ÅëÇÕ°Ë»ö
¾ÆÀ̵𠠠 ºñ¹Ð¹øÈ£
   ÀÚµ¿·Î±×ÀÎ     
  ÇöÀç ÃÑ 131¸í Á¢¼ÓÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù. (ȸ¿ø 0 ¸í / ¼Õ´Ô 131 ¸í)     ÃֽŰԽñ۠   ¼º°æ°Ë»ö   
È­ÀÌÆ®Çìµå
öÇÐ
»çȸ°úÇÐ
ÀÚ¿¬°úÇÐ
ÄË Àª¹ö(Ken Wilber)
ºÒ±³¿Í ½É¸®ÇÐ
Çмú¹ø¿ª


  ¹æ¹®°´ Á¢¼ÓÇöȲ
¿À´Ã 468
¾îÁ¦ 685
ÃÖ´ë 10,145
Àüü 3,479,005



    Á¦ ¸ñ : [Æß] "Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´õ´ÏÁò" ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÃνºÅ°ÀÇ °ßÇØ    
  ±Û¾´ÀÌ : Á¤°­±æ ³¯ Â¥ : 06-10-08 22:17 Á¶È¸(14376)
   Æ®·¢¹é ÁÖ¼Ò : http://freeview.mireene.co.kr/bbs/tb.php/e001/16 


ÃνºÅ°´Â ¼ÖÁ÷ÇÏ°í ½ÅÁßÇÏ¸ç ºÐ¸íÇÑ ÅµµÀÇ Áö½ÄÀÎÀÌÁÒ..
±×·¡¼­ Àú¶ÇÇÑ Á¸°æÇÏ´Â..
¿¹Àü¿¡ ÀÌ¹Ì ¾Ù·± ¼ÒÄ®ÀÌ <ÁöÀû »ç±â>¶ó´Â Ã¥À» ÅëÇؼ­µµ
ÇÁ¶û½º öÇÐÀÚµéÀÇ ¾²Àßµ¥ ¾ø´Â ³­ÇØÇÔÀ» ÁöÀûÇÑ Àû ÀÖ¾ú´Âµ¥
´ç½Ã ÃνºÅ°´Â ±×·¯ÇÑ ¾Ù·± ¼ÒÄ®À» ÁöÁöÇß¾úÁ®..
±×·¡¼­ ÁüÀÛÀ¸·Î ¿ª½Ã ÃνºÅ°±¸³ª ¶ó°í »ý°¢ÇÏ°í ÀÖ¾ú´Âµ¥
¸¶Ä§ ÃνºÅ° ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ÀÌ·± ±ÛÀÌ ÀÖ¾ú±º¿©.. Âü°íÇϽñæ..
 
........................................................................
 
 
"Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´õ´ÏÁò" ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÃνºÅ°ÀÇ °ßÇØ
 
 
 
[¿Å±äÀÌ ÁÖ: öÇÐ ÀϹݿ¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ Ä¿´Ù¶õ °ü½É°ú ¿µ¹Ì ºÐ¼®Ã¶ÇÐÀÇ ¹ßÀü¿¡ À־ÀÇ °øÇå¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í, ÃνºÅ°´Â À̸¥¹Ù "Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´õ´ÏÁò" öÇп¡ ´ëÇØ ¾î¶°ÇÑ °ø½ÄÀûÀÎ ³íÆòµµ ÇÑ ÀûÀÌ ¾ø´Ù. ¾Æ·¡ÀÇ ±ÛÀº 1995³â ÃνºÅ°°¡ ÀÚ½ÅÀÌ °ü¿©ÇÏ´Â ÀâÁö "Z"ÀÇ ¿Â¶óÀÎ Åä·Ð¹æ¿¡ ¿Ã¸° ´äº¯À» ¿ì¸®¸»·Î ¹ø¿ªÇÑ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ÃνºÅ°°¡ "Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´õ´ÏÁò"¿¡ ´ëÇØ °ø½ÄÀûÀÎ ³íÆòÀ» ÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â ÀÌÀ¯´Â ´äº¯¿¡ ³ª¿ÍÀÖ´Ù. ±ÛÀÇ ¿ø¹®Àº, http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html ¿¡¼­ ã¾Æº¼ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.]
 

¿©ÇàÀ» °¡¼­ °­¿¬À» ¸¶Ä¡°í - Á¦ ´ëºÎºÐÀÇ »ý¾Ö¸¦ ÀÌ°ÍÀ¸·Î º¸³»Áö¿ä - µ¹¾Æ¿Íº¸´Ï "ÀÌ·Ð"°ú "öÇÐ" ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Åä·Ð°ú °ü·ÃÇؼ­ °è¼Ó ±ÛµéÀÌ ¿Ã¶ó¿À°í ÀÖ±º¿ä. Á¦°¡ º¸±â¿¡´Â ´Ù¼Ò ±â¹¦ÇÑ ³íÀïÀÔ´Ï´Ù¸¸ ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¿©±â Á¦ ¹ÝÀÀµéÀ» ¸î°¡Áö ¿Ã¸³´Ï´Ù. ´Ü, ¹Ì¸® ÀÎÁ¤ÇÏ°ÚÁö¸¸, ¼ÖÁ÷È÷ Áö±Ý ¹«½¼ ³íÀïÀÌ ¹ú¾îÁö°í ÀÖ´ÂÁö Á¦°¡ ÀüÇô ÀÌÇØÇÏÁö ¸øÇÏ°í ÀÖÀ»Áöµµ ¸ð¸¨´Ï´Ù.
 
Á¦°¡ ¾Ë°í ÀÖ±â·Î ÀÌ ³íÀïÀº óÀ½¿¡, Àú¿Í ¸¶ÀÌÅ©[Michael Albert; "Z"ÀÇ ÆíÁýÀÚ], ±×¸®°í ´Ù¸¥ »ç¶÷µéÀÌ ¾Æ¹«·± "ÀÌ·Ð"µµ °¡Áö°í ÀÖÁö ¾Ê¾Æ¼­ ¿©·¯°¡Áö »ç°ÇµéÀÌ ¿Ö ÀϾ´Â°¡¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¾î¶°ÇÑ ¼³¸íµµ ÇÏÁö ¸øÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù´Â ºñ³­¿¡¼­ Ã˹ߵǾúÁö¿ä. ¼¼°è¿¡¼­ ÀϾ°í ÀÖ´Â ÀϵéÀ» ÀÌÇØÇÏ°í ÇØ°áÇÏ·Á´Â ¿ì¸®ÀÇ ³ë·ÂÀÌ ÀÌ Á¡¿¡¼­ ¾àÁ¡À» °¡Áö°í ÀÖ°í, ÀÌ ¾àÁ¡À» °íÄ¡±â À§Çؼ­´Â "ÀÌ·Ð"°ú "öÇÐ"°ú "ÀÌ·ÐÀû ±¸¼º¹°µé"¿¡ ÀÇÁ¸ÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù. Á¦°¡ ±»ÀÌ ¸¶ÀÌÅ©¸¦ ´ëº¯ÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä´Â ¾ø°ÚÁö¿ä. Áö±Ý±îÁö ÀúÀÇ ÀÀ´äÀº Á¦°¡ 35³âÀü, ±×·¯´Ï±î ¼ÒÀ§ "Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´õ´ÏÁò"ÀÌ Áö¼º°è¿¡¼­ Æø¹ßÀûÀÎ ¹ÝÀÀÀ» º¸À̱⠿À·¡ ÀüºÎÅÍ ÀÌ¹Ì È°ÀÚÈ­Çß´ø ÁÖÀåµéÀ» °ÅÀÇ ±×´ë·Î ¹Ýº¹ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ̾ú½À´Ï´Ù. Àú´Â ´ÙÀ½°ú °°ÀÌ ¸»ÇßÁö¿ä: "¸¸¾à¿¡ ½Ã»ç ¹®Á¦µéÀ» ´Ù·ç°Å³ª ±¹³»¿ÜÀÇ ºÐÀïµéÀ» ÇØ°áÇϴµ¥¿¡ Àû¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ°í, ÃæºÐÈ÷ ½ÃÇèÀ» °ÅÃÆÀ¸¸ç Àß °ËÁõµÈ ÀÌ·ÐÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù¸é, ´©±º°¡°¡ ±×·± ÀÌ·ÐÀÇ Á¸À縦 Áö±Ý±îÁö ºñ¹Ð¸®¿¡ Àß °¨Ãç¿ÔÀ½ÀÌ ºÐ¸íÇÏ´Ù. [±×·± ÀÌ·ÐÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù´Â] ¼ö¸¹Àº »çÀ̺ñ °úÇÐÀû Çã¼¼¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í ¸»ÀÌ´Ù."
 
Á¦°¡ ¾Æ´ÂÇÑ ÀÌ ¸»Àº 35³âÀü¿¡µµ ¸Â´Â ¸»À̾ú°í Áö±Ýµµ ¿©ÀüÈ÷ ±×·¸½À´Ï´Ù. ´õ±¸³ª, Á¦°¡ ÇÑ ¸»Àº Àΰ£»çȸ¿¡¼­ ¹ú¾îÁö´Â Àϵ鿡 ´ëÇÑ ¸ðµç ¿¬±¸µé¿¡ È®ÀåµÇ¸ç, 35³âÀü ÀÌÈĺÎÅÍ Áö±Ý±îÁö ³ª¿Â "ÀÌ·Ð"µé¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­µµ ¹°·Ð ´Ü ÇϳªÀÇ ¿¹¿Ü¾øÀÌ Àû¿ëµË´Ï´Ù. Á¦°¡ ¾Æ´Â ÇÑ ±×µ¿¾È ¹Ù²ï °ÍÀ̶ó¸é, À̸¥¹Ù "ÀÌ·Ð"°ú "öÇÐ"À» Á¦¾ÈÇÏ´Â »ç¶÷µé »çÀÌ¿¡, ½º½º·Î¿¡ ´ëÇÑ, ±×¸®°í ¼­·Î¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¸°æ½ÉÀÌ Æø¹ßÀûÀ¸·Î Áõ°¡Çß´Ù´Â »ç½Ç ¹Û¿¡ ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ "»çÀ̺ñ °úÇÐÀû Çã¼¼"ÀÌ¿Ü¿¡´Â °ÅÀÇ ¾Æ¹«°Íµµ ãÀ» ¼ö ¾øÁö¿ä. Á¦°¡ ¿¡Àü¿¡µµ ½èÁö¸¸, Á¶±ÝÀ̳ª¸¶ ãÀ» ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °ÍµéÁß °¡²û ²Ï Èï¹ÌÀÖ´Â °Íµéµµ ÀÖ±ä ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ±×°Íµéµµ Á¦ ½Ã°£°ú Á¤·ÂÀ» ¹ÙÄ¡°í ÀÖ´Â ½ÇÁ¦ ¼¼°è¿Í °ü·ÃµÈ ¹®Á¦µé¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â º°´Ù¸¥ ÇÔÃàÀ» °¡Áö°í ÀÖÁö ¾ÊÁö¿ä. (°¡·É, ¿¹¸¦ µé¾î´Þ¶ó´Â ±¸Ã¼ÀûÀÎ ¿ä±¸¿Í °ü·ÃÇؼ­ Á¦°¡ ¾ð±ÞÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î, ·ÑÁî(Rawls)ÀÇ Áß¿äÇÑ ÀÛ¾÷ÀÌ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.)
 
¾ó¸¶ ¾ÈµÇ´Â Èï¹ÌÀÖ´Â "ÀÌ·Ð"µé¸¶Àúµµ ½ÇÁ¦ ¼¼°è¿Í °ü·ÃµÈ ¹®Á¦µé¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â °ÅÀÇ ÇÔÃàÀ» °¡Áö°í ÀÖÁö ¾Ê´Ù´Â »ç½ÇÀº ÀÌ¹Ì ÁÖ¸ñ¹Þ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. °¡·É »ó´çÈ÷ ±¦ÂúÀº öÇÐÀÚÀÌÀÚ »çȸÀ̷а¡ (±×¸®°í ¶ÇÇÑ È°µ¿°¡À̱⵵ ÇÏÁö¿ä)ÀÎ ¾Ù·± ±×¶ó¿ì¹Ùµå (Alan Graubard)°¡ ¸î³âÀü¿¡ ·ÑÁî¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ·Î¹öÆ® ³ëÁ÷ (Robert Nozick)ÀÇ "ÀÚÀ¯Áö»óÁÖÀÇÀû"ÀÎ ÀÀ´ä, ±×¸®°í ±× ÀÀ´ä¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹ÝÀÀµé°ú °ü·ÃÇؼ­ Èï¹ÌÀÖ´Â ³íÆòÀ» ½è¾úÁö¿ä. ¾Ù·±Àº, ³ëÁ÷ÀÇ ÀÀ´ä¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹ÝÀÀµéÀÌ ¾ÆÁÖ ¿­±¤ÀûÀ̾úÀ½À» ÁöÀûÇß½À´Ï´Ù. ³íÆòÀ» ½è´ø »ç¶÷µé¸¶´Ù ³ëÁ÷ÀÇ ³íº¯µéÀÌ °¡Áö´Â ÆÄ¿ö ¹× ±×¹ÛÀÇ ¿©·¯ Á¡µéÀ» ±ØÂùÇß´Ù´Â °ÍÀÌÁö¿ä. ÇÏÁö¸¸, ´©±¸µµ ½ÇÁ¦ ¼¼°è¿Í °ü·ÃµÈ ³ëÁ÷ÀÇ °á·ÐµéÁß ±× ¾î´À Çϳªµµ ¹Þ¾ÆµéÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù´Â °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù. (¹°·Ð À̵é Áß ÀÌ¹Ì ±×·± °á·ÐÀ» ¹Þ¾ÆµéÀÎ »ç¶÷µéÀº ¿¹¿Ü·Î ÇÏ°í ¸»ÀÌÁö¿ä). ¾Ù·±ÀÇ ÁöÀûÀÌ ¸Â½À´Ï´Ù. ´õºÒ¾î ÀÌ·± Çö»óÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀ» ÀǹÌÇÏ´ÂÁö¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±×ÀÇ ³íÆòµµ ¸Â±¸¿ä.
 
