케빈 두옹, <탈식민화와 세계질서>(2025)

 

탈식민화와 세계질서

Decolonization and World Order

 

케빈 두옹 (Kevin Duong)

번역: 김수지 

옮긴이의 말

이 글은 최근 탈식민화 연구의 흐름과 주요 쟁점을 폭넓게 조망하는 연구동향 논문입니다. 기존의 제국·자유주의·포스트식민주의 논의와 새로운 연구들의 관계를 짚으며, 연구의 관심사와 지리적 범위가 어떻게 변화하고 확장되어왔는지 살펴봅니다. 관련 연구의 지형을 시간적·공간적 맥락 속에서 두루 살펴볼 수 있다는 점에서, 탈식민주의가 궁금한 한국 독자들에게 좋은 길잡이가 될 만한 글이라고 생각해 번역했습니다. 특히 각자의 관심을 끄는 대목에서 각주와 참고문헌을 따라 읽어나가면, 어떤 질문에서 출발하든 더 깊이 공부할 방향을 찾는 데 도움이 될 것입니다. 이번 번역을 계기로 국내에서도 이러한 논의가 더 널리 소개되고 읽히기를 바랍니다.
초벌 번역에는 ChatGPT를 활용했음을 함께 말씀드립니다.

 

 

초록

탈식민화에 관한 새로운 연구는 제국과 포스트식민주의 이론에 관한 선행 연구와 어떤 관계에 있는가? 정치이론에서 탈식민화가 부상한 현상은 어떠한 상황 속에 위치시켜야 하는가? 이 ‘연구동향’ 논문은 다양한 최근 연구를 검토하고 세대적 변화의 한 단면을 제시한다. 이 글은 탈식민화에 관한 새로운 연구가 자유주의, 제국, 포스트식민주의 이론을 둘러싼 기존 논쟁에 의존하는 정도가 흔히 생각하는 것보다 작다고 주장한다. 정치이론의 지리적 범위는 크게 확장되었다. 또한 탈식민화를 이끈 행위자들과이론가들이 고심했던 문제들이 이제 탐구의 전면에 놓여 있다. 그러나 포스트식민주의 이론의 과거 통찰이 유실될 위험이 있으며, 향후 연구에는 중요한 방법론적 과제가 남아 있다.

 

주제어

탈식민화, 세계질서, 포스트식민주의 이론, 반식민주의, 민주주의 이론

---

새로운 연구, 새로운 정세

탈식민화는 하나의 역사적 과정이자 특정한 유형의 요구 제기를 가리킨다. 역사적 과정으로서 탈식민화는 종속 영토와 점령지에 대한공식적인 식민지배의 해체를 수반한다. 그 투쟁은 오늘날에도 계속되지만, 그 시간적 진앙은 당시나 지금이나 제2차 세계대전 직후에있다. 자치령과 식민지, 종속 영토들이 세계화의 변화에 대응하던 시기이다.[1] 1945년 유엔이 창설되었을 때 회원국은 45개국이었다. 유럽과 일본 제국의 일부였던 지역들이 독립국가의 지위를 획득하면서, 30년 안에 그 수는 144개국으로 늘어났다. 이 수십 년 동안 설립된경제·외교적 연합체들, 즉 1957년의 아시아·아프리카 인민연대기구(AAPSO), 1963년의 아프리카단결기구(OAU), 1964년의 77그룹(G77), 그리고 무수한 다른 약칭의 기구들까지 고려하면 탈식민화의 중요성은 더욱 뚜렷해진다. 전후 국제관계 이론가들은 양극적인 세계체제를 논했지만, 실제로 탈식민화는 냉전과 교차하면서 여러 층위의 주권과 프랙털적 권위로 이루어진 세계를 열었다.[2] 신민은 시민이 되었고, 대중은 참정권을 획득했으며, 민주적 자치는 널리 공유되는 규범이자 기대가 되었다.

이 역사적 과정은 처음에는 제국 내부에서, 이어서는 제국이 해체된 뒤에 새로운 세계질서를 향한 제도적·경제적·심리적 요구들을 실험하는 장이 되었다.[3] 정치지도자뿐 아니라 군인, 기술자, 시인, 노동조합 활동가, 과학자, 사진가들도 비지배의 국제체제와 국내의 자치를 확보하기 위한 새로운 구상을 제시했다.[4] 이 이론가들은 블라디미르 레닌(Vladimir Lenin)이 1914년에 선언한 민족자결권이나 우드로 윌슨(Woodrow Wilson)의 ‘14개조 원칙’을 자주 인용했는데, 때로 그 인용 방식은 창의적이면서도 부적절했다. 제도적 처방은 분권화된 촌락 공화국들의 연방에서 단일한 행성 규모의 정부에 이르기까지 다양했다.[5] 탈식민화가 절정에 이른 이 시기에 세계질서는 역사적으로 결정되어 있다기보다 실제로 유동적인 것처럼 보였으며, 비판가들은 부르주아적이지도 자유주의적이지도 않고 “인간의 척도에 맞추어 만들어진” 새로운 인본주의를 확신에 차서 이야기했다.[6] 이러한 “봉기의 기운”은 적어도 1970년대까지 지속되었고, 그 무렵일부에게는 현실이 낭만적 기대에 못 미치는 것으로 드러나기 시작했다.[7]

오늘날 정치이론가들은 이러한 역사와 그것이 여전히 낳고 있는 요구 제기에 전례 없는 관심을 기울이고 있다. 이 주제 자체가 새로운것은 아니다. 리처드 버크(Richard Bourke)는 탈식민화를 “계속해서 관심을 끄는 과거의 유산을 보여주는 두드러진 사례”라고 부른다. 그러나 지난 5년 동안 이 주제에 대한 인식과 연구의 범위는 폭발적으로 확대되었다.[8] 양적 증가는 질적 변환으로 이어지고 있다. 인더마르와(Inder Marwah)에 따르면, 실제로 “제국 이론가들이 자신들의 작업에 대해서도 자기성찰적이자 자기비판적이 되었다는 사실은지금까지 이동해 온 거리를 가늠하게 해준다.” 수많은 심포지엄과 비판적 서평 논문, 종합적인 역사 서술에서 이러한 변화를 확인할 수있다.[9] 이 새로운 연구의 상당 부분이 주류 학술지에 실리고 있다는 사실은 탈식민화 연구가 더 이상 이전만큼 주변적이거나 대항적이지 않음을 보여준다.

이처럼 급속한 변환을 어떻게 이해해야 할까? 탈식민화에 관한 새로운 연구는 제국과 포스트식민주의 이론을 다룬 선행 연구와 어떤관계에 놓여 있는가? 그리고 정치이론의 지각변동이 우리의 해석 실천이 기반으로 삼는 대상들과 마찬가지로 언제나 특정한 상황 속에자리한다면, 정치이론에서 탈식민화가 부상한 현상은 어떤 상황 속에 위치시켜야 하는가?

실제로 최근의 급격한 확산에 앞서 학문 분야와 역사서술에서 여러 변환이 일어났다. 그중에는 최근의 변화도, 장기적인 변화도 있으며, 이들이 모두 오늘날의 연구에 똑같은 영향력을 행사하는 것은 아니다. 영어권 포스트식민주의 이론의 강령적 개입들이 등장한 지도30여 년이 지났다. 가야트리 스피박(Gayatri Spivak)의 「서발턴은 말할 수 있는가?」(“Can the Subaltern Speak?”)는 1988년에 발표되었고, 에드워드 사이드(Edward Said)는 그보다 10년 앞서 기념비적인 저작 『오리엔탈리즘』(Orientalism)을 출간했다. 역사학에서는 디페시 차크라바르티(Dipesh Chakrabarty)의 『유럽을 지방화하기』(Provincializing Europe, 2000)와 이 책이 하이데거를 통해 이론화한 “역사적 차이”가 논쟁의 새로운 국면을 열었다.[10] 이 기초적 저작들은 당시 미국 대학들을 휩쓸던 반인본주의(anti-humanism)를 수용했다. 특히 법이 전제하는 도덕적 “개인” 대신 언어의 “주체”를 이론화하려는 반인본주의의 지향을 받아들였다.[11] 포스트식민주의 이론은 독자들을 퀴어 이론, 페미니즘, 문화연구와 같은 인접한 기획들로 이끌었다. 이 다양한 분야들을 조직한 것은 릴라 간디(Leela Gandhi)가“소수적인 것”의 비유라고 묘사한 것, 곧 소수적 지식, 소수자 집단, 소수 문학이었다.[12]

