본회퍼와 레비나스의 타자성 연구- 다문화사회의 책임윤리를 중심으로

배경임 한국국제문화교류학회 2017 문화교류와 다문화교육 Vol.6 No.4

This study intends to analyze the otherness as one of the philosophy and ethics norms required in the multicultural era. After examining the notion of otherness in general, I examine the interpretation of Bonhoeffer 's theology and Levinas' philosophy of otherness. We examine the ontology of the other and the methodology toward others, and try to derive implications for multicultural society from the viewpoint of ethics and responsibility ethics of others. The theologian Bonhoeffer and the philosopher Levinas emphasized the commonness of the other. It is the theological proposition and the otherness of Bonhoeffer that Christians and churches must be for others as Christ has for others. The otherness of Levinas, who looks at the other's face and proposes an ethical human being who accepts the other as it is and welcomes the other, establishes a self-responsible ethics of others. The otherness and responsibility ethics of Bonhoeffer and Levinas, the other-centered view, will provide implications for coexistence and communication with others in a multicultural society. There is a lack of paradigm on how to deal with others and establish relationships in multicultural society. If the value that a multicultural society should aim for is a coexistence and communication with a multicultural person who is a socially weak person, the basis of philosophical principles and ethical responsibility that makes it possible is the other. I would like to present a paradigm for a better multicultural society by contrasting Bonniefer and Levinas with ethical issues related to otherness. 본 연구는 다문화시대에 필요한 철학과 윤리 규범 중 하나로써 타자성을 해석하고자한다. 일반적으로 통용되는 타자성에 대한 개념을 알아본 후에, 본회퍼의 신학과 레비나스의 철학 중 타자성에 대한 해석을 살펴본다. 타자에 대한 존재론과 타자를 향한 방법론을 검토하고, 타자의 윤리와 책임윤리의 관점에서 다문화사회에 대한 함의를 도출하고자 한다. 신학자 본회퍼와 철학자 레비나스는 공통적으로 타자성을 강조했다. 그리스도가 타자를 위해 사신 것처럼 그리스도인과 교회 역시 타자를 위한 존재가 되어야 한다는 것이본회퍼의 신학적 명제이자, 타자성이다. 타자의 얼굴을 들여다보며 타자를 있는 그대로받아들이고 환대하는 윤리적 인간을 제안하는 레비나스의 타자성은 자아가 타자와 맺는타자 지향적인 책임윤리를 정립하고 있다. 본회퍼와 레비나스의 타자 중심적 관점인 타자성과 책임윤리가 다문화사회에서 타자와의 공존과 소통을 위한 함의를 줄 것이다. 다문화사회에서 타자를 어떻게 대하고 관계맺어야 할지에 대한 패러다임이 부족하다. 다문화사회가 지향해야 할 가치가 사회적 약자인 다문화 타자와의 공존과 소통이라면, 그것을 가능하게 하는 철학적 원리와 윤리적책임의 기초는 타자성이다. 타자성에 관련된 윤리적 과제를 중심으로 본회퍼와 레비나스를 비교 대조하면서 보다 나은 다문화사회를 위한 하나의 패러다임을 제시하고자 한다.

