대한지리학회지 (Journal of the Korean Geographical Society)

대한지리학회 (The Korean Geographical Society)
권호 표지

경합적 실천으로서 도시 공동체: 일상 실천과 시민사회 옹호 담론 간의 간극

Urban Community as a Contested Practice: A Gap between Ordinary Practices and Civic Advocacy Discourse

  • 이재열 (서울대학교 지리교육과)
  • Lee, Jae-Youl (Department of Geography Education, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2016.03.06
  • 심사 : 2016.04.26
  • 발행 : 2016.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 논문은 한국 도시 정책에서 그 중요성이 확대되고 있는 '공동체' 개념을 탐구 문제로 설정하여 심문한다. 이를 위해 서울의 한 '공동체 텃밭' 프로그램 장소에서 일반 시민 참여자들과 시민사회 단체들이 공동체라는 개념을 어떻게 이해하고, 사용하며, 실천하는지를 조사하여 비교, 분석한다. 신푸코주의적 '통치성' 관점을 통해 공동체 중심의 정책 프로그램과 신자유주의 사이의 담론-수행적 연관성을 분석하지만, 결정론적 해석을 지양하기 위해 '아래로부터의 통치성' 또한 본 논문에서 중요하게 여겨진다. 이와 같은 통치성에 대한 '절충적' 이해를 바탕으로, 본 논문은 일반 시민과 시민사회 활동가 사이의 공동체에 대한 경합적 간극을 암시할 법한 경험적 발견들을 기술한다. 구체적으로, 일반 시민 참여자들은 공동체를 장소 중심으로 새롭게 나타나는 공통적이고 구체적인 실천적 사항의 결과물로 이해하고 일상적으로 수행하지만, 시민사회 단체들의 목적론적 정책 담론 속에서 공동체는 특정 시민주체를 배양하기 위한 사회-공간적 통치 기술로 짜여 있는 것으로 보인다. 이들이 주창하는 공동체는 신자유주의가 유발한 각종 사회, 경제, 공간적 문제의 해결책으로 그려지는 동시에, 신자유주의적 도시 정책과 적극적 연대 관계에 놓여있는 것으로도 보인다. 이것은 모순적 신자유주의적 도시정책이 만들어낸 틈에 적극 개입하여 대안적 해결책을 찾는 유의미한 시도로 판단되지만, 일반인들의 일상적 실천 결실과 시민사회 운동 사이의 간극은 도시 공동체 정책의 잠재적 위협 요소가 될 수 있을 것으로도 여겨진다. 이 같은 논의를 바탕으로, 본 논문은 긍정적인 것으로 당연시되는 공동체 활성화 정책에 대한 면밀한 분석을 요구하고, 일상적 실천의 결실과 정책적 기대 사이에 생성되는 긴장 관계가 없는지 반추하는 것이 그 분석의 한 가지 방법이 될 수 있다는 점도 강조한다.