그러나 수십 년 동안 정치이론가들의 포스트식민주의 논쟁 참여는 좁은 세부 전공의 영역에 머물렀다. 진 모어필드(Jeanne Morefield)는 자신의 회고적 설명에서 그 이유를 국가 간 정치를 국제관계 연구자들의 관심사로 배정했던 오랜 학문적 분업에서 찾는다.[13] 이러한분업은 많은 정치이론가들이 포스트식민주의 이론을 무시하거나, 식민주의를 국경 안의 다루기 쉬운 “차이”와 “포용”의 문제로 환원할수 있게 했다. 그리하여 인문학의 포스트식민주의적 전환의 핵심을 이루었던 정체성, 행위능력, 시민적 포용에 대한 근본적 비판과, 이에 상응하는 “혼종적” 정체성, “분열된” 주체성, 디아스포라와 망명의 윤리에 대한 수용을 정면으로 검토하지 않을 수 있었다.[14]

분명 모어필드는 답의 일부를 제시한다. 포스트식민주의 이론이 정치이론에서 줄곧 특수한 전문 주제로 남았다는 사실은, 그것이 최근의 탈식민화 연구를 형성하는 데 미친 영향이 실제로 우리가 생각하거나 바라는 것보다 작은 이유를 설명해줄 수 있다.[15] 정체성, 행위능력, 진정성, 발화, 기원 탐구, 곧 자크 데리다(Jacques Derrida)가 한때 “현전의 형이상학”이라고 비판했던 모든 것에 대한 포스트식민주의 이론의 비판은 분명 불과 10년 전만큼도 흔하지 않다.

탈식민화에 관한 새로운 연구는 대체로 다른 역사서술적 선행 계보를 내세운다. 바버라 아닐(Barbara Arneil)의 『존 로크와 아메리카』(John Locke and America, 1996), 우다이 메타(Uday Mehta)의 『자유주의와 제국』(Liberalism and Empire, 1999), 제니퍼 피츠(Jennifer Pitts)의 『제국으로의 전환』(A Turn to Empire, 2006) 같은 책들이 예고한 계보이다. 이 책들의 표지를 장식한 핵심어는 “포스트식민주의 이론” 자체보다는 “자유주의와 제국”이었다. 제국에 관한 이 선구적 연구들은 미셸 푸코(Michel Foucault)의 계보학적 방법이나 분열된 주체에 관한 라캉주의 이론보다 케임브리지학파의 ‘맥락 속의 사상’ 접근에서 영감을 얻었다. 이들은 대체로 엘리트들이 썼지만 반드시 그들만이 쓴 것은 아닌 법률적·철학적 텍스트에 주의를 집중했다. 그렇게 함으로써 이 연구들은 비판가들이 정전적 저자들을 면밀히살펴보고, 그들을 형성한 제국적 맥락과 그들이 얼마나 불가분하게 얽혀 있는지를 더 잘 보도록 이끌었다.

최근 연구에서 “자유주의와 제국” 패러다임의 영향이 더 뚜렷하게 나타나기는 하지만, 나는 이 역시 우리가 생각하는 것보다 형성적영향력이 작다고 제안하고자 한다. 실제로 이 글의 목적은 탈식민화에 관한 새로운 연구를 “포스트식민주의 이론” 및 “자유주의와 제국” 양쪽으로부터 갈라놓는 놀라운 거리를 포착하는 데 있다. 이를 위해 탈식민화를 다룬 최근의 책과 논문 수십 편에 집중할 것이다. 이들 가운데 상당수는 신진 연구자들이 썼고, 거의 모두가 지난 10년 동안 출간되었다. 특히 민주주의 이론과의 연관성에 초점을 맞출 것이다. 그렇게 해야 새로운 연구의 특수성을 포착하고, 논쟁의 여지는 있을지라도 설득력 있는 세대적 변환의 상을 제시할 수 있기 때문이다. 이러한 제한된 초점은 앞으로의 연구가 직면할 몇 가지 과제들을 파악하는 데에도 도움이 될 것이다.

지난 10년간의 연구를 살펴보면, 숙련된 전문가들과 신진 연구자들 모두가 새로운 정치적 정세 속에서 제국에 관한 질문을 던지고 있음을 알 수 있다. 이 정세를 규정한 것은 1999년 시애틀의 세계무역기구(WTO) 반대 시위나 2003년 미국의 이라크 침공만이 아니라, 무엇보다 2008년 세계 금융위기와 그 뒤를 이은 세계적 저항의 물결, 곧 2014년 홍콩 시위에서 2020년 미국의 조지 플로이드 항쟁에 이르는 사건들이었다. 이 절박한 사건들은 정치이론의 문제공간을 바꾸었다. “포스트식민주의 이론” 및 “자유주의와 제국” 양쪽과 비교해볼때, 탈식민화에 관한 새로운 연구는 전자가 강조했던 텍스트 해석과 담론 분석보다 정치경제, 제도 구축, 정치적 행위에 더 많은 주의를기울인다. 크리스틴 로스(Kristin Ross)는 어떤 사건에서 비롯되는 정치사상은 “여전히 그 순간을 실제로 구축하는 일의 일부”로 보아야한다고 쓴다. 이는 사건의 사후적 삶이자 그 연장이다.[16] 로스가 논한 것은 1871년의 파리코뮌이지만, 나는 같은 논지가 2008년 이후의“대중 시위의 10년”에도 적용된다고 주장한다.[17] 탈식민화에 관한 새로운 연구가 사유의 차원에서 연장하고 있는 것은 어떤 선행 이론적 패러다임보다도 바로 이 저항과 행동의 10년이다.

탈식민화에 관한 새로운 연구를 이처럼 이해하면, 2000년대 정치이론가들의 관심을 사로잡았던 주제들, 특히 정전적 사상가들이 제국과 맺은 연루 관계가 오늘날 탈식민화 이론가들의 관심사와 왜 그토록 동떨어져 보일 수 있는지 이해하는 데 도움이 된다. 오늘날의관심사는 대중민주주의의 규모 확장 가능성, 시장 통합의 정도, 연방주의, 다자적 동맹, 생태적 돌봄, 배상이다. 이는 20세기 중엽의 제국비판가들이 고심했던 질문일 뿐 아니라, 오늘날 21세기의 행위자들이 마주하고 있는 질문이기도 하다.

세대적 단절의 서사는 차이를 수반한 반복이라는 오이디푸스적 서사이다. 지그문트 프로이트(Sigmund Freud)와 그를 읽은 반식민주의자들은 모든 살아 있는 사상 전통이 자신의 가능조건을 다시 구현하고 한때 부인했던 부모 형상을 재발견함으로써 자신의 현재에 부합하게 된다는 점을 가르쳐준다.[18] 여기서 거의 모든 최근 탈식민화 연구의 인상적이고 심지어 역설적인 출발점이 나온다. 반쯤 잊힌세계질서의 비전들, 경우에 따라서는 100년이나 된 비전들이 현재에 유난히 잘 들어맞으며, 심지어 정치이론에서 이른바 ‘동시대적’이라고 하는 관념들보다 더 적합하다고 평가되는 것이다. 그 비전들이 당대에 실현되지 못했음에도, 때로는 바로 그 실패 때문에 그렇다. 물론 제2차 세계대전 이후 민족 독립을 위해 싸운 남녀들은 자신들의 희망 가운데 많은 부분이 실현되는 것을 보았다. 좋든 나쁘든, 그들의 승리는 뒤이은 세대의 반제국주의 운동과 탈식민 국가의 정치지도자들이 활동할 전략적 지형을 규정했다.[19] 반면 신국제경제질서(New International Economic Order)가 명시한 것처럼 “자신들의 천연자원과 경제활동에 대한 실효적 통제”를 확보하기를 꿈꾸었던 이들은 그 열망이 좌절되는 것을 보았다.[20] 그러나 정치이론의 최신 탈식민화 연구를 이끄는 것이 있다면, 그것은 패배한 비전조차 죽은 것은 아니라는 확신이다. 1970년대 이후 짓밟힌 희망들은 이후 세대에게 소진되지 않은 분노의 목록을 물려주었다. 1960년대 프랑스 상황주의자들이 우리에게 남겨준 표현인 “일상생활의 총체적 탈식민화”를 향한 소망은 그렇게 쉽게 무력화되지 않는다.[21] 오늘을 살아가는비판가들은 우리 시대에 활용할 수 있는 역사와 반제국주의 전략을 만들어가면서 그 소망들을 다시 전유하고 있다.[22]

각 세대가 후속 세대의 경로의존성을 만들어 놓기 때문에 역사의 무게는 축적된다. 그러나 선택되지 않았거나 묵혀둔 수많은 경로들에도 같은 말이 적용된다. 이제 수년 동안 정치이론가들은 이 무게를 가늠하고, 그것을 탐색하여 미래의 기회가 될 수 있는 과거의 가능성들을 찾아내려 애써왔다. 바로 이 비판적 작업이 이 글의 주제이다.

