기억의 정치와스토리텔링 통일독일 수도 베를린의 발명 -도시공간의 형성과 기억의 도구화에 관하여-

전진성 ( Jin Sung Chun ) 대구사학회 2012 대구사학 Vol.106 No.-

Inventing the Capital of the reunified Germany, Berlin -The formation of urban space and the instrumentalization of memory- Chun, Jin-sung [Abstract] A Space is to be invented by the process of differentiating itself from other spaces. Berlin, the Capital of the reunified Germany, is the arena of contesting identities, while the new Berlin`s city planners have appealed to alleged lost tradition. What distinguishes Berlin from other western metropolises is her extreme imbalance between remembering and forgetting, so that Berlin never comes to a collective memory in accord and only turns out to be lieux de memoire, the artificially created sites of memory. Although the so-called Berlin Republic has staked much of her administration on a policy of national unity, her most representative lieux de memoire such as Potsdamer Platz, the upcoming Berlin City Palace, and Reichstag cannot hide the unmasterable disparity between outward self-display and conflict at home, between selective memory and traumatic disturbances. This issue is getting more acute in the Holocaust memorial sites which have much more flourished since the reunification. Whereas the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in the heart of Berlin is facing the dangers of using German people`s mourning for the victims for claiming their own moral superiority, the Topography of Terror has the merit of galvanizing the campaign against forgetting historical responsibility of the so-called perpetrator nation. So the case of Berlin helps to understand that modern city holds diverse identities, and therefore that the domination of a particular memory is always accompanied by the repression of other memories.

한국의 기념비 문화에 끼친 독일 반(反)기념비의 영향 : 기념비적 역사에서 민주적 기억문화로

전진성(Jin-Sung Chun) 한국독일사학회 2020 독일연구 Vol.- No.44

이 글은 독일에서 연원한 반기념비가 한국사회 기억문화의 지형에 일으키고 있는 변화상을 소개하고 그 성격을 규명한다. 소위 기념비적 역사를 가장 전형적으로 체현하는 매체인 기념비의 매체적 한계를 극복하기 위한 대안으로 등장한 반기념비는 과거의 특정한 사건이나 사실보다는 기억하는 행위 그 자체를 재현하는 기념비다. 민족적 영광이 아니라 오히려 죄업을 기억하는 ‘경고비석’이라는 특유의 기념비 유형을 발전시킨 독일 현지에서도 기념비가 지닌 특유의 물화 를 극복하기 힘들다는 점은 베를린 중심부에 자리잡은 신위병소의 사례에서 드러난다. 국내의 <평화의 소녀상>과 <베트남 피에타>도 <4월 학생혁명 기념탑>과 <수호자상>으로 대표되는 한국의 파시즘적 기념비 문화를 넘어서고는 있지만 평화의 통속적 알레고리를 넘어서지 못한다. 한국형 반기념비의 맹아적 형태인 제주 4 · 3 평화기념관의 백비, 건축가 조성룡이 광주의 콜박스 사거리에 설치한 <기억의 현재>, 그리고 설치미술가 원지호의 <미리 지어진 전쟁기념물>은 보다 민주적인 기억문화의 장을 열고 있다. This article deals with the dynamic changes in the Korean monument culture and their historical significance. The German countermonument arising from the critical awareness of the monument’s inherent monumentalilty is the catalyst for that change. As the case of the Neue Wache in the heart of Berlin proves, a monument can hardly escape the danger of reification, even if it is not intended to glorify the national past. It seems much more difficult to imagine a non-reified monument in the Republic of Korea, having a strong tradition of fascist monuments like the April Student Revolution Memorial Tower and Guardian statue in the April 19th National Cemetery. Even pacifist monuments like Girl of Peace cannot avoid being reified with its abstract and nearly religious implications such as suffering and resurrection. In recent years, however, the new Korean monuments that were directly and indirectly influenced by the German countermonument open the horizon. Whereas the Unnamed Monument at the Jeju 4·3 Peace Memorial Hall reflects the unfinished political conflicts resulting from the violent history of the anti-communist wars in Korea, Thresholds for Intimate Recollections designed by senior Korean architect Joh Sung-Yong and Prepared War Memorial by young installation artist Won Jiho open a new space for a more democratic and universal memory culture. These fresh monuments in Korea are designed to rediscover experiences and memories that cannot be reduced to an unilateral, complacent narrative and thereby to reappropriate them as future assets. That is the very legacy of the German countermonuments.