"ÀÌ·Ð"°ú "öÇÐ"À» ÁöÁöÇÏ´Â À̵éÀº, ÀڽŵéÀ» ¿ËÈ£ÇÏ±æ ¿øÇÑ´Ù¸é ¾ÆÁÖ ½±°Ô ±×·² ¼ö ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ±×³É Àú¿¡°Ô, °ú°Å¿¡µµ ±×¸®°í Áö±Ýµµ "ºñ¹Ð"·Î ³²¾ÆÀÖ´Â ±×°ÍÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀÎÁö¸¦ ¾Ë·ÁÁÖ¸é µË´Ï´Ù. ±â²¨ÀÌ °øºÎÇÏ°Ú½À´Ï´Ù. »ç½Ç ÀÌÀüºÎÅÍ ¾Ë·Á´Þ¶ó°í ¿©·¯¹ø ¿ä±¸ÇßÁö¿ä. ±×¸®°í ¿©ÀüÈ÷ ´äº¯À» ±â´Ù¸®°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ´äº¯Çϱ⠾î·Á¿î ¿ä±¸°¡ ¾Æ´Õ´Ï´Ù: ¸¶ÀÌÅ©, Àú, ±×¸®°í ´Ù¸¥ ¸¹Àº »ç¶÷µéÀÌ (»ç½Ç, ÆíÇùÇÏ°í ³î¶ø°Ôµµ ÀÚÁ·ÀûÀÎ Áö½ÄÀÎ »çȸ¸¦ Á¦¿ÜÇÑ ´ë´Ù¼öÀÇ Àηù°¡) °ü½ÉÀ» °®°í ÀÖ´Â ¹®Á¦µé°ú »ç¾Èµé¿¡ "Àû¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ°í, ÃæºÐÈ÷ ½ÃÇèÀ» °ÅÃÆÀ¸¸ç, Àß °ËÁõµÈ ÀÌ·Ð"ÀÇ ¿¹¸¦ º¸¿©ÁÖ¸é µË´Ï´Ù. ¿ì¸®°¡ ³íÀÇÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â, ±×¸®°í ±ÛÀ» ¾²°í ÀÖ´Â ¹®Á¦µé°ú »ç¾Èµé, ¶ÇÇÑ À̵é°ú °°Àº Á¾·ùÀÇ ¹®Á¦µé°ú »ç¾Èµé¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­ ¸»ÀÌÁö¿ä. Á¶±Ý ´Ù¸£°Ô ¸»Çغ¸¸é, ¿ì¸®°¡ °øºÎÇؾßÇÑ´Ù°í ÇÏ°í ¶Ç Àû¿ëÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù°í ÇÏ´Â "ÀÌ·Ð"À̳ª "öÇÐ"ÀÇ ¿ø¸®µéÀÌ, ¿ì¸® ¹× ´Ù¸¥ À̵éÀÌ ´Ù¸¥(¶Ç´Â ´õ ³ªÀº) ±Ù°Å¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ÀÌ¹Ì ´Ù´Ù¸¥ °á·ÐµéÀ» Ÿ´çÇÑ ³íº¯À» ÅëÇØ À̲ø¾î³½´Ù´Â Á¡À» º¸¿©ÁֽʽÿÀ. ÀÌ "´Ù¸¥ À̵é"¿¡´Â, Á¤½Ä ±³À°À» ¹ÞÁö ¸øÇÑ À̵鵵 Æ÷ÇԵ˴ϴÙ. ¿Ö³ÄÇϸé ÀÌµé ¶ÇÇÑ "ÀÌ·ÐÀû" ¸ðÈ£ÇÔ °°Àº °ÍÀ̶ó°í´Â ÀüÇô ¾ø´Â »óÈ£ °ü°è¸¦ ÅëÇØ, ¶Ç´Â °ðÀß ½º½º·Îµé, Á¦°¡ ¸»ÇÑ ±×·± °á·Ðµé¿¡ ´Ù´Ù¸£´Ï ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
 
´Ù½Ã Çѹø ¸»ÇÏÁö¸¸, À§¿¡¼­ ¸»ÇÑ °ÍÀº °£´ÜÇÑ ¿ä±¸ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ·± ¿ä±¸¸¦ Àü¿¡µµ Çß½À´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¾ÆÁ÷µµ ¿©ÀüÈ÷ ±× ºñ¹ÐÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀÎÁö ¸ð¸£°í ÀÖÁö¿ä. Àú´Â ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ »ç½Ç·ÎºÎÅÍ ¸î°¡Áö °á·ÐÀ» ²ø¾î³Â½À´Ï´Ù.
 
¿äÁò ÁøÇàµÇ°í ÀÖ´Â (±×¸®°í ³íÀï¿¡¼­ ¾ð±ÞµÈ ¹Ù ÀÖ´Â) À̸¥¹Ù "ÇØü(deconstruction)"°ú °ü·ÃÇؼ­´Â ³íÆòÀ» ÇÒ ¼ö°¡ ¾ø±º¿ä. ¿Ö³ÄÇÏ¸é ±× ´ëºÎºÐÀÌ Àú¿¡°Ô´Â Ⱦ¼³¼ö¼³ÀΰÍó·³ º¸ÀÌ´Ï±î ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ¸¸¾à¿¡ ÀÌ°ÍÀÌ ½É¿ÀÇÔÀ» ±ú´ÝÁö ¸øÇÏ´Â ÀúÀÇ ´É·ÂºÎÁ·À» º¸¿©ÁÖ´Â ¶Ç ´Ù¸¥ ½ÅÈ£¶ó¸é, ´ÙÀ½À¸·Î ¿©·¯ºÐÀÌ ÇؾßÇÒ ÀÏÀº ºÐ¸íÇÕ´Ï´Ù: ±× °á°úµéÀ» Á¦°¡ ¾Ë¾ÆµéÀ» ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ½¬¿î ¸»µé·Î ´Ù½Ã ¼­¼úÇØÁÖ°í, ÀÌ °á°úµéÀÌ, ¼¼À½Àý ÀÌ»ó ³ª°¡´Â ´Ü¾î, ºñÁ¤ÇÕÀûÀÎ ¹®Àå, (ÃÖ¼ÒÇÑ Àú¿¡°Ô´Â) °ÅÀÇ ¾Æ¹«·± Àǹ̵µ ¾øÀÌ ³²¹ßµÇ´Â ¼ö»ç, ÀÌ·± °Íµé ¾øÀ̵µ ÀÌ¹Ì ¿À·¡ ÀüºÎÅÍ ´Ù¸¥ »ç¶÷µéÀÌ ÀÌÇØÇØ¿Ô°í ¾ÕÀ¸·Îµµ ±×·² °ÍÀÎ °á°úµé°ú ¿Ö ´Ù¸¥Áö, ¶Ç´Â ¿Ö ´õ ³ªÀºÁö º¸¿©ÁֽʽÿÀ. ±×·¯¸é Á¦ ´É·ÂºÎÁ·ÀÌ Ä¡·á°¡ µÇ°ÚÁö¿ä. - ¹°·Ð, Ä¡·á°¡ µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ̶ó´Â ÀüÁ¦ÇÏ¿¡¼­ ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¾î¼¸é Ä¡·á°¡ ¾ÈµÉÁöµµ ¸ð¸£Áö¿ä. ÀÌ °¡´É¼º¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â ³ªÁß¿¡ ´Ù½Ã ¾ð±ÞÇÏ°Ú½À´Ï´Ù.
 
ÀÌ°Ç ¸¸Á·½ÃÅ°±â ¾ÆÁÖ °£´ÜÇÑ ¿ä±¸ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ±×·¸°Ôµµ ´ë´ÜÇÑ ¿­Á¤°ú ºÐ³ë·Î Á¦±âµÇ´Â ÁÖÀåµé¿¡ ¾î¶² ±Ù°Å¶óµµ ÀÖ´Ù¸é ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ÀÌ·± ´Ü¼øÇÑ ¿ä±¸¸¦ ¸¸Á·½ÃÅ°·Á°í ³ë·ÂÇÏ´Â ´ë½Å, ´äº¯µéÀ» º¸¸é Àܶà È­¸¸ ³»°í ÀÖÁö¿ä: ÀÌ·± ¿ä±¸¸¦ Á¦±âÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº "¿¤¸®Æ®ÁÖÀÇ", "¹ÝÁö¼ºÁÖÀÇ", ¶Ç ±×¹ÛÀÇ ´Ù¸¥ ¹üÁ˵éÀ» ¹üÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ̶ó°í ÇÏÁö¿ä. --- ¹Ý¸é¿¡, ½º½º·Î¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¸°æ°ú »óÈ£°£ÀÇ Á¸°æÀÌ °¡µæÇÑ Áö½ÄÀÎ »çȸ¿¡ ¸Ó¹«¸£¸é¼­ ÀÚ±â³×µé³¢¸®¸¸ ¾ê±âÇÏ°í Á¦°¡ Àֱ⸦ ´õ ¼±È£ÇÏ´Â Á¾·ùÀÇ ¼¼°è¿¡ µé¾î¿ÀÁö ¾Ê´Â °ÍÀº "¿¤¸®Æ®ÁÖÀÇ"°¡ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó°í ÇÏ´Â µí ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. Á¦°¡ ´õ ¼±È£ÇÏ´Â ¼¼°è¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­¶ó¸é, Á¦ °­¿¬ ¹× ÁýÇÊÀÏÁ¤¸¸ ºÁµµ Á¦°¡ ¹» ÀǹÌÇÏ´ÂÁö ¿¹½Ã°¡ µÉ °Ì´Ï´Ù. ¹°·Ð ÀÌ Åä·Ð Âü°¡ÀÚµéÀÌ¾ß ´Ù ¾Ë°í Àְųª, ½±°Ô ¾Ë¼ö ÀÖ°ÚÁö¸¸ ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¹«½¼ ÀÌÀ¯ÀÎÁö Àú´Â ±× ¼¼°è¿¡¼­ ¾î¶² "À̷а¡"µéµµ º»ÀûÀÌ ¾øÀ¸¸ç, ±×µéÀÌ Çϴ ȸÀdzª ÆÄƼ¿¡ °¡º»Àûµµ ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. °£´ÜÈ÷ ¸»Çؼ­, Àú¿Í ±×µéÀº ±×³É ´Ù¸¥ ¼¼°è¿¡ »ì°í ÀÖ´Â °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù. ±×·±µ¥ ¿Ö ±×µéÀÇ ¼¼°è°¡ ¾Æ´Ñ Á¦ ¼¼°è°¡ "¿¤¸®Æ®ÁÖÀÇ"Àû ¼¼°èÀÎÁö´Â ¾Ë±â Èûµì´Ï´Ù. ´õ ÀÌ»ó ³íÆòÇÏ°í ½ÍÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù¸¸, ±× ¹Ý´ë°¡ »ç½ÇÀ̶ó´Â °ÍÀº ÀÚ¸íÇѵíÀÌ º¸ÀÌÁö¿ä.
 
¶Ç ´Ù¸¥ ¸éÀ» µ¡ºÙÀÌÀÚ¸é, Àú¿¡°Ô´Â °­¿¬ ¿äûµéÀÌ ³Ê¹«³ª ¸¹ÀÌ ¹Ð·Áµé¾î¿Í µµÀúÈ÷ Á¦°¡ ¿øÇϴ¸¸Å­ ´Ù ¼ö¿ëÀ» ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Â ÇüÆíÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ±×·± °æ¿ì Àú´Â ´Ù¸¥ »ç¶÷µéÀ» Á¦¾ÈÇÏÁö¿ä. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ±â¹¦ÇÏ°Ôµµ, Àú´Â "ÀÌ·Ð"À̳ª "öÇÐ"À» Á¦½ÃÇÏ´Â »ç¶÷µéÀº Àý´ë Á¦¾ÈÇÏÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. ´ëÁß ¸ðÀÓ°ú È°µ¿°¡µéÀÇ ¸ðÀÓ¹× ´Üü, ÀÏ¹Ý ´Üü, ´ëÇÐ, ±³È¸, ³ëÁ¶, µîµî, ¶Ç ±¹³»¿Ü ûÁßµé, Á¦3 ¼¼°è ¿©¼ºµé, ³­¹Îµé, µîµî, À̵é°ú °ü·ÃµÈ Á¦ ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ (»ó´çÈ÷ ±¤¹üÀ§ÇÑ) °æÇè¿¡¼­, ±×·± »ç¶÷µé°ú (¶Ç´Â ±×µéÀÇ À̸§Á¶Â÷µµ) ¿ì¿¬È÷ ºÎµúÈ÷°Å³ª ÇÑ Àûµµ ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. ¿Ö ±×·²±î¿ä? ±Ã±ÝÇÕ´Ï´Ù.
 
±×·¡¼­, °Ô½ÃÆÇÀÇ ÀÌ ¸ðµç ³íÀïÀÌ ±â¹¦ÇÏ´Ù°í ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌÁö¿ä. ÇÑÆíÀ¸·Î´Â, ¼º³­ ºñ³­°ú źÇÙÀ» ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ´Ù¸¥ ÇÑÆíÀ¸·Î´Â ±×·¯ÇÑ ºñ³­°ú źÇÙÀ» ÁöÁöÇÒ¸¸ÇÑ Áõ°Å¿Í ³íº¯À» º¸¿©´Þ¶ó´Â ¿ä±¸¿¡ ´ëÇØ ´õÇÑÃþ ºÐ³ë·Î °¡µæÂù ºñ³­À¸·Î ÀÀ´äÀ» ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. --- ÇÏÁö¸¸ ³î¶ø°Ôµµ, ¾î¶² Áõ°Å³ª ³íº¯µµ ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. ±×·¡¼­ ´Ù½Ã Çѹø, ¿Ö ±×·²±î¸¦ ¹°¾îº¸°Ô µÇÁö¿ä.
 
 
Á¦°¡ ¹º°¡¸¦ ³õÄ¡°í ÀÖÀ»Áö ¸ð¸¥´Ù´Â °Íµµ ÀüÀûÀ¸·Î °¡´ÉÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ¶Ç´Â ¾î¼¸é °ú°Å 20³âµ¿¾È [ÇÁ¶û½º] Æĸ®ÀÇ Áö½ÄÀεé°ú ±× ÃßÁ¾ÀÚµéÀÌ ¹àÇô³õÀº ½É¿ÀÇÑ »ç½ÇµéÀ» ÀÌÇØÇÒ¸¸ÇÑ ÁöÀû ´É·ÂÀÌ Àú¿¡°Ô ºÎÁ·ÇÑ °ÍÀÌÁöµµ ¸ð¸£Áö¿ä. Àú´Â ±×·± °¡´É¼ºµé¿¡ ´ëÇØ ÀüÀûÀ¸·Î ¿­·ÁÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ºñ½ÁÇÑ ºñ³­µéÀÌ ½ñ¾ÆÁø ¼ö³â°£ °è¼Ó ±×·¡¿À°í ÀÖÁö¿ä - ÇÏÁö¸¸ Á¦ Áú¹®µé¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â ¾î¶°ÇÑ ´äº¯µµ µéÀ» ¼ö ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. ´Ù½Ã Çѹø ¸»ÇÏÁö¸¸, Á¦ Áú¹®µéÀº °£´ÜÇÏ°í ´äº¯Çϱ⠽¬¿î °ÍµéÀÔ´Ï´Ù - ´äº¯ÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù¸é ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù: Á¦°¡ ¹º°¡¸¦ ³õÄ¡°í ÀÖ´Ù¸é, ±×°Ô ¹ºÁö º¸¿©ÁֽʽÿÀ. Á¦°¡ ¾Ë¾ÆµéÀ» ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¿ë¾îµé·Î ¸»ÀÌÁö¿ä. ¹°·Ð, ±×°ÍµéÀÌ ¿ÏÀüÈ÷ Á¦ ÀÌÇظ¦ ¹þ¾î³ª ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ̶ó¸é - ±×·² ¼öµµ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù -, ±×·¸´Ù¸é ü³äÇؾßÁö¿ä. ±×¸®°í ¾î¿ ¼ö ¾øÀÌ Á¦°¡ ÀÌÇØÇÒ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °Í °°Àº ÀϵéÀ» °è¼ÓÇؾßÁö¿ä. ¶ÇÇÑ ÀÌ ÀϵéÀ» ÀÌÇØÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â °Í °°À¸¸ç °ü½ÉÀÖ¾îÇÏ´Â °Í °°Àº »ç¶÷µé°ú °è¼Ó ´Ù³à¾ßÁö¿ä. (¹°·Ð Àú·Î¼­´Â ±â²¨ÀÌ ±×·¯°Ú½À´Ï´Ù. ÀÚ±â ÀÚÁ·ÀûÀÎ Áö½ÄÀÎ ¹®È­¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â Áö±Ýµµ ±×·¸°í ¾ÕÀ¸·Îµµ ÀüÇô °ü½ÉÀÌ ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù.)
 
