대통령 선거운동기간이 되면서, 지난해 12월 3일겪었던 생활상의 위기감이 많이 희석되었다. 이는 비상계엄 해제결의와 등떠밀린 해제, 이후의 국회의 한차례 지연된 탄핵의결, 대통령실 압수수색와 굿혹실패에 따른 불안, 이어진 구속 그러나 재판부의 불구속 결정으로 풀려나온 내란 수괴가 활보하며 거리를 다니는 상황, 내란의 동조자들이 여전히 정부 요직을 차지하고 그들의 세력을 심고 있는 현실이 계속되고 있다.
이런 와중에 치뤄지는 대통령선거는 친윤들간의 권력다툼 속에서 전 노동부 장관 김문수가 선출되어, 계엄해제를 위해 담을 넘어 국회의사당 표결에 참여한 이재명과 대결하고 있다. 헌재의 윤석열 파면결정문에 나타난바와 같은 민주주의의 덕목 결여(상대방에 대한 관용 자기 절제)을 지금 논할 분위기는 아닌 것 같다. 그리고 이것은 한편이 그리한다고 되는 문제도 아니다. 언론이 과도한 적대감이나, 남용을 지적하는 것으로 족하고, 국가 권력을 이루고 있는 제도와 기관들이 각자의 소임을 다하는 것이 이를 해결할수 있는 방안이 될 것이다. 궁극적으로는 유권자가 가진 다양한 권리를 동원하여 권력기관들을 압박하는 것만이 유일한 최후의 보루일 것이다.
당장 우리의 환경을 보면, 에측불가한 지정학적 환경, 쇠퇴하는 경제, 정치적 균열의 봉합, 미국의 통상 및 안보 압력에 대한 대응이 당면과제가 될 것이다. 아마도 대통령실의 안봏실에서 담당해야 할 것이기에 진용을 준비하고 있을 것으로 추측한다. 여기에는 주한미군이 대만해협에 개입하는 것 (지상군이전, 군수지원), 북한 핵의 미 본토위협으로 인해 미국의 한국 방위 회피 가능성, 원자력 협정 개정을 통해 핵무기 개발 능력을 보유하는 것, 트럼프의 주한미군 주둔비용 증액 요구와 한국 방어 댓가 요구 등이 포함되어 있다. 물론 전세계적으로 모두 당하고 있는 관세 문제도 이와 연관되어 협상하여야 할 것이다.
결국 한국은 능력을 키우면서도 상대방에게 위협이 되지 않는 방향으로 전략을 세워야 한다. 아울러 다영한 안보 및 무역쳬게에 가입하여 최대한 위험을 분산시키고, 경제안보적 역량을 강화하여야 할 것이다.
란코프 국민대 교수가 지적한 말을 인용하는 것이 우리의 한미관계 인식에 대한 지적이 될 것이다. "한국사람들은 순진한 듯하다. 우리가 잊어버려서는 안되는 것이 있다. 강대국이 어떤 결정을 내릴 때 그 판단기준은 자국이익밖에 없다는 것이다. 미국은 한국생존에 신경써야 한다고 한국 사람들은 생각하는 경향이 있는 데,국제사회에서는 국가들이 그렇게 움직이지 않는다. 미국은 남한의 핵개발이 자국에 대한 도전인지, 아니면 자국에 도움이 되는 지 여부만 판단하고 행동할 것이다."
무슨 문제가 발생하면 임시응변이 아닌 구조개혁을 해야한다고 주장하고는 그후에는 답이 없다. 구조개혁은 무엇을 가리키는 지가 명확하지 않다. 윤석열 정부는 4대 구조개혁(의료, 연금, 교육, 노동)을 되풀이하면서, 방안을 내어놓은 것은 대부분, 실제 구조개혁의 성과가 의문시 되는 분야였다.
한국은행 경제모형실 모형전망팀은 지난 12월 19일 잠재성장률 추정치를 발표하면서, 총요소생산성을 긍정적으로 올리면, 0.7% 성장율을 높일수 있다고 결론을 맺었다. 물론 총요소생산성이란, 현재 상황과 조건에서 투입가능한 노동과 투자를 제외한 생산성을 높일 수 있는 것을 지칭하는 것으로 잔여범주이기에 무엇이라고 단정적으로 특정하기는 어렵지만, 한국은행은 혁신, 자원배분 효율성, 지정학적 리스크 관리 등을 꼽았다. 노동력 투입이나 자본의 투입증라고 해결하기 위해서는 이해당당사자간의 이해충돌 합의, 투자심리 개선 등의 과제를 해결하여야 한다. 이는 시간이 소요되는 과제이고, 사회적 합의가 이루어지거나, 심리 개선은 사후적으로 다른 과제의 해결 이후에 일어나기에 구조개혁라기보다는 갈등해결 과제로 분류하는 것이 옳다 (갈등 유발적 정책은 정치 영역에서 해결하여야 한다는 뜻이다. 정치가 효율적이기 위해서는 의사소통 비용, 거래 비용의 관점에서 접근하는 것이 유용하다).
(1) 혁신은 연구개발 투자, 이를 활용한 창업, 기존 산업에 AI혁신을 접목하는 것 (자동화로 품질개선 + 의사결정의 신속과 정확도 향상)를 들고 있다.
(2) 노동력 배분 효율성: 여성 돌보서비스로 여성의 경제활동참여율 제고, 노동시장 유연화,아울러 정책적으로는 지역간 균형발전으로 지나친 밀집으로 발생하는 비용을 줄이는 것(일반적으로 밀집은 생산과 소비에 휴율성을 높이지만, 과도한 밀집은 환경, 생활의 질, 거주비용상승의 비용이 늘어난다)과 이로 인한 지역간 연계발전의 촉진이 이루저지는 것을 뜻한다.
