NDSL 11,010 Link page¿¡¼­ [¿ø¹®º¸±â] ¹öÆ°À» Ŭ¸¯Çϼ¼¿ä.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

Political economy is a science of the political state concerning civil society (or ¡°society¡± briefly) in view of maximizing the economic efficiency of the latter or ensuring of justice, fairness, equality and/or equity in the latter. Or it is a science that encompasses both the workings of the political state and those of civil society, which is generally dubbed ¡°economic.¡± As such, it provides a perspective which is much broader than those of such ¡°social¡± sciences as sociology, political science, and scientific sub-disciplines in educational studies including sociology of education. Policy study in education, on the other hand, is a form of scientific or quasi-scientific inquiry into what measures or venues are leading to solving specific problems that arise from the system of education in place in a particular country. Since it takes a position of scientific inquiry, or specifically a position of disinterested inquiry, it tends to leave out the political dimension that might be involved in the development or exploration of the measures or venues. In effect, any form of policy study based on the specialized sub-disciplines in educational studies tend to leave out the possibility that the ¡°political¡± state, the owner of the policies developed and implemented with an intention of solving educational problems, is in fact creating new problems and aggravating existing problems or turning its back to necessary political agendas.In this paper, we discuss what sociologists of education have to consider in order for them to make valuable contributions to policy study in education and in developing and implementing educational policies that can actually help improve efficiency in the educational sphere of civil society or ensuring of justice, fairness, equality or equity in that sphere.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

This article aims to reflect radically on narrative analysis, which has recently gained power in Korean sociology as the main qualitative method(ology). First, it will be demonstrated that narrative is deeply interconnected with the existential condition of human beings, ambiguity rather than merely being a qualitative method(ology) and that sociology emerged as a kind of narrative to navigate through ambiguity brought about by great transformations.Second, it will be argued that the contemporary change is worsening the existential condition, which requires our ability to narrate it in a new way. Third, following Ricoeur, it will be argued that semantic innovation is needed through metaphor and narrative, that the turn from the metaphor of production to the one of ritual is required for this, and that main attention should be given to the genres of story.Fourth, it will be contended that the turn from the positivistic probing to social performance is needed in order to conduct narrative interviews. Last, it will be argued that new writing strategies are needed to reinvent the lived experiences and evoke emotional responses in audiences.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

Grounded theory has dominated the qualitative research in Korea since it was considered to be rather an effective and useful method that can overcome what is previously known as weakness of qualitative research methods. There has been explosively rapid increase inthe use of grounded theory in the qualitative research of social sciences in Korea such as social welfare, public administration or gerontology. There used to be a propensity to adopt grounded theory by Strauss and Corbin(1990); however, entering the 2010s, social sciencestudies applying other grounded theory methods done by scholars such as Charmaz or Rennie, have also emerged and flourished.Grounded theory has not been debated much in qualitative research of Korean Sociology as in other social divisions. This study explored the trend, limits and implications of relatively underestimated grounded theory research in Sociology, reviewing the articles adopting grounded theory published in from 1999 to 2016. The findings are as follows: 1) That there is a scant amount of grounded theory studies in the field of Korean Sociology, which suggests that ground theory research quality in Sociology may be far left behind; 2) grounded theory is considered to be as a procedure to analyze data rather than as a methodological research approach/paradigm for a substantive-level theory; 3) Grounded theory approach by Strauss and Corbin has exclusively dominated over the years, curtailing the methodological debates regarding post-Strauss and Corbin. This study aimed to ignite the overall discussions of qualitative research by shedding lights on grounded theory, which has been underestimated and less utilized for qualitative research in Korean Sociology.

[±¹³» ÇÐÀ§³í¹®]