 

자유주의의 영향력 약화

최근 정치이론에서 가장 두드러진 변화, 곧 지리적 관심의 확대에서 시작할 수 있다. 불과 지난 5년 사이에 이론가들은 호세 바스콘셀로스(José Vasconcelos), 압둘라 외잘란(Abdullah Öcalan), 로자 룩셈부르크(Rosa Luxemburg), 월터 로드니(Walter Rodney), 아밀카르 카브랄(Amilcar Cabral), 아우로빈도 고시(Aurobindo Ghose), 호찌민(Ho Chi Minh), 응우옌마인뜨엉(Nguyen Manh Tuong) 등을 다룬 연구들을 발표했다.[23] 이제 여성 국제정치 사상가들을 다룬 방대한 논문집도 나왔다. 이들 중 상당수는 제국 본국 바깥에서 저술했거나, 바버라 우턴(Barbara Wooton)과 에슬란다 로브슨(Eslanda Robeson)처럼 표준적인 역사 서술에서 누락된 제국 이론가들이었다.[24] 오랫동안 정치이론에서는 주변적이었던 간디(Gandhi)와 C. L. R. 제임스(C. L. R. James)는, 인문학에서는 그렇지 않았지만, 이제 한나 아렌트(Hannah Arendt)나 W. E. B. 듀보이스(W. E. B. Du Bois)와 동일한 정전적 지위를 획득해가고 있다. 여기에 더해, 미국 지식인들이 같은 반구의 다른 지역뿐 아니라 프랑스, 인도, 일본, 중국, 북아프리카와 서아프리카의 지식인들과 맺었던 연관성을 재구성하는 주목받는 연구들이 축적되었다.[25]

이러한 지리적 확장의 속도와 규모는 제니퍼 피츠가 2010년의 연구동향 논문 「제국과 제국주의의 정치이론」(“Political Theory of Empire and Imperialism”)에서 내린 평가와 비교함으로써 가늠할 수 있다. 15년 전 피츠는 인류학, 역사학, 문학과 비교했을 때 정치이론이 제국에 관해 “뒤늦게 등장한 미약한 목소리”라고 평가했다. “정치이론가들이 유럽과 미국의 사상 전통 바깥으로 눈을 돌리는 일은 드물었다.”[26] 이는 제국에 초점을 맞춘 연구자들에게도 해당되었다. 미국, 프랑스, 영국 지식인들의 제국 정치를 재구성하려는 그들의 포부는 유럽과 미국 사상에 대한 정치이론의 편중을 약화시키기는커녕 오히려 강화했을 수도 있다.

이러한 편중의 한 결과는, 피츠의 표현을 빌리면, 그에 상응하는 “자유주의의 가능성, 한계, 병리”에 대한 집착이었다.[27] 자유주의의병리를 이론화하는 일은 구체적이고 국지적인 맥락에 대한 실질적인 대응이었다. 빌 클린턴(Bill Clinton)과 조지 부시(George Bush) 대통령 재임기 미국의 정치문화는 종종 탈정치화된 자유주의를 특징으로 했다. 당시 웬디 브라운(Wendy Brown)은 불만의 분위기를 관찰했다. 시민들은 자신들의 무력화에 따분해하면서도 “정치적·경제적 권력의 터무니없는 집중에 괴로워하지 않는” 환경에 놓여 있었다. 브라운에 따르면, 동시대 자유주의를 해부하는 것은 자유주의 정치문화가 바로 “역사 속으로 사라져가는” 것처럼 보이는 시점에 그것을사유하는 방식이었다. 이는 미국의 “제국적 국가주의”에 관해 정직하게 성찰하는 것을 뜻했다.[28] 또한 대니얼 임머바르(Daniel Immerwahr)가 훗날 “대미국”(Greater United States)이라고 명명한 것에 대한 광범위한 안주를 문제 삼는 일이기도 했다.[29] 실제로 당시미국 제국을 비판했던 진 모어필드와 케빈 브루닐(Kevin Bruyneel) 같은 선견지명 있는 비판가들은, 특히 2001년 9월 11일 이후, 그러한안주에 도전하기 위해 이미 정치이론의 반제국주의적 날을 벼리고 있었다.[30]

정치이론의 지리적 범위가 확대되면서 자유주의에 대한 편중 또한 변화했고, 많은 경우 약화되었다. 이제 비판가들은 기독교 인격주의와 범이슬람주의에서 보아스학파 인류학, 정신분석, 특히 토착적 사회주의와 제3세계 마르크스주의에 이르기까지 반식민주의 이론가들의 주된 관심을 끌었던 전통들을 못지않게 연구한다.[31] 한 예로, 테자스 파라셰르(Tejas Parasher)의 최근 연구는 1930~40년대 인도의 와르다 서클(Wardha Circle)을 다루면서 조지프 쿠마라파(Joseph Kumarappa), 슈리만 나라얀(Shriman Narayan) 등이 제시한 농업 공화주의와 평의회 민주주의를 1940년대 자유주의에 대한 전면적 대안으로 파악한다. 파라셰르가 보여주듯, 와르다 서클의 중요한 점은 그들이 자본주의 경제 내부의 의회민주주의를 금권 지배와 연결했다는 데 있다. 이들은 이를 근거로 인도에서 대의제·선거 민주주의를 거부하고 “공동체 경제학”을 지지했으며, 마르크스주의에 가까이 다가가고 사회주의의 지역적 전통들을 재활성화했다.[32]

마찬가지로 크리스티앙 필로스트라(Christian Filostrat), 크리스토퍼 밀러(Christopher Miller), 재클린 프로스트(Jackqueline Frost), 호르헤 르페브르 타바레스(Jorge Lefevre Tavárez), 아르와 아완(Arwa Awan), 앨리스 무디(Alys Moody) 같은 연구자들은 에메 세제르(Aimé Césaire)가 제3세계 마르크스주의에 맞서는 인종적 차이의 단순한 찬양에 부당하게 동원되어 왔음을 보여주었다.[33] 오랫동안 유실되었다고 여겨졌던 세제르의 1935년 글 「인종의식과 사회혁명」(“Racial Consciousness and Social Revolution”)을 필로스트라가 2000년대 초에 재발견한 일, 그리고 세제르와 초현실주의자들 및 〈필로조피〉(Philosophies) 같은 집단 사이의 연관성을 재평가한 연구들은, 네그리튀드(Négritude)가 마르크스주의를 거부하면서가 아니라 그것과 대화하면서 출현했음을 분명히 한다. 프로스트와 르페브르 타바레스는나아가 세제르가 쿠바혁명 및 피델 카스트로(Fidel Castro)와 맺은 관계를 재구성하면서, 그 뒤에 이루어진 그의 삼대륙주의와의 연관을부각했다. 마르크스주의와의 이 대화를 변명하기보다 이해하는 것이야말로, 세제르가 어떻게 1968년에 이르러서도 “열대의 마르크스주의”를 상정할 수 있었는지를 이해하기 위한 전제조건이다.[34]

이는 자유주의가 옆으로 물러날 때 무엇이 시야에 들어오는지를 보여주는 사례들이다. 그러나 자유주의가 여전히 초점에 놓이는 경우에도 그 연구 방식은 달라지고 있다. 오누르 울라시 인제(Onur Ulas Ince)와 루카스 피녜이루(Lucas Pinheiro)의 최근 연구에서 로크 같은 인물을 연구하는 일은 담론으로서의 자유주의보다 식민 자본주의의 핵심적 과정인 토지 수탈, 시초축적, 원산업화(protoindustrialization)를 조명한다.[35] 카루나 만테나(Karuna Mantena), 나즈물 술탄(Nazmul Sultan), 인더 마르와는 최근 찰스 다윈(Charles Darwin), 헨리 메인(Henry Maine), 해럴드 래스키(Harold Laski) 같은 인물들로 돌아갔지만, 그 목적은 인도의 피지배 주체들이이들을 어떻게 전유했는지 이해하는 데 있다.[36] 이 이론가들에게 자유주의 연구는 세계에 대한 이해를 통해 자유주의를 더 잘 아는 데그치지 않고, 자유주의를 조건 짓는 세계에 관한 우리의 지식을 넓히는 일이다.