타자 주인공과 영국 르네상스 비극

강석주 한국중세근세영문학회 2012 고전·르네상스 영문학 Vol.21 No.1

We can find lots of ‘Other’ characters in English Renaissance dramas including Shakespeare’s and Marlowe’s. In case of Shakespeare, most plays except English histories have settings of foreign countries such as Italia, Denmark, France, Scotland, and strange islands. Other Jacobean playwrights also set the background their plays on foreign countries. What is remarkable is that comedies and morality plays usually have the setting of London, while tragedies mostly deal with foreign societies. This implies that tragedies represent reality and include much stronger political desires. The sufferings and destructions of ‘other’ heros of tragedy usually result from the challenge and violation of established social order. It seems that the tragedies consolidate conservative perspective in the sense that destruction of the protagonist is the result of his violation of ruling order. But the behaviors of violation itself also has powerful effects on the audience. The foreign protagonist makes it possible for the playwright to express the violation and resistance more freely. We can resume easily that ‘Other’ being in the foreign background has close relationship to ‘Other’ being in England. We should notice that the main action of the tragic ‘Other’ in renaissance tragedies usually takes the form of revenge, challenge, and criticism of the prejudice against ‘Other.’ Marlowe’s Barabas takes revenge on the governor of Malta who forfeited all his property based on the religious prejudice. Shakespeare’s Othello takes the form of challenge against the white-centered society by marrying a beautiful white aristocratic girl. Webster’s Duchess of Malfi violates the ruling order of male-centered society. These dramatic forms of Other’s individual success seems to undergo the inevitable destruction as a result of punishment. But behind the surface we can find the problems of the dominant social order by showing the hypocrisy and wickedness of the oppressing group. Therefore ‘Other’ tragedies of English renaissance age becomes an effective means of revealing the subversive desire of the prejudiced and distorted ruling order. We can find lots of ‘Other’ characters in English Renaissance dramas including Shakespeare’s and Marlowe’s. In case of Shakespeare, most plays except English histories have settings of foreign countries such as Italia, Denmark, France, Scotland, and strange islands. Other Jacobean playwrights also set the background their plays on foreign countries. What is remarkable is that comedies and morality plays usually have the setting of London, while tragedies mostly deal with foreign societies. This implies that tragedies represent reality and include much stronger political desires. The sufferings and destructions of ‘other’ heros of tragedy usually result from the challenge and violation of established social order. It seems that the tragedies consolidate conservative perspective in the sense that destruction of the protagonist is the result of his violation of ruling order. But the behaviors of violation itself also has powerful effects on the audience. The foreign protagonist makes it possible for the playwright to express the violation and resistance more freely. We can resume easily that ‘Other’ being in the foreign background has close relationship to ‘Other’ being in England. We should notice that the main action of the tragic ‘Other’ in renaissance tragedies usually takes the form of revenge, challenge, and criticism of the prejudice against ‘Other.’ Marlowe’s Barabas takes revenge on the governor of Malta who forfeited all his property based on the religious prejudice. Shakespeare’s Othello takes the form of challenge against the white-centered society by marrying a beautiful white aristocratic girl. Webster’s Duchess of Malfi violates the ruling order of male-centered society. These dramatic forms of Other’s individual success seems to undergo the inevitable destruction as a result of punishment. But behind the surface we can find the problems of the dominant social order by showing the hypocrisy and wickedness of the oppressing group. Therefore ‘Other’ tragedies of English renaissance age becomes an effective means of revealing the subversive desire of the prejudiced and distorted ruling order.

타자의 타자성에 대한 심문 : 가야트리 스피박 Gayatri Spivak

정혜욱 새한영어영문학회 2004 새한영어영문학 Vol.46 No.1

Throughout the history of western culture and thought philosophy produces western subjects engendered by simultaneously including and excluding the other. The concept of the other signifies what is unfamiliar and extraneous to a dominant subjectivity, the opposite or negative against which an authority is defined. This essay will explore 'the other,' adopting the strategies of G. Spivak, and read texts of some colonial and postcolonial novels. The problem of the other is distinctive of contemporary postcolonial studies. While Edward Said raises the question as to how otherness could become a genuine oppositional force and a useable value in Orientalism, he seems to describe the otherness only as the 'non-white, non-West.' Gayatri Spivak, however, tries to displace the fixed Self/Other dichotomy in favor of an ethical response to oppressed people in the Third and Fourth World. We can distinguish two sorts of otherness in Spivak's works: a self-consolidating Other and an Other who is absolutely Other. The former is an imaginary other, a fantasy other through whom the self comes to know itself. In Jane Eyre and Robinson Crusoe, Bertha Mason and Friday appear as two representative figures of the self-consolidating Other; they are seriously distorted representations of the others as a result of the prejudiced and ideologically motivated stereotypes held by the West. The concept of the Absolute Other that Spivak appropriates from the ethics of Levinas by way of Derrida is meant to shatter the mirror of narcissism in which the self confronts its other. In J. Coetzee's Foe and Mahasweta Devi's short story, "Pterodactyl, Puran Sahay, and Pirtha," we may find the figures of the absolute Other as well as allegories of the ethical relation. Especially in Devi's short story, the scene that Puran, the protagonist, sees the cave drawing of a pterodactyl, approximates ethical response to the absolute other that cannot be represented or grasped through the modern intellectuals. By invoking the historical exploitation and oppression of the disempowered, Spivak gives us a message: an ethical affirmation which is described in terms of love. We, as a third-worldian, need to learn how to step out of the cultural essentialism and start experiencing otherness.

