의 탄생〉을 통해 나타난 가족의 다양한 형태 고찰
영화와문학치료
2012 .02
-
일본의 가족 형태에 대한 연구사적 규명
일본문화연구
2015 .01
-
한국사회의 가족문제와 『주역』의 해법
한국학논집
2011 .03
-
1945년 이후의 가족의 변화
한국학연구
1988 .10
-
가족의 회복인가 해체인가? - 카프카의 『변신』과 무라카미 류의 『최후의 가족』에 나타나는 가족문제
세계문학비교연구
2014 .01
-
가족사, 가장 오래된 새로운 역사 : 한국 근현대 가족사 연구의 현황과 과제
역사비평
2013 .08
-
한국 가족의 변화 양상에 따른 가족복지정책의 평가와 발전방향
신학과 목회
2005 .11
-
가족과 개인
철학연구
1996 .06
-
한국·일본 전통가족의 역사와 현재 : 네트워크형 가족과 동심원형 가족의 비교
한국학논집
2013 .03
-
가족체계이론을 중심으로 한 위기가족을 위한 목회적 돌봄
복음과 상담
2011 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
제1공화국 초기 이승만정부 공보선전활동의 성격
김영희
한국언론학보
2010
.06
[특집(特輯)] 미군정기 새교육운동과 국민학교 규율 연구- 일제말기 국민학교 규율과의 비교를 중심으로-
이상록
역사와현실
2000
.03
조병옥, 민족우파의 실천적 자유민주주의자
진덕규
한국사 시민강좌
2008
.08
초기 대한민국제(製) 간첩 이야기의 서사(敍事)와 흥미성(興味性) : 『韓國에서 最初로 發生한 國際間諜事件』을 중심으로
임종명
역사연구
2012
.06
일제강점기 한국철학자들의 '철학관' : 신문․잡지를 중심으로
이태우
인문연구
2010
.06
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-018332559