지리적 범위의 확대가 자유주의의 독점적 지위 후퇴와 연동된다는 것은 이해할 만하다. 아돔 게타추(Adom Getachew)와 만테나가 주장했듯이, 전후 자유주의의 개념들은 제국적이었을 뿐 아니라 자주 무관하기도 했다. 즉 “세계 대부분의 정치적 실천을 비판적으로 파악할 힘이 결여되어” 있었다.[37] 이 개념들은 자원 국유화, 산업정책, 농업 근대화, 토지 양도에 관한 탈식민 시대의 논쟁과 씨름하던 행위자 및 이론가들에게 중요한 질문들에 답하도록 고안되지 않았다. 물론 서아프리카와 남아시아 등의 맥락에서 이루어진 이러한 논쟁은 복지주의를 둘러싼 미국의 논쟁과 피상적으로 비슷해 보일 수 있었다. 그러나 실제로 이는 원칙적으로조차 자유주의적 평등주의에의거해 판정할 수 있는 문제가 아니었다. 탈식민화의 문제공간은 너무나 달랐다. 복지주의와 국가주도주의(dirigisme)는 반식민 민중운동에서 권위를 갖춘 탈식민 국가로 도약하기 위한 도구였다.[38]

세네갈의 초대 대통령이자 그 자체로 저명한 정치이론가였던 레오폴 세다르 상고르(Léopold Sédar Senghor)를 생각해보자. 상고르는반식민 투쟁기에 토착적인 비축적적 관행의 확고한 옹호자였다. 그러나 탈식민 국가의 정치지도자가 된 뒤에는 국가가 주도하는 농업계획을 수용하는 쪽으로 방향을 틀었다. 경제적 독립 없이는 정치적 독립도 별다른 의미가 없었고, 물려받은 식민지적 조건 아래에서는땅콩과 팜유 생산을 위한 단작 재배 없이는 독립을 확보할 수 없다는 점을 상고르는 인정했다.[39] 마찬가지로 산딥토 다스굽타(Sandipto Dasgupta)의 표현을 빌리면, 촌락 민주주의와 비축적적 시장관계에 대한 간디의 비전은 “비식민적인 것의 개념적 성좌 안에 머물렀다.” 반식민 투쟁 속에서 형성된 간디의 촌락 연방들은 “탈식민적인 것의 역사적 계기”에 온전히 부응하여 독립 이후의 통치 모델을 제시할수 없었다.[40] 이에 자와할랄 네루(Jawaharlal Nehru)는 탈식민 시대의 민주적 정당성을 위해서는 발전을 추진하는 중앙집권적 국가에 양보해야 한다고 결론지었다. 나즈물 술탄의 말에 따르면, 이 탈식민 국가는 “인민의 의지를 단순히 옮기거나 대표하는 데” 그치지 않고시간이 흐름에 따라 “인민을 자기 자신과 하나가 되게 하는 매개자로 작동해야” 했다.[41]

상고르와 네루, 그리고 줄리어스 니에레레(Julius Nyerere)나 저우언라이(Zhou Enlai) 같은 이들은 탈식민화와 그 이후 시기에 고유한문제들을 해결하기 위해 국가가 이끄는 복지주의를 지지했다. 그 시도가 언제나 성공했던 것은 아니다. 이 문제들이란 동원된 대중을 막형성되는 정당체제와 의회체제로 이끌기, 역사적 발전의 속도 높이기, 제국 본국식 계급구조의 형성 차단하기, 새로운 가족 형태 조정하기, 세계시장에 불평등하게 편입된 결과를 완화하기, 그리고 인종적 소외와 경제적 종속에 맞추어 형성된 정신을 재구성하기였다.[42] 탈식민 국가의 정치지도자들에게 해답이 필요했던 것은 바로 이러한 문제들이었지, 추상적인 규범적 정당화의 문제가 아니었다.

북아메리카의 원주민 정치사상을 둘러싼 논쟁에서도 자유주의의 영향력이 약화되는 것을 볼 수 있다. 원주민 연구자들은 이미 수십년 전부터 원주민 정치가 끊임없이 동원되던 자유주의적 다문화주의 이론들을 자주 비판해왔다.[43] 이 이론들은 원주민 정치를 소수자정치의 특별한 “사례들”로 번역했다. 원주민 정치는 자유주의 철학에 난제를 제기했고, 그 난제들을 해결하는 일은 자유주의에 관해서는 무언가를 가르쳐주었지만 원주민 정치에 관해서는 그렇지 못했다.[44] 제임스 털리(James Tully)는 이를 정치이론을 수행하는 다른 방식들에 귀를 닫은 “동화주의적 독백”이라고 개탄했다.[45] 이와 달리 제럴드 비즈너(Gerald Vizenor), 리앤 베타사모사케 심프슨(Leanne Betasamosake Simpson), 오드라 심프슨(Audra Simpson), 닉 에스티스(Nick Estes)는 독자들에게 재흥(resurgence), 거부(refusal), 생존적 저항(survivance), 친족관계(kinship)라는 다른 개념적 성좌에 따라 그 고유한 맥락 안에서 사유할 것을 요구한다.[46] 이 성좌는 영토의 자주관리, 비국가적 주권, 그리고 인간·대지·비인간 친족·조상 사이의 윤리적 관계에 우리의 주의를 집중시킨다. 이들의 연구는 더 넓은 학문분야를 향해 새로운 질문들과 씨름할 것을 촉구한다. 더 나아가 조디 버드(Jodi Byrd)가 주장하듯, 원주민의 생존과 자기주장을 위한 어휘로서 “탈식민화”가 적절한지조차 질문하도록 한다.[47]

듀보이스 연구는 서로 중첩되는 이러한 변환들을 축소판으로 보여준다. 듀보이스는 이미 2000년대에도 중요한 해석의 대상이었지만, 당시의 관심은 1903년의 『흑인의 영혼』(Souls of Black Folk)과 그 책의 “이중의식”, “장막”, “분투”라는 개념적 삼위일체에 지나치게집중되어 있었다.[48] 이 텍스트는 당시에도 전 지구적 의의를 지녔고, 지금도 그러하다.[49] 그러나 돌이켜보면, 그 매력은 포용적인 미국민주주의의 전망을 둘러싼 광범위한 좌절에서 비롯되었음을 알 수 있다. 역사학과 달리,[50] 정치이론에서는 범아프리카주의를 다룬 듀보이스의 후기 저작들, 그의 1928년 소련 방문, 또는 1961년 미국공산당(CPUSA) 입당이 지속적인 주해의 대상이 되지 못했다. 반면 이론가들이 탈식민화로 눈을 돌리면서, 1920년 이후 듀보이스의 후기 저작들, 곧 『검은 물』(Darkwater, 1920), 『새벽의 황혼』(Dusk of Dawn, 1940), 특히 『흑인 재건』(Black Reconstruction, 1935)으로도 관심이 옮겨갔다. 범아프리카주의, 정치경제, 국제주의에 관한 듀보이스의 글들은 이제 무대의 중심에 서서 높이 평가되는 동시에 비판의 대상이 되고 있다.[51] 2022년 피츠와 게타추가 편집한 듀보이스의국제정치 관련 저술들이 ‘케임브리지 정치사상사 텍스트’(Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought) 총서에 포함된 것은 이러한변화를 입증한다.

한 가지 중요한 단서를 붙여야 한다. 영어권 정치이론의 지리적 범위는 과거보다 넓어졌을 수 있지만, 그 공간적 관심은 여전히 불균등하다. 동아시아의 제국과 탈식민화를 연구하는 데서 이 분야는 여전히 인제(Ince)가 “방법론적 대서양주의”라고 부른 태도를 드러낸다.[52] 정착민 식민주의에 대한 광범위한 관심에도 불구하고 정치이론가들의 주의는 여전히 압도적으로 북아메리카에 집중된다. 일본이 오늘날 홋카이도의 아이누족을 거의 절멸시킨 사례와 같은 태평양 지역의 정착민 식민주의는 비판적 종족 연구(critical ethnic studies)와 역사학 연구자들에게는 핵심적인 주제였음에도 탈식민화의 정치이론에는 거의 반영되지 않는다.[53] 마찬가지로 정치이론가들이 뒤늦게 반식민주의적 마르크스주의들에 관심을 기울이게 되었지만, 마오주의에 대한 철저한 연구는 여전히 없다. 이 농민적 마르크스주의 전통은 단연 가장 광범위한 지리적 영향을 미친 반식민주의 노선이며 좌파 반식민주의 여성들에게도 수용되었는데도 말이다.[54] 또한 반둥에서 삼대륙 운동에 이르기까지 아시아 및 남남 연대에서 제국의 경계를 가로지르는 수많은 비판의 흐름이 나왔음에도, 정치이론가들은 이를 간과하고 영국–인도나 프랑스–알제리 같은 글로벌 노스와 글로벌 사우스 간 연관성을 발굴하는 쪽을 택했다.[55] 유감스럽게도 듀보이스 한 사람에 관한 연구가 동아시아 전체에 관한 연구보다 많을 가능성이 높다. 동아시아의 자료군은 “이슬람” 사상과 “라틴아메리카” 사상과 더불어 부당하게 “비교정치이론”이라는 영역에 격리되어 왔다. 베트남 반식민주의 사상에 관한 최근의 단행본은중요한 교정의 계기를 제공한다.[56] 베트남의 자유투쟁이 전 지구적 1960~70년대에서 차지한 중심적 위치에도 불구하고, 2024년에 나온이 단행본이 정치이론에서 이 주제를 다룬 첫 저작이라는 사실은 우리를 놀라게 해야 한다.[57]