(3) 교육개혁은 잠재성장률 관점에서는 인적자본이 강화되어, 기업의 고부가가치 생산에 참여하는 것이다. 경제활동분야가 점차 서비스로 바뀌면서, 제조업도 제조서비스 (AI, 제품에 디지털이 연계되어 사후관리나, 사후 서비스도 제공하는 형태), 전자상거래, 소프트웨어와 기기 분야가 대세이다. 또한 조직내 팀워크 활동이나 경영분야, 마케팅, 제품 설계로 들어가면, 인문학과 기초과학의 소양과 지식이 필요하다.
구조개혁을 언급하려면, 사업을 거론하고,이것이 구조개혁과 어떻게 연과되는 지를 설명해야 한다.
요즘 우리 경제는 잠재성장률 하락, 대한민국 경제에서 삼성전자의 후진, 그럼에도 불구하고 일부제조업의 성장으로 요약할 수 있다. 그러나 어찌되었든중요한 이로한 현상의 배경에는 모두 AI 기술의 진화에 따른 적응능력과 연관되어 있다는 것은 명백하다.
잠재성장률이란 현재의 인적자원, 제도적 관행, 기업이 가진 역량, 정부의 정책 등을 항수로 놓고, 이를 100% 가동할 시에 가능한 성장률을 의미한다. 그러면, 현재의 상태에서 아무리 열심히 한다고 한들, 지구상의 국가들의 평균인 3%도 밑도는 2%이하의 성장률만 가능하다는 것이다. 따라서 대한민국은 현재의 제도, 인적자본, 기업능력, 정부정책를 그대로 유지하고 노력만 열심히 한다고 외친들 대한민국 경제가 나아질리는 없다. 저성장국가나, 저임금국가가 발전하는 경로는 열심히 일하는 것이 성장률을 향상시키는 방식이겠으나, 이미 한국은 고도발전된 경제체제이고, 대졸생들도 낮은 임금에는 취업하지 않고, 제조업의 노동력의 20%가까이는 외국인 노동력을 채우는 경제체제를 운용하고 있다는 점을 인식하여야 한다.
AI의 발전을 추상적으로 표현하자면, 2030년에는 인간의 뇌의 능력보다 우수한 AI가 나오면, 이에 대한 문제로 AI친구, AI과학자, AI법인의 등장을 점치는 것으로 인간을 대체하는 AI 인간의 등장을 점치고 있으면, 이에 대한 대비책을 서두르고 있다. 아울러 가짜뉴스, AI를 활용한 생화학무기의 등장을 우려하고 있다. 그러나 다른 한편, AI는 기반시설로 대규모 데이터의 축적, 이를 집적 가공하는 데이터 센터, 센터를 운용하는 전력확보가 인프라 측면에서는 시급한과제이다. 데이터가 쌓일수 있는환경을 가진 경제체제가 우선 중요한 과제이다. 즉 생각이나, 아이디어, 실험 실습, 기업경영, 정부정책, 언론의 분야에서 데이터가 발표되고 공유되고 축적될 수 있는 환경이 우선이다. 이 점에서는 우리나라는 언어이 폐쇄성, 디지털자료의 부족, 사회적으로 발표나 투명한 정보 공개가 취약하다는 점에서 이를 개선하는 것이 우선이다. 현재 우리나라 기업중에 미국의 데이터센터에 사용될 전력관련 기기 기업이 유망한 것은 미국 시장을 겨냥한 데이터 가공 시험 전력소모에 따른 것이다.
삼성전자의 경우에는 반도체 제조업으로써 이에 AI에 필요한 반도체를 제조하지 못해 낙후의 길을 걷게 되었다. 가전에서 필요한 정도의 AI활용기술은 가능할 것으로 보이나, 제약산업과 같은 고도의 AI 능력이 필요한 분야에서 삼성바이오가 두각을 보이기는 어려워 보인다. 이메 제약분야나 신물질 개발분야는 사람보다 AI를 활용하는 훨씬 요율적이며, 혁신적이라는 결과가 나오고 있기에 그렇다.
전통적인 제조업에 한정해 보면, 기계, 금속, 자동차,, 조선, 항공산업의 경우에는 고도의 AI 창조적인 능력보다는 적용할 수 있는 인력이 필요하다. 따라서 제조업을 겨냥한 전략은 AI에 친숙한 인력을 배출하는 것이고, 경영진도 고급인력보다는 활용할 수 있는 정도의 능력을 가진 인력을 필로로 하고 있다. 고령화와 인력 부족문제도 자동화, 그리고 이를 이은 디저털화, AI화를 통해 해결이 가능하다.
따라서 각 산업에 맞는 AI활용능력을 가진 인력 양성이 잠재성장률, 기업 발전을 위해 핵심적이라고 본다.
나. 집회·시위 또는 신문, 방송, 통신 등 공중전파 수단이나 문서, 도화, 음반 등 표현물에 의하여 대한민국 헌법을 부정·반대·왜곡 또는 비방하거나 그 개정 또는 폐지를 주장·청원·선동 또는 선전하는 행위
다. 학교 당국의 지도, 감독 하에 행하는 수업, 연구 또는 학교장의 사전 허가를 받았거나 기타 예외적 비정치적 활동을 제외한 학생의 집회·시위 또는 정치 관여 행위
라. 이 조치를 공연히 비방하는 행위를 금한다.
2013년3월 21일헌법재판소는긴급조치 9호가 "국민의 기본권을 침해하고 현행 헌법에 어긋나 위헌"이라고 판시했다.
