Earticle

본 글은 사회 갈등 이론을 활용하여 최근 한반도의 통일․안보 환경을 돌아보고 통일 교육에의 함의를 도출하고자 하는 연구이다. 본 글에서는 섬너와 짐멜, 코저 및 듀크 모형을 중심으로, 사회적 갈등이 지니는 사회 결속 및 통합의 긍정적 측면에 관심을 갖는다. 또한 본 글에서는 1948년에서 2009년까지 총 9차에 걸친 북한 사회주의 헌법의 개정 특징을 살펴보고자 한다. 이어 2010년 제 3차 당대표자회에서 나타난 김정은 후계 구도 및 후견 정권의 특징을 살펴보고자 한다. 마지막으로 본 글에서는 상기한 사회 갈등 이론의 관점과 최근의 통일․안보 환경의 변화에 기초한 통일 교육적 시사점을 찾아보고자 한다. 구체적으로는 통일의 당위성에 있어서 ‘민족 번영을 위한 요청’ 및 ‘국제 평화적 요청’ 등에 주목하고자 한다. 더불어 교사들은 통일 비용과 통일 편익에 대한 논의에 주목할 필요가 있다. 이와 같은 현실적이며 실용적인 통일 교육은 청소년들의 바람직한 통일 관련 가치, 태도, 열망, 행위 능력을 기르는 데 기여할 것이다.

This paper is to look back recent unification-security environment of the Korea and derive the implications of unification education by taking advantage of social conflict theory. This article is concerned with the positive aspects of the peculiarity social cohesion and integration in social conflict focusing on Sumner, Simmel, Coser and the Duke model. In addition, this article explores the characteristics of the nine round revisions in the Socialist Constitution in North Korea for 1948-2009. This article will look at the features about succession and guardianship regime in the 3rd representatives of party competition in 2010. Finally, this article is intended to evaluate unification of the educational implications in based on unification-security environment changes and the point of view of social conflict theory. This article is to focus on national prosperity request and international peace request in the necessity of unity. Teachers need to focus on the discuss about the cost of reunification and convenience of unification. Such realistic and practical education of the unification will contribute to raising skills of the youth values, attitudes, aspirations, activities.

We present a case with stepwise weakness and sensory involvement of both hands for more than 2 months. His nerve conduction study findings revealed prolonged terminal latencies, decreased motor and sensory conduction velocities and conduction blocks of both ulnar nerves, more severely on left side. And there were other abnormalities manifested with mononeuropathy multiplex. Increased cerebrospinal fluid protein was found. We diagnosed him as Lewis-Sumner syndrome and tried high dose oral steroid therapy for 2 months. He showed improvement of motor functioning with persistent conduction block.

We present a case with stepwise weakness and sensory involvement of both hands for more than 2 months. His nerve conduction study findings revealed prolonged terminal latencies, decreased motor and sensory conduction velocities and conduction blocks of both ulnar nerves, more severely on left side. And there were other abnormalities manifested with mononeuropathy multiplex. Increased cerebrospinal fluid protein was found. We diagnosed him as Lewis-Sumner syndrome and tried high dose oral steroid therapy for 2 months. He showed improvement of motor functioning with persistent conduction block.

이 글은 정동호⋅김은아⋅강승묵의 Henry Sumner Maine, Ancient Law의 국역본 『고대법』(2009)의 부록으로 실린 <12표법> 번역에 대해 필자의 기존 번역과 대비하면서 축조적으로 검토한 것이다. 거기에는 다종다양한 오류들이 무수히 발견된다. 이들의 번역은 기본적으로 필자의 번역을 거의 그대로 통째로 베낀 것이다. 그렇지 않은 경우에도 대부분 답습한 필자의 번역에 사소한 變改를 가했을 뿐이다. 이는 원문에서는 빠져 있는 부분들이 번역문에서는 필자의 번역과 동일하거나 대동소이하게 재현되고 있는 데서 분명하게 드러난다. 이러한 변개는 결과적으로 원문의 뜻을 훼손하였고, 아주 심각한 왜곡의 사례들도 허다하다. 변개의 방법은 몇몇 어휘를 단순히 고치거나 비슷한 말로 교체하는 방식과 일정한 구절을 풀어서 표현하는 방식이 동원되었는데, 어느 경우나 원문의 의미나 맥락을 제대로 파악하지 못한 상태에서 함부로 손을 댄 것이어서 그 결과는 실로 참담하다. 번역문이 아예 우리말 문장으로서 성립할 수 없게 만들거나, 원문과는 괴리가 있게 되거나, 교체 사용된 어휘의 개념적 부정확함으로 인해 문장의 뜻을 왜곡하고 말았다. 그밖에도 동일한 어휘는 가급적 동일하게 번역한다는 일관성도 전혀 지켜지지 않았고, 어려운 한자말이 대부분 한글 전용 처리됨으로써 그 뜻을 파악하기가 아주 어렵게 되고 말았으며, 새 번역에서 당연히 기대되는 새로운 정보의 가공에 의한 내용 면의 개선도 전혀 이루어진 바가 없다. 또 라틴어와 국어 맞춤법에 어긋나는 오식이 산견된다. 또 번역에 필수적으로 제시되어야 할 재구성된 대본의 전거나 개별 개소의 전거도 전혀 표시되지 않았다. 이들의 <십이표법> 번역은 讀者에 대한 愚弄이고 同學에 대한 冒瀆이다.