다행히 “탈식민화”와 “비교”정치이론을 구분하는 경계는 빠르게 희미해지고 있다. 왜 비교사상은 비서구 사상을 뜻해야 하는가? 왜탈식민화는 언제나 파농과 간디를 뜻해야 하는가? 이제는 두 영역 모두에 대해 이처럼 자기성찰적인 입장을 취할 수 있다.[58]

 

탈식민화와 민주주의 이론

정치이론의 지리적 범위가 확대되고 있다는 사실은 탈식민화를 협소한 전문 주제로 격리하는 일이 잘못임을 시사한다. 실로 그러한 격리는 언제나 이해하기 어려운 일이었다. 적어도 이론상으로는 탈식민화가 세계 대부분에 대한 연구를 포괄한다는 단순한 이유 때문이다. 탈식민화 연구를 주변적인 것으로 여길 이유는 없어야 한다. “비서구” 이론 연구를 주변적인 것으로 여길 이유가 없어야 하는 것과마찬가지이다. 세계 대다수의 사람들에게 그것은 그저 정치이론이다.

이 사실을 천명하는 일이 때로는 마땅히 그래야 할 만큼 쉽지 않았다. 이론가들은 비유럽 사상을 진정한 유럽 사상의 모방물로 묘사하는 위험, 곧 환원주의를 경계하도록 훈련받는다. 이들은 지적 영향 관계를 전파의 모형, 즉 먼저 서구에서 발생한 다음 나머지 세계로 퍼져 나가는 모형으로 파악하는 일을 경계한다. 환원주의를 피하려다 보니, 비교정치이론과 원주민 연구의 학자들처럼 탈식민화를 연구하는 많은 학자는 분석 대상을 역사적 차이의 화신으로 변모시켜야 한다는 부담을 지게 된다. 곧 그 대상을 제국 본국의 사상으로 환원할지 모른다는 우리의 두려움을 구현하는, 그 자체로 고유한 상징으로 만들어야 한다는 것이다. 무라드 이드리스(Murad Idris)가 “오늘날 이 학문의 지향은 정전화에 있다”고 탄식하는 것은 그 때문인지 모른다.[59]

환원주의의 위험은 분명 실재한다. 그러나 그에 대한 반작용으로 탈식민화의 기록을 오리엔탈리즘적으로 타자화하려는 충동 역시 오늘날 거부해야 한다. 프로이트라면 이러한 방어 조치를 “반동형성”이라고 불렀을 것이다. 탈식민화 연구가 발 딛고 있는, 구체적 맥락을지닌 장소들은 케임브리지나 프린스턴이 사례가 아닌 것과 마찬가지로 사례가 아니다. 그것들은 다른 모든 장소와 같은 장소이다. 곧 이론가들에게 도전과 제약을 부과하면서, 우리가 익힌 해석의 기술을 통해 다른 맥락에도 적용할 수 있는 통찰을 산출하게 하는 한정된 맥락이다.

정치이론의 지리적 범위가 확대되는 것을 역사적 차이의 사례나 소수 문학이 축적되는 일과는 다르게 보아야 한다. 이러한 관점을 취하면 탈식민화와 그에 대한 연구의 실상을 볼 수 있을 것이다. 그것은 민주주의 이론에 대한 직접적이고 명백한 기여이다.

탈식민화가 민주주의 이론의 거대한 실험들을 수반했다는 사실 역시 처음부터 명백했어야 한다. 사실상 어떤 척도로 보더라도 탈식민화는 인류 역사상 가장 야심 찬 민주화의 실천이었다. 인도가 독립하면서 모든 성인은 성별과 관계없이 단번에 선거권을 얻었다. 심지어 공식적인 시민권을 획득하기도 전이었다.[60] 프랑스 제국에서는 대중적 참정권이 제국 통치를 민주화하는 수단으로, 나아가 그것을넘어서는 수단으로 쟁취되었다.[61] 미국과 프랑스 모두에서 많은 흑인 지식인은 “세계 민주주의”라는 반식민주의적 틀을 받아들였다. 이를 통해 자신을 일국적 소수자로 이해하는 데서 벗어나, 전 지구에 걸친 압도적 다수, 이른바 “솟아오르는 유색 인종의 물결”의 일원으로 행동하고자 했다.[62]

이러한 사실들은 20세기에 민주주의 이론과 탈식민화를 서로 긴밀하게 결합시킬 수도 있었다. 그러나 그런 결합은 끝내 일어나지 않았다. 단순하면서도 중대한 하나의 역사적 사실이 그 이유를 설명한다. 냉전기의 민주주의 이론은 “제3세계”나 “동양”에서 전개된 대중민주주의의 실험들에 맞서는 이데올로기적 무기로 자주 사용되었다.[63] 로버트 달(Robert Dahl)에서 존 롤스(John Rawls)에 이르기까지민주주의 이론가들은 자유주의적 자본주의 사회의 역사적으로 특수한 문제들, 곧 안정성, 제도적 균형, 자유로운 토론의 범위, 정치적의무, 재분배의 문제들을 민주주의 이론 그 자체의 지위로 끌어올렸다. 손경민(Kyong-Min Son)이 입증했듯이, “전후 민주주의 이론에서진정으로 특이한 점은 민주주의를 집합적 삶을 조직하는 공적 제도로 보는 관념을 포기하고, 이를 개인이 오직 자신의 사적 이익을 증진하기 위해 사용하는 수단으로만 재정의했다는 데 있다.”[64] 손경민이 지적하듯, 달은 1956년의 『민주주의 이론 서설』에서 “우리 대부분은 한계주의자”라고, 특히 “오랜 기간 민주주의를 운영해 온 국가들”, 즉 “서구 세계”에서는 그러하다고 단언하기까지 했다.[65] 전후민주주의 이론은 민주주의를 한계주의자처럼 행동하는 법을 익힌 유권자들 사이에서 권력을 교대시키는 규칙으로 재정의함으로써, 탈식민화의 최대주의적 정치가 민주주의에 관해 거의 아무 말도 할 수 없는 것처럼 보이게 만들었다. 실제로 자유주의자들은 탈식민화의최대주의적 정치를 거듭 반민주적이라고 판정했다.[66] 반식민 혁명가들에게 준거가 되었던 장자크 루소(Jean-Jacques Rousseau)와 자코뱅이 이 시기에 “전체주의자”로 재구성된 것은 우연이 아니다.[67] 기껏해야 글로벌 사우스의 민주정치는 전혀 다른 이론 체계, 곧 근대화이론의 대상이자 실험실로 변모했을 뿐이다.[68] 이렇게 변모한 탈식민화는 진보주의적 역사발전관에 도전하기보다 그것을 정당화하는역사적 과정의 증거가 되었다.[69]

탈식민화에 관한 최근 연구를 거리낌 없는 민주주의 이론의 실천으로 접근하면, 이 모든 연구의 이론적 포부를 더 잘 이해할 수 있다. 이 연구들은 사례연구가 아니다. 민주주의를 설계하기에 적절한 규모와 층위, 경제발전의 양가적 역할, 문화의 정치 등 정치이론 전반의핵심 문제들을 다루는 연구이다.

 

자치의 여러 층위

“경계 문제”나 “영향받는 모든 이의 원칙”을 둘러싼 논쟁은 민주주의 이론가들에게 익숙하다. 이러한 논쟁은 누가 데모스에 속하며 그이유는 무엇인지 명시하도록 비판적 연구자들에게 요구한다.[70] 평등주의적 자치의 인식적 전제조건에 대한 관심 역시 민주정치에 “경계 지어진” 연대가 필요한가라는 질문을 제기해 왔다.[71] 그러나 탈식민화의 가장 탁월한 이론가들은 민주적 자치의 의미를 해명해야할 다른 층위들을 강조했다.