긴급조치 제9호는 (1) 학생의 모든 집회·시위와 정치관여행위를 금지하고, 위반자에 대하여는 주무부장관이 학생의 제적을 명하고 소속 학교의 휴업, 휴교, 폐쇄조치를 할 수 있도록 규정하여, 학생의 집회·시위의 자유, 학문의 자유와 대학의 자율성 내지 대학자치의 원칙을 본질적으로 침해하고, (2) 행위자의 소속 학교나 단체 등에 대한 불이익을 규정하여 헌법상의 자기책임의 원리에도 위반되며, (3) 긴급조치 제1호, 제2호와 같은 이유로 죄형법정주의의 명확성 원칙에 위배되고, (4) 헌법개정권력의 행사와 관련한 참정권, 표현의 자유, 집회·시위의 자유, 영장주의 및 신체의 자유, 학문의 자유 등을 침해한다.
근거: 헌법재판소 2013. 3. 21. 선고 2010헌바70,132,170(병합) 전원재판부 [구헌법제53조등위헌소원] [헌공제198호,472]
선거방송심의위원회: 『공직선거법』 제8조의2에 따라 선거방송의 공정성을 유지하기 위해 설치·운영되는 법정 심의위원회입니다. 23. 12. 11 - 24. 5. 10까지 운영.
현재 홈페이지를 보면 11회회의를 마쳤고, 적어도 10건이상의 심의 안건이 올라오고 있다. 재심도 많은 편.
박재령 기자, 2024.03.22, ‘월권 논란’ 선방심의위, 지난 총선·대선에선 선거 다룬 방송만 제재했다
This text, made available by the Sixties Project, is copyright (c) 1993 by the Author or by Viet Nam Generation, Inc., all rights reserved. This text may be used, printed, and archived in accordance with the Fair Use provisions of U.S. Copyright law. This text may not be archived, printed, or redistributed in any form for a fee, without the consent of the copyright holder. This notice must accompany any redistribution of the text. The Sixties Project, sponsored by Viet Nam Generation Inc. and theInstitute of Advanced Technology in the Humanitiesat the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, is a collective of humanities scholars working together on the Internet to use electronic resources to provide routes of collaboration and make available primary and secondary sources for researchers, students, teachers, writers and librarians interested in the 1960s.
Port Huron Statement
Introduction: Agenda for a Generation
We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort, housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably to the world we inherit.
When we were kids the United States was the wealthiest and strongest country in the world; the only one with the atom bomb, the least scarred by modern war, an initiator of the United Nations that we thought would distribute Western influence throughout the world. Freedom and equality for each individual, government of, by, and for the people--these American values we found god, principles by which we could live as men. Many of us began maturing in complacency.
As we grew, however, our comfort was penetrated by events too troubling to dismiss. First, the permeating and victimizing fact of human degradation, symbolized by the Southern struggle against racial bigotry, compelled most of us from silence to activism. Second, the enclosing fact of the Cold War, symbolized by the presence of the Bomb, brought awareness that we ourselves, and our friends, and millions of abstract "others" we knew more directly because of our common peril, might die at any time. We might deliberately ignore, or avoid, or fail to feel all other human problems, but not these two, for these were too immediate and crushing in their impact, too challenging in the demand that we as individuals take the responsibility for encounter and resolution.
While these and other problems either directly oppressed us or rankled our consciences and became our own subjective concerns, we began to see complicated and disturbing paradoxes in our surrounding America. The declaration "all men are created equal..." rang hollow before the facts of Negro life in the South and the big cities of the North. The proclaimed peaceful intentions of the United States contradicted its economic and military investments in the Cold War status quo.
We witnessed, and continue to witness, other paradoxes. With nuclear energy whole cities can easily be powered, yet the dominant nation-states seem more likely to unleash destruction greater than that incurred in all wars of human history. Although our own technology is destroying old and creating new forms of social organization, men still tolerate meaningless work and idleness. While two-thirds of mankind suffers under nourishment, our own upper classes revel amidst superfluous abundance. Although world population is expected to double in forty years, the nations still tolerate anarchy as a major principle of international conduct and uncontrolled exploitation governs the sapping of the earth's physical resources. Although mankind desperately needs revolutionary leadership, America rests in national stalemate, its goals ambiguous and tradition-bound instead of informed and clear, its democratic system apathetic and manipulated rather than "of, by, and for the people."
Not only did tarnish appear on our image of American virtue, not only did disillusion occur when the hypocrisy of American ideals was discovered, but we began to sense that what we had originally seen as the American Golden Age was actually the decline of an era. The worldwide outbreak of revolution against colonialism and imperialism, the entrenchment of totalitarian states, the menace of war, overpopulation, international disorder, supertechnology--these trends were testing the tenacity of our own commitment to democracy and freedom and our abilities to visualize their application to a world in upheaval.
Our work is guided by the sense that we may be the last generation in the experiment with living. But we are a minority--the vast majority of our people regard the temporary equilibriums of our society and world as eternally functional parts. In this is perhaps the outstanding paradox; we ourselves are imbued with urgency, yet the message of our society is that there is no viable alternative to the present. Beneath the reassuring tones of the politicians, beneath the common opinion that America will "muddle through," beneath the stagnation of those who have closed their minds to the future, is the pervading feeling that there simply are no alternatives, that our times have witnessed the exhaustion not only of Utopias, but of any new departures as well. Feeling the press of complexity upon the emptiness of life, people are fearful of the thought that at any moment things might be thrust out of control. They fear change itself, since change might smash whatever invisible framework seems to hold back chaos for them now. For most Americans, all crusades are suspect, threatening. The fact that each individual sees apathy in his fellows perpetuates the common reluctance to organize for change. The dominant institutions are complex enough to blunt the minds of their potential critics, and entrenched enough to swiftly dissipate or entirely repel the energies of protest and reform, thus limiting human expectancies. Then, too, we are a materially improved society, and by our own improvements we seem to have weakened the case for further change.
