신자유주의 시대 대안적 대인소통법으로서의 파레시아(Parrhēsia) - 우정과 호기, 비판이 순환되는 소통게임

Abstract

The ancients thought that a person who wanted to manage his or her life within the self-established mode of practice, not as required by power, needed someone with the courage to speak honestly about his or her flaws. As such, Parrhēsia, the discourse of others essential to the journey of individual subjectification, is not an interpersonal communication method suitable for the era of neoliberalism, which molds individuals who want to manage their lives like entrepreneurs by developing themselves as tools of competition. However, at that point, Foucault tried to reconstruct this critical discourse practice called Parrhēsia, as a tool for critical reflection on individualization in the era of neoliberalism and a new subjectification beyond it. Like Foucault's hope, our society is also exploring Parrhēsia, in various academic fields. However, Parrhēsia studies in our society tend to focus mainly on courageous speaking in the public realm and the formation of ethical subjects. From the point of view of communication, this trend overlooks other important aspects of the questions Parrhēsia can pose to our society today. First of all, the place of Parrhēsia that leads to reflexive subjectification should include not only the public sphere that constitutes democracy, but also the conversations that come and go in our daily lives. And Parrhēsia is a practical act that is completed only when the speaker's courage and skill are combined with the listener's courage and skill, whether in a public forum or in everyday conversation. Specifically, for the speaker, Parrhēsia has the ethical dimension of speaking frankly about the faults of others even at the risk of making others angry, and the technical dimension of discovering the appropriateness of speaking to the right person at the right time at the right time, that is, 'Kairos'. It is a form of speech in which dimensions are related together. What is important here is that doing Parrhēsia begins not with the speaker, but with the signal of the listener, specifically, that the listener is ready and capable of hearing criticism of himself. The speaker must be sensitive to the signal and transform the discourse to suit the listener. So Parrhēsia is not one-sided. Parrhēsia is a communication game between the subjects that can be effective when criticism is circulated only when the speaker and the listener show ‘Kairos’ skills with ‘favor’ towards each other. However, today's society mainly connects criticism in interpersonal relationships with hurt and confines it with a negative meaning. The purpose of this article is to do Parrhēsia about that confinement. If the speaker self-censors criticism of others in advance in consideration of the disadvantages that will return to him, and if the listener does not ask for or accept criticism out of fear of being hurt, then in the end we can not cross over and have no choice but to stay in the same place. Staying is safe, but it doesn't give you the pleasure of freedom to head to a new place.