'Supoja' is a new term that has recently emerged which refers to students who refuse to study math and give up, causing them to underachieve. This study was set out to analyze the experiences of these students who regarded themselves as Supojas and interpret their experiences from the perspective of sociology of curriculum. The issue of Supojas is connected to the social functions of education, which means that their reasons for giving up math should be analyzed sociologically, beyond their underachievement in math to the personal level in order to find more profound solutions to the pressing issue. 
 Sociology of curriculum is a useful methodology for analyzing the macroscopic perspective, which covers the impacts of social institutions and culture on schools, and the microscopic perspective, which covers interactions between teachers and their students in lessons according to the classroom culture. The investigator intended to interpret Supojas' experiences of giving up math from the perspective of sociology of curriculum and provide implications to solve problems in math education. The study raised the following questions:
 First, what do the students, who admit that they have given up math, experience while studying math?
 Second, how are their experiences of giving up math interpreted from the perspective of sociology of curriculum?
 Third, what implications do their experiences of giving up math have for the improvement of math education in the nation? 
 In an effort to answer these questions, the investigator interviewed 15 high school students who identified themselves as Supojas in K City in Gyeonggi Province with a semi-structured questionnaire and analyzed their responses with the constructive grounded theory. 
 The findings show that they had the following experiences of giving up math: first, the Supoja students began to study math through private education, forced by their parents. In elementary school, they had no idea what math was about. As they had to solve excessive amounts of problems by repeating simple calculations, they developed a disliking to math. Meanwhile, they continued to study math through private education since they enjoyed boasting their superior math scores to their friends. In this process, they learned the ideology of education for college entrance, which states that one should be good at math starting in elementary school in order to be recognized for their intellect and advance to great schools of higher level. 
 Second, when they advanced to middle school, they experienced math that was different from what they studied in elementary school. Unlike in elementary school, they had to use letters in math questions, learn new terms in new context, such as functions, and were forced to memorize formulas. They failed to adjust themselves to this strange new math much different from what they studied in elementary school, and got poor grades even though they studied similar or greater amounts of math than elementary school. Because of their poor math grades, they were branded as underachievers in classes. These experiences drove them to giving up math.
 Finally, the students that gave up math in middle school experienced alienation in high school lessons and exams: they were in the same space as their peers, but they lived in a different world. They refused to participate in math lessons despite their experience of alienation because they believed this subject of math defeated them. Recognizing that math grades were needed to be admitted in college, they made another attempt at math study. They, however, failed to finish the advance learning lessons and obtain grades that would make their hard work worthwhile, giving up math once again. Once they gave up math completely, they choose to pursue liberal arts despite their interest in natural sciences, or followed a path that required no math grades such as art, music and physical education. The Supojas were aware that the goal of studying math was not to develop mathematical thinking skills but to grade and rank students, but they believed that they gave up math because they lacked efforts and internalized that they were inferior to other students. 
 After attempting to interpret the Supojas' experiences of giving up math, the study found the following facts: all societies ask adolescents to pass a bottleneck test so that they can have access to social status and wealth. In South Korea, the college entrance exam is an important bottleneck test. Math is one of the critical means of classifying students. As the bottleneck grows narrower, the competition based on math grades becomes even fiercer. Since parents have a role of helping their children pass the bottleneck, they force them to study math through private education at an early age. Students themselves try their best to excel in math, but some are selected and others are excluded in the education system, which means that a majority of students experience alienation except for a few that are selected for their math grades. 
 There are two cultures formed in the math classroom: one is the culture of 'math study' involving a good number of difficult questions. The other is the culture based on 'the need for math' to answer the question 'Are math grades are needed for my career?' Students are categorized into four types according to whether or not they are able to participate in these two cultures: the 'top math students' that are able to participate in math study and realize the need math for their careers, and the 'good Supojas that are poor at math' who are not able to participate in math because of their poor math learning skills but feel the need math for their careers; the 'Supojas who didn¡¯t need math' who do not need math grades for their careers regardless of math study; and the 'true Supojas' that are not able to participate in math study and need no math grades for their careers. The analysis results show that all the types were Supojas except for the top math students and that Supojas who didn¡¯t need math and good Supojas who were poor at math ended up becoming true Supojas.
 The findings of the study have the following implications for the improvement of math education in the nation: first, the emergence of Supojas is a concern of the education system rather than a lack of personal effort. Second, education should provide a community for students getting together instead of creating a battlefield of life or death to solve the Supoja issue fundamentally. Third, selection based on evaluation should move from the old screening approach to a new approach of regarding students of certain scores or higher as having the same abilities and selecting them all. Fourth, the goal of studying math should convert from classification to math itself. The most urgent improvement for the math curriculum is to connect the elementary and middle school math curriculum. Math is a study of researching patterns (Jo Bolar, 2016) and a journey of finding answers in a logical thinking process by converting given questions to mathematical scenes. This journey should ensure the participation of all students instead of a few that get good math grades. It is urgent to change the social environment around lessons, curriculums, and education so that 'equality of math' will be realized which helps students enjoy math according to their abilities and aptitudes.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

1960³â´ë Á߹ݿ¡¼­ 1970³â´ë Á߹ݿ¡ À̸£´Â »çÀÌ¿¡ ¹Ì±¹ »çȸÇа迡¼­´Â Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐÀ» µÎ°í ¿­¶í ³íÀïÀÌ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. TiryakianÀº Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐÀ¸·Î ºÐ·ùµÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ¸¸®¶ó°í »ý°¢µÇ´Â »çȸÇÐÀÇ ¸ñ·ÏÀ» Á¦½ÃÇϸ鼭 A. Vierkandt, G. Gurvitch, M. Scheler, M. Weber, G. Simmel, E. Durkheim, W. ¥°. Thomas, T. Parsons µî ¿©·¯ Çö»óÇÐÀÚ ¹× »çȸÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ Àü°³½ÃŲ »çȸÇÐÀ» ±× ¸ñ·Ï¿¡ Æ÷ÇÔ ½ÃÄ×´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ÀÌ ³í¹®ÀÌ ¹ßÇ¥µÇ°í ³­ ÈÄ 1966³â¿¡ Kolaja, Berger µîÀÌ TiryakianÀÇ °ßÇظ¦ ºñÆÇÇÏ¿´°í Tiryakian ¿ª½Ã °°Àº ÇØ Kolaja¿Í BergerÀÇ ºñÆÇ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹Ý¹ÚÀ» ½ÃµµÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç 1973³â¿¡´Â Heap / Roth µîÀÌ ´Ù½Ã ±×ÀÇ °ßÇظ¦ ºñÆÇÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ³íÀïÀ» ÅëÇؼ­µµ Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀÎÁö¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­ ÀÏÄ¡µÈ °ßÇØ°¡ Á¤¸³µÇÁö ¸øÇÑ Ã¤ Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐÀÇ Á¤Ã¼¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ´Ù¾çÇÑ °ßÇØ°¡ ³­¸³ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ ³í¹®ÀÇ ¸ñÇ¥´Â Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐÀ» µÑ·¯½Ñ ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ³íÀïÀ» ºñÆÇÀûÀ¸·Î °ËÅäÇϸ鼭 ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº ¸î °¡Áö »ç½ÇÀ» ÇظíÇϴµ¥ ÀÖ´Ù. 1. ¾î¶² »çȸÇÐÀÌ ¸í½ÃÀûÀÌµç ¾Ï½ÃÀûÀÌµç ´Ù¾çÇÑ À¯ÇüÀÇ Çö»óÇÐÀû ȯ¿øÀÇ ¹æ¹ýÀ» »ç¿ëÇÒ °æ¿ì ±×°ÍÀº Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐÀ̶ó ºÒ¸± ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. 2. »çȸÇÐÀû Çö»óÇÐÀû ȯ¿øÀÇ ¹æ¹ýÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â °æÇèÀû Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐ, »çȸÇÐÀû Çö»óÇÐÀû ȯ¿øÀÇ ¹æ¹ý°ú Çü»óÀû ȯ¿øÀÇ ¹æ¹ýÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â Á¸Àç·ÐÀû Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐ, ÃÊ¿ù·ÐÀû Çö»óÇÐÀû ȯ¿ø°ú Çü»óÀû ȯ¿øÀÇ ¹æ¹ýÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â ÃÊ¿ù·ÐÀû Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐ µî 3°¡Áö Â÷¿øÀÇ Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐÀÌ °¡´ÉÇÏ´Ù. 3. ÀÌ °¢°¢ÀÇ Â÷¿øÀÇ Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐÀÌ ´Ù¾çÇÑ À¯ÇüÀ¸·Î Àü°³µÉ ¼ö Àֱ⠶§¹®¿¡ ´Ù¾çÇÑ À¯ÇüÀÇ Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐÀÌ °¡´ÉÇÏ´Ù.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