Some would have us believe that Americans feel contentment amidst prosperity--but might it not better be called a glaze above deeply felt anxieties about their role in the new world? And if these anxieties produce a developed indifference to human affairs, do they not as well produce a yearning to believe that thereisan alternative to the present, that somethingcanbe done to change circumstances in the school, the workplaces, the bureaucracies, the government? It is to this latter yearning, at once the spark and engine of change, that we direct our present appeal. The search for truly democratic alternatives to the present, and a commitment to social experimentation with them, is a worthy and fulfilling human enterprise, one which moves us and, we hope, others today. On such a basis do we offer this document of our convictions and analysis: as an effort in understanding and changing the conditions of humanity in the late twentieth century, an effort rooted in the ancient, still unfulfilled conception of man attaining determining influence over his circumstances of life.
Values
Making values explicit--an initial task in establishing alternatives--is an activity that has been devalued and corrupted. The conventional moral terms of the age, the politician moralities--"free world," "people's democracies"--reflect realities poorly, if at all, and seem to function more as ruling myths than as descriptive principles. But neither has our experience in the universities brought us moral enlightenment. Our professors and administrators sacrifice controversy to public relations; their curriculums change more slowly than the living events of the world; their skills and silence are purchased by investors in the arms race; passion is called unscholastic. The questions we might want raised--what is really important? can we live in a different and better way? if we wanted to change society, how would we do it?--are not thought to be questions of a "fruitful, empirical nature," and thus are brushed aside.
Unlike youth in other countries we are used to moral leadership being exercised and moral dimensions being clarified by our elders. But today, for us, not even the liberal and socialist preachments of the past seem adequate to the forms of the present. Consider the old slogans: Capitalism Cannot Reform Itself, United Front Against Fascism, General Strike, All Out on May Day. Or, more recently, No Cooperation with Commies and Fellow Travelers, Ideologies Are Exhausted, Bipartisanship, No Utopias. These are incomplete, and there are few new prophets. It has been said that our liberal and socialist predecessors were plagued by vision without program, while our own generation is plagued by program without vision. All around us there is astute grasp of method, technique--the committee, the ad hoc group, the lobbyist, the hard and soft sell, the make, the projected image--but, if pressed critically, such expertise in incompetent to explain its implicit ideals. It is highly fashionable to identify oneself by old categories, or by naming a respected political figure, or by explaining "how we would vote" on various issues.
Theoretic chaos has replaced the idealistic thinking of old--and, unable to reconstitute theoretic order, men have condemned idealism itself. Doubt has replaced hopefulness--and men act out a defeatism that is labeled realistic. The decline of utopia and hope is in fact one of the defining features of social life today. The reasons are various: the dreams of the older left were perverted by Stalinism and never re-created; the congressional stalemate makes men narrow their view of the possible; the specialization of human activity leaves little room for sweeping thought; the horrors of the twentieth century symbolized in the gas ovens and concentration camps and atom bombs, have blasted hopefulness. To be idealistic is to be considered apocalyptic, deluded. To have no serious aspirations, on the contrary, is to be "tough-minded."
In suggesting social goals and values, therefore, we are aware of entering a sphere of some disrepute. Perhaps matured by the past, we have no formulas, no closed theories--but that does not mean values are beyond discussion and tentative determination. A first task of any social movement is to convince people that the search for orienting theories and the creation of human values is complex but worthwhile. We are aware that to avoid platitudes we must analyze the concrete conditions of social order. But to direct such an analysis we must use the guideposts of basic principles. Our own social values involve conceptions of human beings, human relationships, and social systems.
We regardmenas infinitely precious and possessed of unfulfilled capacities for reason, freedom, and love. In affirming these principles we are aware of countering perhaps the dominant conceptions of man in the twentieth century: that he is a thing to be manipulated, and that he is inherently incapable of directing his own affairs. We oppose the depersonalization that reduces human being to the status of things--if anything, the brutalities of the twentieth century teach that means and ends are intimately related, that vague appeals to "posterity" cannot justify the mutilations of the present. We oppose, too, the doctrine of human incompetence because it rests essentially on the modern fact that men have been "competently" manipulated into incompetence--we see little reason why men cannot meet with increasing the skill the complexities and responsibilities of their situation, if society is organized not for minority, but for majority, participation in decision-making.
Men have unrealized potential for self-cultivation, self-direction, self-understanding, and creativity. It is this potential that we regard as crucial and to which we appeal, not to the human potentiality for violence, unreason, and submission to authority. The goal of man and society should be human independence: a concern not with image of popularity but with finding a meaning in life that is personally authentic; a quality of mind not compulsively driven by a sense of powerlessness, nor one which unthinkingly adopts status values, nor one which represses all threats to its habits, but one which has full, spontaneous access to present and past experiences, one which easily unites the fragmented parts of personal history, one which openly faces problems which are troubling and unresolved; one with an intuitive awareness of possibilities, an active sense of curiosity, an ability and willingness to learn.
This kind of independence does not mean egotistic individualism--the object is not to have one's way so much as it is to have a way that is one's own. Nor do we deify man--we merely have faith in his potential.
Human relationshipsshould involve fraternity and honesty. Human interdependence is contemporary fact; human brotherhood must be willed, however, as a condition of future survival and as the most appropriate form of social relations. Personal links between man and man are needed, especially to go beyond the partial and fragmentary bonds of function that bind men only as worker to worker, employer to employee, teacher to student, American to Russian.