¾Æ¹«µµ Á¦°¡ ¹» ³õÄ¡°í ÀÖ´ÂÁö ¼º°øÀûÀ¸·Î º¸¿©ÁØ »ç¶÷ÀÌ ¾ø±â ¶§¹®¿¡, ³²Àº °ÍÀº µÎ¹ø° °¡´É¼ºÀÎ °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù: Á¦°¡ ÀÌÇظ¦ ÇÒ ´É·ÂÀÌ ¾ø´Ù´Â °ÍÀÌÁö¿ä. ±×·± °¡´É¼ºÀÌ ÂüÀÏÁöµµ ¸ð¸¥´Ù´Â Á¡Àº ±â²¨ÀÌ ÀÎÁ¤ÇÕ´Ï´Ù¸¸, Àú·Î¼­´Â °è¼Ó ¹Ì½É½¾îÇÒ¼ö¹Û¿¡ ¾ø±º¿ä. ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº ÀÌÀ¯¿¡¼­ ¸»ÀÌÁö¿ä: Á¦°¡ ÀÌÇØÇÏÁö ¸øÇÏ´Â ¸¹Àº °ÍµéÀÌ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù - °¡·É, Áß¼º¹ÌÀÚ(neutrino)°¡ Áú·®À» °¡Áö°í Àִ°¡¿¡ °üÇÑ ÃֽŠ³íÀï, ¶Ç´Â Æ丣¸¶ÀÇ ¸¶Áö¸· Á¤¸®°¡ ÃÖ±Ù¿¡ ¾î¶² ½ÄÀ¸·Î Áõ¸íµÇ¾ú´Â°¡¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Áö½Ä. ÇÏÁö¸¸ Àú´Â ÀÌÂÊ µ¿³×¿¡ 50³â°£À» ÀÖÀ¸¸é¼­ ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº µÎ »ç½ÇÀ» ¹è¿üÁö¿ä:
 
(1) °ü·Ã ºÐ¾ß¿¡ Àִ ģ±¸µé¿¡°Ô ³»°¡ ÀÌÇØÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¼öÁØÀ¸·Î ¼³¸íÇØ´Þ¶ó°í ºÎŹÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ±×¸®°í ±×µéÀº Ưº°ÇÑ ¾î·Á¿ò¾øÀÌ ³» ºÎŹÀ» µé¾îÁÙ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.
 
 
(2) ³»°¡ °ü½ÉÀÖÀ¸¸é, Á» ´õ °øºÎÇؼ­ ÀÌÇØÇÒ ¼öµµ ÀÖ´Ù.
 
ÀÚ, ÀÌÁ¦ µ¥¸®´Ù(Deridda), ¶óIJ(Lacan), ¸®¿ÀŸ¸£(Lyotard), Å©¸®½ºÅ×¹Ù(Kristeva), µîµî - ½ÉÁö¾î ǪÄÚ(Foucault)µµ ¸»ÀÌÁö¿ä. ºñ·Ï Á¦°¡ ±×¸¦ ¾Ë°í ÀÖ°í ÁÁ¾ÆÇßÀ¸¸ç, ÀÌ ºÎ·ùÀÇ ´Ù¸¥ À̵é°ú´Â Á¶±Ý ´Ù¸¥ »ç¶÷µéÀ̾úÁö¸¸ ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù - Àº Á¦°¡ ÀÌÇØÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Â ±ÛµéÀ» ¾²Áö¿ä. ÇÏÁö¸¸ [À̵éÀÇ ±Û°ú °ü·ÃÇؼ­´Â] (1)°ú (2)°¡ Àû¿ëµÇÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. ÀÌÇØÇß´Ù°í ÇÏ´Â ¾î¶°ÇÑ »ç¶÷µµ ÀúÇÑÅ× ±×°É ¼³¸íÇØÁÖÁö ¸øÇßÀ» »Ó ¾Æ´Ï¶ó, »ç½Ç ±×·± ÀúÀÇ ÀÌÇغҴÉÀ» ¾î¶»°Ô ±Øº¹ÇؾßÇÒÁö Á¶±ÝÀÇ ½Ç¸¶¸®µµ ãÀ» ¼ö ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù.±×·¸´Ù¸é, ´ÙÀ½ÀÇ µÎ°¡Áö °¡´É¼ºÁß Çϳª°¡ ¸Â°ÚÁö¿ä. (a) Áö¼º°è¿¡ ¹«¾ùÀΰ¡ »õ·Î¿î Áøº¸°¡ ÀÌ·ç¾îÁ³´Ù (¾Æ¸¶µµ ¾î¶² Á¾·ùÀÇ °©ÀÛ½º·¯¿î À¯ÀüÀÚ µ¹¿¬º¯ÀÌ¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­ÀÌ°ÚÁö¿ä). ±× °á°ú ±× ±íÀÌ¿Í ½É¿ÀÇÔ¿¡ À־ ¾çÀÚ¿ªÇÐ, À§»ó¼öÇÐ, µîµîÀ» ¶Ù¾î³Ñ´Â ÇüÅÂÀÇ "ÀÌ·Ð"ÀÌ Åº»ýµÇ¾ú´Ù. ¶Ç´Â (b) . . . .ÀÚ¼¼È÷ ¾ê±âÇÏÁö ¾Ê°Ú½À´Ï´Ù.
 
 
´Ù½Ã ¸»ÇÏÁö¸¸, Àú´Â ÀÌ Áö½ÄÀÎ ¼¼°è¶ó´Âµ¥¿¡¼­ 50¿©³â°£À» »ì¾Æ¿Ô°í, "öÇÐ"°ú "°úÇÐ"À̶ó°í ºÒ¸®¿ì´Â ¿µ¿ªµé ¹× Áö¼º»ç ºÐ¾ß¿¡¼­ Á¦ ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ÀÏÀ» »ó´ç·® ÇØ ¿Ô½À´Ï´Ù. ¾Æ¿ï·¯ ÀÚ¿¬°úÇÐ, Àι®ÇÐ, »çȸ°úÇÐ, ±×¸®°í ¿¹¼ú ºÐ¾ß¿¡¼­ÀÇ Áö½ÄÀÎ ¹®È­¿¡ ´ëÇØ »ó´çÇÑ °³ÀÎÀûÀÎ °æÇèÀ» °¡Áö°í ÀÖÁö¿ä. ÀÌ·± °æÇèÀ» ÅëÇØ, Àú´Â Áö½ÄÀεéÀÇ »ýÈ°¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¦ ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ °á·ÐµéÀ» °¡Áö°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ¿©±â¼­ ÀÚ¼¼È÷ ¾²Áö´Â ¾Ê°ÚÁö¸¸ ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ¿©±â ´Ù¸¥ »ç¶÷µéÀ» À§Çؼ­, °£´ÜÈ÷ ´ÙÀ½°ú °°ÀÌ Á¦¾ÈÇÕ´Ï´Ù: ¿©·¯ºÐµéº¸°í "ÀÌ·Ð"°ú "öÇÐ"ÀÇ °æÀ̷οò¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¸»ÇÏ´Â À̵鿡°Ô, ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ÁÖÀåÀ» Á¤´çÈ­ÇØÁÙ °ÍÀ» ¿ä±¸ÇϽʽÿÀ. ¹°¸®ÇÐ, ¼öÇÐ, »ý¹°ÇÐ, ¾ð¾îÇÐ, ±× ¹ÛÀÇ ´Ù¸¥ ºÐ¾ßµé¿¡ ÀÖ´Â »ç¶÷µéÀ̶ó¸é, ´©±º°¡°¡ ±×µéº¸°í ÁøÁöÇÏ°Ô ±×µé ÀÌ·ÐÀÇ ¿ø¸®µéÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀÌ°í, ±× ¿ø¸®µéÀÌ ¾î¶°ÇÑ Áõ°Åµé¿¡ ¹ÙÅÁÇØÀÖ°í, ±×°ÍµéÀÌ ¼³¸íÇÏ´Â °ÍµéÀÌ ÀÌ¹Ì ¸í¹éÇÑ °ÍµéÀÌ ¾Æ´ÑÁö µîµîÀ» ¹°¾îº¼ ¶§ ±â²¨ÀÌ ´äÇØÁÖ°ÚÁö¿ä. ÀÌ°Ç ´©±¸³ª ÇؾßÇÏ´Â °øÆòÇÑ ¿ä±¸µéÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ ¿ä±¸µéÀ» ¸¸Á·½Ãų ¼ö ¾ø´Ù¸é, ±×·¸´Ù¸é Àú´Â ºñ½ÁÇÑ »óȲ¿¡¼­ Èâ(Hume)ÀÌ Á¦½ÃÇÑ Ãæ°í¸¦ ¹Þ¾ÆµéÀ̶ó°í Á¦¾ÈÇÏ°Ú½À´Ï´Ù: ±× "ÀÌ·Ð"°ú "öÇÐ"À» ºÒ¼Ó¿¡ ´øÁ®¹ö¸®½Ê½Ã¿À.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------
 

ÀÌÁ¦ ¸î°¡Áö ¼¼ºÎÀûÀÎ ³íÆòÀ» ÇÏ°Ú½À´Ï´Ù: Á¦°¡ "Æĸ® ÇÐÆĵé"(Paris Schools)°ú "Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´õ´Ï½ºÆ® Á¾Æĵé"(Postmodernist cults)À» ¸»ÇÒ ¶§ ¾î¶² »ç¶÷µéÀ» °¡¸®Å°´Â °ÇÁö ÆäƲ·£µå(Phetland)°¡ ¹°¾îº¸¾ÒÁö¿ä. À§¿¡ µç »ç¶÷µéÀÌ ±× ÀϷʵéÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
 
±× ´ÙÀ½¿¡ ÆäƲ·£µå°¡, ´ç¿¬ÇÏ°Ôµµ, ¿Ö Á¦°¡ À̵éÀ» "¹«½Ã"ÇÏ´À³Ä°í ¹°¾îº¸¾ÒÁö¿ä. °¡·É µ¥¸®´Ù¸¦ µé¾îº¼±î¿ä. ¿ì¼±, Àú´Â ÀÌÁ¦ºÎÅÍ Á¦°¡ ÇÏ·Á´Â °Í°ú °°Àº Á¾·ùÀÇ ³íÆòÀ» ¾Æ¹« Áõ°Åµµ Á¦½ÃÇÏÁö ¾Ê°í ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ» ½È¾îÇÑ´Ù´Â Á¡À» ¹àÈü´Ï´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ¿©±â ÀÌ °Ô½ÃÆÇ¿¡ Âü°¡ÇÑ »ç¶÷µéÀÌ, °¡·É, ¼Ò½¬¸£¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÚ¼¼ÇÑ ºÐ¼®À» ¿øÇÏ´ÂÁö Àǽɽº·´±º¿ä. ±×¸®°í ¾î·µç Àú´Â ±×·± ºÐ¼®À» ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ» °Ì´Ï´Ù. ÆäƲ·£µå°¡ Á¦ °ßÇظ¦ ¸í½ÃÀûÀ¸·Î ¹°¾îº¸Áö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù¸é ÀÌÁ¦ºÎÅÍ ÇÒ ¾ê±â¸¦ ÇÏÁöµµ ¾ÊÀ» °Ì´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¸¸¾à Á¦ °ßÇظ¦ µÞ¹ÞħÇ϶ó°í ¿ä±¸¹Þ´Â´Ù¸é Àú´Â, ±×·± ÀÏÀº ½Ã°£µé¿©¼­ ÇÒ¸¸ÇÑ °¡Ä¡°¡ ¾ø´Ù°í ´äº¯ÇÒ °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
 
¾î·µç µ¥¸®´Ù¸¦ º¸°Ú½À´Ï´Ù. ³ªÀ̸¹Àº Àú¸íÇÑ »ç¶÷µé Áß ÇϳªÀÌÁö¿ä. Àú´Â ÃÖ¼ÒÇÑ ±×ÀÇ <±×¶ó¸¶Åç·ÎÁö(Grammatology)>´Â ÀÌÇØÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾î¾ß ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº°¡¶ó°í »ý°¢Çß½À´Ï´Ù. ±×·¡¼­ ±× Ã¥À» ÀÐÀ¸·Á°í ½ÃµµÇßÁö¿ä. Á¶±ÝÀº ÀÌÇØÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú½À´Ï´Ù. °¡·É Á¦°¡ ¸Å¿ì Àß ¾Ë°í ¿¡Àü¿¡ °Å±â¿¡ °üÇؼ­ ³í¹®µµ ¾´ ÀûÀÌ ÀÖ´Â °íÀüÀû ¹®Çåµé¿¡ °üÇÑ ºñÆÇÀû ºÐ¼®°°Àº °Í ¸»ÀÌÁö¿ä. ¿ì½º²Î½º·± ¿Àµ¶¿¡ ±Ù°ÅÇÑ, ÇüÆí¾ø´Â ½ºÄ®¶ó½±À̾ú½À´Ï´Ù. ¾Æ¿ï·¯ ±× ³íº¯À̶ó´Â °ÍÀÌ, Á¦°¡ »ç½Ç»ó ¾î¸°¾ÆÀÌ¿´À» ¶§ºÎÅÍ Àͼ÷ÇØ¿Ô´ø Á¤µµÀÇ ¼öÁØ¿¡µµ ¹ÌÄ¡Áö ¸øÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ̾úÁö¿ä. ±Û½ê, ¾Æ¸¶ Á¦°¡ ¹» ³õÃÆ´ÂÁöµµ ¸ð¸£°Ú½À´Ï´Ù: ±×·² ¼öµµ ÀÖÁö¿ä. ÇÏÁö¸¸ À§¿¡¼­ ¸»ÇÑ´ë·Î ÀǽÉÀº ¿©ÀüÈ÷ ³²½À´Ï´Ù. ´Ù½Ã ¸»ÇÏÁö¸¸, ¾Æ¹«·± ±Ù°Åµµ ´ëÁö ¾ÊÀº ³íÆò¿¡ ´ëÇØ Á˼ÛÇÏ°Ô »ý°¢ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ Á¦ °ßÇظ¦ ¹°¾îºÃÀ¸´Ï, ´äº¯À» ÇÏ´Â °Ì´Ï´Ù.
 