ÀÌ ±ÛÀº ¿µ±¹ »çȸÇÐÀÇ ÁöÀû¤ýÁ¦µµÀû Ư¼ºÀ» »çȸÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®ÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ¿µ±¹ »çȸÇÐÀÇ ¼º°ú¿Í ÇѰ踦 ¹àÈ÷°í À̷κÎÅÍ Çѱ¹ »çȸÇÐ ¹× »çȸÇÐ ÀϹÝÀÇ µ¶Æ¯ÇÑ Áö½ÄüÁ¦¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±³ÈÆÀ» ¾ò´Â °ÍÀ» ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î ÇÑ´Ù. À̸¦ À§ÇØ º» ±ÛÀº ¨ç ¿ª»çÀûÀ¸·Î ±â¹ÝÀÌ Ãë¾àÇѵ¥µµ Á¦µµÀû¤ý³»¿ëÀûÀ¸·Î ¼º°øÇÑ ¿µ±¹ »çȸÇÐÀÇ ÇöȲÀ» °³°ýÇÏ°í, ¨è ±× µ¶Æ¯ÇÑ ÁöÀû¤ýÁ¦µµÀû Ư¼º°ú ¼º°øÀ» ¼³¸íÇÏ´Â ¿äÀεéÀ» °ËÅäÇÏ¸ç ¨é ¿µ±¹ »çȸÇÐÀÇ »ç·Ê°¡ Çѱ¹ »çȸÇаú »çȸÇÐÀû Áö½Ä »ý»ê¿¡ ÁÖ´Â ¸î °¡Áö ±³ÈÆ¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¼ºÂûÇÑ´Ù. ¿µ±¹ »çȸÇÐÀº ÁÖº¯¼º°ú ´ÊÀº Á¦µµÈ­·Î ÀÎÇØ »çȸÇÐ ºÐ°ú°æ°è¿Í Á¤Ã¼¼ºÀÌ ºÐ¸íÈ÷ ±ÔÁ¤µÇÁö ¾Ê¾Ò°í, »çȸÇÐ ÀüÅëÀÇ °á¿©·Î ÀÎÇØ ¿Ü±¹ÀÇ ÀÌ·ÐÀ» ¼öÀÔÇØ¾ß ÇßÀ¸¸ç, ÀÚ¿øºÎÁ·°ú ¡®¹Ý¾ç¹æ¡¯ ¹®È­·Î ÀÎÇØ »ó´ëÀûÀ¸·Î ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¹üÀ§°¡ Á¦ÇѵǾú´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ¹Ù·Î ±× ¶§¹®¿¡ ¿µ±¹ »çȸÇÐÀÇ µ¶Æ¯ÇÑ Æ¯Â¡ÀÌÀÚ ¼º°úÀÎ Å»ºÐ°úÀû Á¢±Ù, »õ·Î¿î ¿¬±¸¿µ¿ªÀÇ °³Ã´°ú ÀÌ·ÐÀû Çõ½ÅÀÌ °¡´ÉÇØÁ³°í, ¿©·¯ ´Ù¾çÇÑ À̷еé°ú ¹æ¹ý·ÐÀÌ Á¢ÇÕµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ¾úÀ¸¸ç, À̷п¡ ÀÇÇØ °¡À̵åµÈ °æÇ迬±¸°¡ Ãß±¸µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ±× °á°ú ¿µ±¹ »çȸÇÐÀº È®¸³µÈ »çȸÇÐ ºÐ°ú°¡ ±ÔÁ¤ÇÏ´Â À̷аú ¹æ¹ý·Ð¿¡ µû¸¥ ºÐ°úÇй®ÀÇ ÁÖ¿ä ÁÖÁ¦¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿¬±¸º¸´Ù´Â ºÐ°úÀÇ °æ°è¸¦ ³Ñ¾î ´Ù¾çÇÑ ÀÌ·ÐÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â Å׸¶ Áß½ÉÀû ¿¬±¸¶ó´Â Ư¡À» ¶ì°Ô µÇ¾ú´Ù. ±×¸®°í ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ Å»ºÐ°úÀû Á¢±ÙÀº »çȸÇÐÀÚ Áý´ÜÀÇ Àü¹®(Á÷)È­¿Í °áÇÕÇÏ¿© ¿µ±¹ »çȸÇÐÀÇ »ó´ëÀûÀÎ Á¦µµÀû °ÇÀü¼º°ú Çй®Àû µ¶ÀÚ¼º°ú ¿ì¼ö¼ºÀ» ³º¾Ò´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ¿µ±¹ »çȸÇÐÀÇ »ç·Ê´Â ºñ·Ï ¸ðµç ´äÀ» ÁÙ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀº ¾Æ´ÏÁö¸¸ »çȸÇÐÀÇ À§±â, ƯÈ÷ Çѱ¹ »çȸÇÐÀÇ À§±â¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¸î °¡Áö Áø´Ü ¹× ±×¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹ßÀüÀû ´ë¾ÈÀ» °ËÅäÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ÇϳªÀÇ ÁØ°ÅÁ¡ÀÌ µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ¿µ±¹ »çȸÇÐÀº Çѱ¹ »çȸÇÐÀÇ À§±â¸¦ ÀÌÁ¦±îÁö¿Í °°ÀÌ ½ÅÀÚÀ¯ÁÖÀÇ, ºñ½Ç¿ë¼º, ¸ðÈ£ÇÑ ºÐ°úÇй®Àû Á¤Ã¼¼º, µ¶ÀÚÀû ÀÌ·ÐÀÇ ºÎÀç¿Í ¿Ü±¹ÀÌ·ÐÀÇ ¼öÀÔ, ´ëÁß¼º(¶Ç´Â Àü¹®¼º)ÀÇ ºÎÀç¿¡¼­ ã´Â °ÍÀÌ °ú¿¬ ¿Ã¹Ù¸¥°¡¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¼ºÂûÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °è±â¸¦ Á¦°øÇÑ´Ù.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