Loneliness, estrangement, isolation describe the vast distance between man and man today. These dominant tendencies cannot be overcome by better personnel management, nor by improved gadgets, but only when a love of man overcomes the idolatrous worship of things by man. As the individualism we affirm is not egoism, the selflessness we affirm is not self-elimination. On the contrary, we believe in generosity of a kind that imprints one's unique individual qualities in the relation to other men, and to all human activity. Further, to dislike isolation is not to favor the abolition of privacy; the latter differs from isolation in that it occurs or is abolished according to individual will.
We would replace power rooted in possession, privilege, or circumstance by power and uniqueness rooted in love, reflectiveness, reason, and creativity. As a social system we seek the establishment of a democracy of individual participation, governed by two central aims: that the individual share in those social decisions determining the quality and direction of his life; that society be organized to encourage independence in men and provide the media for their common participation.
In a participatory democracy, the political life would be based in several root principles: that decision-making of basic social consequence be carried on by public groupings;
that politics be seen positively, as the art of collectively creating an acceptable pattern of social relations;
that politics has the function of bringing people out of isolation and into community, thus being a necessary, though not sufficient, means of finding meaning in personal life;
that the political order should serve to clarify problems in a way instrumental to their solution; it should provide outlets for the expression of personal grievance and aspiration; opposing views should be organized so as to illuminate choices and facilitate the attainment of goals; channels should be commonly available to relate men to knowledge and to power so that private problems--from bad recreation facilities to personal alienation--are formulated as general issues.
The economic sphere would have as its basis the principles:
that work should involve incentives worthier than money or survival. It should be educative, not stultifying; creative, not mechanical; self-directed, not manipulated, encouraging independence, a respect for others, a sense of dignity, and a willingness to accept social responsibility, since it is this experience that has crucial influence on habits, perceptions and individual ethics;
that the economic experience is so personally decisive that the individual must share in its full determination;
that the economy itself is of such social importance that its major resources and means of production should be open to democratic participation and subject to democratic social regulation.
Like the political and economic ones, major social institutions--cultural, educational, rehabilitative, and others--should be generally organized with the well-being and dignity of man as the essential measure of success.
In social change or interchange, we find violence to be abhorrent because it requires generally the transformation of the target, be it a human being or a community of people, into a depersonalized object of hate. It is imperative that the means of violence be abolished and the institutions--local, national, international--that encourage non-violence as a condition of conflict be developed.
These are our central values, in skeletal form. It remains vital to understand their denial or attainment in the context of the modern world.
The Students
In the last few years, thousands of American students demonstrated that they at least felt the urgency of the times. They moved actively and directly against racial injustices, the threat of war, violations of individual rights of conscience, and, less frequently, against economic manipulation. They succeeded in restoring a small measure of controversy to the campuses after the stillness of the McCarthy period. They succeeded, too, in gaining some concessions from the people and institutions they opposed, especially in the fight against racial bigotry.
The significance of these scattered movements lies not in their success or failure in gaining objectives--at least, not yet. Nor does the significance lie in the intellectual "competence" or "maturity" of the students involved--as some pedantic elders allege. The significance is in the fact that students are breaking the crust of apathy and overcoming the inner alienation that remain the defining characteristics of American college life.
If student movements for change are still rarities on the campus scene, what is commonplace there? The real campus, the familiar campus, is a place of private people, engaged in their notorious "inner emigration." It is a place of commitment to business-as-usual, getting ahead, playing it cool. It is a place of mass affirmation of the Twist, but mass reluctance toward the controversial public stance. Rules are accepted as "inevitable," bureaucracy as "just circumstances," irrelevance as "scholarship," selflessness as "martyrdom," politics as "just another way to make people, and an unprofitable one, too."
Almost no students value activity as citizens. Passive in public, they are hardly more idealistic in arranging their private lives: Gallup concludes they will settle for "low success, and won't risk high failure." There is not much willingness to take risks (not even in business), no setting of dangerous goals, no real conception of personal identity except one manufactured in the image of others, no real urge for personal fulfillment except to be almost as successful as the very successful people. Attention is being paid to social status (the quality of shirt collars, meeting people, getting wives or husbands, making solid contacts for later on); much, too, is paid to academic status (grades, honors, the med school rat race). But neglected generally is real intellectual status, the personal cultivation of the mind.
"Students don't even give a damn abut the apathy," one has said. Apathy toward apathy begets a privately constructed universe, a place of systematic study schedules, two nights each week for beer, a girl or two, and early marriage; a framework infused with personality, warmth, and under control, no matter how unsatisfying otherwise.
Under these conditions university life loses all relevance to some. Four hundred thousand of our classmates leave college every year.
The accompanying "let's pretend" theory of student extracurricular affairs validates student government as a training center for those who want to live their lives in political pretense, and discourages initiative from the more articulate, honest, and sensitive students. The bounds and style of controversy are delimited before controversy begins. The university "prepares" the student for "citizenship" through perpetual rehearsals and, usually, through emasculation of what creative spirit there is in the individual.
The academic life contains reinforcing counterparts to the way in which extracurricular life is organized. The academic world is founded on a teacher-student relations analogous to the parent-child relation which characterizesin loco parentis. Further, academia includes a radical separation of the student from the material of study. That which is studies, the social reality, is "objectified" to sterility, dividing the student from life--just as he is restrained in active involvement by the deans controlling student government. The specialization of function and knowledge, admittedly necessary to our complex technological and social structure, has produced an exaggerated compartmentalization of study and understanding. This has contributed to an overly parochial view, by faculty, of the role of its research and scholarship; to a discontinuous and truncated understanding, by students, of the surrounding social order; and to a loss of personal attachment, by nearly all, to the worth of study as a humanistic enterprise.
