리영희의 유산 : 계몽적 지성의 의의와 경계 긋기

이순웅 뉴 래디컬 리뷰 2015 뉴 래디컬 리뷰 Vol.- No.64

그람시의 국가 시민사회론 - 헤겔 마르크스와 관련하여

이순웅 한국철학사상연구회 1993 시대와 철학 Vol.4 No.3

N/A

박치우의 종교관

이순웅 숭실대학교 한국기독교문화연구원 2016 한국기독교문화연구 Vol.8 No.-

박치우의 삶과 죽음을 통해 본 해방정국의 인텔리겐치아 문제

이순웅 뉴 래디컬 리뷰 2016 뉴 래디컬 리뷰 Vol.- No.69

그람시의 국가 시민사회론

이순웅 숭실대학교 철학과 1993 思索 Vol.10 No.-

아감벤의 정치철학에서 민주주의 문제와 주체의 역할

이순웅(Lee, Soon Woong) 건국대학교 인문학연구원 2014 통일인문학 Vol.57 No.-

아감벤에 따르면 민주주의란 무엇인가보다 더 중요한 것은 민주주의가 어떻게 이해되고 적용되고 있는가이다. 민주주의는 어떤 본질로서 존재하는 것이 아니라 역사적으로 구성되는 것이기 때문이다. 따라서 아감벤은 민주주의의 본질을 먼저 상정해놓고 그 본질과 실제 현실이 어떻게 다른지 또는 실제 현실이 그 본질에 어느 정도 접근해 있는지 따위의 방식은 따르지 않는다. 대신에 아감벤은 두 개이면서 하나인 ‘절합(articulation)’이라는 용어를 사용하면서 민주주의를 어떻게 이해해야 하는지 설명한다. 근대민주주의는 조에(zoe)의 정치적 삶, 즉 비오스(bios)를 찾아내려고 한다는 점에서 고대 민주주의와 구별된다. 그러나 생명정치(bio-politique)로서의 근대민주주의는 전체주의와 결탁되어 있다. 민주적인 법 역시 전체주의를 정당화해준다. 그러므로 민주주의는 민주주의를 수호하지 않는 민주주의이기도 하다. 따라서 주체로서의 호모 사케르에게 주어진 임무는 세속화(profanazione), 무능(im-potential), 놀이로서의 패러디인 파라바시스(parabasis) 등이다. 근대 정치에는 여전히 신학적 요소가 있다. 그리고 법 외부에 있으며 예외상태에 있는 호모 사케르는 법을 마음대로 가지고 놀 수 있는 존재이다. 말이 사물을 드러내지 못한다 하더라도 말할 수밖에 없다는 것, 이것이 호모 사케르에게 주어진 운명이다. According to Agamben, more important point is how democracy is comprehended and applied, not what is democracy. Because democracy is composed historically, not exists as a specific essence. Therefore, Agamben does not follow a method as determining how the essence and actual reality are different from each other or how close the actual reality has approached the essence by postulating the essence of democracy first. Instead, Agamben explains how to comprehend democracy by using ‘articulation’ which is the one and at the same time two. Modern democracy is distinguished from ancient democracy in the point of trying to search zoe’s political life, i.e. bios. However, modern democracy as bio-politics(bio-politique) is colluded with totalitarianism. Democratic laws also justify totalitarianism. Therefore, democracy is the democracy which does not protect democracy. Therefore, the missions given to homo sacer as the subject are profanation(profanazione), impotence(im-potential), and parabasis which is the parody of play, etc. There are still theological elements in modern politics. And homo sacer, which is outside the law and in the status of exception, is the existence which can play with the law as it pleases. The point that words cannot but be spoken, though they cannot reveal the object, that is the fate given to homo sacer.