사르트르와 레비나스에게서 절대적 타자로서 타인

설민 한국동서철학회 2023 동서철학연구 Vol.- No.109

사르트르와 레비나스는 실천적 견지에서 상반된 타자론을 제시한다. 사르트르는 타인과의 관계의 근본 형태를 갈등과 소외로 파악하지만, 레비나스는 사랑과 평화로 파악한다. 우리는 먼저 사르트르와 레비나스의 타자론을 각각 ‘권력적인 시선’과 ‘호소하는 얼굴’을 중심으로 고찰할 것이다. 이어서 그들이 실천적 견지에서 대립각을 형성하게 되는 배경을 상이한 인간관에서 찾을 것이다. 자기정립적 의지를 근간으로 하는 사르트르적 인간, 곧 ‘대자’는 타인의 권력적인 시선에서 현상학적으로 결정적인 타자 경험을 발견한다. 반면에 인본주의적 전통을 타자 철학적 견지에서 일신하려는 레비나스에게 인간을 참으로 인간답게 해주는 유일무이한 것, 곧 호소하는 타인의 얼굴이야말로 진정한 타자 경험을 제공하는 것으로 이해된다. 다음으로 이러한 현격한 차이에도 불구하고 사르트르와 레비나스는 타인을 절대적 타자로 파악한다는 이제껏 충분히 주목되지 못한 사실을 환기할 것이다. 특히 그들에게 절대적 타자로서 타인은 (1) 여느 대상과 달리 인식 가능성을 초월하며, (2) 세계의 저편에 위치하고, (3) 주체를 수동적인 처지로 몰아세운다. Sartre and Levinas present conflicting theories of the other: Sartre understands the relationship with others as conflict and alienation, but Levinas understands it as love and peace. We will first examine their theories of the other, focusing on the ‘powerful gaze' and 'appealing face' respectively. Next, we will trace the background in which they practically formed different views of the other to different views of human beings. Sartrean human being based on self-establishing will, that is, the 'for-itself' discovers the phenomenologically decisive experience of the other in the powerful gaze of the other. On the other hand, for Levinas, who is trying to renew the humanistic tradition from the standpoint of the philosophy of the other, what makes a human truly human is the appeal of the other's face, which is understood to provide a true experience of the other. At last, we will recall the hitherto unnoticed fact that, in spite of this stark difference, they perceive others as the absolute other in common. For them, as an absolute other, the other person (1) transcends the possibility of recognizing unlike other objects, (2) is located beyond the world, and (3) drives the subject to a passive mode of being.

타인에 대한 Merleau-Ponty 몸 현상학의 분석과 교수자 학습자 관계의 윤리교육적 가능성

서상문(Seo, Sang-Moon) 한국교육철학회 2009 교육철학 Vol.39 No.-

This study which is based on the body phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty and is applied in the educational phenomenon has a turning point. Because, finding out the phenomenological implications of the other's body in the educational events is a kind of new horizon of the educational research which has hidden until now. It also has a deep relation with a new trial that the postmodern idea of 'difference' is characterized and configured concretely in the educational fields. In the viewpoint of modern education, the learner and teacher as not a subject but 'the other' are suppressed by the ontological distortion, though they are the same beings whether a subject or 'the other'. Merleau-Ponty insists that the other is not a part or a portion of the scientific world which is objectified by the subject but the prospect of the world which is before me and the two faces of the existential phenomenon which is constructed with my body. The trace of existential anonymity that is included in my body and the other's body integrates them through the ontological association of body. Here, the idea of intersubjectivity in Merleau-Ponty is an alternative that can dissolve the ontological conflict and fundamental problem in education. According to the phenomenon analysis of body in Merleau-Ponty, the body is a very unique locus of phenomenological world. There is the crucial distortion phenomenon between subject and object in the teaching-learning process. However, more serious problem is the relationship between subject and the other. The subjectivity of the other is exposed to me through his/her physical intention, that is the body, for the first time, and his/her possibility for existence also begin from this. What I and the other make a phenomenological correspondence and harmony like this is the intersubjective meaning, and it is not different from the teaching-learning process in the true sense. Finally, the ethic education of solitude and communication which is proposed by the body phenomenology transferred the original possibility of contact with the other from the pure philosophical study to the discussion of moral education. The existential endeavor of constructing a educational relationship with the other and approaching to him/her continuously makes a good model in itself. This basis of phenomenology is a spout of the ethical practice and norm. The ethic education of solitude and communication is a practical calling that requires to be not a subject which going to govern each other, but 'the other' which going to understand and embrace each other.