과거청산에 대한 이론적 탐구 - 이해와 치유의 (불)가능성을 중심으로

전진성(Jin-Sung Chun) 역사비평사 2021 역사비평 Vol.- No.135

The Korean term “liquidation of the past” is itself a symptom of historical trauma. It requires clarification and theoretical grounding at a more fundamental level. Judicial judgments about the past, trying to get rid of the ghosts of the past, are supposed to clearly judge the truth and the lie, but the truth is still gray, and the position of the victim and the perpetrator is always relative. Therefore, the historical judgment is requested. Historians do not immediately determine the facts of the past as truth, but rather wander between facts and facts, discovering the strata of meaning buried in the gap. Understanding and healing the deep pain created by modern Korean history is not small task. The crime of the perpetrator and the suffering of the victim generally intersect at the limit of understanding, and both sides suffer from a fragmentation of memory. Complete recovery from the painful past is nearly impossible. One narrow passage to access historical truth is the contradictory and divided memories. Trauma is a wounded memory that is not neatly eliminated or tamed, but is repeatedly summoned to a place of endless questioning and reflection. Representing trauma unreified requires a future-oriented strategy based on historical judgment. “Historical representation” as a “political representation” is not just designed to neatly arrange human experiences, but to revitalize unrealized dreams and to open up the possibilities for the future. In particular, rediscovering the “human rights” of minorities as a repository of political imagination beyond the confines of nation-state is a way to respond to the voices of the deceased and to the historical truth.

기억의 정치학을 넘어 기억의 문화사로

전진성(Chun Jin-Sung) 역사비평사 2006 역사비평 Vol.- No.76

어떻게 부담스런 과거와 대면할 것인가?

전진성(Jin Sung Chun) 한국독일사학회 2003 독일연구 Vol.- No.6

Die vorliegende Abhandlung geht von einer Infragestellung der gängigen koreanischen Geschichtskultur aus, die sich durch die Idee der sogenannten “Schadenabwicklung der Vergangenheit” auszeichnet. Diese für südkoreanische Verhältnisse signifikante Ideenvorgabe ergab sich aus den unbewältigten Erben der japanischen Kolonialherrschaft. Sie nimmt zwar eine Enthüllung der bisher verschleierten “Wahrheit” in Aussicht, zieht aber letztlich einem weiteren Umgang mit der Vergangenheit feste Schranken. Wohlverstanden, die Vergangenheit ist, wie belastet auch immer, nicht fertig abzurechnen, sondern unablässig aufzuarbeiten. Hierbei liefert der sich in der alten Bundesrepublik herausgebildete Begriff der “Vergangenheitsbewaltigung” ein lehrreiches Vorbild, obwohl er spezifisch auf die NS-Vergangenheit angelegt war. Er erweist sich namlich als ein multikomplexes Handlungsgeflecht, jeder teil dessen sich als inkommensurabel bekundet: Verdrängung, strafliches Verfahren, Rehabilitierung, Entschädigung und letztlich die “Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit” im Sinne von Theodor Adorno. Diese letzte Option ist zumal in den koreanischen Verhältnissen von groβem Belang, denn es fehlt hierzulande die Einsicht, daβ sowohl Schuld als auch Opfer immer wieder durch ein neues politisches, künstlerisches und wissenschftliches Medium in Erinnerung gebracht werden und damit sich nachhaltig zur Konstitution von Identität unserer Gesellschaft beitragen sollen. Ansonsten würde die an sich stumme Vergangenheit leicht politischer Instrumentalisierung aussetzt. Wie die Begriffsgeschichte der “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” in der alten Bundesrepublik belehrt, wird die Last der Vergangenheit mit Hilfe mühseliger Aufarbeitung langsam “bewaltigt” und letzten Endes kann ihr negatives Erbe unverkennbar in eine positives Identitätsvorgabe umgewandelt werden.

