‘관계적 자율성’의 관점에서 본 노부모 돌봄의 실천과 협상에 관한 연구 = The Practice and Negotiation of the Elderly Parents Caring : A qualitative study from the 'Relational Autonomy' Perspective

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

From the perspective of 'familialism', the family is viewed as a special social group in which family members are willing to help each other and have the responsibility to take care of their needy members. This article is located in the theoretical background which strongly denies the ‘familialist’ presupposition on family. First, families are constituted by the agent's family practice which is the individual's transformative performance interacting with the social condition. The responsibility of elderly parents caring is rather a negotiated commitment than an individual's normative behavior. The second theoretical perspective of this article is the ethics of Care, which is critical on the independent, self-sufficient self of the western individualism. The ethics of Care views human being as a 'relational self'. It re-conceptualizes the concept of autonomy as 'relational autonomy' which focuses on the interaction between the social condition and the individual's autonomy. The ‘ethics of care’ perspective tries to locate the social structure, in which caring and autonomy can co-exist.
This article divides the negotiation and practice for the parents care into three dimensions; 1) whether or not there is coercion and interference on their decision making, 2) critical reflection on their motivation and choice, and 3) their caring competency like how they do self-realize, what kind of self-knowledge and self-definition they have and what value they give to the elderly people and the caring experience. These three dimensions correspond to each analytic theme; 1) the existence of the social norm, 2) the married adult children's justification of his (or her) moral identity using the mainstream moral theories, and 3) how the caring partner's competency in the present social condition affects the quality of caring relations. This article evaluates the quality of the caring relations, which varies depending on the characteristics of relational autonomy constructed by these three levels, based on the ethical criteria of the four steps of caring process.
I analyzed how people accept and respond to the social normative expectation using qualitative research methods that give the voice to the agent's life and his interpretation. Among the qualitative methods, life story method includes data on not only the agent's various choices and styles of behavior, but also his/her relation, value, identity incorporating the past on the present time. The narrative analysis on the life story reveals the narrator's identity, the horizon of the interpretation, the sociocultural context and the political intention interfering with this interpretation, and the narrative conventions of each period.
Based on the dichotomy between the macro and the micro, the previous research on the family care analyzed the social norm and family institution, the interaction among the kinship and the individual's caring consciousness and attitude separately. On the contrary, I analyzed how these various dimensions are intertwined in the narrative life story of the family members. I collected life story data from three family members (parents, their married adult children and his/her spouse) for each family. I interviewed total eight families including four eldest son's families, one second son's family, and three daughter’s families. This paper explains the gap between what people are expected to do and what they really do. It also explains ambiguous transferring of various interexchange to care, and the other side of the caring beyond the objective and subjective burden. Even in the seemingly similar typical caring situation, characteristics of caring relations and its qualities are different from each other according to the various contextual and family relations.
The result of this research shows that caring responsibilities are negotiated around the family institutional norm incorporating the history of the individual family relation with the social historical time. The caring adult children's capabilities of critical reflection are exercised differently according to the degrees of coercion and interference on the decision making by the institutional norm. They justified their moral identities differently using mainstream moral theories. That affected the meaning of care to themselves and the self-recognition of their own caring capability which are transferred to the quality of giving care. This dissertation categorized eight families broadly into three types: the external coercion, the internal coercion, and the internal reflection type. Firstly, I’d like to summarize the characteristics of three types including family care negotiation and practice.
The parents caring of my research cases do not exist as the universal ideal norm. The filial piety norm says that the eldest son has to take care of his parents. Yet the norm is applied to my case families only through the negotiated practices in all the family relations and various circumstances. The negotiation process is lead by the recognition on the authority of that genealogical position and the expectation of economical support and inheritance. Added to this, the patriarchal authoritarian, oppressive experience and its injuries play the leading role in the negotiation. In the changing gender relations and generational power relations, there are some implicit negotiations on care in favor of instrumental exchanges and the economic combination of two households. But this doesn't function as the emotional base which invokes the motivation of caring. Only in the case that there are no negative history of family relation and no negative experience of caring burden, it is possible to negotiate the responsibility with the identity as the eldest son and his wife without the other external factors.
