5・18의 해외 인지도에 대한 디지털 인문학적 접근: 히로시마 평화기념과의 비교를 중심으로

양진영 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2024 민주주의와 인권 Vol.24 No.1

이 연구는 1980년대 이후 5・18의 해외 인지도 변화를 5・18기념재단을 중심으로 살펴보고, 이 재단과 함께 국제적인 평화・인권 활동에 참여 중인 히로시마 평화기념관의 해외 인지도와의 비교를 통해, 향후 해외에서 5・18을 알리는데 필요한 점을 제언하는데 목적이 있다. 본고가 의거하는 구글 엔그램은 16세기부터 2019년까지 출판된 전 세계 도서의 일부를 코퍼스화한 도구로 이를 통해 5・18과 같은 특정의 역사적 사건이 전 세계 도서에서 시대별로 등장하는 추이를 알 수 있게 해 준다. 분명히 할 것은 특정 기관이 수행하는 특정 사업이 5・18의 해외 인지도에 어떤 영향을 주었는지를 연구하는 것은 본고의 목적이 아니다. 이 연구는 구글 엔그램이 제공하는 코퍼스에 기반해 1990년대 이후 5・18의 해외 인지도의 변화 추이를 파악하고, 추후에 인지도를 높이기 위해 꾸준히 해외 인지도가 상승하고 있는 히로시마 평화기념의 사례를 비교하는 것이 목적이다. 이를 위해 Ⅱ장에서는 5・18(Gwangju Uprising)의 해외 인지도 변화 양상을 살펴보는데, 광주항쟁에 대한 특별법이 제정된 1990년대부터 구글 엔그램으로 검색이 가능한 2019년 사이의 추이와 함께 2000년–2014년 사이에 인지도가 꾸준히 상승한 요인을 추론해 볼 것이다. 이어 Ⅲ장에서는 2015년 이후 5・18의 해외 인지도가 하락하게 된 요인과, 반면에 5・18기념재단과 함께 동아시아 민주인권평화 네트워크에 참여해 국제적인 평화・인권 활동을 벌이고 있는 히로시마 평화기념관(Hiroshima Peace Memorial)은 지속적으로 인지도가 상승한 요인을 찾아볼 것이다. 이를 통해 광주항쟁과 관련해 활동하는 기관이나 단체들이 5・18의 실태를 해외에 알릴 때 필요한 방안을 제언하려 한다. 본고에서 도출된 5・18의 해외 인지도에 대한 논의는 구글 엔그램에 나타난 결과에 대한 시론적인 연구로, 해외 인지도에 영향을 준 특정의 요인에 대해서는 추후의 후속 연구를 통해 보다 정밀히 논의돼야 할 것이다. The study aims to examine the changes in May 18 Uprising's overseas recognition since the 1980s, focusing on The May 18 Foundation, and to compare it with the overseas recognition of Hiroshima Peace Memorial, which is participating in international peace and human rights activities with the foundation, to suggest what is necessary to promote May 18 Uprising abroad in the future. Google Ngram, which is based on this paper, is a corpus of some of the world's books published from the 16th century to 2019, allowing us to see the trend of certain historical events such as May 18 Uprising appearing by period in books around the world. To be clear, it is not the purpose of this paper to study how the specific projects carried out by a specific institution affected the overseas recognition of May 18 Uprising. Based on the corpus provided by Google Ngram, the study aims to understand the changes in overseas recognition of May 18 Uprising since the 1990s and to compare the cases of Hiroshima Peace Memorial, which has beensteadily rising in order to raise awareness in the future. To this end, Chapter II examines the changes in overseas recognition of May 18 Uprising and will infer the factors that steadily rose in recognition between 2000 and 2014, along with trends between the 1990s when the Special Act on the Gwangju Uprising was enacted and 2019 when Google Ngram was available. Subsequently, in Chapter III, the factors that caused the overseas recognition of May 18 Uprising to decline since 2015 and, on the other hand, the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, which participated in the East Asian Democratic Human Rights Peace Network with the May 18 Memorial Foundation and is engaged in international peace and human rights activities, will continue to look for factors that have increased its recognition. Through this, this paper would like to suggest necessary measures for institutions or organizations working on the Gwangju Uprising to inform overseas of the actual situation of May 18 Uprising. The discussion on the overseas recognition of May 18 Uprising derived in this paper is a poetic study on the results of Google Ngram, and specific factors that have affected overseasrecognition should be discussed in more detail through subsequent studies.