우선 이들은 정신과 그 무의식적 작용의 층위에서 민주주의를 이론화할 것을 요구했다. 20세기 반식민주의 이론가들과 제국의 행정가들은 식민주의가 토지뿐 아니라 정신도 지배한다는 점을 당연하게 여겼다.[72] 바로 그 때문에 비판자들은 탈소외(disalienation)가 언어정책과 교육개혁에 어떤 실천적 함의를 갖는지 논쟁하면서도, 그것을 탈식민화 이후 세계 민주주의의 타협 불가능한 요건으로 명시했다. 하나의 인민이 스스로를 통치하려면 정신적 박탈과 예속이 초래한 무력화의 결과를 극복해야 했다. 이는 민주주의를 가정, 부부 중심의 가족, 진료소, 병원, 노동조합, 정당, 일터, 학교 등 일상생활의 층위로 확장한다는 뜻이었다. 시민들의 정신이 형성되고 훼손되는곳이 바로 이 층위였기 때문이다.[73]

식민화에 맞선 많은 투쟁 역시 정신보다는 상위에, 그러나 국가보다는 하위에 놓이는 층위에서 민주주의를 요구했다. 이 층위는 탈식민화 이후의 발전주의 국가를 포함한 국가에 종종 대립하기도 했다. 에릭 홉스봄(Eric Hobsbawm)의 1959년 저서 『원초적 반란』(Primitive Rebels), 찰스 틸리(Charles Tilly)의 1985년 논문 「조직범죄로서의 전쟁 만들기와 국가 만들기」(“War Making and State Making as Organized Crime”), 제임스 스콧(James Scott)의 2009년 저서 『지배받지 않는 기술』(The Art of Not Being Governed)이 여전히 준거로남아 있는 가운데, 이 층위는 최근 몇 년간 비판적 연구자들의 각별한 관심을 끌었다. 역사적으로 이론가들은 이러한 비국가적 층위를민주적 지방자치주의의 언어로, 특히 인도와 탄자니아의 경우에는 “촌락” 민주주의의 언어로 정교화했다.[74] 마시밀리아노 톰바(Massimiliano Tomba)는 지방자치의 층위에서 이루어진 억압된 민주주의 실험들을 찾기 위해, 1917년 이후 러시아의 옵시치나(obshchina)에서 1990년대 초 이래 지속되어 온 사파티스타 투쟁에 이르는 코뮌의 역사를 살펴보았다. 이러한 코뮌 투쟁은 소농을 중심으로 이루어졌다. 이들은 자본축적과 독립된 리듬에 따라 민주주의를 실천했으며, 토지의 공동소유를 중앙집권적 국가, 설령 노동자 국가라 하더라도 그러한 국가가 토지를 전유하는 것보다 사회주의에 이르는 더 민주적인 경로로 보았다.[75] 피나르 케메를리(Pınar Kemerli)는 오늘날 쿠르드인의 탈식민화 투쟁이라는 맥락에서 비슷한 논증을 전개한다. 톰바와 마찬가지로, 케메를리는 시리아 북부 로자바의 활동가들 사이에서 “민주적 연합주의”의 실천을 발견한다. 이는 머리 북친(Murray Bookchin)과 같은 생태주의적 아나키스트에게서 영감을 얻은 페미니즘적 평의회 민주주의의 한 형태이다. 민주적 연합주의는 “쿠르드 주권국가를 세우려 했던 쿠르디스탄노동자당(PKK)의 이전 영토 투쟁과의 단절”을 선언하며, 그 투쟁을 생태적 조건과 민족 간 공존을 존중하는 “국가 없는 민주적 삶”이라는 이상으로 이끈다.[76] 톰바와 케메를리에게 농민 중심의 탈식민화 운동은 우리 시대의 비국가적 층위를 사유하는 민주주의 이론가이다. 톰바는 “오늘날의 위기에 대한 많은 대안은 무에서 새로 발명할 필요가 없다”고 쓴다. 영어권 자유주의자들이 만들어 낸 바로 그 민주주의이론에 의해 비자유주의적이고 반민주적이라고 단죄된 대안들을, “과거 속에 붙잡힌 채 남아 있는 무수한 미래들로부터 다시 활성화할수 있기” 때문이다.[77]

이론가들이 농민과 원주민의 자치 전통에 더 많은 관심을 기울이는 데에는 식민체제가 그 전통을 억압했다는 점도 한몫한다. 주디스서키스(Judith Surkis)가 식민지 알제리의 사례를 통해 보여 주었듯이, 프랑스의 동화정책은 알제리 사람들이 아니라 알제리의 토지를 겨냥했다. 무슬림이 이슬람법 아래 누리는 성적 특권과 신분상의 지위에 대한 오랜 질투에서 촉발된 현지 종교법과 가족법에 대한 개입은, 프랑스 행정가들이 알제리인과 그들의 토지 사이의 유대를 정당하지 않은 것으로 만들고 그 토지를 몰수할 기회를 제공했다.[78] 20세기전문가들에게 식민화에서 농민의 수탈과 토지 몰수가 차지하는 중심적 위치는 팔레스타인의 사례에서 특히 분명하게 드러난다. 영국의감독 아래 1917년에 시작된 체계적인 토지 양도, 1930년대 팔레스타인 아랍 농민의 지위를 둘러싼 영국 지도자들과 시온주의 지도자들사이의 격렬한 논쟁, 그리고 1950년의 부재자재산법과 시온주의가 배후지와 대도시 중심부라는 공간 구도를 덧씌움으로써 이루어진 농민층의 파괴에 이르기까지 그 역사는 이어진다.[79]

제임스 스콧이 옳다면, 농민·농업·농촌의 자치에 대한 억압은 식민체제에만 고유한 것이 아니라 탈식민화 이후 국가들에도 이어진다. 그에 대한 억압이 근대 국가 형성 일반의 전형적 특징이라는 단순한 이유 때문이다.[80] 바버라 아닐은 이러한 억압이 러시아와 영국의농촌 같은 곳에서 해외 정복이 아니라 “내부 식민화”의 기치 아래 오랫동안 전개되었다고 주장한다.[81] 국가 주도의 내부 식민화는 천연자원의 채취가 걸려 있거나, 인도네시아와 인도의 경우처럼 탈식민화 이후 국가가 토지 보유체제의 개혁을 통해 자신이 쟁취한 주권을정당화해야 할 때 특히 두드러졌다.[82] 이집트 같은 곳에서 농민들은 독립 이후 새로운 특권을 확보할 위치에 있던 봉건적 소유주와 농업 지주들에 맞서 촌락 민주주의를 지켜야 했다.[83] 파농은 이미 이 후자의 위험을 식민지의 유색 부르주아지가 제기하는 위험으로 이론화한 바 있다.[84] 공식적인 식민통치 아래에서든 새로운 탈식민 국가 아래에서든 억압은 폭력적이었다.[85] 그레고리 세일러(Gregory Thaler)가 브라질과 인도네시아의 사례에서 논증했듯이, 소농들은 흔히 자신의 행위능력이 자본주의적 농기업에 대한 자발적 복종으로축소되는, 극도로 제약된 상황에 내몰린다. 곧 “소농에게 주어진 자리에서의 동일결과성(equifinality)”이다.[86]

어지러울 만큼 다양한 농업·농촌·촌락 층위의 자치에 대한 억압은 계속되고 있다.[87] 원주민의 민주적 자치가 처한 상황은 이를 분명하게 보여 준다. 하우데노쇼니 연맹(Haudenosaunee Confederacy)의 두 줄 왐펌(Two Row Wampum)과 라코타·다코타(Lakota-Dakota) 민족들의 사상에서는 오래전부터 중앙집권적 국가나 그 위임기관 없이 자치가 구상되어 왔다.[88] 토지 및 친족과 맺는 관계는 국가 간 평등이라는 국제적으로 승인된 관념에 의존하지 않고 민족들 사이의 평등을 구체화하기에 충분한 토대였다. 그러나 이러한 비국가적 민주주의 실천은 정착민들의 요구에 의해 계속 밀려나고 있다. 그들은 자유주의적 인정의 정치가 원주민들에게 떠맡긴 역할을 원주민 스스로 수행할 것을 요구한다. 친족 관습을 소급하여 성문화하거나, 정치적 대표에 관한 자유주의적 기대에 맞게 행동하거나, 정착민이 강요한 “원주민 권리”의 개념을 그들의 대변인처럼 되풀이하게 하는 것이다.[89]

마지막으로, 민주주의 이론가들은 지역적·반구적·대륙적 연합과 같이 국가의 규모를 넘어서는 자치를 이론화하기 위해 탈식민화로눈을 돌렸다. 프레더릭 쿠퍼(Frederick Cooper), 마누 고스와미(Manu Goswami), 게리 와일더(Gary Wilder), 그리고 게타추는 2000년대 후반부터 20세기 중반 반식민 연방주의의 역사에 주목함으로써 이 층위를 연구의 장으로 열었다.[90] 이러한 역사들은 국민국가가 탈식민화를 통해 일반화될 수 있었던 수많은 정치 형태 중 하나에 불과했음을 보여 주었다. 한때 제국에서 국민국가로의 명료한 축의 전환으로서술되었던 과정은, 이제 그 사이에 대안적인 연방주의의 가능성들을 검토하던 여러 해가 놓여 있었던 것으로 이해된다. 식민지들 사이의 수평적 연방과 식민지 및 제국 본국 사이의 수직적 연방 모두 민주적 자치를 실현할 수 있는 적절한 규모로 제안되었다.