For the eldest son's family, their negotiation has been going on with their patrilineal parents not only in the form of economic, instrumental and emotional exchange but also in identity formation. Their present negotiation does not focus on whether they will continue the caring relations or not. They have been in the cumulative commitment to the caring relations as a result of living together. The caring situation is served as the instrument for the other negotiations like getting inheritance or sharing care burden. They think they care for their parents not because they want to do it but because they have to do it. On the other hand, for the other married adult children’s family, the negotiation starts when their parents need care. As a result, their decision making process develops around the moral reflection. But their moral agency is provoked by the rational reasoning on the situation of not accomplishing the institutional model. They point out many reasons why they bear the burden: because the eldest son doesn't take responsibility actively, because his situation makes care impossible, because there is no people willing to take care of, because they see the negative relations between the parents and the eldest son’s family. The elderly parents in this case suffer from the fact that they are taken care of by ‘non-eldest son’, because they are locked in the stereotype of the institutional norm.
The contents of daily caring practice are as follows: the caring role of daughters-in law is reduced to the formality and domestic labour. Accordingly, most of caring concerns, activities, personal caring is up to the son. This son seeks to share the caring burden with the other sons and express the resentment when sharing is not accomplished. This tendency is reinforced in the non-eldest son's family. Sons don’t expect their wives to play the normative role. Daughters can care for their parents in need under the positive attitude and active support of her husband. They, even if their husbands are not the eldest son, consolidate by themselves the responsibility of taking care of parent in-laws. All the case families suffer from the competing and conflicting needs of care giving women, the nuclear family and the elderly parents. In the eldest son's family, this conflict is narrated as a legitimate excuse for the bad quality of care, where as in the non-eldest son' families, it is narrated as an on-going moral dilemma.

Under these characteristics of the parent caring, the type of external coercion is the case in which caring is coerced regardless of one's own intention. Three eldest son's families belong to this type. They criticize their life subjugated to the institutional norm as immoral, pressured and locking their capability of critical reflection into the institutional logic such as reciprocity and its fairness which tends to be substituted with the caring motivation. This rational reason tends to be reverted to the emotional arms such as rage, derision and indifference etc. Therefore, they efface their own self concerning to care, deny the caring responsibility and suggest an alternative of institutionalization.
In the type of internal coercion, there is a moral luck not realizing the negative restriction to genealogical position. One eldest son's family belongs to this type. This family negotiates caring responsibility without explicit external compulsion and recognizes the latent responsibility at the time of issuing care. But this family substitutes their own wants and desires with the rule of parent care and doesn't have the opportunity of critical reflection on their choice and decision making. As a result, there cannot be any narrative emancipation. Giving the meaning to the fixed responsibility, they continue to care in the asymmetric satisfaction of needs and lose the opportunity to balance their multiple needs. As family culture changes, their meaning of caring life become relative and their own emotions get nullified.
The type of internal reflection negotiates their responsibility with an opportunity of moral reflection given by the (eldest) son's refusal, after enjoying the privileged institutional irresponsibility. It includes most of non-eldest son's family. They don't sacrifice their own selves to the institutional norm or they don’t let their own selves dominated by the institutional norm. They find the caring motivation in the internal reflection. But their internal reflections are based not on the attachment and intimacy to the cared-for but on the objective circumstance and negative family relations of other family members. Most of them feel the moral obligation based on the rational reasoning of moral knowledge. Only very few people grow their caring relation reaching to the moral understanding of each other's life and emotional rationality. But their rational reason also demands the fairness of sharing the caring burden. So their willingness and sustainability are very weak and unstable. In the lack of alternative experience and imagination except family care, stabilization of care on the part of the elderly parent leads to the accumulation of caring burden on the part of their caring adult children. As a result, their identities as caring subject become weak and they lose confidence in their own capability. They deny the value of coexistence with their elderly parents in the end.
This dissertation evaluates the quality of caring relations compared with the criteria of the ideal caring processes. For the external coercion, there is little attentiveness to the needs of the cared-for and real caring relations don’t exist. All of the people in the external coercion are alienated. In the case of internal coercion, the care giver's need of taking responsibility is more important than the attentiveness to the needs of the cared-for. The lack of communication among family members prevents them from responding to the needs of the cared-for. For the internal reflection, even if there is attentiveness, responsibility and active care taking, the elderly generation's fossilized self locked in the traditional family caring model blocks up the delivery of their non-eldest son's family's care. Due to the life experienced under the patriarch, they lack intimacy and communicative ability and finally they give up getting responsive.
