냉전, 통치성 그리고 ‘통치될 수 없는 것’에 관한 상상 －이봉범의 『전향, 순수, 전후, 참여』(성균관대학교출판부, 2023), 『한국의 냉전문화사』(소명출판, 2023)－

Abstract

The two works by Lee Bong-beom, “전향, 순수, 전후, 참여” and “한국의 냉전문화사”, represent extensive and meticulous scholarly investigations into the process by which the global Cold War took root in contemporary Korean society and became “indigenized.” This article aims to comprehensively examine the distinctive features, trends, significance, and prospects of these two works as contributions to the study of the Cold War in Korea after 1945, taking into consideration recent domestic and international developments and achievements in Cold War studies. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to extract more overarching keywords flowing through the narratives of these two books. In this article, the concept of “the governance of the Cold War” is proposed. The notion of governmentality, as presented by Michel Foucault, is closely related to issues of sovereignty and, in particular, the hierarchical and deep aspects of how governmentality is to be exercised. From a governmentality perspective, these works shed light on the early Cold War period’s examination of the violent codification of laws. They offer in-depth analyses of themes such as “전향” (conversion), rebellion, and collaboration and how these issues are influenced by the “activities” of cultural actors in obtaining the consent of the Korean people. Furthermore, as we move from the late 1950s to the 1960s, “한국의 냉전문화사” in particular explores the governance landscape of peace and coexistence in the context of the competition for modernization in the Third World. The author’s evaluation of American cultural aid is notably flexible, as the work rejects the myopic perspective of cultural imperialism that denies the possibility of cultural adaptation by local agents. In essence, the analysis of the governance of the Cold War is the search for a list of “the ungovernable,” an area where the exercise of power is disrupted due to unpredictability. In the author’s view, this realm of possibility is embodied by the “mass(es),” which disturb the functioning of power due to their unpredictability, and by the “moderate nationalist” intellectuals who exhibit an incomplete historical potential during the liberation era.