Jin Woo Park

In the pre-modern era, the religious identity under the sacred canopy was taken for granted, but in the modern era, the scientific identity with an emphasis on reason and proof has emerged. Today, when these two identities interact, how do modern people deal with these dynamics? This study selects the subjects majoring in science who are born a faith and conducts in-depth interviews. The qualitative analysis demonstrates that people use different strategies to cope with problematic situations when two different identities collide. In addition, it is possible to know the processes in which the human identity is formed, transformed, and adopted by distinguishing each strategy. Finally, it can be seen that the changes in the identities that occurred during the interviews are derived from ‘ontological evidence.’ This new concept will enable a rich understanding of the dynamics of identities that certainly exist but are not recognized by people.

This study was written by the consciousness of ‘the possibility of smooth communication’ becoming increasingly difficult in today’s society. I explore the possibilities through the main concepts of Benjamin’s philosophy of language. I also use the significance and implications of Benjamin’s linguistic theory to suggest the direction and development of our language today.
  First, I analyze the main concepts of Benjamin’s language theory: ‘conveying ability of language,’ ‘Name,’ and ‘the language of God’. I also examine ‘why the fragmented situation appeared today’ through the concept of ‘fall of language’. Next, I look for the possibility of the language being restored to its pure form in the concept of ‘Revelation’. And ‘Translation’ and ‘Mimesis’ are suggested as a practical method for the restoration of language.
  Finally, as an example of a restored language, I explore the ‘language of appreciation’ that can be found in Simmel’s essay on thanksgiving. After these inquiries, I propose ‘Finding Your Name’ through ‘Revelation’ and ‘Calling and Listening to each other’s names’ as a method of recovery of communication.

본 연구는 오늘날 사회에서 갈수록 요원해지는 ‘원활한 의사소통의 가능성’에 대한 문제의식에 의해서 집필되었다. 그 가능성을 벤야민의 언어 철학의 주요 개념들을 중심으로 타진해본다. 또한 벤야민의 언어 이론이 가진 의의와 시사점을 활용하여 오늘날 우리의 언어가 나아갈 방향과 발전의 가능성을 제안한다.
먼저 벤야민 언어 이론의 주요 개념인 ‘언어의 전달성’, ‘이름’, ‘신의 언어’를 숙고하여 언어가 가진 발전 가능성을 파악하고, 왜 오늘날과 같은 분열상이 나타났는지를 ‘언어의 타락’ 개념을 통해서 확인해 본다. 다음으로 언어가 순수한 모습을 회복할 수 있는 가능성을 ‘계시’ 개념 속에서 찾는다. 그리고 언어의 회복을 위한 실천 방법으로 ‘번역’과 ‘미메시스’를 제시한다.
마지막으로 회복된 언어의 한 본보기로 짐멜의 ‘감사에 대한 에세이’에서 발견할 수 있는 ‘감사의 언어’를 탐구한다. 이러한 탐구를 거친 후에 ‘계시’를 통한 ‘자기 이름’ 찾기와 서로의 ‘이름’ 부르고, 듣기를 의사소통의 회복 방법으로 제안한다.

This study was carried out to examine how the concept of Habitus in Bourdieu theory influences the cultural, consumption, and political orientation of actors. The research subjects were limited to the college students in their 20s. In their twenties, they react sensitively to various tastes, so that their interactions between tastes are fast and they are free from fixation than other ages. We first surveyed the survey group using Samsung smartphone and the survey group using Apple smartphone and confirmed their tendency by questioning their consumption taste, cultural taste and political tendency.
As a result, among the Samsung smartphone and Apple smartphone consumers, it is hypothesized that Apple smartphone consumers are more open to cultural openness and political advancement in their twenties. Consumption is significantly related to the cultural and political tendencies of one person or the age group. And as the choice of smartphone products shifts from consumption orientation, consumption orientation to cultural orientation, and cultural taste to political orientation, showed a big difference. In other words, as Bourdieu sees Habitus by categorizing the class through consumption propensity and cultural propensity, this study also confirmed the interplay between consumption propensity and political tendency and the existence of Habitus in it. However, the difference in gender in this study could have been more beneficial if it was reflected in the hypothesis.

