폭력에서 시빌리테(civilité)의 정치로

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Gewalt in German has dual meaning that is translated to either authority or violence in Korean. The former refers to the public authority which is legally approved violence, while the latter refers to the illegal counter-violence to protest or resist. Previous discussions about violence have stimulated the provocative identification of issues to accuse national authority of systemized violence based on the dualistic property of Gewalt and established the foundation to
theoretically and practically support counter-violence. As counter-violence argues that national authority is nothing but violence disguised as a legal and justified action and fighting against it guarantees justification, it cannot escape the vicious cycle of violence and greater violence without prohibiting or preventing any type of violence. Appealing to non-violence that any type of violence must be prohibited based on the ethical judgment of violence seems to be a natural conclusion derived from this circulatory predicament intrinsic in counter-violence. The dualistic question of ‘violence or authority’ or ‘counter-violence or non-violence’ circles around the dualism intrinsic in Gewant and fails to suggest any clear solution for violence. The purpose of this study was to relight the violence discourses discussed
in the dualistic structure of counter-violence and non-violence based on the dualistic property of Gewalt. French thinker É. Balibar added a new symbol of ‘anti-violence’ to ‘oppose all types of violence’ to the existing violence discourses to reconfigure the discussion of violence. Theoretically and practically arguing non-violence in terms of ethical judgment of violence will only blindly ratify the violent reality with negative results. Also, all discussions to reduce national authority to violence and justify counter-violence shall be declined as they are based on biased understanding of national authority or politics. To Balibar who argues ‘the politics of anti-violence’ as the third way that
is neither counter-violence nor non-violence, the possible prescription for extreme violence that is bursting globally today would be to rediscover politics through civilization of nation or revolution. Balibar calls this the politics of civilité.
This study has the following discussions: first, it reveals that violence is defined historically and structurally based on the Marxian perspective and suggests various hard-to-solve problems derived from that. Chapter 3 introduces Balibar’s criticism of Marx-Engels’ theory of violence based on a few hard-to-solve problems intrinsic in Marx’s thoughts. According to Balibar, Marxian incompetence in today’s realistic politics is caused by the narrow perspective of political or national issues reduced to violence. Politics is partially violent to Balibar, but it is not equivalent to violence. The Marxian theory was incompetent in discussing this tragic and dialectic correlation between politics and violence. Chapter 4 introduces Balibar’s politics of civilité as theoretical and practical plans to overcome the limitations of Marxian perspective toward violence. Balibar established critical comprehension of the human rights declaration through the statement of equality-freedom to mark ‘civilization of violence’ or ‘civilization of revolution’ as the start point to overcome the limitation faced by the politics today. According to him, violence is neither politics nor
political acts. Violence disables politics. If politics today is generating violence, we must establish the practical measures to minimize violence intrinsic in politics. The gift of Balibar’s anti-violence is that it must invent new politics. Finally, this study diagnoses the implication of Balibar’s anti-violence in today’s extreme violence around the world.