5・18 광주 항쟁과 사건의 신학: 계시 사건으로서 5・18 광주항쟁에 대한 신학적 해석

허석헌 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2024 민주주의와 인권 Vol.24 No.1

이 글은 5・18 광주항쟁을 ‘사건’ 개념으로 재구성하고 그 사건의 의미를 계시로 해석하는 데 목적이 있다. 다시 말해, 5・18을 하나님의 계시 사건으로 보는 것이 오늘 5・18을 기억하는 그리스도인의 참다운 방식이어야 한다고 주장한다. 5・18을 계시 사건으로 보려는 것은 기독교 신학이 종교적 체계 안에 가두어 온 계시를 역사의 한복판으로 위치시키려는 시도이다. 이것은 계시라는 종교적 언어를 사건이라는 비종교적 언어로 해석함으로써 기독교의 진리체계를 탈종교화 한다는 의미이다. 이 글은 5・18 사건을 종교적으로 해석하고 그 의미를 기독교의 메시지에 귀속시키려는 방식을 역전시켜, 5・18을 사건의 조명에 의해 종교적 메시지를 넘어서는 현존의 계시로 읽어내려고 시도한다. 이를 위해, 이 글은 프랑스 철학자 알랭 바디우(Alain Badiou)와 민중신학 시대를 열었던 신학자 안병무의 사건 개념을 토대로 5・18 사건의 전개과정을 진리 사건의 의미로 재구성한다. 구체적으로 계엄령의 포고와 국가권력의 통제, 민중저항과시민군, 도청사수와 죽음이라는 세 과정으로 구분하고, 이 과정을 5・18 사건 안에서 발생한 진리담론의 과정으로 보고 사건화의 흐름을 따라가며 그 의미를 추적해 나간다. 결론적으로 나사렛 예수의 사건과 광주 민중의 사건의 공시성에 주목하며 5・18의 사건이 한국교회의 복음 운동에 요구하는 변화의 지점을 살펴본다. This article aims to reconceptualize the May 18 Gwangju Democratic Uprising as an "event" and to interpret its meaning as revelation. In other words, I argues that seeing May 18 as an event of divine revelation should be an authentic Christian way of remembering May 18 today. Seeing 5・18 as a revelatory event is an attempt to situate revelation in the midst of history, where Christian theology has kept it locked up in a religious system. It means de-religionizing the Christian system of truth by interpreting the religious language of revelation in the non-religious language of events. By reversing the religious interpretation of the May 18 event and attributing its meaning to the Christian message, this article attempts to read May 18as a revelation of a presence that transcends the religious message byilluminating the event. The event is beyond the religious system ofChristianity. For this purpose, this article reconstructs the unfolding process of theevents of May 18 in the sense of the process of formation of a truth event,drawing on the concept of event from French philosopher Alain Badiou andthe theologian Ahn Byung-mu, who opened the era of Korean Minjungtheology. Specifically, this study divides the events of May 18 into threeprocesses: the declaration of martial law and the control of state power,popular resistance and the citizen army, and eavesdroppers and deaths, and traces the flow of eventualization as a process of truth discourse within theevents of May 18. In the conclusion, it reveals the theological meaning ofthe revelation of the events of May 18 by focusing on the public natureof the events of Jesus of Nazareth and the people of Gwangju.

5・18과 불화하기

진태원 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2023 민주주의와 인권 Vol.23 No.2

This paper borrowing the concept of “mésentante (disagreement)” from the French philosopher Jacques Rancière, aims to reexamine the significance, limitations, and tasks of the 5・18 Gwangju Uprising. The title ‘Disagreeing with 5・18’ has a double meaning. It means, first, “disagree with X in the spirit of 5・18,” where 5・18 means, among other things, the spirit of disagreement, the power of disagreement. But secondly, the title also means “discord with/against 5・18” : taking issue with a sanctified and fetishized 5・18 in the spirit of discord that is at the heart of 5・18. After all, this paper focuses on the question of what makes 5・18 as 5・18. This requires, among other things, elucidating the nature of the state violence that 5・18 fought against, which we will characterize as the extreme state violence through Etienne Balibar's concept of extreme violence. Such violence is characterized by inhumane barbarism, and subjects victims of violence contaminated by the same extreme violence. The most striking thing about 5・18 is that the last protest fighters knew how to overcome the temptation of counter-violence and carry out anti-violent struggles (Etienne Balibar) or non-violent resistance (Judith Butler) against extreme state violence. 5・18, on the other hand, failed to arrive at the insight that the extreme violence involved in excluding the “Reds” was at the center of the partition of the sensible in Korean society since the Liberation, and failed to make resistance to it the core of 5・18's own democracy. This means that the disagreement over the representations of 5・18 defines the future of disagreeing with 5・18.