The public sphere in contemporary South Korea is a site of ongoing religious conflict. How can sociology systemically explain the public roles of religion? This paper attempts an explanation focusing on how the public roles of religion, Christianity in particular, are in a state of tension and foster conflict in the case of a recent national tragedy, the 2014 Sewol ferry disaster.
A great deal of research has addressed many different aspects of the Sewol ferry disaster in the social sciences and humanities. However, social research taking a religion-focused approach is limited to matters of theological themes or theoretical legitimacy. Therefore, this paper attempts to analyze two opposing positions held by Christians (including both Catholics and Protestants) regarding the enactment of special legislation for the investigation of the Sewol ferry disaster. This paper utilizes content analysis of associated documents (statements and public sermons) and in-depth interviews with eight relevant clergy and laypersons.
Findings indicate that religious worldviews, as the “plausibility structure” (Berger, 1967) in the public sphere, make sense of meaning systems by constructing interpretations of Scriptures, dutiful practices, and social relations. Pro and con positions regarding the enactment of special legislation for the Sewol ferry disaster demonstrate different Scriptural interpretations, responsible practices, and societal attitudes towards the socially marginalized victims. Furthermore, there are clear differences between pro and con positions in regard to the understanding of “civil religion.” Those who support the status quo emphasize Rousseau’s ideological perspective aiming for national unity, while those who focus on the transcendental principles as the higher level of social integration support social change and reform. In sum, religious worldviews are still effectively functioning in an influential role in Korea’s public sphere.

(Eng)  This paper grasps academic intentions of Bourdieu’s critical sociology, and discusses its practical feasibility. Bourdieu points out the academic error of “theoretical reason” common in both subjectivism and objectivism theory. He argues that theorists can overcome such an error; theorists may establish more objective sociological theories by conducting reflexive work on themselves. Bourdieu suggests that he can objectify the pre-reflexive acts and “doxic experience” of actors in his theories, called “reflexive sociology” or “field analysis theory.” They guarantee objectivity through which actors can realize social truth, the cause of pain. These intentions imply the premise of the theorist’s epistemological superiority.
  I embody Bourdieu’s argument, and seek how his emancipatory interest can exert a liberating effect in the practitioner’s practice space. In order to do this, I ask three questions: “Can theorists abandon the epistemological superiority of intellectuals?” “Can a synthetic social theory actually be able to carry out the critique?” and “What should we do to offer criticism as a sociologist?” I apply Bourdieu’s theory to the case of “sexual harassment by Pastor Byung-Wook Jeon,” a representing sexual crime case in Korean Protestantism. By analyzing Bourdieu’s concepts such as “habitus, illusio, field, symbolic capital, and symbolic violence” revealed in the Jeon’s sexual crime case, it can be understood that Bourdieu’s theory is an academically excellent explanatory framework.
  However, there are four difficulties that theorists with interest in liberation confront in having a conversation with actors, apart from the explanatory power of the theory. They reveal how demanding it is for the critical work of theory to have a liberating effect on the world of practice, and achieve substantive change. The four challenges are as followed: The fact that the interest of theorists and actors differs in the first place, the fact that actors cannot accept the concepts and terms used in the sociology discipline as well as theorists do, and that actors do not easily accept the epistemological superiority of theorists. Finally, even if actors practiced as taught by theorists, liberal change is not guaranteed to be made.
  I take a step further and attempt to rebut criticisms presented above on the Bourdieu logic. Bourdieu argues the possibility to start an open dialogue with actors by employing their interest with his research method called “participant objectivation,” translating academic terms into everyday terms used by actors. This method could be more effective as theorists could guide the direction of conversation towards liberation. In this way, actors may understand the concepts as well as theorists do. In addition, the actors whom Bourdieu encountered evidence Bourdieu’s claims, since they acknowledged his academic authority and epistemological superiority as a theorist, and expressed gratitude to him. Bourdieu sets the objective criteria for liberation by specifically suggesting “relational, linguistic, and situational conditions” that enable the society to be liberated through sociology.
Still, the fundamental limitations of the theory remain. Actors may not pay attention to the theorists’ interests and practices, and reject objectification interventions internally or externally. Furthermore, the liberating effect that Bourdieu desires requires pre-achievement of many conditions that cannot be acquired at the same time. In the end, in order for actors to accept the authority that theorists behold, and to undergo liberating experience, they must rely on the contingency created by human beings and their social world. Therefore, a theory is a mere dialogue as a part of conversation, and the only thing that theorists can do is to communicate with actors. What actors choose, at the end, is a matter of persuasion.