ÀÌ ³í¹®Àº Á÷°üÀÇ Àǹ̸¦ Á¤¸®ÇÏ°í »çȸ°úÇп¡¼­ Á÷°üÀû ¾ÍÀ» ¾î¶»°Ô ¹Þ¾ÆµéÀÌ°í »ç¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´ÂÁö ¾Ë¾Æº¸°íÀÚ ÇÏ´Â ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î ÀÛ¼ºµÆ´Ù. À̸¦ À§ÇØ ¿ì¼± Á÷°ü¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Ã¶ÇÐÀû, ½É¸®ÇÐÀû, ±³À°ÇÐÀû ³íÀǵéÀ» »ìÆìºÃ´Ù. ±×¸®°í Á÷°üÀ» ¿¬±¸¹æ¹ýÀÇ Çϳª·Î ¹Þ¾ÆµéÀÎ Çö»óÇÐÀû »çȸÇÐÀÇ ÀÌ·ÐÀû Åä´ëÀÎ Èļ³ÀÇ Çö»óÇÐ °³³äµéÀ» »ìÆìºÃ´Ù. ÀÌ °úÁ¤¿¡¼­ Á÷°ü, ÆÇ´ÜÁßÁö, ȯ¿ø, »ýÈ°¼¼°è, »óÈ£ÁÖ°ü¼ºÀÇ °³³äµéÀÌ ´Ù·ç¾îÁ³´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ³íÀǸ¦ ¹ÙÅÁÀ¸·Î Á÷°üÀ» ¹«¸Å°³ÀÇ ¾ÍÀÇ ¹æ½ÄÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¸Å°³µÈ ¾ÍÀÇ ¹æ½ÄÀ̶ó°í ÀçÁ¤ÀÇÇÏ°í Á÷°üÀÌ »çȸ°úÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î ÀÌ¿ëµÇ±â À§Çؼ­´Â °üÂû, ±â¼ú, ¼³¸íÀ» Åä´ë·Î ÇÑ Ä¡¹ÐÇÑ »çÀ¯ÀÇ °úÁ¤ÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇÏ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ¹àÇû´Ù. ÀÌ ³í¹®¿¡¼­´Â Á÷°üÀ» Àû±ØÀûÀ¸·Î È°¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â »çȸÇÐÀÇ ÇüÅ·Π¡°³ªÀÇ »çȸÇС±À» Á¦½ÃÇÏ°í ±×°ÍÀÇ ½ÇÇö °¡´É¼ºÀ» ŸÁøÇØ ºÃ´Ù.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

My aim in this essay is to insert Arendt's thought into the history of sociological theory. I examine Arendt's sociological theoretical status by reading Arendt with Marx, Habermas and Foucault with respect to the notions of labor/action, public realm, and power. A tension in Arendt's thought between the premodern, modern, and postmodern makes such a divergent and seemingly impossible reading possible. In the first section, I outline Arendt's continuing argument with Marx. Her analysis and critique of Marx forms the core of her account of labor. In the second section, I examine Habermas's dialogue with Arendt, and his intellectual debt to her. Habermas's concept of the public sphere, his distinction between labor and interaction - the original form of his concept of communicative action - is indebted to her book, The Human Condition. In the third section, I bring Arendt and Foucault into imaginary dialogue on the question of power. Although they develop different ways of conceptualizing power, both begin their analyses of power by challenging the notion of power as sovereignty. In the final section, I suggest the potential theoretical effects produced by sociological reconstruction of Arendt's thought.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

The Meaning and Scope of Sociology of Education

[±¹³»³í¹®]

[±¹³»³í¹®]

´Ù¾çÇÑ Çй®ºÐ¾ß¿¡¼­ Áö¿ª¿¬±¸°¡ ¼öÇàµÇ°í ÀÖÁö¸¸ ÀÌ ±Û¿¡¼­´Â Áö¿ª¿¬±¸¸¦ ÅëÇØ »çȸÇÐÀÇ ÁöÆòÀ» ³ÐÇô ³ª°¡¾ß ÇÔÀ» °­Á¶ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. Áö±Ý±îÁö Çѱ¹ »çȸÇа迡¼­ÀÇ Áö¿ª¿¬±¸´Â ¾ð¾î, ½Ç¿ë¼º, Á¢±Ù¼º µîÀÇ Á¦¾à ¶§¹®¿¡ Áö¿ªÀûÀ¸·Î ÆíÁߵǾî ÀÖ´Ù. ƯÁ¤ Áö¿ª¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °ü½ÉÀº ¿¬±¸ÁÖÁ¦·ÎºÎÅÍ ¹ß»ýÇϱ⵵ ÇÏ°í, ±× Áö¿ª°úÀÇ Àο¬¿¡ ±âÀÎÇϱ⵵ ÇÑ´Ù. µû¶ó¼­ ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó¿Í °ü°è°¡ ±ä¹ÐÇÏ°í ¿ì¸®¿¡°Ô ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀÌ Å« Áö¿ª¿¡ °ü½ÉÀÌ ½ò¸®´Â °ÍÀº ÀÚ¿¬½º·´´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Çѱ¹ »çȸÇÐÀÇ ±¹Á¦È­¸¦ À§Çؼ­´Â ÀüÅëÀû °ü½ÉÁö¿ªÀÇ ÇÑ°è¿¡¼­ ¹þ¾î³ª »õ·Î¿î ÇØ¿Ü Áö¿ª¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Å½±¸¸¦ Áö¼ÓÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