 
ÀÌ Á¾Æĵé (Á¦°¡ º¸±â¿¡´Â Á¾Æĵéó·³ º¸ÀÔ´Ï´Ù)¿¡ ÀÖ´Â »ç¶÷µé Áß ¸î¸îÀº Àúµµ ¸¸³ªº¸¾Ò½À´Ï´Ù: ǪÄÚ (¿ì¸®´Â ½ÉÁö¾î ¸î½Ã°£¾¿ Åä·Ðµµ ÇßÁö¿ä. È°ÀÚÈ­µÇ¾î ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¸¹Àº ½Ã°£µ¿¾È ¸Å¿ì Áñ°Å¿î ´ëÈ­¸¦ ÇßÁö¿ä. ½ÇÁúÀûÀÎ »ç¾Èµé¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­ ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù - ±×´Â ºÒ¾î·Î, Àú´Â ¿µ¾î·Î). ¶óIJ (¿©·¯¹øÀ» ¸¸³µ°í, Àç¹ÌÀÖ´Â, ±×¸®°í Àڽŵµ Àß ¾Ë°í ÀÖ´Â »ç±â²Û (charlatan)À̶ó°í »ý°¢Çß½À´Ï´Ù. ºñ·Ï Á¾Æĸ¦ Çü¼ºÇϱâ ÀÌÀüÀÎ ±×ÀÇ Ãʱ⠿¬±¸´Â »ç¸®¿¡ ¸Â´Â °ÍÀ̾ú°í ÀÌ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¦ ³íÀǵµ È°ÀÚÈ­µÇ¾îÀÖÁö¸¸ ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù). Å©¸®½ºÅ×¹Ù (±×³à°¡ ¿­±¤ÀûÀÎ ¸¶¿ÀÁÖÀÇÀÚ¿´À» ¶§ Àá±ñ ¸¸³­ÀûÀÌ ÀÖÁö¿ä). ±×¹Û¿¡ ´Ù¸¥ »ç¶÷µéµµ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ¸¸³ªº¸Áö ¾ÊÀº »ç¶÷µéÀÌ ÈξÀ ´õ ¸¹Áö¿ä. Àú´Â Á¦ ¼±Åÿ¡ ÀÇÇØ ÀÌµé ½áŬÀ» ¸Ö¸® Çß°í, ÀüÇô ´Ù¸£¸é¼­ ÈξÀ ±¤¹üÀ§ÇÑ ½áŬµéÀ» ´õ ¼±È£ÇßÀ¸´Ï±î¿ä - Á¦°¡ °­¿¬ÇÏ°í, ÀÎÅͺäÇÏ°í, ¿îµ¿¿¡ Âü¿©ÇÏ°í, ¸ÅÁÖ ¸î½ÊÀ徿 ±ä ÆíÁöµéÀ» ¾²°í ÇÏ´Â ½áŬµé ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
 
Àú´Â È£±â½É¿¡ À̲ø·Á ±×µéÀÇ Àú¼ú¿¡ ¼ÕÀ» ´ò½À´Ï´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ À§¿¡¼­ ¸»ÇÑ ÀÌÀ¯µé ¶§¹®¿¡ Áøµµ¸¦ ¸¹ÀÌ ³ª°¡Áö´Â ¸øÇßÁö¿ä: Á¦°¡ º» °ÍÀº, [À̵éÀÌ] ±Ø´ÜÀûÀ¸·Î Çã¼¼¸¦ ºÎ¸®¸é¼­µµ, °ËÅäÇغ¸¸é ±× Çã¼¼Áß ´ëºÎºÐÀº ´Ü¼øÈ÷ ±× ºÐ¾ß¿¡ ´ëÇØ ±âº» ¼Ò¾çÀÌ ¾ø´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» º¸¿©ÁÙ »ÓÀ̶ó´Â »ç½ÇÀ̾ú½À´Ï´Ù. Á¦°¡ Àß ¾Ë°í ÀÖ´Â (¶§·Î´Â Á¦°¡ ³í¹®À» ¾´ Àûµµ ÀÖ´Â) ¹®Çåµé¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¾öû³­ ¿Àµ¶, ±âº»ÀûÀÎ ÀÚ±â-ºñÆǵµ ¼ö½Ã·Î ¹«½ÃÇÑ´Ù´Â Á¡¿¡¼­ Áöµ¶ÇÏ°Ôµµ ÇüÆí¾ø´Â ³íº¯, (º¹Àâ´Ù´ÜÇÑ ¸»µé·Î Ä¡ÀåµÇ¾îÀÖÁö¸¸) »ç¼ÒÇϰųª °ÅÁþÀÎ ¸¹Àº Áø¼úµé, ÀÌ·± °Íµé¿¡ ±Ù°ÅÇÑ Çã¼¼ÀÌÁö¿ä. ´õºÒ¾î »ó´çºÎºÐÀº ±×³É Ⱦ¼³¼ö¼³(gibberish)ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. Á¦°¡ ÀÌÇØÇÏÁö ¸øÇÏ´Â ´Ù¸¥ ºÐ¾ßµé¿¡¼­ Áß°£¿¡ ¸·Èú °æ¿ì¿¡´Â, Àú´Â À§¿¡¼­ ¸»ÇÑ (1)°ú (2)¿¡ °ü·ÃµÈ ¹®Á¦µé°ú ºÎµúÈ÷Áö¿ä. ¾î·µç À§¿¡¼­ ¸»ÇÑ »ç¶÷µéÀÌ Á¦°¡ ¾ÖÃÊ¿¡ ¿°µÎ¿¡ µÐ »ç¶÷µéÀÌ°í, ¶Ç Á¦°¡ ¿Ö Áøµµ¸¦ ¸¹ÀÌ ³ª°¡Áö ¸øÇߴ°¡¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÌÀ¯ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. Ȥ½Ã ºÒºÐ¸íÇÏ´Ù¸é ´õ ¸¹Àº À̸§µéÀ» ³ª¿­ÇÒ¼öµµ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. Á¦°¡ ¿©±â¼­ ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â °Í°ú °°Àº Á¾·ùÀÇ (ÇÏÁö¸¸ ³»ºÎÀÎÀ¸·Î¼­ÀÇ) °üÂû¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹®ÇÐÀû ¹¦»ç¿¡ °ü½ÉÀÌ ÀÖ´Â »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô´Â, µ¥À̺ñµå ·ÔÁö (David Lodge)ÀÇ ¼Ò¼³µéÀ» ±ÇÇÏ°Ú½À´Ï´Ù. Á¦°¡ ÆÇ´ÜÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ÇÏ¿¡¼­´Â, Á¤°îÀ» Â °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù.
 
ÆäƲ·£µå´Â ¶ÇÇÑ, Á¦°¡ "´º¿å ŸÀÓÁîÀÇ Çã¼¼¿Í Ȥ¼¼¹«¹ÎÀ» µå·¯³»´Â" µ¥¿¡´Â ¸¹Àº ½Ã°£À» º¸³»¸é¼­µµ À̵é Áö½ÄÀÎ ½áŬµé¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â ¾ÆÁÖ "°£´ÜÈ÷ ¹«½Ã"ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ "¸Å¿ì ´çȤ½º·´°Ô" ¿©°ÜÁø´Ù°í ½è½À´Ï´Ù. "¿Ö ÀÌ »ç¶÷µé¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­µµ °°Àº ½ÄÀ¸·Î Ãë±ÞÇØÁÖÁö ¾Ê´Â °ÍÀÌÁö¿ä?" - Á¤´çÇÑ Áú¹®ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¸¶Âù°¡Áö·Î, °£´ÜÇÑ ´äº¯ÀÌ ÀÖÁö¿ä. Á¦°¡ ³íÀÇÇÏ´Â (´º¿å ŸÀÓÁî, ¿©·¯ Àú³Îµé, ¸¹Àº ÇмúÃ¥µé) ÅؽºÆ®µéÀº ÀÌÇØ°¡´ÉÇÑ ±Ûµé·Î ¾º¾îÁ®ÀÖ°í ¼¼»ó¿¡ Ä¿´Ù¶õ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌĨ´Ï´Ù. ¿ì¸®»çȸ°°ÀÌ ¼º°øÀûÀ¸·Î ±³¼³ÀûÀÎ (doctrinal) »çȸ¿¡¼­, »ý°¢°ú Ç¥ÇöÀ» ´ã´Â ±³¼³ÀÇ Æ² (doctrinal framework)À» Á¦°øÇÏ´Ï±î ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ°ÍÀº ¼¼°è Àü¿ª¿¡ °ÉÃļ­ °íÅë¹Þ°í ÀÖ´Â »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô ÀϾ´Â Àϵ鿡 ¾î¸¶¾î¸¶ÇÑ ¿µÇâÀ» ÁÖÁö¿ä. Àú´Â ÀÌ »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô °ü½ÉÀÌ ÀÖÁö, ·ÔÁö°¡ (Á¦ »ý°¢¿¡´Â Á¤È®ÇÏ°Ô) ¹¦»çÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â ¼¼°è¿¡ »ç´Â »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô´Â °ü½ÉÀÌ ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù.
 
µû¶ó¼­ ¸¸¾à ÀϹÝÀûÀÎ »ç¶÷µé°ú ±×µéÀÇ ¹®Á¦µé¿¡ °ü½ÉÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù¸é, Á¦°¡ ³íÀÇÇÏ´Â ÅؽºÆ®µéÀ» ÁøÁöÇÏ°Ô ´Ù·ç¾î¾ßÁö¿ä. ÆäƲ·£µå°¡ ¾ð±ÞÇÑ ±ÛµéÀº, Á¦°¡ ÆÇ´ÜÇÏ´Â ÇÑ, ÀüÇô ±×·± ¼º°ÝÀÇ ±ÛµéÀÌ ¾Æ´Õ´Ï´Ù. ºÐ¸íÈ÷ ±× ±ÛµéÀº ¼¼°è¿¡ ¾Æ¹«·± ¿µÇâµµ ³¢Ä¡Áö ¾ÊÁö¿ä. ¿Ö³ÄÇϸé ÀÌ ±ÛµéÀº ´ÜÁö °°Àº ½áŬµé ³»¿¡ ÀÖ´Â ´Ù¸¥ Áö½ÄÀε鿡°Ô¸¸ ÀÐÇôÁö´Ï±î¿ä. ´õ±¸³ª, ÀÌµé ±ÛµéÀ» ÀÏ¹Ý ´ëÁßµé (°¡·É, Á¦°¡ °­¿¬À» Çϰųª, ¸¸³ª°Å³ª, ÆíÁö¸¦ ¾²°Å³ª, ¶Ç´Â Á¦°¡ ±ÛÀ» ¾µ¶§ ¿°µÎ¿¡ µÎ°í ÀÖ´Â »ç¶÷µé ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ »ç¶÷µéÀº º°´Ù¸¥ Ưº°ÇÑ ¾î·Á¿ò ¾øÀÌ Á¦°¡ ¸»ÇÏ´Â °ÍµéÀ» ÀÌÇØÇÏ´Â °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù. ºñ·Ï ÀϹÝÀûÀ¸·Î º¼ ¶§ ÀÌµé ¿ª½Ã Á¦°¡ Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´ø Á¾Æĵ鿡 ¸Â´Ú¶ß·ÈÀ»¶§ °¡Á³´ø °Í°ú °°Àº Á¾·ùÀÇ ÁöÀû Àå¾Ö¸¦ ±× Á¾Æĵ鿡 ´ëÇØ °¡Áö´Â °Í °°Áö¸¸ ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù)¿¡°Ô ÀÌÇؽÃÄѺ¸·Á´Â ½Ãµµ°¡ ÀÖ´ÂÁö Àú´Â ¾ËÁö ¸øÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ Àú´Â ±×·± ±ÛµéÀ» ¼¼°è¿¡¼­ ÀϾ´Â Àϵ鿡 Àû¿ëÇغ¸·Á´Â ½Ãµµ°¡ ÀÖ´ÂÁö ¾ËÁö ¸øÇÕ´Ï´Ù. Á¦°¡ ¾Õ¿¡¼­ ¾ð±ÞÇÑ Àǹ̿¡¼­, ÀÌ¹Ì ¸í¹éÇÑ °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ñ ¹º°¡ »õ·Î¿î °á·ÐµéÀ» µÞ¹ÞħÇØÁÖ´Â ¿ªÇҷμ­ÀÇ Àû¿ëÀ» Çغ¸·Á´Â ½Ãµµ ¸»ÀÌÁö¿ä. Àú´Â Áö½ÄÀεéÀÌ ¾î¶»°Ô ÀڽŵéÀÇ ¸í¼ºÀ» ºÎÇ®¸®°í, Ư±Ç°ú Á¸°æÀ» ¾ò°í, ÀϹÝÀϵéÀÇ ÅõÀï¿¡ µ¿ÂüÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ» Á¡Á¡ ¸Ö¸®Çϴ°¡, ÀÌ·± °Íµé¿¡ ´ëÇØ Å« °ü½ÉÀÌ ¾ø±â ¶§¹®¿¡ °Å±â¿¡ ½Ã°£À» ÅõÀÚÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â °ÍÀÌÁö¿ä.
 
ÆäƲ·£µå´Â ǪÄÚ¿¡¼­ºÎÅÍ ½ÃÀÛÇØ º¼ °ÍÀ» Á¦¾ÈÇϴ±º¿ä. ¹Ýº¹ÇÏÁö¸¸, ǪÄÚ´Â ´Ù¸¥ À̵é°ú µÎ°¡Áö ÀÌÀ¯¿¡¼­ Á¶±Ý Ʋ¸®Áö¿ä: [ù¹øÂÅ·Î] ÃÖ¼ÒÇÑ ÇªÄÚ°¡ ¾´ ±ÛµéÁß ¸î¸îÀº, ºñ·Ï ±×·¸°Ô Èï¹Ì·ÓÁö´Â ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù¸¸, Àúµµ ÀÌÇظ¦ ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. µÎ¹ø°·Î, ǪÄÚ´Â °³ÀÎÀûÀ¸·Î [´ëÁßµéÀÇ ÅõÀï¿¡] ¸Ö¸® ¶³¾îÁ®ÀÖÁö ¾Ê¾Ò°í, °°Àº ºÎ·ùÀÇ Æ¯±Ç ¿¤¸®Æ® ½áŬµé¾ÈÀÇ ´Ù¸¥ À̵é°ú¸¸ »óÈ£ ±³·ùÇÏÁöµµ ¾Ê¾ÒÁö¿ä. À̾ ÆäƲ·£µå´Â Á¤È®È÷ Á¦°¡ ¿ä±¸Çß´ø °ÍÀ» ´äÇÏ·Á°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù: ÆäƲ·£µå´Â ¿Ö ÀÚ½ÅÀÌ ÇªÄÚÀÇ Àú¼úµéÀÌ Áß¿äÇÏ´Ù°í »ý°¢ÇÏ´ÂÁö¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­ ¾²°í ÀÖÁö¿ä. ÀÌ°ÍÀÌ Åä·ÐÀ» ÇÏ´Â Á¦´ë·Î µÈ ¹æ½ÄÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í Á¦ »ý°¢¿¡´Â ¿©±â¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¦ ´äº¯À» ÅëÇØ ¿Ö Á¦°¡ ÀÌ·± ºÎ·ùÀÇ Àú¼úµé¿¡ ´ëÇØ ±×·¸°Ôµµ "¹«½ÃÇÏ´Â" ŵµ¸¦ ÃëÇÏ´ÂÁö ÀÌÇØ°¡ µÇ¸®¶ó º¾´Ï´Ù - »ç½Ç, ÀüÇô °ü½ÉÀ» °¡Áö°í ÀÖÁö ¾ÊÁö¿ä.
 
ÆäƲ·£µå°¡ ¼­¼úÇÏ°í Àִ ǪÄÚÀÇ "ÀÌ·Ð" - ¿Ã¹Ù¸¥ ¼­¼úÀ̶ó°í È®½ÅÇϰǵ¥ - Àº Á¦°¡ º¸±â¿¡´Â º°·Î Áß¿äÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº "ÀÌ·Ð"ÀÎ °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇÏ¸é ´©±¸³ª ¾Ë°í ÀÖ¾ú´ø °ÍÀ̴ϱî¿ä - »çȸ»ç ¹× Áö¼º»ç¿Í °ü·ÃµÈ ¼¼ºÎ »çÇ×µéÀ» Á¦¿ÜÇÏ°í´Â ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. »ç½Ç ÀÌ ¼¼ºÎ»çÇ׵鿡 ´ëÇؼ­µµ, Àú¶ó¸é »ó´çÈ÷ ÁÖÀÇÇÏ°Ú½À´Ï´Ù: ÀÌ ¿µ¿ªµé Áß ¸î¸îÀº Á¦ ÀÚ½ÅÀÌ ¿ì¿¬È÷µµ ²Ï ±¤¹üÀ§ÇÏ°Ô ¿¬±¸¸¦ Çß½À´Ï´Ù. ±×·¡¼­ ±× ¿µ¿ªµé°ú °ü·ÃÇؼ­´Â ǪÄÚÀÇ ½ºÄ®¶ó½±ÀÌ º°·Î ½Å·ÚÇÒ¸¸ÇÑ°Ô ¸øµÈ´Ù´Â »ç½ÇÀ» ¾Ë°í ÀÖÁö¿ä. ±× °á°ú Á¦°¡ ¸ð¸£´Â ¿µ¿ªµé¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­µµ, º°´Ù¸¥ Á¶»ç´Â ÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò½À´Ï´Ù¸¸, ±×ÀÇ ÀÛ¾÷À» º°·Î ½Å·ÚÇÏÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. 1972³â ÀÌ·¡·Î È°ÀÚÈ­µÈ ³íÀǵéÀ» º¸¸é, ÀÌ·± ¹®Á¦Á¡µéÀÌ Á¶±Ý¾¿ ºÒ°ÅÁö±â ½ÃÀÛÇÏÁö¿ä. 17¼¼±â¿Í 18¼¼±â¿¡ °ü·ÃÇؼ­ [ǪÄÚº¸´Ù] ÈξÀ ´õ ³ªÀº ½ºÄ®¶ó½±ÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù°í »ý°¢ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. Àú´Â À̰͵é°ú, Á¦ ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ Á¶»ç°á°ú¸¦ Âü°íÇÏÁö¿ä. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ´Ù¸¥ ¿ª»ç °ü·Ã Àú¼úµéÀº Á¦Ãijõ°í, "ÀÌ·ÐÀû ±¸¼º¹°µé"°ú ¼³¸íµé·Î ³Ñ¾î°¡º¾½Ã´Ù: "°¡È¤ÇÑ ¾ï¾Ð ¸ÞÄ¿´ÏÁòÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ, »ç¶÷µéÀÌ ±Ç·ÂÀÌ ¿øÇÏ´Â °ÍµéÀ» (½ÉÁö¾î ÀÚ¹ßÀûÀ¸·Î) ÇÏ°Ô µÇ´Â º¸´Ù ±³¹¦ÇÑ ÇüÅÂÀÇ ¸ÞÄ¿´ÏÁòÀ¸·ÎÀÇ Ä¿´Ù¶õ º¯È­"°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù´Â °ÍÀÌÁö¿ä. ÀÌ ¼³¸íÀº Áø½ÇÀÔ´Ï´Ù. »ç½Ç, ´ç¿¬ÇÑ ¸»ÀÌÁö¿ä. ¸¸¾à ÀÌ·± °Ô "ÀÌ·Ð"À̶ó¸é, Àú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¸ðµç ºñÆÇÀº Ʋ·È½À´Ï´Ù.
 