역사와 기억 - 기억의 터 에 대한 최근 독일에서의 논의

전진성(Jin Sung Chun) 한국서양사학회 2002 西洋史論 Vol.0 No.72

N/A

특집논문 : 이와쿠라사절단과 서양도시 체험 ; 비스마르크의 환대: 『미구회람실기』에 나타나는 근대 일본의 자기모색과 프로이센

전진성 ( Jin Sung Chun ) 고려대학교 역사연구소(구 역사학연구회) 2013 사총 Vol.80 No.-

“The Iwakura embassy, 1871-73” can be read as a sort of the Japanese grammar book aiming at mastering the foreign language of the name of “modern Western civilization,” almost all aspects of which, like technologies, economical principles, social institutions, positive laws, artistic modes, geographical knowledges, and each national histories, are extensively and intensively recorded in these volumes. What this magnum opus also documents, is, more significantly, the discontinuous processes, in which modern Japan designed her peculiar “imaginative geography” of the modern world, and in which her own subjectivity and status were granted. This paper is based on the hypothesis that the crucial significance of “The Iwakura embassy, 1871-73” for the political development of future Japan was the rediscovery of Prussia, not of England, much less of France. The three main points help to elucidate the position. First, the description of Prussia in the third volume is distinguished by its well-poised, quite affective approach, rather than by an over-and-underestimation. Such an attitude gives an indication of an unbashful gaze into other`s eyes, a more positive response to the other`s hospitality. Second, in regard to the discursive formation Prussia takes an intermediate position in the global imaginative geography, a focal point in which modern Japan managed to fix her own vista and to objectify modern Western civilization. Third, the Prussian imagery of Japan is here only revealed through the Japanese gaze and so the both sides are supposed to have a contrapuntal relationship. In this respect, “Prussia” can be defined as a discursive formation which gave birth to the modern Japanese subjectivity and simultaneously brought about her structural deficiency leading to Japan`s self-imposition on the East Asia, after all. These three points in all confirm that the Japanese “German turn” was prefigured by the political aspirations of the Iwakura mission.

우울에서 애도로 : 안젤름 키퍼의 작품에 나타나는 역사적 트라우마

전진성(Chun Jin-sung) 현대미술사학회 2007 현대미술사연구 Vol.22 No.-

Anselm Kiefer is acknowledged as one of the most distinguished and polemical German artist since the Second World War. Huge catalogues of his artworks place themselves in the context of the peculiar memory culture of Germany which was primarily shaped by traumatic war experiences and political catastrophe. Originating from the psychoanalytical theories, this paper argues that Kiefer’s artworks both functioned as a symptom and a remedy of the historical trauma. Kiefer, as a postwar artist, explored the German image-reservoir and attempted to monumentalize it in his own fashion. Such provocation resulted in opening the Pandora’s box of postwar German psyche, which was familiar with repressing its traumatic past and also impregnated with the process of self-dissociation. Kiefer’s dealing of fascist icons is not necessarily linked to his preoccupation with fascism but should be interpreted as a compulsion to repeat the trauma. His art-world specifically represents an artist’s pendulum that swings between “acting-out” and self-reflection, where the term “aesthetics of the sublime” symbolizes the swing. The absolute negativity in Kiefer’s works was intended to represent the unpresentable trauma, since the aesthetics of the sublime refuses any “sublimation” of irredeemable loss and any facile replacement of “melancholy” by the “mourning.” A true mourning, in the eyes of Kiefer, never precludes an earnest confrontation with the melancholy, but rather presupposes it. This paper contrived to follow his artistic trajectory, which circulates from melancholy to mourning. From the rude performances over the monumental melancholy to the selfdistancing mourning works, Kiefer’s art-world figured out a way to represent and forget the intractable trauma. Through the multi-medial uses and misuses of the hybrid historical images, Kiefer finally reaches the “sublime objects” in the sense of Lacan and Zizek which tends to represent the trauma in the form of a “thing(das Ding),” whose “gaze” plays a role in awakening spectator’s self and his/her traumatic past. In Kiefer’s work it appears in the motif of artist’s palette.