5・18민주유공자 보훈 현황과 개선 방안: 5・18민주화운동 피해자 실태조사와 관련하여

민병로 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2023 민주주의와 인권 Vol.23 No.3

For the first time in 30 years since the establishment of 5・18 Democratic movement compensation law in 1990, 5・18 Democratic movement victim (hereinafter referred to as 5・18 victim) survey was conducted. Gwangju Metropolitan City commissioned the Chonnam National University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation to conduct a fact-finding survey on 2,009 of the 4,417 5・18 Democratic meritorious persons registered with the National Veteran Office as of 2021 from May to October 2022, as a result, it was found that they were experiencing serious mental, physical and economic suffering. The most serious problems since 5・18 democratic movement are found to be mental pain 56.4%, physical injury and disease sequelae 54.0% and economic hardship 34.2%. They answered health(58.5%) and age (33.6%) for the reason why they do not engage in economic activities. The personal income stands at monthly average 18,210,000Won, and the monthly average household income is researched to be 28,510,000Won. However, this stands at 75% of meritorious person income. The mental, physical and economic survey results of 5・18 victim as such disprove that they didn’t receive the proper compensation and respect commensurate with the degree of their sacrifice and contribution compared to other meritorious persons even if 5・18 victims could get the courtesy and support as a person of democratic merit according to the 「Act on the Respecting of Democratic Meritorious Persons」 enacted in 2002. Therefore, this study intends to seek the problem and the improvement measure of current 5・18 meritorious person veteran systems in relation with the results of 5・18 Democratic movement victim survey.

[5.18연구]5.18문화담론에 대한 비판적 고찰-5.18 민중항쟁에서 ‘아시아문화중심도시’에 이르기까지-

은우근 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2006 민주주의와 인권 Vol.6 No.2

이 논문은 5.18 담론이 1980년 이후 오늘에 이르기까지 시대와 내용에 따라 어떤 특징과 한계를 지니고 있는가를 밝힌다. 이를 위해 정부와 자치단체, 5.18 재단, 시민단체 등 GO와 NGO의 관계 속에서 형성된 5.18 문화담론을 시기별로 살펴보고 그것이 어떻게 현재의 아시아 문화중심도시 담론에 영향을 미치고 있는가를 분석했다. 이 과정에서 아시아 문화중심도시 논의 과정에서 나타나는 5.18 문화담론의 뿌리와 그 담론의 한계를 규명하고 새로운 담론의 필요성 및 그 방향을 제시한다.5.18 담론은 1980년 5.18 이후 '아시아 문화중심도시 광주' 조성에 이르기까지 시기별로 역사적 배경에 따라 형성되었다. 5.18이 국가 인정을 받기 전에, 5.18 담론은 정치적, 역사 규정적 투쟁 담론이 중심이었지만 김영삼 시대 5.18 묘역 조성사업 실시를 계기로 다양한 부문에서 논의가 이루어졌다. 특히 김영삼 시대 한국사회에서 지역주의가 확산되면서 5.18 담론은 이른바 '5.18의 전국화·세계화' 주제가 중심이 되었다. 또한 김대중 시대 지방자치제와 노무현 시대 '아시아문화중심도시 광주' 조성사업이 실시되면서 광주 정체성 담론, 5.18기념사업에서 민·관 헤게모니 담론이 활성화되었다. 이제 5.18문화담론의 새로운 방향을 모색해야 한다. '민주·인권·평화 도시'라는 피상적·형식적인 5.18 정신규정과 5.18의 '전국화·세계화' 담론은 5.18 정신에 대한 새로운 조명과 해석을 통해 주체와 지역에 대한 내적 성찰을 중심으로 한 실천적 반성담론으로 거듭나야 한다. 이를 통해서 5.18의 부활과 재생, 즉 5.18 르네상스가 지역 차원에서 이루어짐으로써 5.18의 '전국화·세계화'도 가능할 것이다.

