한국 도시사회의 공동체적 관계망과 유대 : 부산의 중하층 거주지역을 중심으로 = (The) study of communal network and common ties in urban community in Korea

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study is an empirical discussion on the communal network and common ties which are formed in the urbanites´ private life. So far there have been some discussions on the communal network and ties. These discussions include community lost, an assertion that in the populous and industrialized city, the intimate and close ties among the urbanites are replaced with the calculation of loss and gain, community saved, an assertion that the ties are maintained as a subculture, and community liberated, an assertion that it is maintained but spread spacially and individualized. But as we have experienced the rapid social changes in our urban society, there bas not been a comprehensive discussion on communal bond in the urbanites´ private life. So this research analyzed the communal bond on the basis of some standards ; Firstly, blood relations(kinship), relationship of educational backgrounds(hakyeon), regional relations(giyeon) ; secondly, neighboring relationships based on the adjacency of the housing ; thirdly, a custom(dangol) and co-workers relationships, new industrial-social communal network showing the primary ties and secondary relationships at the same time.
The materials of this study were gathered by interview and observation. The subjects of investigation are the resident of Yangjung-dong and the Yangjung-2dong, which have the sub-residential characteristics of both commercial and dwelling districts. The standard of living of people in the two districts is medium or low class and the residential characteristic is the individual but dense and multi-housing system. Mulmangol, a unlicensed slum, is included in these districts.
The total number of the materials for analysis of the study was 83, which was not enough to show the qualitative characteristic of interview. The result was found out by 83 persons and it was difficult to know all of their traits. The content was known in numbers by the frequency and the percentage. And the effect was presented as partial and concrete responses, and described. And the contents of different reasons were done by use of χ^(2) and the contingency coefficient.
The result of this study supports ´community saved´ of Gans(1968) or Fischer(1975) through subculture and ´community liberated´ of Wellman(1979, 1988). Factors related to the primary network ties include not only the social-economic status(SES) like occupation, education, income, but the population ecology. But different aspects are shown in the trait of primary network. The importance of blood relation(kinship) is maintained in all solidarity fields, which reflects family group·ism of our society. And unlike Wellman´ assertion that the network changes into individuation individualization, fragmentation and separation, it has group bond of Triad. The main contact measures that the network uses are meeting face to face and communication like telephones is used subsidiarily. But ties by cyber communication discussed actively recently is not almost shown. Therefore, the communal ties of the urbanites ar formed by an actual district space, not by the cyber space and the district as a space for a daily life are considered important.
The characteristics of results of this study are as follows :
First, the ties by blood relation in urban community are more reduced than those in traditional society but both parents´ families play an important role at the same time. Strong bond shows in narrow scope like cousin, where blood relation is taken as a matter of course. Blood relation is an important part for ties.
Secondly, the urbanites regard the relation based on educational background as the closest bond. People who are from the farming villages have strong ties with people keeping the same educational and regional relation. On the other hand, people who are from cities show the intimate bonds with those who graduated from the same elementary, middle and high school. In addition, they often keep group ties through gathering like ´Gye´-a kind of meeting for intimacy-with those who have the same educational background and live together in the similar spacial fields of the daily life.
Thirdly, ties through the regional relation are shown among the urbanites who grew up in medium and small cities or rural communities. But people who grew up in the big cities don´t have the concept of a hometown and they don´t have special ties of the same hometown.
Fourthly, the neighborhood network of the urbanite are led mainly by the housewives whose daily life´s center is the residential area. The scope reaches roughly 10 families. People who grew up in the farming villages often show more intimate ties toward their neighborhood. In case of the purchase of the necessities or commodities for personal sanitation, a custom is sometimes formed.
Fifthly, the urbanites have ties with their work colleagues. Since the workplace is a main space for men, a close relation is formed between them. Especially, people who work in the production position or the simple labor position form strong tie networks between them.
Lastly, the communal network of the urbanite centers around ter ritual ties. While the blood relations are related to all the characteristics of ties, other communal networks basically have the special bonds and show the different characteristics of ties among them. Relations based on educational background are regarded as a subject for the friendship and association, the neighborhood are regarded as a subject for borrowing money when in need, and the colleagues are regarded as a subject for an amity and a way to discuss their problems and to borrow money.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
• 1. 연구의 배경: 문제의 제기 및 연구의 필요성 = 1
• 2. 연구목적과 내용 = 6
• Ⅱ. 도시사회와 공동체적 생활양식의 이론적 배경 = 9
• 1. 공동체의 일반적 함의 = 9
• 2. 도시사회의 공동체적 관계망과 유대에 대한 논의들 = 16
• 3. 한국 도시민의 생활양식에 대한 논의들 = 42
• Ⅲ. 연구방법 = 53
• 1. 조사지역의 선정과 자료수집 = 53
• 2. 주요변인의 조작화 = 58
• 3. 이론적 모델과 분석방법 = 61
• Ⅳ. 도시민의 사적 영역과 공적 영역의 일차적 관계망과 유대 = 65
• 1. 사적 영역에서의 일반적인 공동체 관계망과 유대 = 65
• 2. 공적 영역에서의 공동체적 관계망과 유대 = 79
• Ⅴ. 전통적 일차관계망(연고성 관계군)과 유대 = 90
• 1. 혈연관계망 = 90
• 2. 학연관계망 = 101
• 3. 지연관계망 = 113
• Ⅵ. 지리적 근접성에 의한 공동체적 관계망과 유대 = 123
• 1. 이웃관계망과 유대 = 123
• 2. 거주지의 상거래에 의한 단골관계망 = 133
• Ⅶ. 배경변인과 공동체적 관계망의 유대 = 141
• 1. 자료의 일반적 특성: 배경변인 = 141
• 2. 배경변인과 도시민의 공동체적 유대 = 144
• Ⅷ. 요약 및 결론 = 166
• 1. 연구의 요약과 함의 = 166
• 2. 연구의 제한점 = 171
• <참고문헌> = 173
• <부록>: 면접지침 = 187
• Abstract = 201