이러한 연방들은 사고실험이 아니었다. 말라야 연방(1948–1963), 중앙아프리카 연방(1953–1963), 서인도 연방(1958–1962), 말리 연방(1959–1960), 사우디아라비아 연방(1962–1967), 그리고 사회주의적 “아프리카 합중국” 구상이 있었다. 여기에 1949년 베이징 아시아여성회의, 1955년 반둥회의, 1966년 삼대륙회의에서 나온 제안들도 더해진다. 이러한 연방 구상은 중층적 주권과 다원적인 법적 관할권에따라 조직된 세계를 전망했다. 그 세계는 핵무기로 철저히 무장한 영토국가들에 맞서는 균형추가 될 수 있었다.[91]

연방과 지역적 연합은 두 가지 중대한 문제를 해결하고자 했다. 어떠한 탈제국적 정치구성이 식민통치 아래 형성된 인종적·민족적·종교적·가족적 정체화를 인정하면서도 평등을 제도화할 수 있는가? 그리고 신생 국가들이 불리한 무역·외교·생산·소비의 조건에 옭아매는 세계체제 속으로 편입된다면 인민주권이 어떻게 실질적인 것이 될 수 있는가? 사미르 아민(Samir Amin)과 월터 로드니를 계승하는이론가들에게 중심부의 주변부 지배는 근대 초기 이래 식민 세계의 의도적인 저발전을 초래해 왔다.[92] 따라서 정치적으로 독립한 국민국가들로 이루어진 세계는 그 역사를 되돌릴 능력이 없었으며, 지금도 그러하다.[93] 상고르와 은크루마에서 모하메드 베자우이(Mohammed Bedjaoui), 알리운 디오프(Alioune Diop), 크리스티안 양데 디오프(Christiane Yandé Diop)에 이르는 20세기 중반의 이론가들은 이 점에 확고했다.[94] 한때 중심부와 주변부의 위계적 지배를 통해 확보되었던 경제적·심리적·정치적 종속은 탈식민화 이후 신식민주의적 형태로 변모했다. 통화 통제, 채무 상환, 초국적 법, 가족법, 그리고 국경과 대양을 가로지르는 과두집단의 결탁이 그것이다.[95]

CFA 프랑은 이를 보여 주는 대표적인 사례이다. 1945년 12월 샤를 드골(Charles de Gaulle)과 재무장관 르네 플레벤(René Pleven)은 태평양과 아프리카에 있는 프랑스 식민지의 프랑을 창설하는 문서에 서명했다. 그중 아프리카의 통화인 “CFA 프랑”은 프랑스령 서아프리카와 중앙아프리카뿐 아니라 마다가스카르, 레위니옹, 프랑스령 소말릴란드(현재의 지부티), 토고, 카메룬에서도 유통되었다. 브레턴우즈 체제와 나란히 탄생한 CFA 프랑은 프랑스 본토와 식민지 사이의 연계가 약해지던 시기에 양자 간에 유리한 교역 조건을 수립했다. 프랑스 프랑에 비해 고평가된 CFA 프랑은 제국 본국 소비자의 구매력을 높이고 식민지 수출품이 제국 외부보다 내부에서 유통되도록 촉진했다. 그러나 1960년 이후 탈식민화가 불가피해 보이게 되자, 프랑스는 CFA 프랑을 비공식 제국을 유지하기 위한 전략의 중심에 놓았다. 해럴드 맥밀런(Harold Macmillan)이 그 유명한 “변화의 바람” 연설을 한 것도 1960년이었다. 1962년 이후 프랑스와 사하라 이남 식민지들 사이에 체결된 “협력 협정”은 사실상 후자에게 경제주권을 대가로 정치적 독립을 제공했다. 국방비 지출, 원자재 교역, 통화정책, 심지어 고등교육까지 계속 프랑스 국가의 관리 아래 놓이게 된 것이다. 프랑스 정치인들은 아프리카 중앙은행의 이사회에 참여하기까지 했다. 이는 탈식민화 이후의 시대에 맞추어 재단한 식민정책이었다. 슈테판 아이히(Stefan Eich)는 민주주의 이론가들에게 통화정책의 정치를 분석할 것을 촉구해 왔으며, 이 요청은 탈식민화 연구자들에게도 해당한다.[96] 파니 피조(Fanny Pigeaud)와 은동고 삼바 실라(Ndongo Samba Sylla)는 아프리카의 많은 지역에서 “통화적 해방을 위한 투쟁”은 “민주주의를 위한 투쟁과 분리될 수 없다”고 결론짓는다.[97]

1963년에 창설된 아프리카단결기구(OAU) 같은 연방과 지역적 연합이 무력화하고자 했던 것이 바로 이런 유형의 신식민주의였다. 신국제경제질서가 대규모의 전 지구적 배상을 요구한 것도 마찬가지였다. 초국가적 데모스들은 종속 지역들의 집합적 권력을 증대시켜, 국내의 자치가 가능해지는 국제질서를 수립할 수 있는 영향력을 제공하리라는 전망을 제시했다. 세계적 규모의 민주주의가 없다면 신생 국민국가 내부의 민주주의는 허상일 것이다. 이것이 탈식민화 시대 민주주의 이론을 규정한 문제였다.

오늘날 민주주의 이론의 상당 부분을 고무하는 것은 이처럼 다양한 규모와 층위에서 이루어진 실험들의 복원이다. 그러나 역사적 복원만으로는 충분하지 않다. 과거의 이러한 실험들은 다시 서술하는 데 그치지 않고 새로운 맥락 속에 재배치되어야 한다. 가령 농촌·농민·농업·촌락 형태의 민주주의가 기존 세계체제 안에 에워싸인 상태에서 지속적으로 실현될 수 있는지는 아직 분명하지 않다. 디페시차크라바르티도 “앞으로 나아가는 데 원주민의 역사와 실천에서 배울 것이 많다. 이는 의심의 여지가 없다”고 인정한 바 있다. 의문의대상은 식민주의의 전 지구적 확장을 통해 강제로 근대화된 행성이 요구하는 생산성을 그것들이 충족할 수 있는가이다. “원주민의 토지관리 기법으로 80억이나 100억 명을 먹여 살릴 수 있는가?”[98] 차크라바르티의 질문은 한가한 질문도 냉소적인 질문도 아니다. 이는 잊힌 규모와 층위의 실험들이 실현 가능한지는 규범적 선언으로 전제할 것이 아니라 사례별로 입증해야 함을 일깨운다. 어떤 답을 내놓든정치이론가들은 농민, 원주민 지도자, 대기업, 비정부기구, 강대국, 그리고 그 내부에서도 의견이 갈리는 학자들 사이의 논쟁에 끌려들게 될 것이다. 이들은 비국가적 자주관리 방식과 새로운 농업기술, 토지 관리 기법, 국가 주도 발전의 상대적 이점을 저울질하며 다투고있다.[99]

이와 같은 유보는 지역적·연방적·초국가적 규모의 민주적 통치에도 적용된다. 이러한 “세계 만들기”의 규모는 대단한 열광 속에 받아들여진 나머지, 메르베 페이줄라(Merve Fejzula)가 주장하듯 이미 비판 없는 정설이 될 위험에 처해 있다.[100] 탈식민화의 초국가적 실험을 재구성하는 일은 국민국가가 자연스러운 것이라는 관념을 흔들 수 있다. 그러나 그것은 연방주의를 물화하고 중요한 사실을 가리는데 가까이 갈 수 있으며 실제로도 그래 왔다. 20세기의 많은 연방주의적·초국가적 실험은 언제나 민족주의에 반대했던 것은 아니며, 심지어 언제나 공화주의적이었던 것조차 아니다.[101] “대영국”(Greater Britain) 관념처럼 명시적으로 반공화주의적인 것도 있었다. 덩컨 벨(Duncan Bell)은 이를 통신기술과 모더니즘적 유토피아주의를 앵글로색슨 우월주의의 꿈에 결합한 “인종 질서에 대한 사이보그적 비전”이라고 묘사한다.[102] 연방주의와 다층적 통치에 대한 유럽 신우파의 집착처럼 공공연히 엘리트주의적인 경우도 있다.[103] 조이 왕(Joy Wang)이 보여 주듯이, 1970년대 이후 남아프리카공화국의 아파르트헤이트 헌법에서 협의제 민주주의와 (단일적 민주주의가 아닌) 다원적 민주주의는 도전해야 할 권력의 위계들을 관리해야 할 고착된 정체성들로 바꾸어 놓고 말았다.[104] 페이줄라는 우리가 다음과 같은사실을 기억해야 한다고 쓴다. “연방주의는 기껏해야 양가적이었으며, 제국 질서를 극복할 수단을 제공할 수 있었던 만큼이나 쉽게 그질서의 목적에 봉사할 수도 있었다.”[105]

