8.. 사적인 권역: 프로퍼티The Private Realm: Property
"사적인"이라는 용어가 그것의 기원적인 센스를 '프리바트(박탈된)'로 갖고 있다는 것, 그것은 공적인 권역의 다원적인 의미심장함들과 관계된다. 전반적으로 사적인 생명삶을 산다는 것은 참다운 인간의 생명삶에 본질적인 거시기들을 디-프라이브당했다는 것을 의미했다. 타자들에 의한 보고 듣기로부터 오는 실재현실의 디-프라이브당함, 거시기들의 공통된 어떤 세계의 중개를 통해 타자들과 관계되거나 분리되기로부터 오는 "객관적인" 어떤 관계됨의 디-프라이브당함, 생명삶 그자체보다 더욱 영속적인 거시기들을 성취할 가능성의 디-프라이당함, 이러한 프라이버시(사적임)의 디-프리베이션은 타자들의 없음 탓이다; 타자들(의 관심)에게 사적인 사람은 현상하지 않는다. 따라서 사적인 사람은 존재하지 않는 것과 같다. 사적인 사람은 여하하더라도 타자들에게 그냥 의미심장함도 없고 결론도 없다. 사적인 사람은 그스스로에게 여하한 문제꺼리가 있더라도 타자들에게는 그냥 인터레스트가 되지 못한다(132)It is with respect to this multiple significance of the public realm that the term "private," in its original privative sense, has meaning. To live an entirely private life means above all to be deprived of things essential to a truly human life: to be deprived of the reality that comes from being seen and heard by others, to be deprived of an "objective" relationship with them that comes from being related to and separated from them through the intermediary of a common world of things, to be deprived of the possibility of achieving something more permanent than life itself. The privation of privacy lies in the absence of others; as far as they are concerned, private man does not appear, and therefore it is as though he did not exist. Whatever he does remains without significance and consequence to others, and what matters to him is without interest to other people.
근대적인 형편저치 아래에서 타자들을 향한 "객관적인" 관계됨의 이러한 디-프리베이션은 외로움이라는 대중현상이 되었다. 외로움은 디-프리베이션의 가장 극단적이고 가장 반인간적인 형태이다. 이러한 극단성의 그 까닭은 대중사회가 공적인 권역을 파괴했을 뿐만 아니라, 사적인 권역도 마찬가지로 파괴했고, 대중사회가 사람들로부터 세계 안에서 그들의 자리를 디-프라이브시켰을 뿐만 아니라, 사람들이 세계에 맞선 피난처로 느꼈던 곳, 어떤 정도이든지간에 심지어 세계로부터 배제당하더라도 화덕의 따스함 안에서 그리고 패밀리의 생명삶의 제한된 실재현실 안에서 어떤 대체물을 발견할 수 있었던 곳인, 그들의 사적인 홈마저도 디-프라이브시켰기 때문이다. 내적이고 사적인 어떤 공간 안을향한 화덕과 패밀리가 있는 생명삶의 전적인 개발은 로마인들의 비상한 정치적인 센스 덕분이다. 이들은 그리스인들과 달리 공적인 권역을 위해 사적인 권역을 희생시키지 않으려 했고, 공존의 형태 안에서만 오직 이들 두 개의 권역들이 존재할 수 있다고 여겼다(133)Under modern circumstances, this deprivation of "objective" relationships to others and of a reality guaranteed through them has become the mass phenomenon of loneliness, where it has assumed its most extreme and most antihuman form. The reason for this extremity is that mass society not only destroys the public realm but the private as well, deprives men not only of their place in the world but of their private home, where they once felt sheltered against the world and where, at any rate, even those excluded from the world could find a substitute in the warmth of the hearth and the limited reality of family life. The full development of the life of hearth and family into an inner and private space we owe to the extraordinary political sense of the Roman people who, unlike the Greeks, never sacrificed the private to the public, but on the contrary understood that these two realms could exist only in the form of coexistence. And although the conditions of slaves probably were hardly better in Rome than in Athens, it is quite characteristic that a Roman writer should have believed that to slaves the household of the master was what the res publica was to citizens. Yet no matter how bearable private life in the family might have been, it could obviously never be more than a substitute, even though the private realm in Rome as in Athens offered plenty of room for activities which we today class higher than political activity, such as the accumulation of wealth in Greece or the devotion to art and science in Rome. This "liberal" attitude, which could under certain circumstances result in very prosperous and highly educated slaves, meant only that to be prosperous had no reality in the Greek polis and to be a philosopher was without much consequence in the Roman republic.64
프라이버시(사적임)의 프리바티브한 형질, 곧 하우스홀드의 제약된 스피어 안에서 배타적으로 어떤 생명삶을 소비하는 것은 본질적인 어떤거시기를 디-프라이브당한 상태신분이라는 의식은 그리스도교의 일어남에 의해서 거의 멸종 지점에 이르도록 약화되었다(134)It is a matter of course that the privative trait of privacy, the consciousness of being deprived of something essential in a life spent exclusively in the restricted sphere of the household, should have been weakened almost to the point of extinction by the rise of Christianity.