This article ist to criticize the new translation of the Twelve Tables (lex duodecim tabularum) of the old Romans (450/451 BC.) which is rendered by Dong-Ho Jeong, Eun-Mi Kim and Seung-Muk Kang and put at the reader’s disposal as an addendum in their Korean translation (2009) of Henry Sumner Maine’s Ancient Law. I do the job by comparing it with my own translation published in 1995. There are as many mistakes and errors in it as one can imagine. It is based in all appearances on my translation, but the translators have failed to refer to me. To make the matter worse, they have distorted my translation either by substituting one word or two or by paraphrasing certain part of it. However, they have proceeded wantonly, apparently with no understanding of the latin original texts and the exact legal meanings of the provisions of the Twelve Tables. Sometimes they show even lack of the sense for the Korean vocabulary and grammar. The result is deplorably devastating. The new translation often reproduces the pertaining Korean text of my translation even though the latin text it is supposed to represent does not correspond to that of my translation at all. In the terminology too, it is fully dependent on my translation only with few exceptions, which, however, always prove to be a wrong choice. There are other types of mistakes too. They have not observed the principle that the same words are to be rendered in the same way. The latin texts they offer are many times insufficiently reproduced and totally without inscriptions from which the way of the reconstruction of the Twelve Tables is to infer. Furthermore, the new translation does not provide us with any new information about the Twelve Tables to promote the understanding of this ancient law code. It must be removed from the circulation, and the translators are required to answer for that.

윌리엄 그레이험 섬너는 19세기 말 자유무역을 옹호하던 여타 자유주의자들과 마찬가지로, 미국-스페인 전쟁과 필리핀 합병이라는 상황에 직면하여 지적 정체성에 있어 위기를 맞게 되었다. 비록 군사모험주의와 제국주의에 대한 그의 초기 태도에서 보이는 애매함과 모순점으로 인해 1898년에서 1899년 사이 맥킨리 행정부의 정책에 대한 반대가 당연한 것으로 간주되도록 하지는 않았지만, “스페인의 미국정복”(1899)에 담긴 미국 공화주의적 전통과의 일관성에 대한 그의 주장은 섬너가 반 제국주의 운동의 중심에 서도록 하였다. 그러나 미국이 일관성을 유지할 것을 요구하던 섬너의 호소는 그 자신의 개인적 일관성의 문제와 충돌하였다. 그의 상대주의적 사회 이론은 영속성 있는 정치적 이념이 차지할 공간을 거의 내주지 않았다. 그러므로, 제국주의에 대한 섬너의 최종적 입장은 Folkways(1906)의 도덕적 상대주의에 있어서 그의 사회학적 이론의 마지막 단계의 등장과 운명적으로 상호 얽혀지게 되었다.

William Graham Sumner, like other free trade liberals at the end of the nineteenth century, faced an intellectual identity crisis when confronted with the Spanish-American War and the annexation of the Philippines. Although ambiguities and contradictions in his earlier attitudes toward militarism and imperialism did not render his opposition to the McKinley administration’s policies in 1898-99 a foregone conclusion, his plea for consistency with the nation’s republican tradition in “The Conquest of the United States by Spain” (1899) brought Sumner to the center of the anti-imperialist movement. However, Sumner’s appeals to national consistency soon ran afoul of issues of personal consistency, for his relativistic social theory left little elbow room for permanent political ideals. Sumner’s final position on imperialism was therefore fatefully intertwined with the emergence of the final stage of his sociological theory in the moral relativism of Folkways (1906).

American conservatism is not a stable tradition. Even during a supposed era of conservative dominance like the Gilded Age, biographies of Alexander Hamilton, arguably the central icon in American conservatism, by Henry Cabot Lodge and William Graham Sumner - writers usually considered conservative at the time and by later historians - offered sharply different characterizations and evaluations of the personality and policies of the founder of the Federalist Party. In 1882 Lodge offered Hamilton as a role model for aggressive nationalists, a vigorous statesman whose appreciation of stable order and deployment of effective power provided enduring benchmarks for his successors, soon to include Lodge himself. By the time Sumner’s study of Hamilton appeared in 1890, the Yale professor had come to feel that, due to the unintended consequences inevitable in a complex, inter-related economic and social system, a conservative should choose not to act at all unless the supporting data were scientific and compelling. From Sumner’s perspective, Hamilton failed as a nationalist statesman primarily because he aimed too aggressively at statesmanship.