 ¿Ö³ÄÇϸé Àúµµ ±×·± "ÀÌ·Ð"Àº ÀÖÀ¸´Ï±î¿ä. Àú´Â Á¤È®ÇÏ°Ô ÇªÄÚ°¡ ÁöÀûÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â ¹Ù·Î ±× Á¡À» Áö¼ÓÀûÀ¸·Î ÁÖÀåÇØ¿Ô½À´Ï´Ù. »Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ±× ÀÌÀ¯¿Í ¿ª»çÀû ¹è°æµµ Á¦½ÃÇßÁö¿ä. ÇÏÁö¸¸ Àú´Â Á¦ °ßÇظ¦ "ÀÌ·Ð"À̶ó°í ¹¦»çÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò½À´Ï´Ù (¿Ö³ÄÇϸé "ÀÌ·Ð"À̶ó´Â ¿ë¾î¸¦ ºÙÀϸ¸ÇÑ °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï´Ï±î¿ä). ±×¸®°í Çò°¥¸®°Ô ¸¸µå´Â ¼ö»çµµ ¾²Áö ¾Ê¾ÒÁö¿ä (¿Ö³ÄÇϸé Á¦ ÁÖÀåÀº ¾ÆÁÖ ´Ü¼øÇÑ °ÍÀ̴ϱî¿ä). ¾Æ¿ï·¯ Á¦ °ßÇØ°¡ »õ·Î¿î °ÍÀ̶ó°í ÁÖÀåÇÏÁöµµ ¾Ê¾ÒÁö¿ä (¿Ö³ÄÇÏ¸é ´ç¿¬ÇÑ »ç½ÇÀ̴ϱî¿ä). ÅëÁ¦¿Í ¾ï¾ÐÀ» ¸¶À½´ë·Î ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ±Ç·ÂÀÌ ¼è¶ôÇØ°¨¿¡ µû¶ó 20¼¼±âÃÊ PR »ê¾÷ Á¾»çÀÚµéÀÌ "´ëÁßµéÀÇ ¸¶À½À» Á¶Á¾Çϱâ"¶ó°í ºÎ¸¥ °Íµé¿¡ Á¡Á¡ ÀÇÁ¸ÇØ¾ß µÉ Çʿ伺ÀÌ »ý°å´Ù´Â °ÍÀº ¿À·§µ¿¾È ÀÎÁöµÇ¾î¿Â »ç½ÇÀÔ´Ï´Ù. 18¼¼±â¿¡ ÈâÀÌ ¸»ÇßµíÀÌ, ±× ÀÌÀ¯´Â, "»ç¶÷µéÀÌ ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ´À³¦°ú ¿å±¸¸¦ ÅëÄ¡ÀÚµéÀÇ ´À³¦°ú ¿å±¸¿¡ ±¼º¹ÇÏ¿© ¾Ï¹¬ÀûÀ¸·Î ¸Ã°Ü¹ö¸®´Â °Í"ÀÌ ±Ã±ØÀûÀ¸·Î´Â ÅëÄ¡ÀÚµéÀÌ »ç¶÷µéÀÇ °ßÇØ¿Í Åµµ¸¦ Á¶Á¾Çϴµ¥¿¡ ±Ù°ÅÇØÀֱ⠶§¹®ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¿Ö ÀÌ·± ´ç¿¬ÇÑ »ç½ÇÀÌ °©ÀÚ±â "ÀÌ·Ð"À̳ª "öÇÐ"ÀÌ µÇ¾î¾ßÇÏ´ÂÁö´Â, ´Ù¸¥ »ç¶÷µéÀÌ ¼³¸íÇØÁÖ¾î¾ßÁö¿ä. ÈâÀ̶ó¸é ¿ô¾úÀ» °Ì´Ï´Ù.
 
ǪÄÚÀÇ Æ¯Á¤ÇÑ ¿¹µé Áß ¸î¸î (°¡·É 18¼¼±âÀÇ Çü¹ú ¹æ½Ä)Àº Èï¹ÌÀÖ¾î º¸ÀÌ°í, ±× Á¤È®¼º¿¡ ´ëÇØ Á¶»çÇغ¼ °¡Ä¡°¡ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ±×ÀÇ "ÀÌ·Ð"Àº ´Ü¼øÈ÷, ³²µéÀÌ º°´Ù¸£°Ô ½É¿ÀÇÑ °ÍÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù´Â Çã¼¼¾øÀ̵µ °£´ÜÇÏ°Ô ÁöÀûÇسõÀº °ÍÀ» ¾öû³ª°Ô º¹ÀâÇÏ°Ô ¸¸µé°í ºÎÇ®·Á¼­ ´Ù½Ã Áø¼úÇÑ °Í¿¡ Áö³ªÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. ÆäƲ·£µå°¡ ¼­¼úÇÑ °Í Áß ±× ¾î´À °Íµµ Á¦°¡ 35³â°£ ½á¿Ô°í ¸¹Àº ÀÚ·áµéÀ» ÅëÇؼ­ º¸¿©¿Ô´ø °Íµé - ÀÌ°Íµé ¸ðµÎ°¡ ¸í¹éÇÏ°í ´ç¿¬ÇÑ »ç½ÇµéÀÌÁö¿ä -¿¡¼­ ¹þ¾î³ª´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ·± »ç¼ÒÇÑ »ç½Çµé¿¡¼­ Èï¹ÌÀÖ´Â °ÍÀº ¾î¶² ¿ø¸®°¡ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó - ±× ¿ø¸®°¡ ¹«¾ùÀÎÁö´Â ¸í¹éÇÏÁö¿ä - ¾î¶»°Ô ÀÌ ¿ø¸®°¡ »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô Áß¿äÇÑ Àϵ鿡 ±¸Ã¼ÀûÀ¸·Î Àû¿ëµÇ´Â°¡ ÇÏ´Â Á¡À» º¸ÀÌ´Â °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù: ±¹°¡°³ÀÔ, Ĩ·«, ÂøÃë, Å×·¯, "ÀÚÀ¯½ÃÀå"À̶ó´Â »ç±â, µîµî¿¡¼­ ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. À̰͵é°ú °ü·ÃµÈ ÀÛ¾÷Àº ǪÄÚÀÇ Àú¼ú¿¡¼­ ã¾Æº¼ ¼ö ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. ¹Ý¸é¿¡ Á¦°¡ ÀÌÇØÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¹®ÀåµéÀ» ¾µ ¼ö ÀÖ°í Áö¼º°è¿¡¼­ "À̷а¡µé"À̶ó°í ¿©°ÜÁöÁö ¾Ê´Â »ç¶÷µéÀÇ ¸¹Àº Àú¼úµé¿¡¼­´Â ±×·± ÀÛ¾÷À» ã¾Æº¼ ¼ö ÀÖÁö¿ä.
 
Á¦ ³íÁö¸¦ ºÐ¸íÈ÷ ÇÏ°Ú½À´Ï´Ù. ÆäƲ·£µå´Â Á¤È®È÷ ¿ÇÀº ½Ãµµ¸¦ ÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù: ÀÚ½ÅÀÌ º¸±â¿¡ ǪÄÚ°¡ ¹ß°ßÇÑ "Áß¿äÇÑ ÅëÂûµé°ú ÀÌ·ÐÀûÀÎ ±¸¼º¹°µé"À» Á¦½ÃÇÏ°í ÀÖÀ¸´Ï±î¿ä. Á¦ ¹®Á¦´Â, ±× ¼ÒÀ§ "ÅëÂûµé"À̶ó´Â °ÍÀÌ ÀÌ¹Ì Àͼ÷ÇÑ °ÍµéÀ̸ç, ´õ±¸³ª, ´Ü¼øÇÏ°í Àͼ÷ÇÑ ¾ÆÀ̵ð¾îµéÀÌ º¹ÀâÇÏ°í Çã¼¼¿¡ °¡µæÂù ¼ö»çµé·Î Ä¡ÀåµÇ¾ú´Ù´Â Á¡À» »«´Ù¸é ¾î¶°ÇÑ "ÀÌ·ÐÀûÀÎ ±¸¼º¹°µé"µµ ¹ß°ßÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù´Â »ç½Ç¿¡ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.
 
ÆäƲ¶õÆ®´Â Á¦°¡ ǪÄÚÀÇ ÀÛ¾÷À» "Ʋ·È´ÂÁö, ¾µ¸ð¾ø´ÂÁö, ¶Ç´Â Çã¼¼ÀÎÁö", ¾î¶»°Ô »ý°¢ÇÏ´ÂÁö ¹¯°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ¾Æ´Õ´Ï´Ù. ¿ª»ç¿Í °ü·ÃµÈ ±×ÀÇ ÀÛ¾÷Àº ¶§¶§·Î Èï¹Ì·Ó½À´Ï´Ù. ºñ·Ï ÁÖÀǸ¦ ±â¿ïÀÏ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ°í, ÇϳªÇϳª °ËÁõÀ» Çغ¸¾Æ¾ß ÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ°ÚÁö¸¸ ¸»ÀÌÁö¿ä. ¿À·§µ¿¾È ¸í¹éÇÑ »ç½ÇÀ̾ú°í ÈξÀ ´õ °£´ÜÇÏ°Ô ¸»ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Á¡µéÀ» ÀçÁø¼úÇÑ ºÎºÐÀº "¾µ¸ð¾øÁö" ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. »ç½Ç ¸Å¿ì ¾µ¸ðÀÖ°í, ±×°Ô ¹Ù·Î Àú¿Í ´Ù¸¥ È°µ¿°¡µéÀÌ ´Ã °°Àº Á¡µéÀ» ÁöÀûÇÏ´Â ÀÌÀ¯ÀÌÁö¿ä.
 
"Çã¼¼"¿Í °ü·ÃÇؼ­´Â, ¹°·Ð Á¦ °ßÇطδ ǪÄÚ°¡ ¾´ ¸¹Àº °ÍµéÀÌ Çã¼¼ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ Ưº°È÷ ±×°Í ¶§¹®¿¡ ǪÄÚ¸¦ ºñ³­ÇÏ°í ½ÍÁö´Â ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. ±×·± Çã¼¼´Â ÇÁ¶û½º Æĸ®ÀÇ ½â¾îºüÁø Áö½ÄÀÎ ¹®È­¿¡ ¾ÆÁÖ »Ñ¸®±í¼÷È÷ ¹ÚÇôÀÖ´Â °ÍÀÌ°í, ǪÄÚ´Â ±×³É °Å±â¿¡ ÀÚ¿¬½º·´°Ô »¡·Áµé¾î°£ °ÍÀ̴ϱî¿ä. ¿ÀÈ÷·Á ³ôÀÌ »ç¾ß ÇÒ Á¡Àº, ±×°¡ ±× ¹®È­¿¡ °Å¸®¸¦ µÎ¾ú´Ù´Â »ç½ÇÀÌÁö¿ä. Æĸ® Áö½ÄÀÎ ¹®È­ÀÇ "ºÎÆÐ"(ƯÈ÷ 2Â÷ ¼¼°è´ëÀü ÀÌÈÄ)¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â, ÀÌ°Ç ´Ù¸¥ À̽´ÀÌ°í Á¦°¡ ´Ù¸¥ °÷¿¡¼­ ³íÀÇÇÑ ÀûÀÌ ÀÖÀ¸¹Ç·Î ¿©±â¼­´Â ´õ ÀÌ»ó ¸»ÇÏÁö ¾Ê°Ú½À´Ï´Ù. ¼ÖÁ÷È÷ ¸»Çؼ­ Àú´Â ¿©±â °Ô½ÃÆÇÀÇ »ç¶÷µéÀÌ ÀÌ À̽´¿¡ ´ëÇØ °ü½ÉÀÖ¾î ÇؾßÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ÀÖ´ÂÁö Àß ¸ð¸£°Ú¾î¿ä. Àú´Â º°·Î °ü½É¾ø½À´Ï´Ù.
 
 Á¦ °ßÇطδÂ, ±×µé Àڽŵ鸸ÀÇ ÆíÇùÇÏ°í (ÃÖ¼ÒÇÑ Àú¿¡°Ô´Â) º°·Î Èï¹Ì·ÓÁöµµ ¾ÊÀº ½áŬµé¿¡¼­ ¿¤¸®Æ® Áö½ÄÀεéÀÌ ¾î¶² ¹æ½ÄÀ¸·Î ÀڽŵéÀÇ °æ·ÂÀ» ½×¾Ò°í ¶Ç ´Ù¸¥ °ÍµéÀ» Ãß±¸Çß´ÂÁö¿¡ ´ëÇØ °ËÅäÇÏ´Â °Íº¸´Ù ÈξÀ ´õ Áß¿äÇÑ ÀϵéÀÌ ¸¹ÀÌ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ°Ô ¸Å¿ì ¼º±Ù ÁÖÀåÀ̶ó´Â °É ¾Ð´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í ´Ù½Ã Çѹø °­Á¶ÇÏÁö¸¸, ¾Æ¹«·± Áõ¸í¾øÀÌ ÀÌ·± ³íÆòÀ» ÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀº °øÁ¤ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÁö¿ä. ÇÏÁö¸¸ Àú¿¡°Ô Áú¹®µéÀ» Á¦±âÇØ¿Ô°í, Àú´Â ¿©·¯ºÐµéÀÌ Á¦±âÇÑ Æ¯Á¤ À̽´µé¸¸À» ´äÇß½À´Ï´Ù. Á¦ ÀϹÝÀûÀÎ °ßÇظ¦ ¹°¾îº¸¸é, Àú·Î¼­´Â ±×³É Á¦ °ßÇظ¦ ¸»ÇÏ´Â ¹æ¹ý¹Û¿¡ ¾øÁö¿ä. ±×¸®°í º¸´Ù ƯÁ¤ÇÑ À̽´µé¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â ±×°Íµé ÇϳªÇϳª¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­¸¸ ´äÇÒ ¼ö ¹Û¿¡¿ä. Àú´Â Á¦°¡ °ü½ÉÀÌ ¾ø´Â ÁÖÁ¦µé¿¡ ´ëÇØ Ã¥À» ¾²°í ½ÍÁö´Â ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù.
 