문화사 방법론의 진전을 위한 ‘역사성(Geschichtlichkeit)’의 재범주화: 독일 역사이론의 쟁점을 중심으로

전진성(Jin-Sung Chun) 한국독일사학회 2019 독일연구 Vol.- No.42

본고는 역사성 범주의 급진화를 통해 역사학의 새로운 지평을 여는 실마리를 얻고자했다. 근대적 의미의 역사란 과부화된 시간의 체계로, 인간의 의지에 의해 초래된 모든 우발적인 사건을 역사의 선형적 궤도 안에 말끔하게 편입시켰지만, 경험공간으로서의 현재의 입지를 극도로 축소시킴으로 써 과거와 현재를 아무런 이념적 매개도 없이 착종시키는 ‘현재주의’라는 역설적 결과를 얻었다. 역사적 시간의 이러한 자기모순을 극복하려면 이념/ 서사를 끊임없이 와해시키는 낯선 타자인 역사성에 관한 제반 이론들로부터 영감을 얻을 필요가 있다. 프로이트의 ‘역사적 트라우마’ 이론은 인류 역사의 시원에 자리하고 있는 근원적 트라우마를 발굴함으로써 반복되는 과거의 생경함을 역사의 본령으로 규정했으며, 하이데거의 ‘본래적 역사성’ 이론도 과거-현재-미래 대신 ‘기재-현재-장래’라는 색다른 시간질서를 제시함으로써 희망찬 미래가 아니라 이미 있어왔던 실존의 반복되는 가능성들에서 역사의 본령을 찾았다. 이들의 이론은 역사학의 궁극적 지시대상이 과거도 미래도 아니고 오로지 현재의 순간에 드러나는 열린 가능성, 즉 역사성임을 깨닫게 해준다. 역사학은 역사성 범주를 새롭게 받아들임으로써 과연 ‘역사적으로 사유’ 한다는 것이 무엇인지에 대한 깊은 성찰의 기회를 얻는다. 역사는 이념/서사로 환원될 수 없으며 늘 외부적 요소의 충격적 개입에 의해 변질된다. 이념/서사의 ‘외부’로서의 역사성은 현재의 거울이나 기원으로서의 과거, 혹은 장밋빛 미래가 아니라 오히려 현재의 한가운데에 출현하는 생경한 과거에 주목하게 만든다. 이를 통해 비로소 구조와 우연의 교차로에서 역사적 진실에 대해 사유할 수 있는 발판이 마련된다. 이는 또한 ‘쓰기’라는 역사학 고유의 재현양식에 대한 성찰을 도모하는바, 재현과 그 임계점으로서의 현실 사이에서 진실을 찾는 과정을 통해 역사서술은 역사성의 내적 계기를 이루게 된다. 문화사 서술이야말로 이러한 원리에 가장 부합하는 접근법으로, 기존의 이념/서사 외부의 시간들과 그 시간을 살아온 사람들의 정치적 결단과 행위의 자유를 위한 자리를 마련하고자한다. This paper seeks to gain clues to open up a new horizon in historiography through the radicalization of the category of historicity(Geschichtlichkeit). History in the modern sense is an overloaded system of time, which has meant to neatly incorporate all accidental events caused by human will into the linear orbit of history, but by extremely threatening the present spaces of experience it has resulted in the paradoxical deadlock of “presentism” that entwines the past and present without any ideological intermediation. To overcome this inherent self-contradiction of the modern historical time, one can make reference to the German theories of historicity, which took issue with the strange other that would constantly disrupt dominant ideology/narrative. While Freud’s theory of “historical trauma” highlights the uncanniness of the compulsively repeated past as the essence of history by excavating the underlying trauma from deep strata of human history, Heidegger’s theory of “authentic historicity(eigentliche Geschichtlichkeit)” replaces the common temporal scheme of past-present-future by the ternary ecstases of ‘having-been-ness’-‘presencing’-‘future,’ which forecloses a hopeful vision of the future in favor of the repeated possibilities of the having-been. These classical theories shared the idea that the ultimate referent of historiography is neither the past nor the future, but the open possibility, which is revealed in the present moment, the historicity, tout court. By reappropriating the category of historicity in this way, historiography is given an opportunity to take issue on the “historical thinking.” History namely cannot be reduced to a scheme of ideology/narrative, but is always altered by the shocking intervention of external factors. Historicity as the outside of ideology/narrative is meant to highlight the uncanny past haunted in the midst of the present, rather than fixing to the past as a mirror of the present or a rosy future. This approach provides a platform for thinking about historical truth at the crossroad of structure and contingency. It also seeks to reflect on “writing” as the unique mode of historiographical representation, as historiography establishes the inner moment of historicity in the process of exploring the truth between representation and outer reality. Cultural historiography fitting for this purpose ultimately affords a place for the political decisions and actions of those who have lived in the temporality outside the dominant ideology/narrative.

역사학 고전 다시 읽기 : 유럽중심주의를 위한 변명 -헤겔의 『역사철학 강의』-

전진성 ( Jin Sung Chun ) 한국서양사학회 2012 西洋史論 Vol.0 No.114

This paper is aimed at reappraising G. W. F. Hegel`s philosophy of history as a progressive political discourse for global freedom and emancipation, rather than as a conservative state ideology. To achieve this, the current critical debates on Hegel`s Eurocentrism need to be reviewed. The opponents of Eurocentrism agree on the crucial point that the formalistic teleology and the padlocked self-centered view of world history ? la Hegel resulted from the estrangement of non-European "others" from history. Hegel`s own idea of history, however, was not called for to merely legitimize European domination of the world, but was predicated on his confrontation of modernity. This paper points out that Hegel`s world history was designed to overcome fatal dissociation of past and present, the crucial problem of modernity, and that he appealed to the logic of dialectics which pursued not a vindication, but rather a subversion of the existing reality. In world history Hegel found a dialectical movement from mutual recognition of individuals to the formation of a universal value system. Whatever the dialectics being referred to - either the political revolutions across European borders or the modern civil society inside Europe, Hegel`s philosophy of history was designed to elucidate the modern political reality. At the crossroads of going forward to the universal value of human freedom and going backward to developmental teleology, Hegel opted for the latter. A critique of this regression would rather accuse Hegel of suspending his basic dialectical logic than of the Eurocentric implication of his philosophical system. Starting from where Hegel`s dialectics come to a standstill, a new critique of Hegel ought to look for a clue to the very universal history which is supposed to take issue with the relations of the individuals and the community in the modern world and with its political future.