수췬(舒群)의 소설 ｢조국 없는 아이(沒有祖國的孩子)｣는 일제가 식민지화 하고 있 는 조국을 버리고 간도-만주라는 이상향으로 새로운 삶을 찾아 떠나 힘들게 살아가 는 고려인(조선인)-궈리(果里)의 삶을 중심으로 묘사하고 있다. 소설의 배경인 간도- 만주의 공간은 유토피아가 아닌 소외와 낯설음의 공간으로 작용하였다. 따라서 본 논문은 푸코의 ‘헤테로토피아’의 개념을 적용하여 공간적 의미를 살펴보았다.

This study aims to examine the brief statement about the historiography of architecture by the French philosopher Michel Foucault and the possibility of a historical description according to his method. His historiographic proposition, “the history of architecture back in (the) general history of techne,” is a novel idea not only for his contemporaries but also for us. To grasp the meaning of Foucault’s proposition, we begin by considering his position with regard to architecture or architectural space in certain discussions till then. We then compare his standpoint on historical recognition with other viewpoints about historical narratives that can be found in books written since 1930. Finally, we interpret the concept of “techne” in the sense of “relation,” whose objectivation is for him his concern on architecture and examine possible aspects and their limits.

이 논문은 미디어 속에 내포된 복지철학적 이슈, 즉 클라이언트(client, 예컨대 사회 적 약자나 취약계층)의 주체화 문제를 복지이론적으로 고찰하는 데 그 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 이 논문은 푸코(Michel Foucault)의 권력이론—대표적 비판사회이론의 하나로 꼽히는—에 입각하여 영화 <완득이>를 분석한다. 이 논문에서 영화 <완득이> 를 분석대상으로 삼은 건, 이 영화가 클라이언트를 ‘시혜의 대상’(객체)으로만 인식하 는 기존의 인식(주류사회의 시각)을 거부하고 있기 때문이다. 이 논문은 주로 미디어 에 대한 비판사회복지학적 분석을 수행하고 있는데, 그 핵심 주장은 주류사회의 비가 시적이고 미시적인 권력 작용이 복지서비스에서 클라이언트의 객체화를 야기하고 있 다는 것이다. 쉽게 말해, 복지서비스가 본디 클라이언트를 위해 존재함에도 정작 복지 서비스의 제공과정에서 클라이언트는 자기결정권과 선택권을 거의 갖지 못한 채 주변 적 존재로 머물러 있다는 것이다. 이 논문은 이 같은 문제를 극복하기 위해 대략 두가지 실천전략을 제시한다. 첫째, 권력은 잘 사용할 경우 부조리한 현실을 조금이라도 개선할 수 있는 강력한 무기가 될 수 있는 만큼, 실천현장에서 사회복지사의 권력이 클라이언트를 옹호하고 클라이언트의 자기결정권·선택권을 강화하는 데 쓰일 수 있도 록 윤리적·제도적 장치를 마련할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 미디어를 통한 사회적 인식의 재 고와 변화를 꾀함으로써 단기적으로는 실천현장에서 클라이언트의 주체화를 도모하 고, 장기적으로는 우리사회에서 사회권의 실체적 권리화가 이루어질 수 있도록 사회 적 분위기를 조성할 필요가 있다.

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.

Surveying the literature of architecture since the nineteenth century, one can identify two dominant but problematic attitudes, among several, that pursue the task of defining what modern architecture is and should be. The first is the search for meaning and the second is the pursuit of form. This study, following Michel Foucault, asserts that the dual formation of meaning and form is a historical product of modernity and belies architecture's uncritical dependence on language since the nineteenth century. This study is a critique and historical analysis of this pernicious reliance, and constitutes a first step towards thinking of alternative relations between 'words and architecture' in the modern world. In reconstructing this problematic, the paper has called on Foucault's seminal The Order of Things. The study follows his construction of the Renaissance, the Classical and the Modern episteme, and in brief fashion, reconstructs the relation between language and architecture in each episteme. In analysing the Modern, the study focuses on Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics. Hegel placed architecture in a genre hierarchy within which architecture, because of its material basis, was fundamentally limited in its ability to express the Spirit. For Hegel it was, among the arts, poetic language, and beyond art, the language of philosophy, through which the Absolute Spirit could be atttained. Much of post-nineteenth century architecture has remained within the shadow of Hegel, where architecture's materiality is perceived to be a burden, and in order to secure its relevance in modern society, architecture was deemed to pursue the role of language. As the most recent and sophisticated example of architecture's pursuit of form, the paper analyses the work of Peter Eisenman. Though Eisenman's theoretical writings are replete with post-Hegelian rhetoric, his architecture remains dependent upon the model of language, albeit a structuralist one. The paper concludes that ultimately, the pursuit of meaning and form is unable to face the crucial issue of value in modernity. While the former decides to easily what it is, the latter evades the issue itself. The second installment of this ongoing study will pursue a third possibility alluded to by Foucault, where language remains silent, pointing only to its 'ponderous' material existence.