The Ethics of the Othering in the Era of Transnationalism

김영민 한국영어영문학회 2009 영어 영문학 Vol.55 No.6

The space of the Other assumes the space of Barthes’s multiplicity and Foucault’s transdiscursive position, and, therefore, aims at becoming the locus in which the speaking subject and the hearing subjects are supposed to communicate and constitute as if they were situated in the pscychoanalytic session. However, the wall of untranslatibility across language and cultures still exist there in the space of the Other in the form of trauma and aggressivity, as Lacan demonstrate perceptively through the reading of Kant avec Sade. In short, Lacan regards the moral commandment (to love one’s neighbor as oneself) as the obstacle in the Freud’s myth of transgression, and interprets this in terms of the emergence of the Other. Freud understands that the aggressivity in the subject’s own heart was inherent in all humans, and that one’s neighbor would be evil. Lacan goes beyond Freud and articulates that the aggressivity in the imaginary relation with the Other in the mirror stage insures that an evil inheres in the very being of humanity. A global phenomenon of the diasporic identities and hybridity, the phenomenon which has been represented by the complicated intermixture of terms which span from diaspora, postcolonialism, postnationalism. and transnationalism can be clarified, if they are put in the context of the ethics of Othering or becoming the Other. The ethics of Othering presupposes the situation in which the diasporic subjects encounter the lack of the cross-cultural negotiation and communication. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how the poetics of Other and the logic of the ethics of Othering can explain the postmodern or transmodern world which has become deterritorialized, diasporic, and transnational as well as how one can encounter the results of diasporic and postcolonial double consciousness, a consciousness which is a discursive category for multicultural or cross-cultural, focusing on the concept of liminality/interstitiality. The space of the Other assumes the space of Barthes’s multiplicity and Foucault’s transdiscursive position, and, therefore, aims at becoming the locus in which the speaking subject and the hearing subjects are supposed to communicate and constitute as if they were situated in the pscychoanalytic session. However, the wall of untranslatibility across language and cultures still exist there in the space of the Other in the form of trauma and aggressivity, as Lacan demonstrate perceptively through the reading of Kant avec Sade. In short, Lacan regards the moral commandment (to love one’s neighbor as oneself) as the obstacle in the Freud’s myth of transgression, and interprets this in terms of the emergence of the Other. Freud understands that the aggressivity in the subject’s own heart was inherent in all humans, and that one’s neighbor would be evil. Lacan goes beyond Freud and articulates that the aggressivity in the imaginary relation with the Other in the mirror stage insures that an evil inheres in the very being of humanity. A global phenomenon of the diasporic identities and hybridity, the phenomenon which has been represented by the complicated intermixture of terms which span from diaspora, postcolonialism, postnationalism. and transnationalism can be clarified, if they are put in the context of the ethics of Othering or becoming the Other. The ethics of Othering presupposes the situation in which the diasporic subjects encounter the lack of the cross-cultural negotiation and communication. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how the poetics of Other and the logic of the ethics of Othering can explain the postmodern or transmodern world which has become deterritorialized, diasporic, and transnational as well as how one can encounter the results of diasporic and postcolonial double consciousness, a consciousness which is a discursive category for multicultural or cross-cultural, focusing on the concept of liminality/interstitiality.