원주55. "조용히 너의 일을 하기를 힘쓰라." 여기서 타 이디아(너의 일)은 공통의 일(타 코이나)와 반대된다(134)Augustine(De civitate Dei xix. 19) sees in the duty of caritas toward the utilhas proximi("the interest of one's neighbor") the limitation of otium and contemplation. But "in active life, it is not the honors or power of this life we should covet,... but the welfare of those who are under us [salutem subditorum]." Obviously, this kind of responsibility resembles the responsibility of the household head for his family more than political responsibility, properly speaking. The Christian precept to mind one's own business is derived from I Thess. 4:11: "that ye study to be quiet and to do your own business"(prattein ta idia, whereby ta idia is understood as opposed to ta koina ["public common affairs"]).
공적인 권역의 소멸은 반드시 사적인 권역의 제거라는 위험을 동반한다는 점은 공적인 권역과 사적인 권역 사이의 관계됨의 본성자연인 듯 하다... 고대 정치철학의 용어들 안에서, "사적인"이라는 낱말과 프로퍼티와의 연결은 즉각적으로 그 프리바티브한 성격을 잃어버리고, 또한 공적인 권역과의 대립 역시도 잃어버린다. 프로퍼티는, 비록 사적인 권역 안에 놓여있음에도 불구하고, 정치적인 몸체에 으뜸가는 중요성을 지닌 것으로 늘상 생각되는 일정한 성질들을 분명하게 소유했다(135)It seems to be in the nature of the relationship between the public and private realms that the final stage of the disappearance of the public realm should be accompanied by the threatened liquidation of the private realm as well. Nor is it an accident that the whole discussion has eventually turned into an argument about the desirability or undesirability of privately owned property. For the word "private" in connection with property, even in terms of ancient political thought, immediately loses its privative character and much of its opposition to the public realm in general; property apparently possesses certain qualifications which, though lying in the private realm, were always thought to be of utmost importance to the political body.
프로퍼티와 웰쓰는 전반적으로 다른 본성자연의 것들이다(135)The profound connection between private and public, manifest on its most elementary level in the question of private property, is likely to be misunderstood today because of the modern equation of property and wealth on one side and propertylessness and poverty on the other. This misunderstanding is all the more annoying as both, property as well as wealth, are historically of greater relevance to the public realm than any other private matter or concern and have played, at least formally, more or less the same role as the chief condition for admission to the public realm and full-fledged citizenship. It is therefore easy to forget that wealth and property, far from being the same, are of an entirely different nature. The present emergence everywhere of actually or potentially very wealthy societies which at the same time are essentially propertyless, because the wealth of any single individual consists of his share in the annual income of society as a whole, clearly shows how little these two things are connected.
기원적으로, 프로퍼티는, 더도덜도아닌, 세계의 파티큘라한 어떤 부분 안에서의 한사람의 장소를 의미했다. 따라서 바디 폴리틱에 속하는 것 곧, 함께 공적인 권역을 컨스티투트하는, 가문들의 우두머리가 되는 것을 의미했다. 사적으로 소유한 세계의 이러한 조각은 완전히 패밀리와 동일정체화되었고, 그결과 어떤 시민의 추방은 한낱 그의 에스테이트(부동산; 영토; 자산)의 몰수가 아니라 건물 자체의 행동현실적인 파괴였다(135~ 136)Prior to the modern age, which began with the expropriation of the poor and then proceeded to emancipate the new propertyless classes, all civilizations have rested upon the sacredness of private property. wealth, on the contrary, whether privately owned or publicly distributed, had never been sacred before. Originally, property meant no more or less than to have one's location in a particular part of the world and therefore to belong to the body politic, that is, to be the head of one of the families which together constituted the public realm. This piece of privately owned world was so completely identical with the family who owned it원주66 that the expulsion of a citizen could mean not merely the confiscation of his estate but the actual destruction of the building itself.