"ÀÌ·Ð"°ú "öÇÐ"¿¡ °ü·ÃµÈ ÁÖÀåµéÀÌ Á¦±âµÉ¶§ ¾î¶°ÇÑ ÇÕ¸®ÀûÀÎ »ç¶÷µéÀÌ¶óµµ °ð¹Ù·Î ¸¶À½¼Ó¿¡ ¶°¿Ã¸± ´Ü¼øÇÑ ¹®Á¦µé¿¡ ´ëÇØ ´©±º°¡°¡ ´ë´äÇØÁÙ¼ö ¾ø´ÂÇÑ, Àú´Â Á¦°¡ º¸±â¿¡ ÇÕ´çÇÏ°í °è¸ùÀûÀÎ ÀÛ¾÷µéÀ» Áö¼ÓÇسª¾Æ°¥ °ÍÀÌ°í, ¶ÇÇÑ ¼¼°è¸¦ ½ÇÁúÀûÀ¸·Î ÀÌÇØÇÏ°í º¯È­½ÃÅ°´Â µ¥¿¡ °ü½ÉÀÖ´Â »ç¶÷µéÀ» Áö¼ÓÀûÀ¸·Î ¸¸³¯ °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
 
Á¸ (Johnb)Àº "µè´Â ÀÌ°¡ ÁØ°ÅƲ (frame of reference)À» °¡Áö°í ÀÖÁö ¾Ê´Ù¸é, ÆòÀÌÇÑ ¾ð¾î·Î ¸»ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ÃæºÐÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Ù"´Â ÁöÀûÀ» ÇØÁÖ¾ú½À´Ï´Ù. ¿Ç°í Áß¿äÇÑ ÁöÀûÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ±×·² ¶§ ¿Ã¹Ù¸¥ ¹ÝÀÀÀº, ÀÖÁöµµ ¾ÊÀº "ÀÌ·Ð"°ú °ü·ÃµÈ ¾Ö¸Å¸ðÈ£ÇÏ°í ºÒÇÊ¿äÇÏ°Ô º¹ÀâÇÑ ¸»°ú Çã¼¼¿¡ È£¼ÒÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´ÏÁö¿ä. ¿Ã¹Ù¸¥ ¹ÝÀÀÀº, µè´Â ÀÌ·Î ÇÏ¿©±Ý ÀÚ½ÅÀÌ ¹Þ¾ÆµéÀÌ°í ÀÖ´Â ÁØ°ÅƲÀ» Àǹ®½ÃÇغ¸¶ó°í ¿äûÇÏ°í, ±×°Í ´ë½Å °í·ÁÇØ º¼ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ´Ù¸¥ ´ë¾ÈÀ» ÆòÀÌÇÑ ¾ð¾î·Î Á¦½ÃÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
 
 
Àú´Â Á¤½Ä ±³À°À» Á¦´ë·Î ¹ÞÁö ¸øÇÑ, ȤÀº ¾î¶² °æ¿ì¿¡´Â ÀüÇô ¹ÞÁö ¸øÇÑ »ç¶÷µé°ú ´Ã ¾ê±âÇÏÁö¸¸, ¾Æ¹« ¹®Á¦°¡ ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. ´Ü ±³À° ¼öÁØÀÌ Á¡Á¡ ¿Ã¶ó°¡¼­ Áö¹è À̵¥¿Ã·Î±â¿¡ ´Ü´ÜÈ÷ ¼¼³úµÇ¾î ÀÖ°í ¾Ë¾Æ¼­ º¹Á¾ÇÏ´Â °Í (¿¤¸®Æ® ±³À°ÀÇ »ó´ç ºÎºÐÀº ÀÌ·± °É °¡¸£Ä¡´Â °ÍÀÌÁö¿ä)À» ½º½º·Î ¼±ÅÃÇÑ »ç¶÷µéÀϼö·Ï ÀÌÇؽÃÅ°±â°¡ Á¡Á¡ ¾î·Á¿öÁö´Â °ÍÀº »ç½ÇÀÔ´Ï´Ù. Á¸Àº ¸»Çϱ⸦, ¿©±â °Ô½ÃÆÇ°ú °°Àº ½áŬÀ» Á¦¿ÜÇÑ "¿ì¸®³ª¶ó[¹Ì±¹]ÀÇ ³ª¸ÓÁö »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô ±×("±×"´Â Àú¸¦ ÀǹÌÇÏÁö¿ä)´Â ÀÌÇغҰ¡´ÉÇÑ »ç¶÷ÀÌ´Ù"¶ó°í ÇßÁö¿ä. ÀÌ°Ç Á¦ ¸¹Àº °æÇèµé¿¡ ¿ÏÀüÈ÷ À§¹èµÇ´Â ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¸ðµç Á¾·ùÀÇ Ã»Áßµé°ú °ü·ÃÇؼ­ ¸»ÀÌÁö¿ä. ¿ÀÈ÷·Á, Á¦ °æÇèÀº Á¦°¡ ¹æ±Ý ¼­¼úÇÑ ±×´ë·ÎÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ûÁßµéÀÇ ÀÌÇغҰ¡´É Á¤µµ°¡ ´ëÃæ ±×µéÀÇ ±³À° ¼öÁØ¿¡ Á¤ºñ·ÊÇÏÁö¿ä.
 
°¡·É, ¶óµð¿À ´ë´ãÀ» º¾½Ã´Ù. Àú´Â ¶óµð¿À ´ë´ã¿¡ »ó´çÈ÷ ¸¹ÀÌ ³ª°¬´Âµ¥, ¾ï¾çµîÀ» µé¾îº¸¸é ûÃëÀÚ°¡ ¾î¶² Á¾·ùÀÇ »ç¶÷ÀÎÁö¸¦ »ó´çÈ÷ ½±°Ô ÃßÃøÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. Á¦°¡ ²÷ÀÓ¾øÀÌ ¹ß°ßÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº, ûÃëÀÚ°¡ °¡³­ÇÏ°í ´ú ±³À°¹ÞÀº »ç¶÷Àϼö·Ï ¸¹Àº ¹è°æÁö½ÄÀ̳ª "ÁØ°ÅƲ" ¹®Á¦°°Àº °ÍÀ» Á¦°¡ ±×³É °Ç³Ê¶Û¼ö ÀÖ´Ù´Â »ç½ÇÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇϸé Á¦°¡ ¸»ÇÏ´Â °ÍµéÀº »ó´çÈ÷ ÀÚ¸íÇÏ°í ¸ðµç »ç¶÷µéÀÌ »ó½ÄÀûÀ¸·Î ¹Þ¾ÆµéÀÌ°í ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ̱⠶§¹®ÀÌÁö¿ä. µû¶ó¼­ Àú´Â ±×³É ¿ì¸® ¸ðµÎ°¡ °ü½ÉÀ» °®°í ÀÖ´Â ¹®Á¦µé·Î °ðÀå ¿Å°Ü³ª¾Æ°¥ ¼ö ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. Á»´õ ±³À°¹ÞÀº ûÃëÀÚÀϼö·Ï ÀÌ°Ô ÈξÀ ´õ ÈûÀÌ µì´Ï´Ù. ¼ö¸¹Àº À̵¥¿Ã·Î±âÀû ±¸¼º¹°µéÀ» ºÎ½¤¹ö¸®´Â °ÍÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇϱ⠶§¹®ÀÌÁö¿ä.
 
Á¦°¡ ¾´ Ã¥µéÀ» ¸¹Àº »ç¶÷µéÀÌ ÀÐÀ» ¼ö ¾ø´Ù´Â °ÍÀº »ç½ÇÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ±×°Ç ±× ¾ÈÀÇ ¾ÆÀ̵ð¾îµéÀ̳ª ¾ð¾î°¡ º¹ÀâÇؼ­ ±×·±°ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´ÏÁö¿ä. °­¿¬Àå¿¡¼­ ÀÚÀ¯Åä·ÐÀ» ÇÒ ¶§´Â, Á¤È®È÷ °°Àº »ç¾Èµé¿¡ ´ëÇØ, ½ÉÁö¾î Á¤È®È÷ °°Àº ´Ü¾îµéÀ» ½áµµ, ¾Æ¹« ¹®Á¦°¡ ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. ÀÌÀ¯´Â ¿©·¯°¡Áö°¡ ÀÖ°ÚÁö¿ä. ¾Æ¸¶µµ ºÎºÐÀûÀ¸·Î´Â Á¦ ¹®Ã¼ ¶§¹®ÀÏ °ÍÀÌ°í, ºÎºÐÀûÀ¸·Î´Â »ó´çÈ÷ ¹æ´ëÇÑ ÀڷḦ Á¦½ÃÇØ¾ß µÉ ÇÊ¿ä (ÃÖ¼ÒÇÑ Àú´Â ±×·¸°Ô ´À³§´Ï´Ù) ¶§¹®¿¡ ±× °á°ú ÀбⰡ ¾î·Á¿öÁöÁö ¾Ê³ª ½Í½À´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ·± ÀÌÀ¯µé ¶§¹®¿¡ ¸¹Àº »ç¶÷µéÀÌ Á¦ Ã¥¿¡¼­ ƯÁ¤ ºÎºÐÀ» (¾î¶² ¶§´Â °ÅÀÇ ±×´ë·Î) ÆÊÇ÷¿ Çüųª ±× ºñ½ÁÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î ¸¸µé¾î ¹èÆ÷ÇÏÁö¿ä. ¾Æ¹«µµ [ÀÌÇØÇϴµ¥] º° ¹®Á¦¸¦ ´À³¢´Â °Í °°Áö ¾Ê´õ±º¿ä. ¹°·Ð, ´Ù½Ã Çѹø ¸»ÇÏÁö¸¸, ¿ÀÈ÷·Á Times Literary Supplement³ª Àü¹®ÀûÀÎ Çмú Àú³ÎµéÀº µµ´ëü Á¦°¡ ¹» ¸»ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀÎÁö ¸ð¸£´Â °æ¿ì°¡ ÀÚÁÖ ¹ú¾îÁý´Ï´Ù¸¸ ¸»ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¾î¶² °æ¿ì¿¡ º¸¸é, Á¤¸» Èñ±ØÀûÀÌÁö¿ä.
 
¸¶Áö¸· ÁöÀûÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ¹Ì ´Ù¸¥ µ¥¼­µµ ½è½À´Ï´Ù¸¸ (Z¿¡¼­ÀÇ Åä·Ð, <501³â: Á¤º¹Àº °è¼ÓµÈ´Ù>ÀÇ ¸¶Áö¸· Àåµî), ÃÖ±Ù Áö½ÄÀÎ °è±ÞÀÇ Çൿ¿¡¼­ ³î¶ó¿î º¯È­°¡ ÀÖ¾úÁö¿ä. 60³âÀüÀ̶ó¸é ³ëµ¿ °è±Þ Çб³µé¿¡¼­ °¡¸£Ä¡°Å³ª <¹é¸¸ÀÎÀ» À§ÇÑ ¼öÇÐ> (Á¦¸ñ ±×´ë·Î, ¼ö¹é¸¸ÀÇ »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô ¼öÇÐÀ» ÀÌÇØ°¡´ÉÇÏ°Ô²û ÇØÁÖ¾úÁö¿ä)°ú °°Àº Ã¥µéÀ» ¾²°í ´ëÁß Á¶Á÷µé¿¡ Âü¿© ¹× °­¿¬À» Çß¾úÀ» ÁÂÆÄ Áö½ÄÀεéÀÌ, Áö±ÝÀº ±×·¯ÇÑ È°µ¿µéÀ» °ÅÀÇ µµ¿Ü½ÃÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ°Ç Á¶±×¸¸ ¹®Á¦°¡ ¾Æ´ÏÁö¿ä. Áö±Ý ÀÌ ³ª¶ó[¹Ì±¹]´Â ¸Å¿ì ÀÌ»óÇÏ°í ºÒ±æÇÑ Á¶ÁüÀ» º¸ÀÌ´Â »óȲ¿¡ ³õ¿©ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. »ç¶÷µéÀº µÎ·Á¿öÇÏ°í, ºÐ³ëÇÏ°í, ȯ»ó¿¡¼­ ±ú¾î³ª°í, ȸÀÇÀûÀÌ µÇ°í, È¥¶õ½º·¯¿öÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ¸¶ÀÌÅ©°¡ ¸»ÇÑ °Íó·³, ÀÌ·± »óȲÀ̾߸»·Î È°µ¿°¡µéÀÌ ²Þ²Ù¾î¿À´ø °ÍÀÌÁö¿ä. ±×·¯³ª µ¿½Ã¿¡ ÀÌ·± »óȲÀº ¼±µ¿Á¤Ä¡°¡µé°ú ±¤½ÅÀڵ鿡°Ô ºñ¿ÁÇÑ Åä¾çÀÌ µÇ±âµµ ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ±×µéÀº ºñ½ÁÇÑ »óȲ¿¡¼­ ±×µéÀÇ ¼±¹èµéÀÌ »Ñ·Á¿Ô´ø ¸Þ½ÃÁöµéÀ» »Ñ·Á´ë¸é¼­ »ó´ç¼öÀÇ ´ëÁßÀû ÁöÁö¸¦ Áñ±æ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» (±×¸®°í ½ÇÁ¦·Î ¹ú½á Áñ±â°í ÀÖ´Â) °ÍÀ̴ϱî¿ä. ¿ì¸®´Â °ú°Å¿¡ ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ »óȲÀÌ ¾î¶°ÇÑ ½ÄÀ¸·Î ¹ßÀüÇß´ÂÁö ¾Ë°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ±×·± ÀÏÀÌ ´Ù½Ã ÀϾ ¼öµµ ÀÖÁö¿ä. °ú°Å¿¡´Â ÀÏ¹Ý ´ëÁßµé°ú ±×µéÀÇ ¹®Á¦¸¦ ±â²¨ÀÌ °øÀ¯ÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÑ ÁÂÆÄ Áö½ÄÀεéÀÌ ¸Þ¾î¿Ô´ø °£±ØÀÌ, ÇöÀç´Â ¾öû³­ Æ´À¸·Î Á¸ÀçÇÏ°í ÀÖÁö¿ä. Á¦°¡ º¸±â¿¡ ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ »óȲÀº, ºÒ±æÇÑ ÇÔÃàÀ» ³»Æ÷ÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.
 
 
´äº¯À» ³¡³À´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í (¼ÖÁ÷È÷ ¸»ÇÏÀÚ¸é) ¾Õ¿¡¼­ ¸»ÇÑ ¸í¹éÇÑ Áú¹®µé¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ´äº¯À» ¹ÞÁö ¸øÇÒ °æ¿ì, ÀÌ ¹®Á¦¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀúÀÇ °³ÀÎÀû °ü½Éµµ ÀÌ°ÍÀ¸·Î ³¡À» ³»·Á°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.
 

 2002-08-27 22:08:25 

 
 
 .................................................................................................
 
¾Æ·¡ÀÇ ±ÛÀº ¿ø¹®ÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
 
 
 
 
 
This text has circulated quite a number of times on Usenet, and so far as I know is authentic. This version (less, of course, the HTML airs and graces) was posted by one jenm289@aol.com to rec.arts.books, 13 Nov 1995 03:21:23 -0500, message-id 486v63$9an@newsbf02.news.aol.com. Jenm289 wrote: "The following was written several months ago by Noam Chomsky in a discussion about po-mo and its contribution to activism et al. The discussion took place on LBBS, Z-Magazine's Left On-Line Bulletin Board (contact sysop@lbbs.org to join)."