타자에 대한 책임의 근거 ― 레비나스의 철학을 예로 하여 ―

양천수,최샘 한국법철학회 2020 법철학연구 Vol.23 No.1

How can we normally justify our responsibility for the Other? This article addresses this question. To figure out this problem, this article draws on the responsibility theory of Levinas, famous for his philosophy of the Other. So far, the theory of responsibility has demonstrated the responsibility for the Other based mainly on God, subject, and procedure. Among them, the theory of responsibility based on the subject has occupied the central position. In this theory of responsibility, the Other is nothing but the object. Levinas, on the other hand, makes a new philosophical attempt. It is to derive infinite responsibility for the Other from the Other himself who is distinct from me. To this end, Levinas takes metaphysics anew, which has now been criticized by strict positivism. In addition, ethics is set as the “first philosophy.” On this basis, Levinas develops a creative philosophy of the Other and theory of responsibility. The Other highlighted by Levinas is a concrete existents, not an abstract existence. The Other elicits my immediate response by showing me a face while being in proximity relationship with me. This establishes my responsibility for the Other. This duty paradoxically gives me permission for freedom. At the same time, facing the Other and taking responsibility for the Other completes my true subjectivity. This relationship between me and the other extends to third party, contributing to the formation of consciousness, reason, language, law and institution. Levinas’ philosophy of the Other not only has theoretical significance in various aspects, but also makes productive contributions in the area of law. However, it needs to be observed and investigated minutely whether Levinas’ theory of responsibility reliant on metaphysics is actually operational. 우리는 타자에 대한 책임을 어떻게 규범적으로 정당화할 수 있을까? 이 글은 이러한 물음을 다룬다. 이 문제를 풀어가기 위해 이 글은 타자철학으로 유명한 레비나스의 책임이론을 끌어들인다. 지금까지 책임이론은 주로 신, 주체, 절차에 의지하여 타자에 대한 책임을 논증하였다. 그중에서도 주체에 근거를 두는 책임이론이 중심적인 자리를 차지하였다. 이러한 책임이론에서 보면, 타자는 객체 또는 대상에 불과할 뿐이다. 이에 반해 레비나스는 새로운 철학적 시도를 한다. 나와 구별되는 타자 그 자체로부터 타자에 대한 무한한 책임을 도출하는 것이다. 이를 위해 레비나스는 이제는 엄격한 실증주의에 의해 비판대상으로 전락한 형이상학을 새롭게 받아들인다. 더불어 윤리학을 ‘제1철학’으로 설정한다. 이러한 토대 위에서 레비나스는 독창적인 타자철학 및 책임을 전개한다. 레비나스가 강조하는 타자는 추상적인 존재가 아닌 구체적인 존재자이다. 이러한 타자는 나와 근접관계에 있으면서 나에게 얼굴을 보여줌으로써 나의 즉각적인 반응을 이끌어낸다. 이를 통해 타자에 대한 나의 책임이 성립한다. 이러한 의무는 역설적으로 나에게 자유를 허락한다. 동시에 타자와 대면하고 타자에 책임을 갖게 되면서 진정한 나의 주체성이 완성된다. 이러한 나와 타자의 관계는 제3자로 확장되어 의식과 이성, 언어, 법과 제도가 형성되는 데 기여한다. 이러한 레비나스의 타자철학은 다양한 측면에서 이론적 의의가 있을 뿐만 아니라 법 영역에서도 생산적인 기여를 한다. 그러나 형이상학에 기대고 있는 레비나스의 책임이론이 실제로도 작동 가능한 것인지는 좀 더 면밀하게 관찰하고 검토할 필요가 있다.