»çȸÇÐÀÇ ³í¹®µéÀº ÀüÇüÀûÀ¸·Î °¡¼³¿¬¿ªÀû ¹æ¹ýÀÇ ¿¬±¸ÀýÂ÷¸¦ ¹®ÀÚÀûÀ¸·Î ÀçÇöÇÏ´Â Çü½ÄÀ» ÃëÇÑ´Ù. ÀÌ°ÍÀº °¡¼³¿¬¿ªÀû ¹æ¹ýÀÌ ¿À·§µ¿¾È Ç¥ÁØÀûÀÎ °úÇÐÀû ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î »çȸÇÐ ¿¬±¸¸¦ Áö¹èÇØ ¿Ô±â ¶§¹®ÀÏ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×·¸Áö¸¸ °¡¼³¿¬¿ªÀû ¹æ¹ýÀº °úÇÐÀû Ž±¸°úÁ¤ÀÇ ±ØÈ÷ ÀϺκп¡¼­¸¸ »ç¿ëµÇ´Â Çü½Ä³í¸®Àû ÀýÂ÷·Î¼­, ƯÈ÷ ÀüÁ¦¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °¡°ø°ú º¯Çü¸¸À» Çã¿ëÇÔÀ¸·Î½á »çȸÇö½ÇÀ» ÇظíÇÏ´Â »õ·Î¿î °ßÇØÀÇ Ã¢ÃâÀ» Á¦¾àÇϱ⠶§¹®¿¡ Ãæ½ÇÇÏ°í ÀûÀýÇÑ °úÇÐÀû ¹æ¹ýÀ̶ó°í ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù. Çù¾àÁÖÀÇ °úÇÐöÇÐÀÚµéÀº ÀÌ¹Ì 1960³â´ëºÎÅÍ ÀÌ·ÐÀÇ °æÇèÀÇÁ¸¼º ¸íÁ¦ ¹× ÀÌ·ÐÀÇ °æÇèÀû ¹Ì°áÁ¤¼º ¸íÁ¦¸¦ Á¦ÃâÇϸ鼭 °¡¼³¿¬¿ªÀû ¹æ¹ýÀÇ ¼º¸³ºÒ°¡´É¼ºÀ» ÁöÀûÇØ ¿Ô´Ù. µû¶ó¼­ °¡¼³¿¬¿ªÀû ¹æ¹ýÀÇ °úÇÐÀû ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î¼­ÀÇ ÁöÀ§¿¡ ±Ù°Å¸¦ µÎ°í ½ÇÇàµÇ´Â »çȸÇÐÀÇ ÀüÇüÀûÀÎ ±Û¾²±â Çü½ÄÀº, »ç½Ç»ó ±× ±âÃÊ°¡ Ãë¾àÇÑ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. °úÇÐÈ°µ¿ÀÇ ÇÙ½ÉÀº °æÇè¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¼³¸íÀ̸ç, °úÇÐÀû ¹æ¹ýÀ̶õ °æÇèÀ» ¹ß»ý½ÃŲ °ÍÀ¸·Î ÃßÁ¤µÇ´Â ½ÇÀç, Áï ½Çüµé°ú °úÁ¤µéÀ» ã¾Æ³»·Á´Â ½Ãµµ ¼Ó¿¡¼­ ³ªÅ¸³ª´Â ´Ù¾çÇÏ°í âÁ¶ÀûÀÎ »çÀ¯´É·ÂÀÇ ÈƷõǰí ÇÕ¸®ÀûÀ¸·Î ÅëÁ¦µÈ È°¿ëÀ» ¹­¾î¼­ ºÎ¸£´Â À̸§ÀÎ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±×¸®°í »çȸÇÐÀÇ ±Û¾²±âµµ, Àú¸íÇÑ ÀúÀ۵鿡 ´ëÇÑ ºÐ¼®¿¡¼­ È®Àεǵí, °æÇè¿¡¼­ Ãâ¹ßÇÏ¿© ½ÇÀç·Î ³ª¾Æ°¡°Å³ª ½ÇÀç¿¡¼­ Ãâ¹ßÇÏ¿© °æÇèÀ¸·Î ³ª¾Æ°¡¸é¼­ °æÇè°ú ½ÇÀ縦 ¿¬°áÁþ´Â °ÍÀÌ ÀûÀýÇÑ Çü½ÄÀÌ´Ù.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