This article tears down the stereotype that only the family can take care of the family members well, showing the variety of internal base and quality of care depending on the difference in relational autonomy. It also demonstrates the limit of family care under the present social condition. On the contrary, the current system of the elderly care only takes care of the poor, severely disabled, or living alone elderly people. It is built on the assumption that caring is taken only by living together with family members, that family's economic power means the intention to provide support, and that the basic inability of everyday life is inferred as the only needs of the elderly and their family.
Recognizing care as the public responsibility is not to weaken the family value but to encourage the genuine care. All the family cases assure the impossibility of care for the lying sick in bed. I thought that is because they have no experience and imagination of caring with the social service in the household. "It is unavoidable" and "It's the current of the times" are frequently the key narrative conventions which show the social condition around them. I do claim that an autonomous caregiver is more likely to give ideal care than a nonautonomous one. Autonomous caregiving is more likely to be based on the intimacy. If people sacrifice themselves to take care of the elderly parents, their willingness will decrease in the long run and the value of care and family itself will become weaken in the end. There is the paradox that the familialism forcing family to do care by the moral politics leads to the defamilialism. Ultimately, according to the ethic of Care, we should recognize the interdependency of human being and reorganize the social order around the Care beyond the ethics of Justice or Labor. In consequence, the moral boundary should be shifted from the individual and the family to the society and the politics.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 1
• 1절. 문제제기 1
• 2절. 선행연구의 성과와 한계 7
• 1. 거시적 연구 : 효규범, 가족제도와 돌봄정책 8
• 2. 미시적 연구 : 친족관계 및 돌봄 경험 15
• 3. 소결 : 구조와 행위의 이분법 20
• 3절. 연구의 관점과 의의 23
• 제2장 이론적 배경 31
• 1절. 돌봄의 정의(definition) 31
• 1. 돌봄의 정의 31
• 2. 돌봄의 질 : 좋은 돌봄(good care) 35
• 2절. 가족실천론과 돌봄책임 협상론 37
• 1. 가족 실천론(family practice) 38
• 2. 돌봄책임 협상론(negotiation of caring responsibility) 41