원주56. "파밀리아의 참다운 기호작용은 프로퍼티; 들판, 집, 돈, 그리고 노예들이다" 그러나 이 프로퍼티는 패밀리에 부착되었다고 여겨지지 않았다. 정반대로, "패밀리는 화덕에 부착되었고, 화덕은 흙에 부착되었다." 요점은 다음과 같다. "재산행운은, 그것이 부착되어진, 화덕과 무덤처럼 움직일 수 없는 것이다. 사라지는 것, 그것은 사람이다."(136)Coulanges(op. cit.) holds: "The true signification of familia is property; it designates the field, the house, money, and slaves"(p. 107). Yet, this "property" is not seen as attached to the family; on the contrary, "the family is attached to the hearth, the hearth is attached to the soil"(p. 62). The point is: "The fortune is immovable like the hearth and the tomb to which it is attached. It is the man who passes away"(p. 74).
법률은 기원적으로 한 하우스홀드와 다른 하우스홀드 사이의, 사적인것들과 공적인것들 사이의 사람없는 땅의 어떤 종류인, 행동현실적으로 어떤 공간인, 이러한 경계선과 동일정체시되었고... 두 권역을 구별해줄 뿐만 아니라 동시에 서로 분리시켰다... 법률은 글자그대로 벽이다. 벽이 없다면 집들의 덩어리인 어떤 마을(아스티)일 수는 있지만, 그러나 정치적인 어떤 공동체인 폴리스는 아니다... 벽없이 프로퍼티가 있을 수 없는 것처럼, 벽없이 공적인 권역 역시 실존할 수가 없다. 울타리가 패밀리의 생물학적인 생명삶의 과정과 프로퍼티를 보호하는 경게라면, 법률은 정치적인 생명삶을 둘러싸서 보호하는 울타리였던 것이다(138)Not the interior of this realm, which remains hidden and of no public significance, but its exterior appearance is important for the city as well, and it appears in the realm of the city through the boundaries between one household and the other. The law originally was identified with this boundary line,원주62 which in ancient times was still actually a space, a kind of no man's land between the private and the public, sheltering and protecting both realms while, at the same time, separating them from each other. The law of the polis, to be sure, transcended this ancient understanding from which, however, it retained its original spatial significance. The law of the city-state was neither the content of political action(the idea that political activity is primarily legislating, though Roman in origin, is essentially modern and found its greatest expession in Kant's political philosophy) nor was it a catalogue of prohibitions, resting, as all modern laws still do, upon the Thou Shalt Nots of the Decalogue. It was quite literally a wall, without which there might have been an agglomeration of houses, a town(asty), but not a city, a political community. This wall-like law was sacred, but only the inclosure was political.64 Without it a public realm could no more exist than a piece of property without a fence to hedge it in; the one harbored and inclosed political life as the other sheltered and protected the biological life process of the family.
원주62. 그리스 낱말 "법률"은 노모스이다. 이것은 네메인에서 갈래쳐나왔다... 노모스는 법률과 울타리가 조합된 낱말이다(137)The Greek word for law, nomos, derives from nemein, which means to distribute, to possess(what has been distributed), and to dwell. The combination of law and hedge in the word nomos is quite manifest in a fragment of Heraclitus: machesthai chre ton demon hyper tou nomou hokosper teicheos("the people should fight for the law as for a wall"). The Roman word for law, lex, has an entirely different meaning; it indicates a formal relationship between people rather than the wall that separates them from others. But the boundary and its god, Terminus, who separated the agrum publlcum a privato(Livius) was more highly revered than the corresponding theoi horoi in Greece.
따라서 전근대에 사적인 프로퍼티는 공적인 권역을 향한 승인조건 이상을 의미했다... 프라이버시(사적임)은 공적인 권역의 다른 측면, 어둡고 숨겨진 측면같은 것이었다(138)It is therefore not really accurate to say that private property, prior to the modern age, was thought to be a self-evident condition for admission to the public realm; it is much more than that. Privacy was like the other, the dark and hidden side of the public realm, and while to be political meant to attain the highest possibility of human existence, to have no private place of one's own(like a slave) meant to be no longer human.