 
 
I've returned from travel-speaking, where I spend most of my life, and found a collection of messages extending the discussion about "theory" and "philosophy," a debate that I find rather curious. A few reactions --- though I concede, from the start, that I may simply not understand what is going on.
 
As far as I do think I understand it, the debate was initiated by the charge that I, Mike, and maybe others don't have "theories" and therefore fail to give any explanation of why things are proceeding as they do. We must turn to "theory" and "philosophy" and "theoretical constructs" and the like to remedy this deficiency in our efforts to understand and address what is happening in the world. I won't speak for Mike. My response so far has pretty much been to reiterate something I wrote 35 years ago, long before "postmodernism" had erupted in the literary intellectual culture: "if there is a body of theory, well tested and verified, that applies to the conduct of foreign affairs or the resolution of domestic or international conflict, its existence has been kept a well-guarded secret," despite much "pseudo-scientific posturing."
 
To my knowledge, the statement was accurate 35 years ago, and remains so; furthermore, it extends to the study of human affairs generally, and applies in spades to what has been produced since that time. What has changed in the interim, to my knowledge, is a huge explosion of self- and mutual-admiration among those who propound what they call "theory" and "philosophy," but little that I can detect beyond "pseudo-scientific posturing."
 
That little is, as I wrote, sometimes quite interesting, but lacks consequences for the real world problems that occupy my time and energies (Rawls's important work is the case I mentioned, in response to specific inquiry).
The latter fact has been noticed. One fine philosopher and social theorist (also activist), Alan Graubard, wrote an interesting review years ago of Robert Nozick's "libertarian" response to Rawls, and of the reactions to it. He pointed out that reactions were very enthusiastic. Reviewer after reviewer extolled the power of the arguments, etc., but no one accepted any of the real-world conclusions (unless they had previously reached them). That's correct, as were his observations on what it means.
 
The proponents of "theory" and "philosophy" have a very easy task if they want to make their case. Simply make known to me what was and remains a "secret" to me: I'll be happy to look. I've asked many times before, and still await an answer, which should be easy to provide: simply give some examples of "a body of theory, well tested and verified, that applies to" the kinds of problems and issues that Mike, I, and many others (in fact, most of the world's population, I think, outside of narrow and remarkably self-contained intellectual circles) are or should be concerned with: the problems and issues we speak and write about, for example, and others like them. To put it differently, show that the principles of the "theory" or "philosophy" that we are told to study and apply lead by valid argument to conclusions that we and others had not already reached on other (and better) grounds; these "others" include people lacking formal education, who typically seem to have no problem reaching these conclusions through mutual interactions that avoid the "theoretical" obscurities entirely, or often on their own.
 
Again, those are simple requests. I've made them before, and remain in my state of ignorance. I also draw certain conclusions from the fact.
 
As for the "deconstruction" that is carried out (also mentioned in the debate), I can't comment, because most of it seems to me gibberish. But if this is just another sign of my incapacity to recognize profundities, the course to follow is clear: just restate the results to me in plain words that I can understand, and show why they are different from, or better than, what others had been doing long before and and have continued to do since without three-syllable words, incoherent sentences, inflated rhetoric that (to me, at least) is largely meaningless, etc. That will cure my deficiencies --- of course, if they are curable; maybe they aren't, a possibility to which I'll return.
 
These are very easy requests to fulfill, if there is any basis to the claims put forth with such fervor and indignation. But instead of trying to provide an answer to this simple requests, the response is cries of anger: to raise these questions shows "elitism," "anti-intellectualism," and other crimes --- though apparently it is not "elitist" to stay within the self- and mutual-admiration societies of intellectuals who talk only to one another and (to my knowledge) don't enter into the kind of world in which I'd prefer to live. As for that world, I can reel off my speaking and writing schedule to illustrate what I mean, though I presume that most people in this discussion know, or can easily find out; and somehow I never find the "theoreticians" there, nor do I go to their conferences and parties. In short, we seem to inhabit quite different worlds, and I find it hard to see why mine is "elitist," not theirs. The opposite seems to be transparently the case, though I won't amplify.
 
To add another facet, I am absolutely deluged with requests to speak and can't possibly accept a fraction of the invitations I'd like to, so I suggest other people. But oddly, I never suggest those who propound "theories" and "philosophy," nor do I come across them, or for that matter rarely even their names, in my own (fairly extensive) experience with popular and activist groups and organizations, general community, college, church, union, etc., audiences here and abroad, third world women, refugees, etc.; I can easily give examples. Why, I wonder.
 
The whole debate, then, is an odd one. On one side, angry charges and denunciations, on the other, the request for some evidence and argument to support them, to which the response is more angry charges --- but, strikingly, no evidence or argument. Again, one is led to ask why.
 
It's entirely possible that I'm simply missing something, or that I just lack the intellectual capacity to understand the profundities that have been unearthed in the past 20 years or so by Paris intellectuals and their followers. I'm perfectly open-minded about it, and have been for years, when similar charges have been made -- but without any answer to my questions. Again, they are simple and should be easy to answer, if there is an answer: if I'm missing something, then show me what it is, in terms I can understand. Of course, if it's all beyond my comprehension, which is possible, then I'm just a lost cause, and will be compelled to keep to things I do seem to be able to understand, and keep to association with the kinds of people who also seem to be interested in them and seem to understand them (which I'm perfectly happy to do, having no interest, now or ever, in the sectors of the intellectual culture that engage in these things, but apparently little else).
 
Since no one has succeeded in showing me what I'm missing, we're left with the second option: I'm just incapable of understanding. I'm certainly willing to grant that it may be true, though I'm afraid I'll have to remain suspicious, for what seem good reasons. There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out.
 
Again, I've lived for 50 years in these worlds, have done a fair amount of work of my own in fields called "philosophy" and "science," as well as intellectual history, and have a fair amount of personal acquaintance with the intellectual culture in the sciences, humanities, social sciences, and the arts. That has left me with my own conclusions about intellectual life, which I won't spell out. But for others, I would simply suggest that you ask those who tell you about the wonders of "theory" and "philosophy" to justify their claims --- to do what people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc. These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames.
 
Specific comment. Phetland asked who I'm referring to when I speak of "Paris school" and "postmodernist cults": the above is a sample.
 
He then asks, reasonably, why I am "dismissive" of it. Take, say, Derrida. Let me begin by saying that I dislike making the kind of comments that follow without providing evidence, but I doubt that participants want a close analysis of de Saussure, say, in this forum, and I know that I'm not going to undertake it. I wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly asked for my opinion --- and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond that I don't think it merits the time to do so.
 
So take Derrida, one of the grand old men. I thought I ought to at least be able to understand his Grammatology, so tried to read it. I could make out some of it, for example, the critical analysis of classical texts that I knew very well and had written about years before. I found the scholarship appalling, based on pathetic misreading; and the argument, such as it was, failed to come close to the kinds of standards I've been familiar with since virtually childhood. Well, maybe I missed something: could be, but suspicions remain, as noted. Again, sorry to make unsupported comments, but I was asked, and therefore am answering.
 
Some of the people in these cults (which is what they look like to me) I've met: Foucault (we even have a several-hour discussion, which is in print, and spent quite a few hours in very pleasant conversation, on real issues, and using language that was perfectly comprehensible --- he speaking French, me English); Lacan (who I met several times and considered an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan, though his earlier work, pre-cult, was sensible and I've discussed it in print); Kristeva (who I met only briefly during the period when she was a fervent Maoist); and others. Many of them I haven't met, because I am very remote from from these circles, by choice, preferring quite different and far broader ones --- the kinds where I give talks, have interviews, take part in activities, write dozens of long letters every week, etc. I've dipped into what they write out of curiosity, but not very far, for reasons already mentioned: what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish. When I proceed as I do in other areas where I do not understand, I run into the problems mentioned in connection with (1) and (2) above. So that's who I'm referring to, and why I don't proceed very far. I can list a lot more names if it's not obvious.
 
For those interested in a literary depiction that reflects pretty much the same perceptions (but from the inside), I'd suggest David Lodge. Pretty much on target, as far as I can judge.
 
Phetland also found it "particularly puzzling" that I am so "curtly dismissive" of these intellectual circles while I spend a lot of time "exposing the posturing and obfuscation of the New York Times." So "why not give these guys the same treatment." Fair question. There are also simple answers. What appears in the work I do address (NYT, journals of opinion, much of scholarship, etc.) is simply written in intelligible prose and has a great impact on the world, establishing the doctrinal framework within which thought and expression are supposed to be contained, and largely are, in successful doctrinal systems such as ours. That has a huge impact on what happens to suffering people throughout the world, the ones who concern me, as distinct from those who live in the world that Lodge depicts (accurately, I think). So this work should be dealt with seriously, at least if one cares about ordinary people and their problems. The work to which Phetland refers has none of these characteristics, as far as I'm aware. It certainly has none of the impact, since it is addressed only to other intellectuals in the same circles. Furthermore, there is no effort that I am aware of to make it intelligible to the great mass of the population (say, to the people I'm constantly speaking to, meeting with, and writing letters to, and have in mind when I write, and who seem to understand what I say without any particular difficulty, though they generally seem to have the same cognitive disability I do when facing the postmodern cults). And I'm also aware of no effort to show how it applies to anything in the world in the sense I mentioned earlier: grounding conclusions that weren't already obvious. Since I don't happen to be much interested in the ways that intellectuals inflate their reputations, gain privilege and prestige, and disengage themselves from actual participation in popular struggle, I don't spend any time on it.
 
Phetland suggests starting with Foucault --- who, as I've written repeatedly, is somewhat apart from the others, for two reasons: I find at least some of what he writes intelligible, though generally not very interesting; second, he was not personally disengaged and did not restrict himself to interactions with others within the same highly privileged elite circles. Phetland then does exactly what I requested: he gives some illustrations of why he thinks Foucault's work is important. That's exactly the right way to proceed, and I think it helps understand why I take such a "dismissive" attitude towards all of this --- in fact, pay no attention to it.
 
What Phetland describes, accurately I'm sure, seems to me unimportant, because everyone always knew it --- apart from details of social and intellectual history, and about these, I'd suggest caution: some of these are areas I happen to have worked on fairly extensively myself, and I know that Foucault's scholarship is just not trustworthy here, so I don't trust it, without independent investigation, in areas that I don't know --- this comes up a bit in the discussion from 1972 that is in print. I think there is much better scholarship on the 17th and 18th century, and I keep to that, and my own research. But let's put aside the other historical work, and turn to the "theoretical constructs" and the explanations: that there has been "a great change from harsh mechanisms of repression to more subtle mechanisms by which people come to do" what the powerful want, even enthusiastically. That's true enough, in fact, utter truism. If that's a "theory," then all the criticisms of me are wrong: I have a "theory" too, since I've been saying exactly that for years, and also giving the reasons and historical background, but without describing it as a theory (because it merits no such term), and without obfuscatory rhetoric (because it's so simple-minded), and without claiming that it is new (because it's a truism).
 
It's been fully recognized for a long time that as the power to control and coerce has declined, it's more necessary to resort to what practitioners in the PR industry early in this century -- who understood all of this well -- called "controlling the public mind." The reasons, as observed by Hume in the 18th century, are that "the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers" relies ultimately on control of opinion and attitudes. Why these truisms should suddenly become "a theory" or "philosophy," others will have to explain; Hume would have laughed.
 
Some of Foucault's particular examples (say, about 18th century techniques of punishment) look interesting, and worth investigating as to their accuracy. But the "theory" is merely an extremely complex and inflated restatement of what many others have put very simply, and without any pretense that anything deep is involved. There's nothing in what Phetland describes that I haven't been writing about myself for 35 years, also giving plenty of documentation to show that it was always obvious, and indeed hardly departs from truism. What's interesting about these trivialities is not the principle, which is transparent, but the demonstration of how it works itself out in specific detail to cases that are important to people: like intervention and aggression, exploitation and terror, "free market" scams, and so on. That I don't find in Foucault, though I find plenty of it by people who seem to be able to write sentences I can understand and who aren't placed in the intellectual firmament as "theoreticians."
 
To make myself clear, Phetland is doing exactly the right thing: presenting what he sees as "important insights and theoretical constructs" that he finds in Foucault. My problem is that the "insights" seem to me familiar and there are no "theoretical constructs," except in that simple and familiar ideas have been dressed up in complicated and pretentious rhetoric. Phetland asks whether I think this is "wrong, useless, or posturing." No.
 
The historical parts look interesting sometimes, though they have to be treated with caution and independent verification is even more worth undertaking than it usually is. The parts that restate what has long been obvious and put in much simpler terms are not "useless," but indeed useful, which is why I and others have always made the very same points. As to "posturing," a lot of it is that, in my opinion, though I don't particularly blame Foucault for it: it's such a deeply rooted part of the corrupt intellectual culture of Paris that he fell into it pretty naturally, though to his credit, he distanced himself from it. As for the "corruption" of this culture particularly since World War II, that's another topic, which I've discussed elsewhere and won't go into here. Frankly, I don't see why people in this forum should be much interested, just as I am not. There are more important things to do, in my opinion, than to inquire into the traits of elite intellectuals engaged in various careerist and other pursuits in their narrow and (to me, at least) pretty unininteresting circles. That's a broad brush, and I stress again that it is unfair to make such comments without proving them: but I've been asked, and have answered the only specific point that I find raised. When asked about my general opinion, I can only give it, or if something more specific is posed, address that. I'm not going to undertake an essay on topics that don't interest me.
 
Unless someone can answer the simple questions that immediately arise in the mind of any reasonable person when claims about "theory" and "philosophy" are raised, I'll keep to work that seems to me sensible and enlightening, and to people who are interested in understanding and changing the world.
 
Johnb made the point that "plain language is not enough when the frame of reference is not available to the listener"; correct and important. But the right reaction is not to resort to obscure and needlessly complex verbiage and posturing about non-existent "theories." Rather, it is to ask the listener to question the frame of reference that he/she is accepting, and to suggest alternatives that might be considered, all in plain language. I've never found that a problem when I speak to people lacking much or sometimes any formal education, though it's true that it tends to become harder as you move up the educational ladder, so that indoctrination is much deeper, and the self-selection for obedience that is a good part of elite education has taken its toll. Johnb says that outside of circles like this forum, "to the rest of the country, he's incomprehensible" ("he" being me). That's absolutely counter to my rather ample experience, with all sorts of audiences. Rather, my experience is what I just described. The incomprehensibility roughly corresponds to the educational level. Take, say, talk radio. I'm on a fair amount, and it's usually pretty easy to guess from accents, etc., what kind of audience it is. I've repeatedly found that when the audience is mostly poor and less educated, I can skip lots of the background and "frame of reference" issues because it's already obvious and taken for granted by everyone, and can proceed to matters that occupy all of us. With more educated audiences, that's much harder; it's necessary to disentangle lots of ideological constructions.
 
It's certainly true that lots of people can't read the books I write. That's not because the ideas or language are complicated --- we have no problems in informal discussion on exactly the same points, and even in the same words. The reasons are different, maybe partly the fault of my writing style, partly the result of the need (which I feel, at least) to present pretty heavy documentation, which makes it tough reading. For these reasons, a number of people have taken pretty much the same material, often the very same words, and put them in pamphlet form and the like. No one seems to have much problem --- though again, reviewers in the Times Literary Supplement or professional academic journals don't have a clue as to what it's about, quite commonly; sometimes it's pretty comical.
 
