This study discusses various conflict situations and unexpressed pathological potential in historical regions. In this regard, the issue of alienation of local people due to local identity was raised and the cause was investigated. It explains the structural origins of local alienation that occurred in the process of objectifying a region and forming its identity. The process of alienation of local residents of local identity identified in this paper was divided and explained in three stages: objectification of the region, symbolization of local identity, and religious materialism of local identity. In addition, in the process, the incorporation of the production mode of intellectual work, the separation of producers, and the loss of the subject-centered control ability over these products were pointed out as problematic situations. The study suggests to change the perception of the region and to restore the control of the local people through narrative in relation to this problematic situation. Thus, this thesis asserts that we need to have doubts about the justification for the public good and the basis of the resulting consensus, and that we should be constantly interested in the pathological signs of society around us.

중국 동북공정으로 촉발된 고구려 역사 귀속문제는 한중 양국 간의 역사문화 갈등 중 가장 대표적인 사례다. 그동안 중국에서는 통일다민족국가론에 입각하여 영토주 권론을 내세움으로써 고구려 역사를 민족, 강역 등 측면에서 자국의 ‘국사’로 규정해 왔다. 그러나 2010년 이후부터 학계에서 중국 국사 이론의 구축 및 민족, 강역 등과 관련된 개념에 대한 인식은 이전과 크게 달라지면서 과거 연구 이론 위에 구축된 고구려사 인식은 점차 이론적 근거를 잃게 되었다. 이 같은 현실적 배경을 바탕으로 본 논문은 현재 중국 국사 연구의 새로운 동향을 결합하여, 과거 중국 국사 서술에서의 이론적 구축 문제를 다시 돌아봄으로써 한중 고구려 역사 귀속 문제에 대한 중국학자들이 가진 몇 가지 인식 오류를 살펴보고자 한다.

This study tries to compare the architectural thought of Michel Foucault with that of Manfredo Tafuri in order to make clear the architectural identity as a social institution. In Michel Foucault's case, the archeology of discourse and the geneology of power were central method to understand the history of occidental society since the Renaissance. Four him, architecture is assumed as a mechanism of operation which make the power effectively radiate in th space. He thinks that a new discursive space was arranged since the 18th century in Europe, the architecture played a role to coordinate divers powers. Mafredo Tafuri, architetural historian, depends on the criticism of ideology in search of the relation between the economic system of capitalism and modern architecture and urbanism. He thinks that all architecture is an institution. And any attempt to overthrow the institution, is bound to see itself turned into a positive contribution and into an ideology, So all architectural attempts to conceal the contradiction of capitalism are negated. This different perspective on architecture exposes many points of dispute: historical periodization, disciplinary limit of architecture, understanding of Enlightenment architecture, utopia and heterotopia, etc.