지구화시대 한국의 진보운동과 5?18민중항쟁의 현재적 재구성

이광일 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2005 민주주의와 인권 Vol.5 No.2

This study aims to reconstruct today's meaning of 5‧18minjung-protest in the age of globalization in relation to present radical movement in Korea. As liberalist compromised with the neo-military coup group(shingunbu), the progressive meaning of 5‧18Minjung-protest was reduced to conservative and minimal democracy. Reconstructing the meaning of 5‧18Minjung-protest as progressive one, I suggest, could be proceeded by radical movement trying to overcome the existing socio-political relations. First of all, unequal development of capitalism conditioned arising of 5‧18Minjung-protest fundamentally. Today, capitalist social relations are embodied in neo-liberalism. Therefore anti-capitalistic tendency of 5‧18Minjung-protest should be reconstructed as a anti neo-liberalism. Secondly, 5‧18Minjung-protest was a uprising for democracy against neo-military fascist. The present state of democracy in Korea, so called creeping democracy, is subjected to the influence of monopoly capital and 'neo-liberal competitive state' and has been falling into a crisis. Therefore radical movement should strengthen its hegemony to save, deepen democracy in crisis against them. Thirdly, civil participation and solidarity was an important point that made 5‧18Minjung-protest possible. In confrontation of global neo-liberalism today, radical movement should strengthen the level of solidarity in nation-state and the globe. Lastly, 5‧18Minjung-protest was a uprising by the minority, Kwangju, Honam in Korean society. Radical movement trying to overcome repression and differentiation in existing social relations should struggle for social and political rights of the minority, contingent workers, migrant workers, the handicapped, etc. As radical movement realizes these goals in the age of globalization, progressive meanings of 5‧18minjung-protest could be reconstructed.

성찰과 모색

심영의(Shim Yeong-eui) 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2010 민주주의와 인권 Vol.10 No.1

5・18과 평화권: 대항물리력으로서의 ‘총’과 평화적 생존

이경주 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2023 민주주의와 인권 Vol.23 No.4