사적인 웰쓰의 정치적인 의미심장함은 역사적으로 전혀 다른 후대의 기원을 갖는다... 사적인 웰쓰가 공적인 생명삶을 위한 조건상태가 되는 (시기가 온 것이다. 다시말해서) 웰쓰의 오너가 그것의 축적... 을 위해 노동할 필요가 없게된 것이다(139)Of an altogether different and historically later origin is the political significance of private wealth from which one draws the means of one's livelihood. We mentioned earlier the ancient identification of necessity with the private realm of the household, where each had to master the necessities of life for himself. The free man, who disposed of his own privacy and was not, like a slave, at the disposition of a master, could still be "forced" by poverty. Poverty forces the free man to act like a slave. Private wealth, therefore, became a condition for admission to public life not because its owner was engaged in accumulating it but, on the contrary, because it assured with reasonable certainty that its owner would not have to engage in providing for himself the means of use and consumption and was free for public activity.원주67 T Public life, obviously, was possible only after the much more urgent needs of life itself had been taken care of. The means to take care of them was labor, and the wealth of a person therefore was frequently counted in terms of the number of laborers, that is, slaves, he owned.원주68 To own property meant here to be master over one's own necessities of life and therefore potentially to be a free person, free to transcend his own life and enter the world all have in common.
원주67. 중세 초기... 도시길드의 장인이 자유인이 되기를 원한다면, 그는 우선 자신의 기술을 포기하고 집에 있는 모든 연장들을 없애야만 한다(139)This condition for admission to the public realm was still in existence in the earlier Middle Ages. The English "Books of Customs" still drew "a sharp distinction between the craftsman and the freeman, franke hmnme, of the town. ... If a craftsman became so rich that he wished to become a freeman, he must first foreswear his craft and get rid of all his tools from his house"(W. J. Ashley, op. cit., p. 83). It was only under the rule of Edward III that the craftsmen became so rich that "instead of the craftsmen being incapable of citizenship, citizenship came to be bound up with membership of one of the companies"(p. 89).
원주68. 웰쓰의 오너의 직업과 무관하게 웰쓰 자체가 시민됨의 어떤 자격이 된 것은 근대에 개발된 특징이다(139)Coulanges, in distinction from other authors, stresses the timeand strength-consuming activities demanded from an ancient citizen, rather than his "leisure," and sees rightly that Aristotle's statement that no man who had to work for his livelihood could be a citizen is a simple statement of fact rather than the expression of a prejudice(of. cit., pp. 335 ff.). It is characteristic of the modern development that riches as such, regardless of the occupation of their owner, became a qualification for citizenship: only now was it a mere privilege to be a citizen, unconnected with any specifically political activities.
도시국가의 일어남과 더불어써 비로소 사적인 오너쉽의 이러한 종류가 뛰어난 정치적인 어떤 의미심장함을 갖게 되었다. 프로퍼티-오너가 정치적인 어떤 생명삶을 이끌려고 프로퍼티를 쓰려는 게 아니라 자신의 프로퍼티를 키우려고 정치를 한다면, 그는 그의 프리덤을 희생시켜서 노예가 되기를 곧 너쎄시티(필수욕구됨; 먹고사니즘)의 종이 되고자 뜻을품은 것과 같다(140)Only with the emergence of such a common world in concrete tangibility, that is, with the rise of the city-state, could this kind of private ownership acquire its eminent political significance, and it is therefore almost a matter of course that the famous "disdain for menial occupations" is not yet to be found in the Homeric world. If the property-owner chose to enlarge his property instead of using it up in leading a political life, it was as though he willingly sacrificed his freedom and became voluntarily what the slave was against his own will, a servant of necessity.