ÇöÀç Çѱ¹»çȸÇÐÀÇ À§±â´Â ¾îµð¼­ ¿À´Â °ÍÀΰ¡? ÀÌ ±Û¿¡¼­ ¿ì¸®´Â ±Ù¿øÀÇ Çϳª¸¦ ¡®±Þº¯ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â Çѱ¹»çȸÇö»óÀ» ¼³¸íÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â À̷аú ¹æ¹ý·ÐÀÇ ºÎÀ硯·Î °£ÁÖÇÑ´Ù. Çѱ¹ »çȸÇö»óÀ» ÀûÀýÇÏ°Ô ¼³¸íÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ½Ç¿ëÁö½ÄÀÌ µÇ±â À§Çؼ­, Çѱ¹»çȸÇÐ Áö½ÄÀº ´ÜÁö ¡®Á¸À硯³ª ¡®¾Í¡¯ÀÇ ¼öÁØ¿¡ ¸Ó¹°·¯¼­´Â ¾ÈµÇ¸ç, ¡®ÇàÇÔ¡¯ÀÇ ¼öÁØÀ¸·Î ³ª°¡¾ß ÇÑ´Ù. »çȸÇÐ Áö½ÄÀº ÀÌ·ÐÀû Áö½ÄÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó Àü·«Àû Áö½ÄÀ¸·Î »ç¿ëÇÒ ¶§ ¹«ÇüÀû ½Ç¿ëÁö½ÄÀÌ µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. Áï »çȸÇÐÀû Áö½ÄÀ» ¿ì¸®ÀÇ »î¿¡ Àû¿ëÇÏ¿© ¿ì¸®ÀÇ ¹«ÇüÀû ºÎ°¡°¡Ä¡¸¦ ¿Ã¸®´Âµ¥ »ç¿ëµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù. »çȸÇÐ Áö½ÄÀÌ »îÀÇ ºÎ°¡°¡Ä¡¸¦ ¿Ã¸± ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Àü·«Àû Áö½ÄÀÌ µÇ±â À§Çؼ­´Â ¡®¿ì¸®¸¦ ¾Ë°í ³²À» ¾Ë¾Æ¾ß¡¯ ÇÑ´Ù. ±×·±µ¥ ¿ì¸® »çȸÇÐÀº ÀÌ·± Áö½ÄÀ» Çü¼ºÇϴµ¥ ÇÊ¿äÇÑ Á¤º¸¿Í ¹æ¹ý·ÐÀ» °¡Áö°í ÀÖ´Ù. Á¤ºÎÀÇ µÎ³úÇѱ¹ BK 21Á¤Ã¥°ú ´ëÇпøÀ°¼ºÁ¤Ã¥¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í, 2001³â °¢ ´ëÇÐÀÇ ¼®¤ý¹Ú»ç °úÁ¤ÀÇ ¸ðÁý¿¡ Áö¿øÀÚ°¡ Å©°Ô ÁÙ¾î »ç»óÃÊÀ¯ÀÇ ¹Ì´Þ»çÅ°¡ ¹ß»ýÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿¬±¸Á߽ɴëÇÐÀ» Ç¥¹æÇÑ ¼­¿ï´ë¸¶Àú 894¸íÀ» »Ì´Â ¹Ú»ç°úÁ¤¿¡ 902¸íÀÌ Áö¿ø, 1.01´ë 1ÀÇ °æÀï·üÀ» ±â·ÏÇÏ¿© ¼­¿ï´ë °³±³ÀÌ·¡ ÃÖÀú °æÀï·üÀ» ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù. °Ô´Ù°¡ 2002³âµµ¿¡´Â ¼­¿ï´ë ¹Ú»ç°úÁ¤ ù ¹Ì´Þ»çŶó´Â Çö»ó±îÁö µµ´ÞÇÏ¿´´Ù. ƯÈ÷ »çȸÇÐÀÌ ¼ÓÇÏ´Â »çȸ°úÇдë´Â 2001³âµµ 56¸í ¸ðÁý¿¡ 26¸í¸¸ÀÌ Áö¿øÇÏ¿©, ´Ü°ú´ëÇÐµé °¡¿îµ¥ °¡Àå ³·Àº 0.46´ë 1ÀÇ °æÀï·üÀ» º¸¿´´Ù. 2002³âµµ¿¡µµ 0.59´ë 1À̶ó´Â °¡Àå ³·Àº Áö¿øÀ²À» º¸¿´´Ù(¸¸¾à ¹Ì´ÞµÇÁö ¾ÊÀº »çȸº¹Áö°ú°¡ Á¦¿ÜµÇ¾ú´õ¶ó¸é ÈξÀ ´õ ³·Àº °æÀï·üÀ» º¸¿´À» °ÍÀÌ´Ù). ÀÌ·± Àι®»çȸ°úÇÐ-»çȸÇÐÀ» Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ¿©-ÀÇ À§±â¸¦ ÃÊ·¡ÇÑ ¿øÀÎÀ¸·Î´Â Å©°Ô Àι®»çȸ°úÇаèÀÇ ¿ÜÀû »óȲµé°ú ³»ºÎÀÇ ¹®Á¦µé·Î ´ëº°µÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù. °¡Àå ÀÚÁÖ ¾ð±ÞµÇ´Â ¿ÜÀû ¿äÀÎÀ¸·Î´Â ½ÅÀÚÀ¯ÁÖÀÇ ½ÃÀå°æÁ¦ ³í¸®¿Í °úÇбâ¼ú¸¸´ÉÁÖÀÇ »ç°í¹æ½ÄÀÇ È®»êÀÌ´Ù. Àι®»çȸ°úÇÐÀº °úÇбâ¼ú°ú °æ¿µÇаú °°Àº À¯ÇüÀûÀÎ(¶Ç´Â ¹°ÁúÀû Ãø¸éÀ» °­Á¶ÇÏ´Â) ½Ç¿ëÇй®¿¡ ´­·Á, ¿¹¸¦ µé¾î, Á¤ºÎÀÇ °æÁ¦Àû Áö¿ø°ú °°Àº °¢Á¾ Áö¿øµéÀÌ ÁÙ¾îµé°í, ±× °á°ú ´õ¿í´õ °æÀï·ÂÀ» ¾àÈ­µÇ¾î °í»çÀ§±â¸¦ ¸Â°Ô µÇ¾ú´Ù. µû¶ó¼­ ÀÌ ±Û¿¡¼­´Â »çȸÇÐÀÇ ¹«ÇüÀûÀÎ(Á¤½ÅÀûÀÎ Ãø¸é) ½Ç¿ë¼ºÀÌ °­Á¶µÉ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ´Ù¸¥ Çϳª´Â ±Þº¯ÇÏ´Â Çö´ë »çȸ¿¡ Á¶À²ÇÏ¿© º¯È­ÇÏÁö ¸øÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â Àι®»çȸ°úÇаèÀÇ ³»Àû ¹®Á¦µéÀÌ´Ù. ¿©±â¿¡´Â ¼®¤ý¹Ú»çÃëµæÀÚµéÀÇ ½É°¢ÇÑ Ãë¾÷³­°ú ±³¼ö»çȸÀÇ Àü¹®¼º°ú µµ´ö¼º¿¡ °ü·ÃµÇ´Â ¹®Á¦µéµµ ÀÖ°ÚÁö¸¸, ´õ¿í ´õ Áß¿äÇÑ °ÍÀº ±Þº¯ÇÏ´Â Çö´ë»çȸ¿¡ ÇÊ¿äÇÑ Çй®µéÀ» »õ·ÎÀÌ ¹ß°ßÇÏ¿© Àç»ý»êÇس»´Â ÀÏÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ·± Áý¿¡¼­ ÇöÀç »çȸÇÐÀÇ À§±â´Â Çй® ÀÚüÀÇ À§±â°¡ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó, ±Þº¯ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â