There is, finally, the cumbersome academic bureaucracy extending throughout the academic as well as the extracurricular structures, contributing to the sense of outer complexity and inner powerlessness that transforms the honest searching of many students to a ratification of convention and, worse, to a numbness to present and future catastrophes. The size and financing systems of the university enhance the permanent trusteeship of the administrative bureaucracy, their power leading to a shift within the university toward the value standards of business and the administrative mentality. Huge foundations and other private financial interests shape the under financed colleges and universities, making them not only more commercial, but less disposed to diagnose society critically, less open to dissent. Many social and physical scientists, neglecting the liberating heritage of higher learning, develop "human relations" or "morale-producing" techniques for the corporate economy, while others exercise their intellectual skills to accelerate the arms race.
Tragically, the university could serve as a significant source of social criticism and an initiator of new modes and molders of attitudes. But the actual intellectual effect of the college experience is hardly distinguishable from that of any other communications channel--say, a television set--passing on the stock truths of the day. Students leave college somewhat more "tolerant" than when they arrived, but basically unchallenged in their values and political orientations. With administrators ordering the institution, and faculty the curriculum, the student learns by his isolation to accept elite rule within the university, which prepares him to accept later forms of minority control. The real function of the educational system--as opposed to its more rhetorical function of "searching for truth"--is to impart the key information and styles that will help the student get by, modestly but comfortably, in the big society beyond.
The Society Beyond
Look beyond the campus, to America itself. That student life is more intellectual, and perhaps more comfortable, does not obscure the fact that the fundamental qualities of life on the campus reflect the habits of society at large. The fraternity president is seen at the junior manager levels; the sorority queen has gone to Grosse Pointe; the serious poet burns for a place, any place, to work; the once-serious and never-serious poets work at the advertising agencies. The desperation of people threatened by forces about which they know little and of which they can say less; the cheerful emptiness of people "giving up" all hope of changing things; the faceless ones polled by Gallup who listed "international affairs" fourteenth on their list of "problems" but who also expected thermonuclear war in the next few years; in these and other forms, Americans are in withdrawal from public life, from any collective effort at directing their own affairs.
Some regard these national doldrums as a sign of healthy approval of the established order--but is it approval by consent or manipulated acquiescence? Others declare that the people are withdrawn because compelling issues are fast disappearing--perhaps there are fewer bread lines in America, but is Jim Crow gone, is there enough work and work more fulfilling, is world war a diminishing threat, and what of the revolutionary new peoples? Still others think the national quietude is a necessary consequence of the need for elites to resolve complex and specialized problems of modern industrial society--but then, why shouldbusinesselites help decide foreign policy, and who controls the elites anyway, and are they solving mankind's problems? Others, finally, shrug knowingly and announce that full democracy never worked anywhere in the past--but why lump qualitatively different civilizations together, and how can a social order work well if its best thinkers are skeptics, and is man really doomed forever to the domination of today?
There are now convincing apologies for the contemporary malaise. While the world tumbles toward the final war, while men in other nations are trying desperately to alter events, while the very future qua future is uncertain--America is without community impulse, without the inner momentum necessary for an age when societies cannot successfully perpetuate themselves by their military weapons, when democracy must be viable because of its quality of life, not its quantity of rockets.
The apathy here is, first,subjective--the felt powerlessness of ordinary people, the resignation before the enormity of events. But subjective apathy is encouraged by theobjectiveAmerican situation--the actual structural separation of people from power, from relevant knowledge, from pinnacles of decision-making. Just as the university influences the student way of life, so do major social institutions create the circumstances in which the isolated citizen will try hopelessly to understand his world and himself.
The very isolation of the individual--from power and community and ability to aspire--means the rise of a democracy without publics. With the great mass of people structurally remote and psychologically hesitant with respect to democratic institutions, those institutions themselves attenuate and become, in the fashion of the vicious circle, progressively less accessible to those few who aspire to serious participation in social affairs. The vital democratic connection between community and leadership, between the mass and the several elites, has been so wrenched and perverted that disastrous policies go unchallenged time and again....
The University and Social Change
There is perhaps little reason to be optimistic about the above analysis. True, the Dixiecrat-GOP coalition is the weakest point in the dominating complex of corporate, military, and political power. But the civil rights, peace, and student movements are too poor and socially slighted, and the labor movement too quiescent, to be counted with enthusiasm. From where else can power and vision be summoned? We believe that the universities are an overlooked seat of influence.
First, the university is located in a permanent position of social influence. It's educational function makes it indispensable and automatically makes it a crucial institution in the formation of social attitudes. Second, in an unbelievably complicated world, it is the central institution for organizing, evaluating and transmitting knowledge. Third, the extent to which academic resources presently are used to buttress immoral social practice is revealed, first, by the extent to which defense contracts make the universities engineers of the arms race. Too, the use of modern social science as a manipulative tool reveals itself in the "human relations" consultants to the modern corporations, who introduce trivial sops to give laborers feelings of "participation" or "belonging," while actually deluding them in order to further exploit their labor. And, of course, the use of motivational research is already infamous as a manipulative aspect of American politics. But these social uses of the universities' resources also demonstrate the unchangeable reliance by men of power on the men and storehouses of knowledge: this makes the university functionally tied to society in new ways, revealing new potentialities, new levers for change. Fourth, the university is the only mainstream institution that is open to participation by individuals of nearly any viewpoint.
These, at least, are facts, no matter how dull the teaching, how paternalistic the rules, how irrelevant the research that goes on. Social relevance, the accessibility to knowledge, and internal openness--these together make the university a potential base and agency in a movement of social change.
Any new left in America must be, in large measure, a left with real intellectual skills, committed to deliberativeness, honesty, reflection as working tools. The university permits the political life to be an adjunct to the academic one, and action to be informed by reason.
A new left must be distributed in significant social roles throughout the country. The universities are distributed in such a manner.