타자의 마음의 이해, 타문화의 이해

하홍규 계명대학교 국제학연구소 2019 국제학논총 Vol.30 No.-

This essay resolves the problem of other minds through the perspicuous understanding of ‘understanding,’ on the basis of which it goes on to resolve the problem of other cultures. First of all, the problem of other minds derives from taking the self-understanding as the prototype of other types of understanding based on the Cartesian dualism. Wittgenstein’s grammatical investigation illuminates that the mystified use of language generates the problem of other minds, and stresses that in order to understand the meaning of others’ actions we do not need to look into the minds of others but to observe the intersubjective rules and the contexts that surround others’ actions. The problem of other cultures as well does not occur because we cannot have a direct access to the minds of people we try to understand. The understanding of other cultures is a difficult task but it is not the logical impossibility. The difficulty originates from the fact that “we cannot find our feet with them.” But if we can learn their forms of life we can understand their cultural rules considerably(the importance of teaching link). The problem of other cultures is not the kind of problem that should be presumed before attempting to understand. 이 글은 이해에 대한 명료한 이해를 통해 타자의 마음의 문제를 해결하고, 이를 토대로 타문화의 문제를 해결하는데 목적이 있다. 먼저 타자의 마음의 문제는 심신(心身) 이원론적 인간 개념의 바탕 위에 자기-이해를 다른 유형의 이해의 원형으로 삼는데서 비롯된다. 비트겐슈타인의 문법적 탐구는 타자의 마음의 문제가 언어의 신비화된 사용에서 비롯됨을 밝혀주며, 타자의 행위의 의미를 이해하기 위해 타자의 마음을 들여다 보는 것이 아니라, 상호주관적 규칙과 맥락을 보아야 함을 강조한다. 타문화의 문제 역시도 우리가 타문화에 참여자로서 직접적인 접근을 할 수 없기 때문에 발생하는 것이 아니다. 타문화의 이해는 어려운 작업이기는 하나, 그 어려움은 타문화가 우리에게 숨겨진 것이어서가 아니라, 그들의 삶의 형식을 공유하고 있지 않는데서 비롯된다. 그러나 그 삶의 형식을 배울 수 있다면 우리는 그들 문화의 규칙을 상당히 이해할 수 있다. 타문화의 문제는 이해의 시도전에 전제될 수 있는 본질적인 것이 아니다

Gratitude to Other’s Support and the Intent to Purchase the Other-gift

CHEN, FEI(진비),ZHENYAO LIAO(료진요),Nak Hwan Choi(최낙환) 한국산업경제학회 2021 산업경제연구 Vol.34 No.1

이 연구는 타인의 도움에 대한 감사가 타인의 선물구매의도에 미치는 영향에서 답례적 타인선물 동기와 타인선물구매에서 느끼는 기쁨의 매개역할의 탐색에 목적을 두었다. 과거 연구들을 탐색하여 가설을 개발하고 설문지를 작성하여 배포하고 279부의 회수된 설문지 자료로 가설을 검증하고, 다음의 결과를 도출하였다. 첫째, 타인의 도움에 대한 감사가 답례적 타인선물 동기와 타인선물의 구매를 위한 지출에서 느끼는 기쁨에 긍정적인 영향을 주었다. 둘째, 답례적 타인선물 동기가 타인선물을 위한 구매지출에서 느끼는 기쁨에 긍정적인 영향을 주었다. 셋째, 그 기쁨이 타인의 선물구매의도에 긍정적인영향을 주었다. 마케터는 타인의 도움에 대한 감사에 초점을 두고 답례적 선물동기와 선물구매지출에서 느끼는 기쁨을 유도할 수 있는 방안에 주의해야 한다. This article aimed at examining the mediation role of reciprocal other-gift motivation and pleasure in spending for other-gift in the effect of gratitude to other’s support on the intent to purchase the other-gift. 279 questionnaire data used to verify hypotheses showed the following results. First, consumers’ gratitude to other’s support positively influences on the reciprocal other-gift motivation, the pleasure in spending for the other-gift and the intent to purchase the other-gift. Second, the reciprocal other-gift motivation has positive effect on the pleasure in spending for the other-gift. Third, the pleasure in spending for other-gift positively influences on the intent to purchase the other-gift. Marketers should give attention to inducing the reciprocal motivation and the pleasure in purchasing their products as the other-gift by focusing on the consumer’s gratitude towards other’s support.

Paradox of the Other : Focusing on North Korean Defector Novels

Kim, Mi-Hyun Ewha Institute for the Humanities, Ewha Womans Uni 2010 탈경계인문학 Vol.2 No.-

The discourse about ‘the other’ focuses on the relationship between the subject and the other. More specifically, it mainly discusses the relationship from the subject’s point of view and ignores that of the other. Therefore, there isn’t enough discourse about how the other sees themselves or even another other. Baridaegi (바리데기) and Empire of Light (빛의 제국), however, show the paradox of the other through the very Korean other: North Korean defectors. In these novels, the other plays a role for the subject to overcome the limitations of being the subject. However, at the same time, the other is an ambivalent and contradictory one who is dissociated and lacking. Both of these others could be dangerous; the transcendental other who has ultimate motherhood (Baridaegi), and the cynical other who rationalizes his position as a scapegoat under oppressive laws (Empire of Light). This is because it could be possible to face up to the other as the other itself, only if we accept the blame that the more the maximization of the other’s positivity is, the stronger the other’s fantasy of itself is.