5・18 was remarkable as a democratization movement, but it had a huge social impact in that it was the first time since the Korean War that images of citizen soldiers armed with ‘guns’ appeared. There are various discourses such as the gun as a symbol of the right to resistance and the right to revolution, but there is a need to reexamine it from the perspective of the right to peace, which is spreading in the international community, including the United Nations, while focusing on human safety and peaceful survival. The ROK Armed Forces, which are supposed to protect the lives and safety of the people, at the time of 518, a total of 13,400 people (the size of one corps), including the 3rd Airborne Brigade, used illegal methods such as physical attacks against the citizens of Gwangju based on ‘Operation Loyalty’. Physical force was used (assault for rebellion - Article 260 of the Criminal Act). During May 18th∼May 19th Citizens who were enraged by a series of acts that undermined their dignity, including acts close to slaughter using guns (butts, batons, and point-blank swords), initially resisted with stones and wooden blocks. Between May 19th and 21th, In response to the military’s shooting, some counter-attacks (responsive firing) were carried out with reserve force training M1, Carbine guns for safety and survival, but it was not a ‘fierce street battle’ but a pre-planned excessive suppression (assault on charges of rebellion) had a strong character as an exercise of physical strength (counterattack defense). Unorganized use of physical strength continued from May 22nd to 24th, and on May 24th, the organization called the ‘Regional Defense Strength’ was disbanded and a mobile patrol unit to maintain order was activated with ‘guns’, and on May 27th, self-defense against the forcible suppression force of enormous military power. He fought with ‘guns’ as a means of fighting. Although ‘the situation room’ existed in the provincial office during the 5・18 Gwangju Democratization Movement, it is difficult to say that a military organization that could be called a citizen army existed, and the ‘guns’ of 5・18 were used as counter-physical strength (necessary) for peaceful survival, such as resistance, response, maintenance of order, and self- defense, depending on the period. It has the meaning of minimum skills, and citizens holding ‘guns’ can be said to be subjects of human rights who protest against state violence and advocate for peaceful survival and safety. In order to enable democratic politics in martial law where extreme violence is committed, and when reinterpreted as ‘guns’ seeking peace and safety, I think it is more smoothly connected to the formation of a political community by the current peaceful means after 5・18. 국민의 생명과 안전을 지켜야 할 국군임에도 불구하고, 5・18민주화운동 당시 공수 제3여단 등 총 1만 3천 4백여 명(총 1개 군단 규모)이 ‘충정작전’에 기초하여 광주 시민들에 대하여 불법한 방법의 신체 공격행위 등 (내란죄의 폭행-형법 제260조) 폭력을 행사하였다. 5월 18일∼19일, 총(개머리판, 진압봉, 착검)을 사용한 살육에 가까운 행위 등 일련의 존엄성 저해 행위에 분노한 시민들은 돌과 각목 등으로 저항하다, 5월 20일∼21일, 군의 발포 행위에 대항하여 안전과 생존을 위하여 예비군 훈련용의 M1이나 칼빈 등 ‘총’을 들고 공방전(대응발사 등)이 일부 전개되었으나 그것은 ‘치열한 시가전’이었다기 보다는 사전 계획된 국가폭력에 대한 대응물리력의 행사(반격방어)로서의 성격이 강하였다. 5월 22일부터 「수습대책위원회」가 조직되어 총기회수에 나서고 항쟁공동체에 의한 자율적인 질서가 유지되기 시작하였으며, 5월 24일 지역방위대라는 명칭의 조직마저 해산되고 기동순찰대가 5월 24∼26일 ‘총’을 들고 활동하였으며, 5월 27일 막대한 군사력의 강제진압군에 맞서 자위수단으로 ‘총’을 들고 항전하였다. 5・18 민주화운동 기간 동안 도청에 상황실이 존재하였다고는 하나 시민‘군’이라고 할만한 군사적 조직이 존재하였다고 보기 어려우며, 거주자(목격자)의 관점을 더하면, 5・18의 ‘총’은 기간에 따라 저항, 대응, 질서유지, 자위 등 평화적 생존을 위한 대항물리력(필요최소한의 실력)으로서 의미를 가지며, ‘총’을 든 시민은 국가폭력에 항의하여 평화적 생존과 안전을 주창한 인권의 주체라고도 할 수 있다. 5・18 민주화운동에서 등장한 ‘총’을 극단적인 폭력이 자행되는 계엄상태에서 민주정치를 가능하게 하기 위하여 그리고 평화와 안전을 희구하는 과정의 대항물리력으로서의 ‘총’으로 재해석했을 때, 5・18 이후의 평화적 수단에 의한 항의와 그를 통한 정치공동체 형성과 더 일맥상통하게 되며, 더욱 더 발전적인 승화점이 될 수 있다고 생각한다.

5월행사와 주체로 본 ‘5월운동’ 연구-연구 현황, 한계 그리고 방향-

정호기 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2004 민주주의와 인권 Vol.4 No.2

The 5‧18 Peoples’ Uprising became symbolic event of representing movement for democratization in Korea. This resulted memorial struggle performed since May 1980, namely the May Movement. The May Movements’ concept have been settled down through researches, but has a little difference in legal and academic definition. This Paper analyzes researches on the Memorial Event for the 5‧18 Peoples’ Uprising that were the most visible collective behaviors and subjects leaded to the May Movement. The Memorial Event for the 5‧18 Peoples’ Uprising were carried out not only around Gwangju and Chonnam areas as well as all over the country. But most researches on the Memorial Event for the 5‧18 Peoples’ Uprising were localized memorial event in Gwangju. Researches on the Memorial Event for the 5‧18 Peoples’ Uprising were considered as processes of progression on that time and were handled mainly arguments toward identity as well as direction. Researches in relation to Subject of the May Movement analyzed the origin, a special quality and behavior on related organization. Therefore, researches in relation to subject of the May Movement were not formated yet. For revitalizing the researches in relation to the May Movement, it is needed to take an interest in the followings: First, it must expand largely spatial and temporal territories of researches. Secondly, it has to analyze Memorial Struggle and effect of institutionalization on program of judging the past. Thirdly, reilluminate, research and study widely on the subject of the May Movement.

국가유공자보상의 범위결정 및 보상의 원칙

전광석(Cheon Kwang-seok) 전남대학교 5.18연구소 2009 민주주의와 인권 Vol.9 No.2