(Kor)  본 논문은 부르디외의 비판 사회학이 가진 학문적 의도를 파악하고, 그 의도의 실질적 실현 가능성을 논증한다. 부르디외는 주관주의와 객관주의 이론이 공통적으로 가진 ‘이론적 이성’(theoretical reason)이라는 학문적 오류를 지적하면서, 이론가가 스스로에 대한 성찰적 작업을 해야만 보다 객관적인 사회학 이론을 정립할 수 있다고 주장한다. 부르디외는 객관성을 담보한 ‘성찰적 사회학’ 혹은 ‘장 분석 이론’으로 불리는 자신의 이론으로 행위자들의 전성찰적인 행위와 ‘독사적 경험’(doxic experience)을 객관화하여, 행위자들이 사회적 진실과 고통의 원인을 깨닫게 할 수 있다고 생각한다. 그러한 의도에는 이론가의 ‘인식론적 우월성’이라는 전제가 내포되어 있다.
연구자는 부르디외의 논의를 따라가면서 그의 해방적 이해 관심이 행위자의 실천 영역에서 얼마나 해방의 효과를 발휘할 수 있는지 확인하고자 한다. 이를 위해 ‘지식인의 인식론적 우월성을 버릴 수 있는가?’, ‘실제로 종합적 비판 사회 이론이 비판을 수행할 수 있는가?’, ‘사회학자로서 비판을 수행하기 위해서는 어떻게 해야 하는가?’라는 세 가지 문제의식을 제기하고, 한국 개신교의 대표적 성범죄 사건인 ‘전병욱 목사 성추행 사건’을 연구 대상으로 삼아 부르디외의 이론을 적용해보고, 분석한다. ‘하비투스, 일루지오, 장, 상징 자본과 상징 폭력’과 같은 개념들을 ‘전병욱 목사 성추행 사건’에 대입하여 분석함으로써 부르디외 이론이 학문적으로 탁월한 설명 틀임을 확인할 수 있다.
  하지만 이론가가 해방적 이해 관심을 가지고 행위자와의 대화를 진행하면서 겪게 되는 네 가지 난점은 이론의 현실 설명력과는 별개로 이론의 비판적 작업이 실천 세계에 해방적 영향을 미치고 실질적인 변화까지 달성하기가 얼마나 어려운 것인지 밝혀준다. 여기서 네 가지 난점이란 ‘이론가와 행위자의 이해 관심이 애초에 다르다는 점, 행위자가 사회학 학문 장에서 사용되는 개념과 용어를 이론가만큼 잘 수용할 수 없다는 점, 이론가가 전제하는 인식론적 우월성을 행위자가 쉽게 받아들이지 않는다는 점, 마지막으로 행위자가 이론가의 가르침대로 실천한다 해도 실제로 해방적 변화가 도래하기 어렵다는 점’이다.
연구자는 한 발 더 나가 앞서 제기된 비판점들에 대해 부르디외의 논리로 재반박을 시도한다. 부르디외의 입장에서는 ‘참여 객관화’라는 자신만의 연구 방법으로 행위자와 얼마든지 이해 관심을 연동하여 개방적인 대화를 시작할 수 있고, 학문적 용어를 행위자가 사용하는 일상적 용어로 번역하고 대화의 전략도 해방을 유도하는 방향으로 바꾼다면 얼마든지 이론가의 개념을 행위자가 납득할 수 있다는 것이다. 뿐만 아니라 부르디외가 실제로 만난 행위자들은 이론가의 학문적 권위와 인식론적 우월함을 인정하고 그에게 감사를 표현함으로써 부르디외 이론을 지지하는 증거가 된다. 그리고 부르디외는 사회학을 통해 해방된 사회가 가능하다고 주장하면서 이를 가능케 하는 ‘관계적 · 언어적 · 상황적 조건’을 구체적으로 제시하여 객관적인 해방의 기준을 설정하고 있다.
  그럼에도 근본적인 한계는 남는다. 행위자는 여전히 이론가의 관심과 실천에 대해 귀 기울이지 않으며, 학자의 객관화 개입을 내적으로나 외적으로 거부할 것이기 때문이다. 그리고 부르디외가 희망하는 해방의 효과는 ‘동시에 달성될 수 없는 수많은 조건의 선이행’을 요구한다. 결국, 행위자가 이론가의 권위를 받아들이고 실제로 해방적 경험을 하려면, 인간이라는 존재와 이들이 형성하는 실천 세계가 가진 우연적 특성에 의존할 수밖에 없다. 그러므로 이론은 하나의 대화이며, 이론가는 행위자와 대화를 이어나갈 수 있을 뿐이다. 행위자가 어떤 선택을 하는가는 설득의 문제인 것이다.