A new left must consist of younger people who matured in the postwar world, and partially be directed to the recruitment of younger people. The university is an obvious beginning point.
A new left must include liberals and socialists, the former for their relevance, the latter for their sense of thoroughgoing reforms in the system. The university is a more sensible place than a political party for these two traditions to begin to discuss their differences and look for political synthesis.
A new left must start controversy across the land, if national policies and national apathy are to be reversed. The ideal university is a community of controversy, within itself and in its effects on communities beyond.
A new left must transform modern complexity into issues that can be understood and felt close up by every human being. It must give form to the feelings of helplessness and indifference, so that people may see the political, social, and economic sources of their private troubles, and organize to change society. In a time of supposed prosperity, moral complacency, and political manipulation, a new left cannot rely on only aching stomachs to be the engine force of social reform. The case for change, for alternatives that will involve uncomfortable personal efforts, must be argued as never before. The university is a relevant place for all of these activities.
But we need not indulge in illusions: the university system cannot complete a movement of ordinary people making demands for a better life. From its schools and colleges across the nation, a militant left might awaken its allies, and by beginning the process towards peace, civil rights, and labor struggles, reinsert theory and idealism where too often reign confusion and political barter. The power of students and faculty united is not only potential; it has shown its actuality in the South, and in the reform movements of the North.
The bridge to political power, though, will be build through genuine cooperation, locally, nationally, and internationally, between a new left of young people and an awakening community of allies. In each community we must look within the university and act with confidence that we can be powerful, but we must look outwards to the less exotic but more lasting struggles for justice.
To turn these mythic possibilities into realities will involve national efforts at university reform by an alliance of students and faculty. They must wrest control of the educational process from the administrative bureaucracy. They must make fraternal and functional contact with allies in labor, civil rights, and other liberal forces outside the campus. They must import major public issues into the curriculum--research and teaching on problems of war and peace is an outstanding example. They must make debate and controversy, not dull pedantic cant, the common style for educational life. They must consciously build a base for their assault upon the loci of power.
As students for a democratic society, we are committed to stimulating this kind of social movement, this kind of vision and program in campus and community across the country. If we appear to seek the unattainable, as it has been said, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable.
(1) 영국의 식민통치아래에 있던 시인 Tagore는 1916, 1924, 1929년에 한국을 지배하고 있던 일본에서 대학을 방문하고, 그곳에서 한국 유학생들을 만나, 서로의 심정을 공유한다. 이를 기반으로 쓰여진 시가, 1929, The Lamp of the East.
한국은 한때 동방의 빛이었다. that lamp is waiting, to be lightened once againg, for the illumination of the East....
(2) 1933년에 헝가리의 민속가요에 Gloomy Sunday가 있다, 1935년에 개사하여 이후 유명한 가요가 되었다.
(3) 1960. 2. 28일, 장면민주당 부통령 후보의 대구 집회를 방해하기 위해 일요일에 등교를 지시한 학교에 저항하여 시위를 주도한 대구 경북고 학생부위원장 2학년 이대우 군의 결의문 내용 "우리 백만학도는 지금 이 시각에도 타골의 시를 잊지 않고 있다. ' 그 촛불 다시한 번 켜지는 날 너는 동방의 밝은 및이 되리라'"과 구호, "횃불을 밝혀라, 동방의 빛들아!"
이 시기는 사실상 공작정치에 의한 신민당 내분, 박정희의 두번에 걸친 (국군의 날, 개천절 기념사) 정국에 대한 견해 발표, 10월 4일 국회에서 유정회가 주도하고, 공화당이 따르는 가운데 김영삼 의원의 제명, 이에 대한 미국무부의 유감 표명 (10/4, 10/5), 유감표명에 이은 주한미국대사의 본국소환 (이는 1958년 보안법 파동시에 소환한 이래 두번째), 케네디의원의 한국정부 비판, 10/6 한국 외무부의 미국무성 미판에 대한 성명 발표. 그리고 나타나지는 않았지만, 이시기에 10/7일 김형욱 전 중정부장에 대한 처리 공작이 개시되었을 것을 추정한다.
박정희의 의전기록을 보면, 정치공작은 차지철 경호실장이 담당한 곳으로 보인다. 하루에도 몇번 짧은 시간으로 나누어서 보고를 한다. 9/25 화 오존 10:20-10:45 (25분), 오후 1시 15분-1:23 (8분간), 오후 4시 5분 - 4; 30분 (25분); 9/26 수, 오전 9시 17분- 9: 40 (23분); 9/28 금 오전 9: 25-9:40 (15분), 오후 4시 20분 - 4: 40 (20분); 9/29 토 오전 9시 17분 - 9:57 (40분), 오후 12시 5분 - 12: 11 (6분간); 10/2 화, 오전 9시 40분 - 10: 20 (40분간), 오후 3시 30분 - 5:25 (배드민턴, 김계원 비서실장, 의전수석과 같이); 10/4 오전 9시 40분 - 9: 57(17분간), 오후 3시 55분 - 4시 45분(김계원 비서실장과 같이, 이후 유혁인 정무 1수석을 추가- 박정희가 불러서 김영삼제명에 대해 의논을 한 것으로 추정); 10/5 금 추석, 김재규 중정부장과 차지철 같이 오찬 11:50-1:20pm
반면에 김재규 중정부장은 공작의 실행부분만 담당하거나 아니면 담당하지 않은 것이 아닌가 추정한다. 9/28 금 오후 3시 40분 - 3: 55 (15분간 보고); 9/29 토 오전 10시 15분 - 10: 33 (18분간) 김계원, 정무1수석 유혁인과 같이 보고; 10/2 화, 오후 12시 20분 - 1:25 (1시간 5분간) 오찬; 10/5 금 추석, 오전 11시 50분 - 1:20pm (1시간 30분) 오찬; 10/6 토 오전 9시 50분 - 10시 10분 보고 (김계원 비서실장, 유혁인 정무 1수석과 같이).
