글로벌리즘과 민족주의의 대립적 담론구조에 관한 연구

초록

Globalism and Nationalism, two of the most dominant discourses in our society, embody interesting epistemological contradictions, but the seriousness of such contradictions has been overlooked until now. This study seeks to attend to this matter in a more analytical and in-depth probe into these contradictions. Existing researches on globalization and nationalism focus on the construction of contents and logical appropriateness of these dominant discourses. As a result, such research undertakings fail to tackle the contradictions particularly in relation to the Korean situation. Studies carried out on globalization and nationalism similarly fail to provide comprehensive understanding on the contradictions because they merely present globalization as the solution in their theme and object. This study pays attention to the conflicting characteristics of these two dominant discourses, and examines the split aspect inherent to these contradicting discourse structures. It attempts to clarify the political consciousness of the people, problems that manifest in policy-making and implementation, as well as solutions to such problems. The concrete images of globalization can be summarized into three aspects: global competition, global governance and global standard. On the other hand, nationalism emphasizes national reunification and development as a practical object, clearly manifesting national unity and reunification, national development, and national co-existence and openness. In view of national identity, nationalism contradicts with globalism in that the former is trying to build national pride by advocating reunification, while the latter pursues the global standard. Furthermore, the image related with the existing forms of the state is contradictory because of the difference between national development and global governance. The principle of national development emphasizes the mood of nationalism based on the development of each nation, while global governance widens the perspective of transnational political behavior by incorporating conceptions of a transnational company, NGOs and all kinds of multilateral agencies. National coexistence is community-oriented because it stresses peaceful co-existence among all the people in the nation. On the other hand, global competition is individual-oriented considering that its primary image embodies the barbarous and heartless reality of survival of the fittest. This competitive image reveals the contradictions in terms of the reference group, main area, main agents, ideological doctrine, cultural attitude and the fundamental principle of living in the society. The heartless law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest, can be applied to globalism because the main actor, be it alone individual or acompany, acts based on the principle of competition. This tendency coincides with the doctrine of new-liberalism and also mirrors cultural relativism. Nationalism, on the contrary, places emphasis on the state or nation itself, the political system and national defense, instead of stressing the individual`s role. This discourse structure values just distribution and fair competition based on the community-oriented doctrine. The contradictory characteristics of these two dominant discourses result in a serious split in the epistemological aspects as well as in matters pertaining to the policy-making process. The effect of such a split, referred to as "global turbulence", appears mostly in the social, economic and language policies. As we see the restructuring of Chaebols and the operation of the Tripartite Committee congisting of the labor force, the management and the government, inconsistency and chaos as to the role and responsibility of the individual, the company and the state still prevails. Such contradictions bring to light a rift in national opinion on the language policy, which can best be illustrated by the public use of English and the integration of Chinese characters into the Korean language. The difference between the market-oriented and nation-oriented perspective in the reunification policy is the main factor that blocks attempts to draw people's support toward national reunification. The alternative to resolve such contradictions is to urge for wisdom in policy-making to overcome the environment that embodies globalization, and bring forth progress and development to the national community at the same time. Finally, considering the historical meaning of national pride as the basic unit off recognition and behavior, we should combine our will and wisdom to empower us and enable us to break through the Era of globalization.