This article problematizes and interrogates the idea of 'community' which is increasingly important in Korean urban policy-making. For the purpose, this article scrutinizes, and compares, how ordinary citizen participants and civil society activist organizations in a 'community garden' program of Seoul make sense of, utilize, and practice the policy concept. The neo-Faucauldian perspective of 'governmentality' is employed to understand the association between the community-focused policy program and neoliberalism, but Barnett's( 2005) call for 'bottom-up governmentality' is taken seriously in order to avoid any deterministic interpretation. On the basis of this eclectic perspective on governmentality, this article presents empirical findings that may suggest a contestation over community between ordinary citizens and civil society activists. More specifically, ordinary citizen participants prioritize place-based, on-the-ground community experiences that are built on common cultivation practices, whereas civil society activists tend to consider community garden as a teleological governmental technology generative of particular citizen subjects. Civic community garden advocacy as such aims to address social, economic, and spatial problems that neoliberalsim has produced, but it also appears to be in a close association with neoliberal urban policy. Thus, the community activism's meaningfulness lies in its active intervention to neoliberal urban policy, but a gap between ordinary practical achievements and civic activism can be a potential danger to urban community policy. On the basis of this discussion, this article asks more detailed investigations about the taken-for-granted positivity of urban community (re)vitalization programs, and also examinations on whether and how such projects generates emergent tensions between ordinary achievements and policy prescriptions.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Agro City Seoul, 2013, Urban Agriculture is a Powerful Solution against the Climate Change and the Collapse of Community in Seoul, Korea, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul.
  2. Allen, J., 2004, The whereabouts of power: politics, government and space, Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 86(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2004.00151.x
  3. Anderson, B., 1991, Imagined Communities : Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Verson, New York.
  4. Azuma, R. and Wiltshire, R., 2000, Rural allotments and sustainable development: a Japanese perspective, Proceedings from Conference on People, Land and Sustainability at the University of Nottingham.
  5. Barnett, C., 2005, The consolations of "neoliberalism", Geoforum, 36(1), 7-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.08.006
  6. Blomley, N., 2004, Un-real estate: proprietary space and public gardening, Antipode, 36(4), 614-641. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2004.00440.x
  7. Bouvier-Daclon, N. and Senecal, G., 2001, The Montreal community gardens: a socially ambiguous territory, Loisir & Societe, 24(2), 507-531. https://doi.org/10.7202/000193ar
  8. Butler, J., 1997, Excitable speech : a politics of the performative, Routledge, New York.
  9. Crouch, D., 2003a, Performances and constitutions of natures: a consideration of the performance of lay geographies, The Sociological Review, 51, 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00448.x
  10. Crouch, D., 2003b, Spacing, performing, and becoming: tangles in the mundane, Environment and Planning A, 35(11), 1945-1960. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3585
  11. Elden, S., 2007, Rethinking governmentality, Political Geography, 26, 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.08.001
  12. Ernwein, M., 2014, Framing urban gardening and agriculture: on space, scale and the public, Geoforum, 56, 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.016
  13. Fairclough, N., 2010, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, 2nd Edition, Routledge, New York.
  14. Firth, C., Maye, D. and Pearson, D., 2011, Developing "community" in community gardens, Local Environment, 16(6), 555-568. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.586025
  15. Foucault, M., 1991, Governmentality, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P., The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 87-104.
  16. Ghose, R. and Pettygrove, M., 2014, Urban community gardens as spaces of citizenship, Antipode, 46(4), 1092-1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12077
  17. Gibson-Graham, J. K., 1996, The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy, Blackwell, Cambridge.
  18. Huxley, M., 2008, Space and government: governmentality and geography, Geography Compass, 1625-1658.
  19. Kurtz, H., 2010, Differentiating multiple meanings of garden and community, Urban Geography, 22(7), 656-670. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.22.7.656
  20. Larner, W., 2003, Neolibrealism?, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21(5), 509-512. https://doi.org/10.1068/d2105ed
  21. Lee, C.-W., 2013, Urban agriculture's current state and future direction, 2013 Alternative Agriculture Politics Conference, 432-450. (in Korean)
  22. Lee, J.-Y., 2015a, Policy, Place, and People in the Making of Agro City Seoul, South Korea, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
  23. Lee, J.-Y., 2015b, Symbolic urban architecture, controversy, and ordinary practices: A critical architectural geographic narrative of Nodeulseom in Seoul, Journal of the Korean Urban Geographical Society, 16(3), 171-182.
  24. Lee, J.-Y., 2016, An ethnographic examination of urban cultivation practices in Seoul -an emerging different economy-, Seoul Studies, 163-185.
  25. Lee, K.-O., 2012, Urban agriculture in Seoul and social economy, Seoul Economy, 6(2), 17-26. (in Korean)
  26. Lee, K.-O., 2013, Agriculture saves the city, Proceedings from the 2013 Alternative Agriculture Politics Conference, 453-475. (in Korean)
  27. Lee, K.-O., 2014, Citizens' island, Nodeulseom, Proceedings from Nodeulseom Forum Conference. (in Korean)
  28. Lorimer, H., 2005, Cultural geography: the busyness of being "more-than-representational." Progress in Human Geography, 29(1), 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132505ph531pr
  29. Martin, D., 2009, Community, in Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M. and Whatmore, S.(eds.), The Dictionary of Human Geography, 5th Edition, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 103-104.
  30. Mok, H. F., Williamson, V. G., Grove, J. R., Burry, K., Barker, S. F. and Hamilton, A. J., 2014, Strawberry fields forever? urban agriculture in developed countries: a review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(1), 21-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0156-7
  31. Moore, S., 2006, Forgotten roots of the green city: subsistence gardening in Columbus, Ohio, 1900-1940. Urban Geography, 27(2), 174-192. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.27.2.174
  32. Peck, J. and Tickell, A., 2002, Neoliberalizing space, Antipode, 34(3), 380-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00247
  33. Pudup, M. B., 2008, It takes a garden: cultivating citizensubjects in organized garden projects, Geoforum, 39(3), 1228-1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.06.012
  34. Rose, N., O'Malley, P. and Valverde, M., 2006, Governmentality, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2, 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105900
  35. SMG(Seoul Metropolitan Government), 2013, Seoul Community White Paper, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul. (in Korean)
  36. Staeheli, L. A., 2008, Citizenship and the problem of community, Political Geography, 27(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.09.002
  37. Thrift, N. and Dewsbury, J. D., 2000, Dead geographies - And how to make them live, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18(4), 411-432. https://doi.org/10.1068/d1804ed
  38. van Dijk, T., 2001, Critical discourse analysis, in Schiffrin, D. et al.(eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Blackwell, Oxford, 349-371.