• 3절. 돌봄의 정치적 윤리로서 관계적 자율성 47
• 1. 돌봄(Care)과 정의(Justice)간 이원론의 한계 50
• 1) 유교의 종법적 규범과 덕목(virtue ethics) 모델에 대한 비판 51
• 2) 합리적 계약 모델(the rational contract model)에 대한 비판 52
• 2. 돌봄의 정치적 윤리로서 관계적 자율성(relational autonomy) 57
• 1) 자율성과 돌봄에 대한 관계적 접근(relational approach) 58
• 2) 관계적 자율성의 차원 61
• (1) 외적 강제와 개입 여부 62
• (2) 비판적 성찰 62
• (3) 자율성 역량(autonomy competency) 69
• 4절. 가족돌봄의 협상과 실천의 관계적 자율성의 차원 74
• 1. 가족돌봄에서 관계적 자율성 관점의 의의 74
• 2. 가족돌봄 협상과 실천의 관계적 자율성 차원의 구성 77
• 1) 사회적 규범의 실재 78
• 2) 주류 도덕론과 도덕적 정체성의 정당화 79
• 3) 현재의 사회적 조건과 돌봄 역량 81
• 제3장 연구방법 및 분석틀 83
• 1절. 연구방법 : 서사분석(narrative analysis) 83
• 1. 서사분석의 인식론적 근거 85
• 2. 생애과정과 내러티브 형성 86
• 3. 서사분석 기법 89
• 2절. 분석틀 94
• 3절. 연구대상 99
• 제4장 가족돌봄의 협상과 실천 103
• 1절. 장남 가족의 돌봄 협상과 실천 105
• 1. 종손제도와 균분상속제의 갈등 : 구씨 가족 105
• 1) 가족의 역사 : 머슴 장남, 종가집 종부, 관계적 자원이 없는 90대 노모 105
• 2) 협상과정 108
• (1) 관계적 자원이 없는 부모의 장남에게 얹혀사는 사고 108
• (2) 균분상속제로 인한 형제간 협상 109
• (3) 종부로서 삶에 대한 동서의 인정 111
• (4) 구씨 모친의 침묵 서사 113
• 3) 돌봄실천 115
• (1) 구씨의 애정없는 도리 115
• (2) 구씨 부인, 이제 어쩌겄어 115
• (3) 노인돌봄은 국가 할 일 116
• (4) 구씨 모친, 귀한 송장 118
• 2. 가부장적 가족관계하 도구적 교환 : 박씨 가족 119
• 1) 가족의 역사 : 대단한 아버지, 성공한 장남과 맞벌이 며느리 119
• 2) 협상과정 120
• (1) 확대가족 안의 두 개의 가족 121
• (2) 맞벌이 며느리의 암묵적인 도구적 협상과 그 결렬 122
• (3) 전제적 부친의 사망과 가족관계에 대한 성찰 124
• (4) 확대가족 폐단이 돌봄에 미치는 해석의 도미노효과 127
• 3) 돌봄실천 128
• (1) 장남 박씨, 애착 그리고 같이 살았고 자식을 키워줬으니까 128
• (2) 돌봄, 며느리가 아닌 아들이 할 일, 형제들간 분담 주도 130
• (3) 시설화에 대한 적법한 변명 131
• (4) 박씨 모친의 벌로 산 삶과 시설화에 대한 공포 132
• 3. 외아들에 대한 애착과 며느리 규범의 강제 : 신씨 가족 134
• 1) 가족의 역사 : 딸 아홉 끝에 얻은 막내아들 134
• 2) 협상과정 134
• (1) 모자간 애착과 신세대 며느리의 분가 욕구 135
• (2) 경제적 지원, 불건강, 아들부양규범 강제 하 돌봄 협상 137
• (3) 세대갈등, 나 살던 대로 안 사는 천지층하 며느리 141
• 3) 돌봄실천 144
• (1) 신씨 부부, 차라리 더 아프셔서 합했으면 145
• (2) 신씨 모친, 나 혼자 편하게 살면 좋겠다, 그 맘만 먹혀 147
• 4. 장남 정체성의 자발적 수용 : 남씨 가족 148
• 1) 가족의 역사 : 부담을 주지도 받지도 않았던 돌봄 이전의 가족관계 148
• 2) 협상과정 149
• (1) 적극적인 책임성 수용만 남긴 모친의 갑작스러운 사망 149
• (2) 부친의 독립적 생활 욕구로 인한 딸 가족과의 돌봄 협상 152
• (3) 내가 해야 할 일 152
• (4) 서로 요구를 하지 않는 가족관계 155
• 3) 돌봄 실천 156
• (1) 남씨, 책임 이행이 주는 위안 56
• (2) 남씨 부인, 모시고 살던 삶에서 함께 사는 것으로 157
• (3) 남씨 부친, 열심히 한다고 하지만 만족을 못하는 158
• 2절. 비장남 가족의 돌봄 협상과 실천 159
• 1. 아들가족들의 돌봄 거부 : 양씨 가족 160
• 1) 가족의 역사 160
• (1) 며느리 없는 아들이 되기로 한 친정 큰오빠 160
• (2) 둘째 며느리가 책임지기로 한 시어머니와 양시어머니 163
• 2) 협상과정 165
• (1) 둘째 오빠 가족에 대한 경제적 부양 협상 165
• (2) 밥도 못 얻어 먹는 엄마에 대한 사위의 동거부양 결단 167
• (3) 시누이들과의 협상과 모친의 죽음 문전에서의 깨달음 169