실제 정당을 담당하는 정무 1수석의 역할은 실행역할보다는 조언을 듣는 정도의 역할에 머물렀다. 9/29 토 10:15-10:33 (비서실장, 중정부장과 같이), 오전 10시 35분 - 11:47 국방장관, 합참의장, 안보특보의 회의중에 잠시 의견을 개진하는 정도; 10/4 목 오후 3시 55분 - 4:45에 차지철경호실장, 김계원 비서실장 자리에 15분정도 불려가서 의견 개진; 10/6 토에 오전 9시 50분 - 10:10 감재규 중정부장과 김계원 비서실장 자리에 동석하여 보고.
비서실장의 역할이 매우 제한적이었다는 점, 아울러 미국의 대응에 대해 이를 조언할 사람을 전혀 부르지 않고 정보라인에서 결정하여 이를 외무부에 통보한 것으로 추정. 부분적으로 김치열 법무와 상의 (9/27 목 오후 4시 5분 - 4:45분, 40분간).
대통령 의전일지와 당시 일간지 를 참조하여, 박정희가 김영삼의 뉴욕타임즈 회견, 미국의 논평, 신민당 내분의 전개, 기영삼 제명 결정 등과 같은 중요한 사안에 대해 정보를 입수하고, 논의하는 과정을 정리하였다.
박정희 대통령의 의전일지에는 오찬과 만찬과 같은 식사, 면담과 공식회의로 나누어서 의견을 나누거나 보고를 받았다. 이중 의견을 적극적으로 요청한 것은 한차레 (9/18 차지철 경호실장을 55분간 서재로 불러 의견을 초치하여 의견을 들었다. 김영삼의 뉴욕타임즈 회견문이 실린 것이 9/16일자로 이에 대한 처리 의견을 들은 것으로 추정한다. 이후 같은 날(9/18) 오후 6시- 8시 45분에 총리공관에서 총리, 부총리, 공화당의장, 유정회의장, 비서실장, 경호실장이 모여 김영삼에 대한 대응 결정을 내린 것으로 보인다. 김영삼에 대한 강경 대응 기조와 정운갑 대행을 통한 신민당 분열을 획책한 것이다.
이후 9/21 금 오전에 차지철을 만나 50여분간에 걸쳐 보고를 받고, 신직수 법률 보과관으로 부터 김영삼의제명에 딸느 법률적 검토를 보고받은 것으로 추정되고, 오후 2시 - 3시 5분, 정부 당 연석회의에서 공식적으로는 FY80(회계연도 1980년도의 예산안)을 검토한 것으로 되어 있지만, 동아일보 9. 21일자에 따르면 김영삼의 제명에 대한 건이 결정된 것으로 보인다. 이후 공화당의장과 사무총장이 3시 5분-3시 45분 (40분간), 유정회 의장과 원내대표가 3시 50분-4시 5분 (15분)에 걸쳐 만나 최종 전략을 논의한 것으로 볼 수 있다.
9/15 토 - 9/ 22 토까지의 의전일지에 의거하면, 가장 많이 대통령에게 보고하거나, 초치받거나, 회의에 참여한 인물은 압도적으로 차지철 경호실장이다. 식사: 9/15 토 45분 (비서실장, 유혁인 정무 1수석과 같이), 9/18 화 오전 8시 55분-9시 50분 초치, 보고는 9회 (9/17 월 3회, 9/18 2회, 9/19 1회, 9/20 1회, 9/21 1회, 9/22 1회), 9/18 총리공관회의에 참석 등 모두 12회에 걸쳐 대통령과 일정을 공유한다.
반면에 비서실장은 9/15일 오찬, 9/18 총리공관회의 참석으로 2회 기록되어 있다. 정무 1수석 유혁인 9/15 오찬, 신직수 법률보좌관 9/21 차지철 면담에 동참 등 청와대 참모진들의 대통령 면담 기록은 매우 드물다. 흥미로운 점은 김준곤 목사 (1925-2009)가 9/18 화 1시간 8분간 박정희 대통령에게 보고차(의전일지의 기록) 독대했다는 기록이다.
"진리를 믿지 못하는 자, 죽음을 무릎 쓸 용기가 없는 자, 자기 자신을 믿지 못하고 두려워하는 자, 모두 물러나십시오! ... (152)
"Comrades!" sang out the Little Russian, subduing the noise of the crowd with his mellow voice. "Comrades! We have now started a holy procession in the name of the new God, the God of Truth and Light, the God of Reason and Goodness. We march in this holy procession, comrades, over a long and hard road. Our goal is far, far away, and the crown of thorns is near! Those who don't believe in the might of truth, who have not the courage to stand up for it even unto death, who do not believe in themselves and are afraid of suffering—such of you, step aside! We call upon those only who believe in our triumph. Those who cannot see our goal, let them not walk with us; only misery is in store for them! Fall into line, comrades! Long live the first of May, the holiday of freemen!"
"뒤에 있는 사람들은 전혀 서두르는 기색이 없었다. 그들은 그저 구경거리를 만난 듯이, 그리고 결말이 어땋게 되리라는 것을 잘 알고 있다는 듯이 냉담한 표정이었다 (155).
There, far away from her, was the red banner—she saw her son without seeing him—his bronzed forehead, his eyes burning with the bright fire of faith. Now she[Pg 224] was in the tail of the crowd among the people who walked without hurrying, indifferent, looking ahead with the cold curiosity of spectators who know beforehand how the show will end. They spoke softly with confidence.