Çѱ¹»çȸ Çö»óµéÀ» ÀûÀýÇÏ°Ô ¼³¸íÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â À̷аú ¹æ¹ý·ÐÀÇ ºÎÀç·Î ÀÎÇØ »ý±ä °ÍÀ̶ó ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù(±è¹®Á¶, 1999). ÇÏÁö¸¸, ¸¸¾à »çȸÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ »çȸÇÐÀÌ 21¼¼±â¿¡ ²À ÇÊ¿äÇÑ Áö½ÄÀ» »ý»êÇÏ´Â Çй®À̶ó´Â »ç½ÇÀ» ´Ù¸¥ »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô ¼º°øÀûÀ¸·Î ¾Ë¶ö ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù¸é, ³»Àû ¹®Á¦»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¿ÜÀû ¹®Á¦µµ ÇØ°áµÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù. µû¶ó¼­ »çȸÇÐÀÌ 21¼¼±â¿¡ ³ª¾Æ°¥ ±æÀ» Áö½Ä±â¹Ý»çȸ¶ó´Â ¸Æ¶ô ÇÏ¿¡¼­ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿© ¹àÈ÷°í, ¹Ì·¡ »çȸ¿¡¼­ »çȸÇÐÀÇ ¿ªÇÒÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀÌ°í ¾ó¸¶³ª Áß¿äÇÑÁö¸¦ ¸»ÇÑ´Ù¸é, ¸¹Àº »ç¶÷µéÀÌ »çȸÇп¡ º¸´Ù ¸¹Àº °ü½ÉÀ» °¡Áö°í ÅõÀÚÇÒ °¡´É¼ºÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·¸°Ô µÇ¸é »çȸÇÐÀڵ鵵 ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ Çй®¿¡ Àںνɰú ±àÁö¸¦ °¡Áö°í ´õ¿í´õ ºÐ¹ßÇÒ °ÍÀ̹ǷÎ, ³»ºÎ¹®Á¦µéµµ »ó´çÈ÷ ÇØ°áµÉ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ ±ÛÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ °ÍÀ» ¸»ÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÔÀÌ´Ù. »çȸÇÐÀÌ ¾î¶»°Ô Çϸé 21¼¼±â Áö½Ä±â¹Ý»çȸ¿¡ ²À ÇÊ¿äÇÑ ½Ç¿ëÇй®ÀÌ µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´ÂÁö¸¦ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ°í ³íÀÇÇϴµ¥ ÀÖ´Ù. ¿ì¼±ÀûÀ¸·Î ¿ì¸®´Â 21¼¼±â È®¹®(¶Ç´Â Áö½Ä)ÀÌ ´ÜÁö "¾Í" ¶Ç´Â "Á¸Àç" ¼öÁØ¿¡ ¸Ó¹°·¯¼­´Â ¾Æ´Ï µÊÀ» °­Á¶ÇÑ´Ù. 21¼¼±â Çй®Àû Áö½ÄÀº ÇöÀå ¶Ç´Â Çö½Ç¿¡ Àû¿ëµÇ¾î »îÀÇ ºÎ°¡°¡Ä¡¸¦ ¹ßÈÖÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ½Ç¿ëÀû Áö½ÄÀÌ µÇ¾î¾ß¸¸ ÇÑ´Ù. »îÀÇ ºÎ°¡°¡Ä¡´Â °æÁ¦Àû ±×¸®°í ¹°ÁúÀûÀÎ Ãø¸éÀ» °­Á¶ÇÏ´Â À¯ÇüÀû ½Ç¿ëÁö½Ä»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó, Á¤½ÅÀû Ãø¸éÀ» °­Á¶ÇÏ´Â ¹«ÇüÀûÀÎ ½Ç¿ëÁö½ÄÀ¸·Îµµ Çâ»óµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ºÒÇàÈ÷µµ ¿ì¸® ³ª¶ó¿¡¼­ ½Ç¿ëÀû Áö½ÄÀÇ Àǹ̴ ÇöÀå¿¡ Àû¿ëµÇ¾î ´Ü±âÀûÀ¸·Î °¡½ÃÀûÀÎ ¹°ÁúÀû ¶Ç´Â °æÁ¦Àû È¿°ú¸¦ âÃâÇÏ´Â À¯ÇüÀû ½Ç¿ëÁö½ÄÀ¸·Î Á¦ÇѵǴ °æÇâÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. ±× ´ëÇ¥ÀûÀÎ °ÍÀº ¾Æ¸¶ ½ÅÁö½ÄÀÎÀÇ ¿¹¿Í ±×·± ½ÅÁö½ÄÀÎÀÌ µÇ±â À§ÇÑ Áö½ÄÀÎ ¹æ¹ýÁö¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¼³¸í¿¡¼­ º¼ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ±× °á°ú, ¹«ÇüÀû ½Ç¿ëÀû Áö½ÄÀº À¯ÇüÀû ½Ç¿ëÁö½Äº¸´Ù ´õ Áß¿äÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ½¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í °ÅÀÇ ¹«½ÃµÇ¾î ¿Ô´Ù. ¿À´Ã³¯ ¿ì¸® »çȸÀÇ Àι®»çȸ°úÇÐ À§±â´Â ¾Æ¸¶ ÀÌ·± »çȸÀû Ãß¼¼¿Í »ó´çÈ÷ ¿¬°üµÇ¾î ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ¶Ç µÚÁý¾î ¸»ÇØ, Àι®»çȸ°úÇÐÀº ¿ì¸® »çȸ°¡ ¿ä±¸ÇÏ´Â ¹«ÇüÀû ½Ç¿ëÁö½ÄÀ» Á¦°øÇÏÁö ¸øÇØ À§±â¸¦ ÃÊ·¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù º¼..

