독일사 속의 근대성과 복지, 1870-1945 = MODERNITY AND WELFARE IN GERMANY, 1870-1945

국문 초록 (Abstract)

복지와 근대성은 근대 독일사 서술에서 중심 개념으로 자리 잡아왔다. 그러나 복지와 계몽주의에 대한 우리의 이해를 오랫동안 규정해온 근대성과 자유주의와 해방 사이의 규범적 연결이 근대 독일사의 이해를 가장 진척시켰던 저술들에 의해 의문시됨으로써 이 발전은 중요한 이론적 결과들을 야기하고 있다. 복지에 대한 최근의 연구들은 독일 제국의 근대성을 강조하면서, 동시에 진보적인 사회 개혁이 빌헬름 시기로부터 나치의 사회 및 인종정책에 이르는 중요한 연속성이 되었던, 자유를 제한하는 억압적 차원도 가지고 있다고 제시한다. 그뿐 아니라 나치 독일을 ‘인종 국가’로 보는 최근의 해석은 인종적으로 가치 있는 주민들을 향상시키기 위한 진보적 사회 프로그램들과 인종적으로 열등한 자들을 주변화하기 위한 부정적 프로그램들이 일관적이며, 근대적이며, 그러나 명확히 자유를 제한하는 복지 개념의 두 측면을 대표한다는 것을 강조해왔다. 이 논문은 복지와 사회 개혁에 대한 급증하는 문헌들이 복지와 근대성 사이의 모호한 관계를 어떻게 다루어 왔는지 살펴보며, 나치 독일을 ‘복지’ 국가로 성격 규정하는 데 내포된 이론적 도덕적 문제들에 초점을 맞춘다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

For decades now, our understanding of the novelty and significance of the German welfare state has been intimately linked to our understanding of the modernity of German society, or the lack thereof. Originally, the Bismarckian social insurance system was linked positively to the paternalist aspirations of the authoritarian national state and its proud rejection of the norms of west European modernity.1) For the leading figures of what came to be known as the Bielefeld school, however, the precocious establishment of the Bismarckian social insurance system represented a strategy designed to guide Germany permanently away from the normal path to modernity by short-circuiting the
pressures for democratization. In this schema, social insurance was the carrot that was intended to soften the harshness of the repressive stick provided by the Anti-Socialist Law(1878-90) and the denial of democratic rights, wean the nascent working classes away from the party of revolution, and reconcile them with an authoritarian but paternalistic state. This Bismarck-centred perspective on the authoritarian, reactionary or defensive modernity of the German welfare state has been substantially complicated by recent research.2) But the real issue lies elsewhere, because the most important recent studies of the German welfare system have not so much attacked this interpretation of the Bismarckian welfare state as found it to be not relevant to their critical concerns. If the question was originally framed in terms of modernization theory, since the 1990s the relationship between welfare and modernity has been dominated by the concept of social discipline and by the claim that Nazi welfare and social policies were determined more by modern sciences such as eugenics and regional planning than by an archaizing rejection of modernity. This shift is the result of the confluence of two historiographical trends. First, the dispute over Germany’s ‘special path’ (Sonderweg) to modernity has given rise to a new wave of research which has clearly established the modernity of German society and economy during the Kaiserreich and the Weimar Republic. This literature has argued that Progressive social policies were inherently contradictory because their strategies for emancipating the lower classes and improving their way of life often relied on illiberal, coercive means. In turn, this
insight gave rise to the claim that, even though the Progressives were often the most important proponents of modernization in Wilhelmine and Weimar Germany, there are important continuities between the authoritarian, technocratic tendencies some actual and some merely latent of Progressivism and the social and racial policies of the Nazis. These two lines of argument come together in the notion that the apparently progressive eugenic measures to promote the health, welfare and procreation of the population and the Nazi efforts to marginalize and ultimately exterminate the racially undesirable groups must be seen as two sides of the same coin. They are, at bottom, simply different manifestations of the fundamental, underlying contradictions of German modernity.3) Second, over the past decades historians have increasingly characterized the Nazi regime as a racial state whose goal was to recast bourgeois society on the basis of its racial world-view.4) This new approach has also given us a clearer perspective on the modernity of Nazi social and welfare policies by showing how Nazi policies of discrimination, exclusion and annihilation can in part be traced back to the same social scientific discourses and administrative practices that were the origin of the German welfare state. However, this insight has been gained only at the cost of deepening our concern over the potential conflict between modernity and emancipation. In the literature on the German welfare system from the Kaiserreich to the Third Reich, the heart of the issue is that the normative connection between

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I.
• II.
• III.