William Graham Sumner, originator of the phrase “the Forgotten Man,” has himself to a great extent become a forgotten man. Already during his lifetime, critics tended to view his ideas and ideals as at best passe. This essay argues for his ongoing relevance in two ways. First, the common labeling of Sumner as a “Spencerian” is misleading as a matter of history, but it may nevertheless open new perspectives on their era and ours if we appreciate the open-ended concept of science that they shared. Second, Sumner was a self-described conservative whose understanding of the term shifted over time, and was no less plastic than our own muddled definitions. However, in the economic spin that Sumner gave his conception we can see the roots of perhaps the dominant strain of modern American conservatism. But in the cases of both Spencerianism and conservatism, we must, to reach an adequate appreciation of Sumner and a self-understanding of ourselves as his heirs, begin to approach his thought and that of his contemporaries with the same non-Whiggish engagement that historians of early modern and Enlightenment thought have pioneered.

This thesis is an attempt to inquire into the relationship between Charles Sumner’s racial egalitarianism and republicanism during the Civil War and Reconstruction period. A preeminent leader of Radical Republicans in the Senate, Sumner astonished the floor with his fervent endorsement for black civil rights and the radical Reconstruction program. Noticing the considerable opposition within the Republican Party to Sumner’s racial egalitarianism,historians have too easily dismissed him as a politician adhering to the morality of abolitionism rather than the party’s political ideology. Sumner’s racial egalitarianism, however, derived from the Republican Party’s “republicanism.” Sumner was a staunch follower of republicanism,a political ideology which declares that the republican form of government must be protected and the Slave Power should be exterminated. Accordingly, Sumner was convinced that the most effective way to eradicate the Slave Power, leaving no room for any chance of its revival, is to guarantee equal civic and political rights to both blacks and whites. It is in this regard, the association of Sumner’s political thought and the Party’s republicanism deserves a close examination.

19세기 말에 유행했던 사회진화론은 철학적인 미숙함뿐만 아니라 이론이 가질 수 있는 부정적인 정치적 함의 때문에 사람들의 외면을 당하고 있는 사상가들의 이론을 일컫는 단어다. 사회진화론의 대표자는 스펜서인데, 그는 자연계뿐만 아니라 인간 사회에까지 진화론을 대담하게 적용해 보고 있다. 하지만 그의 입장은 진화를 최적자의 생존을 도모하는 발전 과정으로 파악하고, 이러한 과정 자체가 선(善)이라고 생각하는 등의 잘못을 범하고 있다. 여기서 더 나아가 그는 사회 내의 각종 차별뿐만 아니라 제국주의적 침략마저도 뒷받침하고 있다고 알려져 있는데, 이로 인해 사람들은 사회진화론에 대한 극도의 반감을 갖게 되었다. 섬너는 이와 같은 스펜서의 입장을 계승한 것으로 알려진 미국의 사회학자다. 그는 미국의 스펜서로 불리기도 하는데, 이에 따라 그 또한 많은 경우 스펜서가 받고 있는 비판을 고스란히 이어받고 있다. 이 글은 섬너에 대한 이와 같은 부정적인 태도가 적절한지를 그의 주저인 『습속』을 통해 검토해 보고 있다. 필자는 사회진화론에 대한 일반적인 비판을 통해 섬너 또한 스펜서와 다를 바 없는 잘못을 범하고 있다고 주장하는 것은 잘못이라고 생각하는데, 이 글에서 필자는 이를 섬너의 주저인 『습속』의 구체적인 내용을 통해 보이고자 하고 있다.

Social evolutionism, which was popular at the end of the 19th century, has a bad reputation not only because of philosophical inexperience, but also because of negative political implications. Spencer is representative of Social evolutionism, and he boldly applies the theory of evolution not only to nature but also to human society. His position, however, is that he perceives evolution as a developmental process that promotes the survival of the fittest, and he makes the mistake of thinking that this process itself is good. It is further known that he supports not only discrimination in society but also imperialist aggression, which has led to extreme antipathy towards social evolutionism. Sumner is an American sociologist who is known to have succeeded Spencer's position. He is referred to as the American Spencer, so he is also taking on many of the criticisms Spencer receives. This article examines whether this negative attitude toward Sumner is appropriate through his book Folkways. I think it is wrong to argue that Sumner is wrong along with Spencer through a general critique of social evolutionism. In this article, I try to show this through the concrete content of Folkways.