A final point, something I've written about elsewhere (e.g., in a discussion in Z papers, and the last chapter of Year 501). There has been a striking change in the behavior of the intellectual class in recent years. The left intellectuals who 60 years ago would have been teaching in working class schools, writing books like "mathematics for the millions" (which made mathematics intelligible to millions of people), participating in and speaking for popular organizations, etc., are now largely disengaged from such activities, and although quick to tell us that they are far more radical than thou, are not to be found, it seems, when there is such an obvious and growing need and even explicit request for the work they could do out there in the world of people with live problems and concerns. That's not a small problem. This country, right now, is in a very strange and ominous state. People are frightened, angry, disillusioned, skeptical, confused. That's an organizer's dream, as I once heard Mike say. It's also fertile ground for demagogues and fanatics, who can (and in fact already do) rally substantial popular support with messages that are not unfamiliar from their predecessors in somewhat similar circumstances. We know where it has led in the past; it could again. There's a huge gap that once was at least partially filled by left intellectuals willing to engage with the general public and their problems. It has ominous implications, in my opinion.
 
End of Reply, and (to be frank) of my personal interest in the matter, unless the obvious questions are answered.
 
 
 
 


°Ô½Ã¹°¼ö 74°Ç / ÄÚ¸àÆ®¼ö 40°Ç RSS
 
¹øÈ£ Á¦¸ñ ±Û¾´ÀÌ Á¶È¸ ³¯Â¥
öÇÐÀÇ ±âÃÊ°¡ ¾ø´Â ºÐµé²² ±ÇÇÏ´Â ÁÁÀº µ¿¿µ»ó ÀÚ·á (*Àç¹Õ½À´Ï´Ù^.^) (2) °ü¸®ÀÚ 26237 07-16
öÇÐÀ» °øºÎÇÏ´Â ÀÌÀ¯ (1) Á¤°­±æ 18125 04-23
74 [¸ÍÀÚ] õÇÏ¿¡ µµÔ³°¡ ¾ø´Â °Íµµ ÇÏ´ÃÀÇ ¶æÀΰ¡? ¹Ì¼± 766 03-22
73 ¿ì¸®ÀÇ Áö½Ä ±³À°ÀÌ ÆÄÆíÀû, ³ª¿­Àû, ÀýÃæÀûÀ̱⠽¬¿î ÀÌÀ¯ ¹Ì¼± 2416 04-22
72 Å»·¹½º, öÇÐÀÇ ÃâÇö°ú ±× ÀÇ¹Ì ¹Ì¼± 2227 10-01
71 ²Þ²Û ¾ê±â, öÇÐÀº <³»°¡ ¼ÓÇÑ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê´Â Àüü Áý>À» ÆľÇÇÏ´Â °Í ¹Ì¼± 2764 11-05
70 ¡®¸ÞÀ̵å ÀÎ ÄÚ¸®¾Æ¡¯ öÇÐÀ» °³Ã´ÇÑ ¹ÌÁöÀÇ Ã¶ÇÐÀÚ(½Åµ¿¾Æ) (2) ¹Ì¼± 4053 06-03
69 ¾ËÆ¢¼¼ÀÇ 'È£¸í'¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ºñÆÇÀû µ¶ÇØ (ÁøÅ¿ø) ¹Ì¼± 36781 05-07
68 Å«³¡Àº ³¡ÀÌ ¾ø´Ù_¹«±ØÀÌűØ(Ùíпì»÷¼Ð¿) (Á¶¿ëÇö) (1) ¹Ì¼± 5012 05-03
67 ¸öÀÇ MÃþÀ» Çü¼ºÇÏ´Â ÇüÀÌ»óÇÐ.. ±× ÁøÈ­Àû ±â¿ø, ¹Ì¼± 3087 03-11
66 Çѳª ¾Æ·»Æ®°¡ ¸»ÇÏ´Â <¾ÇÀÇ Æò¹ü¼º> ¹Ì¼± 4662 02-23
65 ¼­±¸ ±Ù´ë¸¦ Áö¹èÇß´ø <µ¥Ä«¸£Æ®-´ºÅÏ ¼¼°è°ü>À̶õ? ¹Ì¼± 3983 02-21
64 Á¾±³, öÇÐ, °úÇÐÀ̶ó´Â 3°¡Áö ÀüÅëÀÇ ¼ÒÅë °ü°è ¹Ì¼± 3944 01-17
63 ÅëºÐ¼®Àû »ç°í ¹Ì¼± 4613 10-11
62 ºÒ±³¿¡ ´ëÇÑ È­ÀÌÆ®ÇìµåÀÇ »ý°¢ ¹Ì¼± 3818 09-16
61 °æÇèÀÇ µÎ Ãø¸é : <ÃøÁ¤°¡´ÉÀÇ °æÇè>°ú <ÃøÁ¤ºÒ´ÉÀÇ °æÇè> ¹Ì¼± 3820 04-27
60 "Á¸Àç(being)À» Èû(power)"À¸·Î Á¤ÀÇÇÑ ÇöóÅæ ÀúÀÛÀÇ Èñ¶ø ¿ø¹®°ú ¿µ¿ª ¹Ì¼± 4715 05-24
59 Àι®ÇÐÀÚ´Â °úÇÐÀÌ ¹«¼·´Ù? ÁøÂ¥ 'À¶ÇÕ' °¡´ÉÇÏ·Á¸é¡¦(ÃÖÁ¾´ö) (4) ¹Ì¼± 6849 01-12
58 ÆíÇâ ÁßÀÇ ÆíÇâ, <ÇüÀÌ»óÇÐÀû ÆíÇâ> ¹Ì¼± 8758 07-28
57 ±èÀçÀÎ ¿¬±¸¿ø, ÁöÁ§ÀÇ µé·ÚÁî µ¶ÇØ ºñÆÇ (1) ¹Ì¼± 7450 07-10
56 ÇüÀÌ»óÇÐÀÇ ¿ªÇÒÀ» ¹«½ÃÇÏ´Â ºÐµé¿¡°Ô.. (6) ¹Ì¼± 8899 09-03
55 Àι®ÇÐÀº °úÇп¡ ÀÚ¸®¸¦ ³»ÁÖ¾î¾ß Çϴ°¡ (ÀÌ»óÇå) (1) ¹Ì¼± 7784 08-16
54 ÁöÁ§ÀÌ ¸¸³­ ·¹´Ñ (Á¶¹èÁØ) (1) ¹Ì¼± 7420 07-18
53 ½½¶óº¸¿¹ ÁöÁ§ ÀÎÅͺä Àü¹® / Çѱ¹ÀϺ¸ (2) ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 9157 02-11
52 °øÀÚ¿Í ¿¹¼ö, µµ¿Ã ÁÖÀå¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹Ý·Ð ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 8059 12-06
51 öÇÐÀÇ ±âÃÊ°¡ ¾ø´Â ºÐµé²² ±ÇÇÏ´Â ÁÁÀº µ¿¿µ»ó ÀÚ·á (*Àç¹Õ½À´Ï´Ù^.^) (2) °ü¸®ÀÚ 26237 07-16
50 ±¹³»¿Ü öÇлó´ã °ü·Ã ¹®Çå (Ãâó: öÇлó´ãÄ¡·áÇÐȸ) ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 7939 06-07
49 Çѱ¹°¶·´ ÃÖÃÊ Çѱ¹ÀΠöÇÐ ÀÎ½Ä Á¶»ç (1) ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 9071 01-31
48 [Æß] µ¿¾çöÇлç»ó À½¾ç¿ÀÇ༳ ºñÆÇ ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 18995 12-17
47 öÇÐÀ» »ýÀü óÀ½À¸·Î °øºÎÇÏ´Â ÁøÂ¥ ÃʽÉÀںеéÀ» À§ÇÑ ¾È³» Ã¥µé ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 8302 11-06
46 »î°ú Çй®Àû Ž±¸¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ³ªÀÇ »ý°¢..(Àª¹ö ºñÆǵµ ¾à°£..) ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 9867 09-30
45 ¿¹¼ú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °¨»ó°ú À¯Èñ ±×¸®°í Áø¸® ´ã·Ð°ú ¹ÌÀû °¡Ä¡ ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 9553 09-19
44 ±×°ÍÀº ³ªÀÇ <ÁÖ°üÀû ´À³¦>Àϱî? ÂüµÈ <°´°üÀû ÀÌÇØ>Àϱî? ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 8703 09-03
43 °úÇÐÃ¥¡º¿ìÁÖÀÇ ±¸Á¶¡»¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¾î´À öÇÐÀÚÀÇ ¼­Æò (2) ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 10566 03-13
42 öÇÐ ¼ºÇâ Å×½ºÆ® (±×¸°ºñ) (6) Á¤°­±æ 11023 03-02
41 öÇÐÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇÑ ÀÌÀ¯ Çϳª Á¤°­±æ 12328 11-20
40 [Æß] ¾ÈÅä´Ï¿À ³×±×¸® (Antonio Negri, 1933~) °í°ñÅ×½º 10614 05-25
39 [Æß] ÆäÅÍ ½½·ÎÅÍ´ÙÀÌÅ© (Peter Sloterdijk, 1947~) °í°ñÅ×½º 10981 05-25
38 [Æß] ¿ä°¡Ã¶ÇÐ Á¤°­±æ 10359 04-24
37 '¾Ë·© ¹Ùµð¿ì'¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 13088 03-07
36 ¾Ë·© ¹Ùµð¿ì-Áø¸®¿Í ÁÖüÀÇ Ã¶ÇÐ (¼­¿ë¼ø) ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 19426 03-07
35 °¡´Ù¸ÓÀÇ ¡¸Áø¸®¿Í ¹æ¹ý¡¹ (2) ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 16340 10-14
34 È£¸ð ¸ð¹Ì¿£½º (±è¿ë¿Á) Á¤°­±æ 11605 03-28
33 ÁÖü ÇØüÀÇ ½Ã´ë¿¡ ÁÖü ¸»Çϱâ (2) »ê¼öÀ¯ 10466 12-05
32 '¾Æ´Ô/ºñ¿ò/¹Ý´ë/¹ö¸²/²÷À½/¾øÀ½' °°Àº ºÎÁ¤¹ý Ç¥ÇöÀÌ °®´Â ÇÑ°è ¹Ì¼±ÀÌ 9658 06-07
31 öÇаú ½ÅÇÐÀÇ °ü°è2 (*±ÇÇÏ´Â ±Û) Á¤°­±æ 12593 05-07
30 öÇаú ½ÅÇÐÀÇ °ü°è1 (*±ÇÇÏ´Â ±Û) Á¤°­±æ 12990 05-06
29 ¾ð¾î¿Í ¿ìÁÖ ±×¸®°í öÇÐ Á¤°­±æ 9872 04-21
28 "ÁÁ´Ù/½È´Ù"¿Í "¿Ç´Ù/Ʋ·È´Ù"ÀÇ Ç¥Çöµé, ¾î¶»°Ô º¼ °ÍÀΰ¡ : °¨¼º°ú À̼ºÀÇ ¹®Á¦ Á¤°­±æ 11310 04-13
27 ¸¶¸£Æ¾ ÇÏÀ̵¥°ÅÀÇ »ý¾Ö¿Í »ç»ó À̱â»ó 29149 11-12
26 ³í¸®¿Í Á÷°ü, ±×¸®°í °¨°¢¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ³íÀǵé (´äº¯: Á¤°­±æ) ÀÌÀç¿ì 11669 11-11
25 ½É¸®ÇÐ ¹× Á¤½ÅºÐ¼® ±×¸®°í öÇÐ(Á¸Àç·Ð) Á¤°­±æ 11788 11-11
24 [Æß] À±È¸, »ç½ÇÀΰ¡ »ç»óÀΰ¡ Á¤°­±æ 14182 11-11
23 [To. µé·ÚÁö¾È ±èÀçÀÎ] µÎ °¡Áö Áú¹®.. Á¤°­±æ 10396 11-11
22 [To. µé·ÚÁî¾È ±èÀçÀÎ] ºÎÁ¤¼ºÀ» °£Á÷ÇÑ Å»ÁÖfuite ¹ø¿ªÀº ¾î¶³Áö¿ä.. Á¤°­±æ 13141 11-11
21 [ÀÚ·á]¡ºÃµ °³ÀÇ °í¿ø¡»ÀÌ ¡º³ë¸¶µðÁò¡»¿¡°Ô (±èÀçÀÎ) Á¤°­±æ 12388 11-11
20 ³×±×¸®, À¯¹°·Ð°ú ºñÀ¯¹°·ÐÀÇ °æ°è¼±¿¡¼­ Á¤°­±æ 9245 11-11
19 ¡´Å»Áß½ÉÁÖÀÇ¡µÈ¤Àº¡´ÇØüÁÖÀÇ¡µÀÇ ÇÑ°è Á¤°­±æ 10660 11-11
18 [Æß] ¸¼½º, À¯¹°·Ð, Á¸Àç·ÐÀû ÇüÀÌ»óÇÐ Á¤°­±æ 11315 11-11
17 [Æß] ¿Ö ¡¶¿Ö µ¿¾çöÇÐÀΰ¡?¡·Àΰ¡ À嵿¿ì 10638 11-11
16 ¹«Á¤Ã¼¼º/´ÙÁ¤Ã¼¼º ȤÀº »ó´ëÁÖÀǸ¦ ÁÖÀåÇÏ´Â »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô ´øÁö´Â ¿ìÈ­ Á¤°­±æ 10449 11-10
15 ´Ù¾ç¼ºÀÇ »ý»ê°ú ´Ù¾ç¼º °£ÀÇ Ãæµ¹¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °íÂû Á¤°­±æ 10378 07-10
14 ½½¶óº¸ÀÌ ÁöÁ§Slavoj Zizek Á¤½ÅºÐ¼®ÇÐÀû »çȸÀÌ·Ð ¾ç¿î´ö 10971 10-08
13 [Æß] "Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´õ´ÏÁò" ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÃνºÅ°ÀÇ °ßÇØ Á¤°­±æ 14377 10-08
12 µé·ÚÁî¿Í °¡Å¸¸®ÀÇ ±â°è °³³ä (¼­µ¿¿í) Á¤°­±æ 20483 10-08
11 [Ã¥] ¡º¶ó±øÀÇ Àçź»ý¡» ±è»óȯ¤ýÈ«Áر⠿«À½ °ü¸®ÀÚ 11723 10-08
10 ÀÚ¿¬°ú ½Å°ú Àΰ£, ±×¸®°í ±Ù´ë Çй®ÀÇ Åº»ý ÀÌÇöÈÖ 9773 10-08
9 [20¼¼±â »ç»óÀ» ã¾Æ¼­] Áú µé·ÚÁîÀÇ Ã¶ÇÐ Á¤°­±æ 13994 10-08
8 [Æß] ¸ð´õ´ÏÁò Á¤°­±æ 12431 10-08
7 [Æß] ŸÀÚÀÇ ÇöÇö, À±¸®ÀÇ ÁöÆò(·¹ºñ³ª½º »ç»ó ¼Ò°³¼­) (3) Á¤°­±æ 13131 10-08
6 ·¹ºñ³ª½º »ç»ó¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÁÁÀº °³·Ð¼­ Á¤°­±æ 10476 10-08
5 [Æß] ·¹ºñ³ª½º¸¦ ¾Æ½Ã³ª¿ä? (1) Á¤°­±æ 12876 10-08
4 [Âü°íÀÚ·á]º»Àΰú ÀÌÁ¤¿ì(µé·ÚÁî¾È)¿ÍÀÇ ³íÀï ±Û¸ðÀ½ Á¤°­±æ 16245 10-08
3 [Æß] ¾ÆÄû³ª½º, ÇÏÀ̵¥°Å, È­ÀÌÆ®Çìµå Á¤°­±æ 9141 10-08
2 <À߸ø ³õ¿©Áø ±¸Ã¼¼ºÀÇ ¿À·ù>¿¡ ºüÁø µé·ÚÁî (2) Á¤°­±æ 19498 05-01
1 öÇÐÀ» °øºÎÇÏ´Â ÀÌÀ¯ (1) Á¤°­±æ 18125 04-23



Institute for Transformation of World and Christianity