근대의 시작에 이르기까지 프로퍼티의 이러한 종류는 결코 거룩하지 않았다... 사적인 프로퍼티의 근대적인 변호자들은 사적인 프로퍼티를 사적으로 소유한 웰쓰와 뭐가 다르냐고 이해했으며, 프라이버시(사적임)의 알맞은 수립과 보호없이는 자유로운 공적인 권력 또한 결코 있을수 없다는 전통을 따를 하등의 이유가 없었다(140) 근대사회 안에서의 웰쓰의 축적은 농민 계급들의 프로퍼티를 몰수(엑스-프로프리에이션)하는 데에서 출발했고... 종교개혁 시기의 교회와 수도원의 프로퍼티를 몰수한 거의 우발적인 결론이었다... 사적인 프로퍼티는 그것이 웰쓰의 축적과 갈등할 때는 언제나 희생당했다... 프루동은 프로퍼티와 웰쓰 사이의 구별을 몰랐다... 웰쓰의 인디비두얼한 앞-프로퍼티화(아-프로프리에이션)는 길게보면 축적과정의 사회화가 되는 사적인 프로퍼티일 뿐이다... 사적인 오너쉽은 사회적인 웰쓰의 영원히-증가하는 과정에 의해서 무효화되어야만 한다는 것은 바로 이 사회 그자체의 본성자연이다(142)Up to the beginning of the modern age, this kind of property had never been held to be sacred, and only where wealth as the source of income coincided with the piece of land on which a family was located, that is, in an essentially agricultural society, could these two types of property coincide to such an extent that all property assumed the character of sacredness. Modern advocates of private property, at any rate, who unanimously understand it as privately owned wealth and nothing else, have little cause to appeal to a tradition according to which there could be no free public realm without a proper establishment and protection of privacy. For the enormous and still proceeding accumulation of wealth in modern society, which was started by expropriation— the expropriation of the peasant classes which in turn was the almost accidental consequence of the expropriation of Church and monastic property after the Reformation — has never shown much consideration for private property but has sacrificed it whenever it came into conflict with the accumulation of wealth. Proudhon's dictum that property is theft has a solid basis of truth in the origins of modern capitalism; it is all the more significant that even Proudhon hesitated to accept the doubtful remedy of general expropriation, because he knew quite well that the abolition of private property, while it might cure the evil of poverty, was only too likely to invite the greater evil of tyranny.71 Since he did not distinguish between property and wealth, his two insights appear in his work like contradictions, which in fact they are not. Individual appropriation of wealth will in the long run respect private property no more than socialization of the accumulation process. It is not an invention of Karl Marx but actually in the very nature of this society itself that privacy in every sense can only hinder the development of social "productivity" and that considerations of private ownership therefore should be overruled in favor of the ever-increasing process of social wealth.
● 이 글토막은 굉장히 이해하기 어려운 부분이군요. 아렌트는 <프로퍼티 vs 웰쓰>의 대립스키마를 만들었는데, 아렌트의 놀라운 통찰은 다시한번 이 대립항을 통해서 빛이 납니다. <사회적인 웰쓰가 사적인 프로퍼티를 잡아먹는다>라는 간단한 글줄로 아렌트의 주장을 요약할 수 있지 않나 싶은데, 고전고대의 <바이오스 폴리티코스= 비타 악티바 안>에서는 <프로퍼티 vs 웰쓰>가 아주 중요한 뉘앙스와 정치적인 의미심장함의 차이를 지니고 있었다는 것입니다. 중세까지도, 이러한 둘 사이의 대립과 긴장은 지켜졌고, 그때문에, 자유인이 되려면, 더이상 너쎄시티(필수욕구됨; 먹고사니즘)들을 퍼포즈로 하는 '노동'을 하지않을 뿐만 아니라, 공적인 정치적인 프리덤을 위해서 사적인 웰쓰를 소비해야한다는 의무가 작동했다고 아렌트는 말합니다. 그런데 근대사회의 출현으로, <노동의 사회화>가 진행되면서, <프로퍼티= 웰쓰>라는 새로운 주장이 부르조아들에 의해서 시작되었고, 그결과, 웰쓰가 프로퍼티를 잡아먹는 역사사회적인 과정들(자본의 원시축적, 인클로저, 종교개혁을 통한 교회 및 수도원 프로퍼티들의 몰수 등)이 일어났다고 아렌트는 말합니다. 따라서, 사회적인 웰쓰가 사적인 프로퍼티를 엑스-프로프리에이션하고, 아-프로프리에이션하는 것이 바로 근대사회의 바로 그 본성자연이라는 것입니다. 결론적으로 아렌트는, 맑스나 프루동의 사회화 주장이 (나아가서는 가즌 좌파들의 이론들) 독창적인 것이 아니라, 그냥 이러한 근대사회를 표현한 것이라고 통찰합니다. 사적인 프로퍼티라는 것은 가만 내버려두어도 본성자연의 필수욕구적인 법칙처럼 하나씩 사회적인 웰쓰에게 잡아먹히게 되고, 이때 사회적인 웰쓰는 "사회적인 생산성의 개발을 방해한다"라는 명분을 내세워서, 사적인 프로퍼티를 작살낸다고 하는군요. 그런데 이진우의 한글옮김을 읽어서는 이러한 스키마를 디컴인해내기가 여간 어려운 게 아닐 듯 싶어서 걱정입니다. 이진우는 프로퍼티도 '소유', 오운own도 소유라고 옮긴 나머지 읽는이들로하여금 심각한 잘못이해하기로 이끕니다.