그람시 이데올로기 개념의 형성

이순웅 ( Soon Woong Lee ) 한국철학사상연구회 2008 시대와 철학 Vol.19 No.1

Gramsci made a special writing titled 『The Concept of Ideology』. But his ideology concept is emphasizing organic ideology as a synthesis of existing ideology theories and a sort of thought weapon with material force, rather than conceptualization. Possibly, The German Ideology is most significant ideology writing made by Marx and Engels. Here, it reveals negative meanings of ideology well. Gramsci never read this writing, but knew well about negative meanings of ideology, and often used the ideology as negative meaning. On the other hand, Gramsci also uses the ideology as positive(or neutral) meaning. He faced Marx`s Preface to The Critique of Political Economy(1859) and Theses on Feuerbach, which contain some paragraphs that hardly seem to point out only the negative meanings of ideology. However, Gramsci uses ideology as positive meaning, possibly because he was more influenced by Engels and Lenin rather than Marx. Although differences between Marx and Engels are still a subtle issue, it is notable that some of their writings contain positive perspectives on ideology, such as The Holy Family (Marx & Engels), Anti~Duhring(Engels) and Ludwig Feuerbach and End of Classical German Philosophy(Engels). Their perspectives are in common with each other in a sense that superstructure is not automatic reflection of base, but may have reactions to the base. This point had possible influences on Gramsci`s concept of positive ideology. Before successful socialist revolution, in 1894 and 1902, Lenin already attached positive implications to the ideology. In addition to successful socialist revolution, Lenin`s standpoint on ideology came to be more convincing. And Gramsci came to use the ideology as a positive meanings mainly under Lenin`s influence. The concept of Marxist ideology involves a transition from negative implications to positive ones, which also entails the standpoints of Engels and Lenin. As for organic ideology, Gramsci explains that ideology comes to have material force. He accepted the ideology as a sort of influential ideal weapon and put stress on the importance of ideologic struggles, because he would aim to cope with consent acquiring strategy of ruling class and also found that acquiring any counter ideology for subject class is so crucial to acquiring hegemony. Ideology aim for hegemony is the material force of ideology and organic ideology. Gramsci reconstructs the perspectives of Marx, Engels and Lenin selectively in order to acquire this organic ideology. And failure to see Gramsci`s ideology concept in viewpoint of historical bloc, as S. Hall or E. Laclau, might lead to extending only positive aspects of ideology. And ultimately it might be used for structuralism or post-structuralism.

유물론에 관한 그람시의 견해

이순웅 ( Soon Woong Lee ) 한국철학사상연구회 2007 시대와 철학 Vol.18 No.1

Gramsci does not ignore the force of idea, despite the fact that he is not an idealist. He is not interested in claiming the supremacy of materialism over idealism, since he is not in favor with dogmatic orthodox Marxism. Gramsci highlights Marxism as ``philosophy of praxis`` by reconstructing the works of Marx, of Engels, and of Lenin. For Gramsci, the term ``philosophy of praxis`` both meant Marxism and the fact that Marxism ought to be a ``philosophy of praxis``. And the term ``philosophy of praxis`` is the key point that distinguish Gramsci``s Marxism from the orthodox Marxism which was insisted by the Marxists at the period of time. According to Gramsci, the originality of Marxism does not lie on materialism, and the main enemy of ``philosophy of praxis`` is not idealism. So as to establish his own Marxism, Gramsci does not accept the orthodox Marxism such as the dichotomy between materialism and idealism, structure and superstructure, theory and praxis: he does not also accept dialectical materialism. And the reject of the dichotomy is related to the concept of historical bloc and through this concept, Marxism becomes ``philosophy of praxis`` as an absolute historicism and absolute humanism. Gramsci focuses on the human who develop history by seeing structure and superstructure as historical bloc. This absolute historicism put emphasis on dialectic in Hegel and human will, while it denies reductionism. Moreover, this denial of reductionism influences structuralism. However, if we do not understand the concept ``bloc``, it would be hard to distinguish between ``philosophy of praxis`` and ``praxis of philosophy``.

근대적 주권을 넘어서는 연대의 모색 -아감벤의 정치철학을 중심으로-

이순웅 ( Soon Woong Lee ) 한국철학사상연구회 2010 시대와 철학 Vol.21 No.2

The process of the establishment of modern sovereignty involves violence(Gewalt). The concept of popular sovereignty was not realized in modern times. Putting up the natural law, modernism declared that power does not come from a supernatural being. However, this is also the evidence that the natural state has to join hands with violence in order to form modern sovereignty. After all, modern sovereignty became sovereign power(potere sovrano) stained with violence by acquiring the law(Recht) called the natural law. Sovereign is merely another name of sovereign power. Hobbes explained the natural state fluently, but so-called classical social contract theorists including Hobbes failed to appreciate the real meaning of modern sovereignty. Because the concept of modern sovereignty itself is coupled with violence, the concept of sovereignty in Korea is not `a certain goal to be attained ultimately` either. Korean regimes in the past, whether they were military or non-military one, are not different in that they established modern sovereignty while admitting neo-liberalism. And for this reason, if one says that military regimes are despotic and non-military ones are democratic, it means that he does not understand `the present` of Korea properly. Korea is an epigone imperial nation that practices modernism demanded by the U.S. and that titled neo-liberalism sincerely. Moreover, the international food chain in the neo-liberal world order is reproduced exactly as it is. In other words, Korea has the structure that curries favor with powers including the U.S. and, at the same time, exploits people in underdeveloped countries for survival. It is in the structure that (for example) permanent staff survives through reading the face of capitalists while taking advantage of contingent workers` poor working conditions. In this sense, the traditional dualism of rulers (capitalists) and the ruled (workers) may have to be abandoned. Permanent staff members who go out with metal pipe in hand as strikebreakers against contingent workers` struggles are another modern epigone sovereign and epigone ruler. In order to find solidarity beyond modern sovereignty, we should see modernism not from the concept of sovereignty but from the concept of government(gouvernement). In addition, we should admit that both permanent staff and contingent workers and both an epigone imperial nation and an underdeveloped country are bandits expelled from modern sovereignty and therefore they are impotent. A bandit is one with freedom and an impotent one is one who cannot or does not adjust himself to the order of modern sovereignty. These people can play freely with the order established by modern sovereignty and even can collapse the order. This is the duty given to modern homo sacer.

