우회하기 어려운 자유주의라는 경계: 격동과 위기의 시대 한국의 사상 좌표를 묻는다

초록

To analyze the prevailing domestic and international crises, this examination will center on the concept of 'liberalism.' Such an approach will facilitate a deeper understanding of the complexities inherent in both domestic and international contexts, while also clarifying our ideological orientation. In the international sphere, the disintegration of the postwar liberal order— specifically, the Yalta system—has become increasingly salient, largely contributing to a resurgence of the interwar crisis's negative ramifications. On the domestic front, the constraints of the 'post-movement society' are becoming increasingly apparent as adverse consequences of the 1987 System theory. Furthermore, the noticeable absence of ruling entities capable of articulating the historical and ideological dimensions of liberalism emerges as a critical challenge. In this discourse, liberalism will be defined as the 'historical and institutional conditions governing the operation of historical capitalism' and will be understood as a comprehensive institutional framework that encompasses world-system analysis and Foucault's theoretical reconfigurations. From this vantage point, it is imperative to differentiate between 19th-century and 20th-century liberalism. An in-depth examination is warranted regarding how the 20th century transcended the limitations of the 19th-century liberal paradigm by recognizing legal personhood and institutionalizing collective rights within the dynamic interplay among objects, property, and individuals. This evolution enabled the establishment of an economic-legal institutional complex that facilitated the functioning of an executive-centered system, the unsustainability of which has become apparent in the context of neoliberalism. In Korean society, which has endured the impacts of colonialism, liberal institutions are largely operationalized through processes of transplantation; however, the ideological reflection on these institutions remains insufficiently robust. Constitutional debates, property rights discussions, and rights discourse struggle to advance effectively. Debates that ought to critically interrogate the 'institution' often regress into inquiries regarding 'who' should be the adversaries, a pattern that highlights the limitations of this discourse.

키워드