• 3) 돌봄 실천 172
• (1) 양씨, 이제 엄마를 불편한 존재로 놔두지 않기로 172
• (2) 아직도 남아 있는 협상 173
• (3) 양씨 모친, 내 집 안같어에서 오래 살고 싶다로 175
• 2. 딸만 있는 삶과 물질적 협상 : 하씨 가족편 176
• 1) 가족의 역사 : 아들 없는 삶이 남긴 반복적 서사구조 176
• 2) 협상과정 178
• (1) 하씨 모친의 기초생활수급자화와 큰사위와의 물질적 협상 178
• (2) 둘째 언니 가족과의 두 번째 물질적 협상 178
• (3) 신앙생활과 남편 앞으로 해준 집으로 당당한 노모 돌봄 180
• 3) 돌봄 실천 181
• (1) 하씨, 내 엄마니까, 내 부모니까 181
• (2) 하씨 모친, 하숙생처럼 편안한 돌봄 183
• 3. 장남 가족의 돌봄 회피 : 차씨 가족 183
• 1) 가족의 역사 : 많이 배운 차남 가족과 별 다를 게 없는 삶 183
• 2) 협상과정 185
• (1) 장남 가족의 상속 기대에 대한 비판적 성찰 185
• (2) 돌봄 분담의 욕구 불만족 187
• 3) 돌봄 실천 188
• (1) 아들의 전적인 돌봄과 가사노동 지지 188
• (2) 차씨 부친, 장남과 다르지 않은 차남의 돌봄 189
• (3) 돌봄 부담의 누적과 핵가족 여가 욕구간 충돌 191
• 4. 며느리돌봄에 대한 부정적 평가 : 권씨 가족 193
• 1) 가족의 역사 : 장녀처럼 큰 양념딸과 출가외인 규범을 내면화한 부친 193
• 2) 협상과정 195
• (1) 객관적 상황과 며느리와 딸의 차이에 대한 비판적 성찰 195
• (2) 원가족의 적극적 돌봄 분담과 시댁 돌봄의 강화 197
• (3) 권씨 부친의 안중에 없던 딸 따라가는 것과 딸에 대한 상속 200
• 3) 돌봄실천 203
• (1) 출가외인인 딸 가족의 엄마라면 좀 달랐을 돌봄 203
• (2) 치매와는 다른 누워계신 상황에 대한 고민 205
• 제5장 사회적 규범의 존재형태 206
• 1절. 협상의 주제 : 아들부양규칙의 생애사적 협상 208
• 1. 계보적 위치의 생애사적 구속 : 장남 가족 209
• 2. 장남부양규범에 대한 합리적 이성 : 비장남 가족 210
• 2절. 협상의 동학과 권력관계 : 쟁점과 대상 212
• 1. 호혜성의 규범과 권력 자원 212
• 2. 사회적 평판과 도덕적 정체성 221
• 3. 감정적 비용 224
• 4. 협상방식: 일방적 협상과 암묵적 협상 226
• 3절. 돌봄 실천의 특징 227
• 1. 젠더 역할의 변화, 형제자매간 돌봄 분담 중심 227
• 2. 자아, 핵가족의 욕구 억압과 갈등의 차이 229
• 제6장 도덕적 정체성의 정당화 231
• 1절. 제도적 규범에 대한 비판 234
• 1. 강제의 부도덕성 234
• 2. 젠더 억압의 부도덕성 240
• 3. 책임성의 내면화된 억압성 243
• 4. 사회적 평판, 상속, 도구적 교환의 호혜성 추구 245
• 2절. 제도적 규범에 대한 성찰 247
• 1. 제도적 규범에 대한 비판적 합리성 248
• 2. 상황적 합리성 249
• 3. 종교적 직업적 정체성 251
• 4. 도덕적 의무감의 성격 251
• 3절. 친밀성과 감정적 합리성(emotional rationality) 252
• 1. 도덕적 이해(moral understanding) 253
• 2. 친밀성의 기반 차이 255
• 3. 의사소통의 정체 257
• 4절. 소결 257
• 제7장 돌봄의 질과 돌봄 역량(competency) 262
• 1절. 돌봄당사자 모두가 소외된 돌봄 266
• 1. 자존감의 상실과 무관심 266
• 2. 부정적 논리의 확신과 돌봄의 불안정화 269
• 3. 분노(resentment), 불신(distrust)과 돌봄 포기 271
• 2절. 돌봄당사자 욕구간 긴장 273
• 1. 수발의 고정성과 변화된 욕구 표현의 수동성 273
• 2. 공존이 불가능한 욕구 276
• 3. 유연적 적응과 돌봄 부담 누적 279
• 4. 욕구간 균형 추구와 욕구의 표현 281
• 3절. 욕구 표현의 불가능성과 돌봄 역량의 한계 283
• 1. 노부모 세대의 욕구 표현의 불가능성 283
• 2. 기혼자녀 세대의 돌봄역량의 구조적 한계 288
• 1) 동거부양 하 욕구의 억압, 포기, 조절의 비용 288
• 2) 와병상태하 대안적 경험의 부재 291
• 3) 부담스런 존재감의 세대간 전승 292
• (1) 부담스런 존재로 정체성 각인 : 절대 같이 안산다의 맥락 292
• (2) 부담스럽지 않은 존재에 대한 자율적 돌봄 기대 294
• (3) 대안적 상상력의 빈곤 : 실버타운에 대한 모호한 기대 295
• 4절. 소결 : 돌봄 대안 및 철학의 부재 296
• 제8장 결론 304
• 참고문헌 322
• 감사의 글 335