[±¹³»³í¹®]

ÀÌ ±ÛÀº Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´ø°ú ¹®È­»çȸÇÐÀÇ °ü°è¸¦ ¹àÈ÷´Â °ÍÀ» ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î ÇÑ´Ù. ¸ð´ø »çȸÇÐÀº ÁÖ·Î ÀüÅë°ú ¸ð´øÀ̶ó´Â À̺йýÀ» ÅëÇØ ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ Çй®Àû Á¤Ã¼¼ºÀ» Á¤ÀÇÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ±× ÁöÆòÀ» Á¼Çô¿Ô´Ù. ±× °á°ú Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´øÀ» ¸ð´ø°úÀÇ ´ÜÀýÀ̳ª ¿¬¼Ó¼ºÀÇ °ü°è¸¦ ÅëÇؼ­¸¸ Á¤ÀÇÇÏ´Â Á¼Àº ½Ã°¢À» º¸¿©ÁÖ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ Á¼Àº ƲÀ» ¹þ¾î³ª±â À§Çؼ­´Â ÀüÅë°ú ¸ð´øÀÇ À̺йý ´ë½Å¿¡, °í´ë-Áß¼¼-¸ð´øÀÇ »ïºÐ¹ýÀ» äÅÃÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù. Àΰ£ÀÇ Áú¼­°¡ ±× ±Ùº»ÀûÀÎ Â÷¿ø¿¡¼­ »ó¡ÀûÀ̶ó ÇÒ ¶§, °í´ë´Â ÁÖ¼ú, Áß¼¼´Â ¼¼°èÁ¾±³, ¸ð´øÀº °úÇÐÀ̶ó´Â »ó¡ü°è¸¦ ÅëÇØ ±× Áú¼­¸¦ ±¸¼ºÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¸ð´ø »çȸÇÐÀº °úÇÐÀÌ »çȸ¼¼°è¿¡¼­ ÃÊ¿ù¼º, µµ´ö, Á¤¼­¸¦ ÃàÃâÇÏ°í ¿À·ÎÁö ÀÎÁöÀûÀ¸·Î¸¸ ÀÛµ¿ÇÏ´Â »çȸ¼¼°è¸¦ ¸¸µé °ÍÀ̶ó´Â °¡Á¤ÇÏ¿¡¼­ À̷аú ¿¬±¸¸¦ ¼öÇàÇØ¿Ô´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´øÀº ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ±Ùº»ÀûÀÎ °¡Á¤¿¡ µµÀüÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. Æ÷½ºÆ®¸ð´øÀº ÃàÃâµÇ¾ú´ø ÃÊ¿ùÀû Â÷¿ø°ú, °¡Ä¡ Æò°¡ÀûÀÌ°í Á¤¼­ÀûÀÎ Â÷¿øÀÌ ¹°»óÈ­µÈ °Íó·³ º¸¿´´ø »çȸ¼¼°è¿¡ µÇµ¹¾Æ¿À´Â °ÍÀ» ¸»Çϱ⠶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ »óȲ¿¡¼­ µµ±¸Àû Â÷¿øÀ¸·Î¸¸ »çȸÀû ÇàÀ§¸¦ ¼³¸íÇÏ·Á´Â ¸ð´ø »çȸÇÐÀÇ ±âȹÀº ½É°¢ÇÑ ÇÑ°è¿¡ óÇß´Ù. ÀÌÁ¦ ÀÇ¹Ì¿Í »ó¡ÀÌ »çȸÀû ÇàÀ§¸¦ ±¸¼ºÇÏ´Â ¹æ½ÄÀ» Ž±¸Çϱâ À§ÇØ »çȸÇÐÀº ¹®È­Àû ÀüȯÀ» ÀÌ·ç¾î ¹®È­»çȸÇÐÀÌ µÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

The Exploration of Research Areas in the Korean Sociology of Education

[±¹³»³í¹®]

90³â´ë µé¾î »çȸÇÐÀÇ ¿¬±¸ÁÖÁ¦´Â ´ëÁ߸Åü, ¿µÈ­³ª ¿À¶ô, ÀÏ»ó»ýÈ°, ¼º µî ´Ù¾çÇÑ ÇüÅÂÀÇ »çȸÇö»óµé¿¡ ÁÖ¸ñÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÏ»ó¼ºÀÇ ¹®Á¦´Â Çѱ¹»çȸ¸¦ ÀÌÇØÇϱâ À§ÇØ ¹üÁ˳ª Á¾±³»ýÈ° µîÀÇ ¹®Á¦¿¡µµ Á¢±ÙÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇÏ´Ù. ¼¼°èÈ­.Á¤º¸È­¿Í °ü·ÃÇÑ Ã¼°èÀûÀÎ ¿¬±¸µµ È°¹ßÇØÁú °ÍÀ¸·Î º¸ÀδÙ.

[±¹³»³í¹®]

Çѱ¹ »çȸÇÐÀº Á¤º¸È­.Áö±¸È­ÀÇ ±Þ°ÝÇÑ »çȸº¯µ¿À» ºÐ¼®, ÀÌÇØÇÏ´Â ÀÏ, Á¤±Ç±³Ã¼ ÈÄ ½Ã¹Î»çȸÀÇ Çü¼º°¡´É¼ºÀ» Ž»öÇÏ´Â ÀÏÀÌ ÁÖµÈ °ú³áÀ̾ú´Ù. 'Çö½Ç°ú º¯µ¿'À̶ó´Â È­µÎ°¡ ³õÀÎ Çѱ¹ »çȸÇÐÀÇ ½Ã´ëÀû °úÁ¦´Â ºÐ¸íÇÏ´Ù. ±× ¿ä±¸¿¡ °ªÇÏ´Â ³»ºÎÀÇ ÀÚ±â¹Ý¼ºÀÌ ¼±ÇàµÅ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù.

[ÇØ¿Ü³í¹®]

This paper aims to clarify the relationship between the postmodern and cultural sociology. Modern sociology has narrowed its horizon when defining its academic identity mainly in terms of the dichotomy of traditional-modern. As a result, a narrow definition of the postmodern, according to which the postmodern is defined in relation to its discontinuity or continuity with the modern, is presented. In order to escape this narrow framework, the trichotomy of ancient-medieval-modern instead of the dichotomy of traditional-modern is needed. Given that human order is symbolic in its fundamental dimension, this order was constructed through the symbolic system of magic in the ancient period, world-religion in the medieval period, and science in the modern period. Theories and research have been constructed and conducted by modern sociology under the assumption that science would dispel transcendence, morality, and emotion from the social world and finally establish a cognitively-operating world only. The postmodern, however, challenges this fundamental assumption, claiming that the postmodern refers to the return of transcendence, morality, and emotion to this seemingly reified social world. Under this condition, the project of modern sociology in explaining social action only in terms of its instrumental dimension is seriously limited. Now, in order to investigate the way meanings and symbols shape social action, sociology has to achieve a cultural turn and become cultural sociology.

/ 367

Filters

º¸±âÇü½Ä

Á¤·Ä¼ø¼­

Æ÷¸Ë

¸®½ºÆ® ¼ö