리영희의 인간주의적 사회주의에 관한 비판적 연구

이순웅 ( Soon Woong Lee ) 한국철학사상연구회 2008 시대와 철학 Vol.19 No.3

Young-hee Lee called himself humanist, humanitarians, pacifist and_iconoclast. And such ideal identities he has may be defined in a word `social democracy.` He seems to define the social democracy of Western Europe, especially Northern European countries as model of ultimate humanistic society. And the reason why he thinks social democracy as an institutional model comes from a variety of contemporary historical phenomena such as collapse of USSR and East European socialistic countries, socioeconomical change of China, difficult problems of North Korean society, aggressive nature of American capitalism, illegitimacy of South Korean regime hierarchy and so forth. If Young-hee Lee is called `a humanistic socialist`, it accentuates his `humanistic` aspects rather than his `socialistic` aspects. Some people focuses more on his `socialistic` aspects and even criticizes him for socialist, but they have one-sided views on Lee. It is true that Lee criticizes capitalism, but it is unreasonable to assert that he proposes socialism as alternative way to overcome capitalism. On the supposition that Lee`s thoughts are oriented to humanistic socialism, it indicates that socialism is more `humane` than capitalism, and the `humane` means that socialism is morally superior to capitalism. Possibly, that is why Lee considered social democracy-as a moderate combination of capitalism and socialism-as advisable social system. Nevertheless, if someone may still give a question about whether Lee is socialist or capitalist, it is recommended to answer that he is closer to capitalist, rather than socialist, although he doesn`t answer to such a question itself he thinks meaningless, because Lee seems to go through his agonized speculations and thereby come to a conclusion that socialism has moral advantages to capitalism, but it is inevitable to accept capitalism(market economy) in our real world. This is a reality that humanist Lee can hardly accept and embrace, because he has been still concerned about potential risk of capitalism that is a system mainly driven by market economy and interacts with human self-interest, which may ultimately result in human and moral corruptions. Lee seems to try to resolve this problem by means of `optimism of the will.` From long-term perspectives, Lee possibly thinks that current world order still has its optimistic future, so we have to do our best to create new world order. However, such an opinion has difficulties in satisfying some people who value intelligence more than will. Lee seems to have too simple views about the combination of capitalism and socialism, and this tendency is well demonstrated by his interests in the reunification of Germany as a benchmark for resolving potential issues between South and North Korea. According to his opinions, East and West Germany could achieve peaceful reunification because of socialistic elements inherent in West Germany. So Lee simply proposes that North Korea should accept market economy, while South Korea should embrace socialism. However, this idea may have limitations, since South and North Korea have undergone very different modern history, contrary to that of West and East Germany. West and East Germany made collaborative efforts to root out Nazis after World War Ⅱ, whereas South and North Korea have walked through very different ways from each other regarding political purge of pro-Japanese group. North Korean regime rooted out pro-Japanese group radically, while South Korean regime absorbed this group into the corridors of power. Besides, German reunification has involved not a few conflicts concerned with the issue about reorganization of property right. In order that Lee`s alternative way become more convincing, it is necessary for him to show more unambiguous standpoint about the issue of property right to South and North Korea. Lee asserts that we have to overcome structural determinism. Here, the structural determinism means a sort of intellectual and ideological obstinacy, where some advocate socialism as a perfect remedy of capitalistic corruptions, while other advocate capitalism as a sole alternative of socialism. Lee`s proposal to avoid this stubborn structural determinism means that we need to recognize everyone`s individual will of freedom and the functions or values of individual subjects who have their own right to selection. Lee has such a wide insight about structure. Here, the structure has wide conceptual implications involving class structure and even ideology or thought. Despite such a wide viewpoint about structure, his proposal to avoid structural determinism looks like a sort of `mental campaign`, so it may be considered somewhat purposeless by someone who holds a concrete social system as alternative plan.