 

민주주의와 발전

포스트식민주의 이론이 1980년대 초에 출현한 이래 비판자들은 “발전”을 세계의 공간적 질서를 전개 중인 시간적 연쇄의 한 단면으로제시하는 “담론”으로 서술해 왔다. 산업화된 국가와 산업화되지 않은 국가의 공존은 원래 구조적 상호의존 관계였다. 식민 자본주의가대중 소비재 시장과 사치재 시장을 분화하고, 젠더화된 국제분업을 형성하며, 축적과 수탈의 장소들을 이동시킴으로써 만들어 낸 관계였던 것이다. 발전 담론은 이를 민주적 근대성으로 향하는 동일한 고속도로 위에서 경주하는 후진국(비유럽 국가)과 선진국(유럽 국가)의 비동시적 공존으로 재구성했다.[106] 따라서 유럽에서 아프리카로 가는 증기선 여행처럼 공간을 가로지르는 이동은 시간을 거슬러 과거로 가는 이동을 뜻했다. 식민지 신민들은 “역사의 대기실”에 억류되었고, 민주적 자결로의 이행은 그들의 후진성을 이유로 끝없이 유예되었다.[107] 그리고 많은 경우 제국 본국의 엘리트들은 발전을 가속하고 농업적 자급경제를 가격 신호 체계에 반응하는 핵가족들로 이루어진 시장경제로 재편하기 위해 개입을 조직했다. 발전경제학자 피터 바우어(Peter Bauer)와 바실 야메이(Basil Yamey)는 다음과 같이주장했다. “공동 토지 보유를 개별적 보유로 대체하려면 거의 틀림없이 어떤 형태로든 정부 개입이 필요하다. 더 선견지명이 있거나 독립적이거나 진취적인 사람들이 아무런 도움 없이 개별적 보유를 확립하려는 시도는 전통적 관행을 유지하려는 이들에 의해 좌절되거나적어도 지체될 가능성이 높기 때문이다.”[108]

포스트식민주의 이론가들은 이러한 이유로 오랫동안 발전을 비판해 왔다. 프레드릭 제임슨(Fredric Jameson)은 수십 년 전에, 포스트식민주의 이론이 로드니의 ‘저발전의 발전’ 테제를 수용했다는 점이 초기 프랑크푸르트학파를 중심으로 한 당대 서구 마르크스주의 이론과 충돌한 이유 중 하나라고 지적했다.[109] 수많은 포스트식민주의 이론가들이 탈식민화 이론가들을 거부한 이유 역시 여기에 있었다. 이들은 후자가 발전주의에 양보하는 것을 실패가 예정된 함정, 곧 대중을 토착 엘리트의 후견적 지도가 필요한 미성숙한 학생으로 간주하기 위한 구실로 보았다.[110]

최근의 연구는 이처럼 오래 지속된 합의를 복잡하게 만들고 있다. 발전이 전 지구적 위계를 소급적으로 정당화하는 명분으로 아무리많이 기능했다 하더라도, 오늘날의 비판적 연구자들은 발전이 때로 그 반대가 되었음을 환기한다. 곧 제국 본국이 부정한 자율성, 평등, 지위를 반식민주의 비판자들이 요구하기 위한 언어가 되기도 했다는 것이다. 이는 억압하는 발전의 언어가 아니라 역량을 부여하는 발전의 언어였다. 데이비드 테민(David Temin)은 이러한 언어 다수를 “민중적 반식민 발전주의”라는 이름으로 묶었다.[111] 발전주의의 이러한 변증법적 역전은 제국의 신민들이 자신의 조건에 따라 유예된 자율성, 물질적 자원, 문화적 자유를 쟁취하고자 조직할 힘을 주었다. 그것은 바로 제국 본국 엘리트가 정해 놓은 조건 속에 자신들을 억류한 데 대해 그 엘리트들을 규탄하는 방식이었다. 테민은 로드니에 초점을 맞추지만, 인더 마르와는 유사한 논증을 훨씬 덜 자명한 사례인 다윈주의로 확장했다. 고시와 샴지 크리슈나바르마(Shyamji Krishnavarma) 같은 인도의 제국 비판자들은 다윈의 진화론을 우생학과 인종적 위계를 정당화하는 발전주의적 논리에서 발전주의 자체에 대한 정교한 비판으로 전환했다. 그들의 손에서 “진화론”은 “다른 … 목적에 봉사했다. 인도 주권의 유예를 뒷받침하고 인도의 발전을 서구의 발전을 되풀이하는 것으로 그렸던 역사주의를 해체한 것이다.” 이 진화론은 유럽의 자유주의가 왜 제국주의로 전락했으며, 인도인들에게는 왜 “사회진화론” 같은 대안들이 가능했는지를 설명할 수 있는 역사발전 이론을 제시했다.[112]

이러한 새로운 연구들은 개념적 본질주의를 거부한다. 발전, 진보, 진화, 국민국가, 연방주의, 다원주의, 인민주권 중 어떤 개념도 본질적으로 특정한 하나의 정치적 입장에 묶여 있지 않다. 시간이 흐르면서 어떤 개념이 어떻게 사용될 수 있을지는 아무도 결정하거나 예측할 수 없기 때문에, 개념은 어느 정치적 기획에 의해서든 무기화될 수 있다. 관념에는 소유자가 없다. 이 기본적 사실을 인식하지 못한 탓에 “식민성” 이론들은 언제나 제약을 받아 왔다. 아니발 키하노(Aníbal Quijano), 이어 월터 미뇰로(Walter Mignolo)와 연결되는 이 이론들은 대부분의 페미니즘과 제3세계 마르크스주의를 포함한 근대 사상의 상당 부분을 “인식론적으로” 식민적인 것으로 분류하고, 따라서이를 “탈식민적” 사상(decolonial thought, decolonizing thought와는 구별된다)에 대립하는 것으로 규정한다.[113] 이처럼 본질화하는 규정들은 시공간에 걸친 실재하는 차이에 뿌리를 두지만, 그 비역사적 포괄성과 “글로벌 노스/사우스”, “제3세계 여성” 같은 추상적 인격화는 실제 사람들의 말과 상충하는 욕망을 이해하는 일을 더 쉽게가 아니라 더 어렵게 만들어 왔다.[114]

‘진보’와 ‘개선’의 경우와 마찬가지로, ‘발전’의 지위도 조만간 확정되기는 어려울 것이다. 반식민 발전주의를 복원하려는 시도에는주의가 필요하다. 많은 포스트식민주의 이론가가 발전을 회복 불가능한 것으로 여기는 데에는 이유가 있다. 앤터니 앵기(Antony Anghie)의 말처럼, 독립 이후 혁명적 투쟁의 열기가 식은 뒤 국민적 통합을 공고히 하기 위해 발전이 “필요하고도 논리적인 다음 단계로자신을 제시했다”는 것은 사실일 수 있다.[115] 발전은 대중이 공식적인 정치 영역에 진입한 이후에 이행되어야 할 약속이었다. 그러나 발전이 수반하는 위험의 방향을 쉽게 돌려놓을 수는 없으며, 반식민주의 행위자들이나 탈식민화 이후의 행위자들조차 예외가 아니다. 베귐 아달레트(Begüm Adalet)는 발전이 다른 맥락으로 옮겨 갈 수 있다는 바로 그 속성 때문에 위험하다고 경고한다.[116] 또한 프랑수아즈베르제스(Françoise Vergès)가 강조했듯이, 발전이 규정하는 숙련노동과 비숙련노동의 구분은 대개 새로운 위계관계를 낳는다. 이는 남성과 여성 사이에서뿐 아니라 부르주아 여성들과 그들의 지배 아래에서 착취당하는 여성들 사이에서도 그러하다.[117]

발전주의적 사고가 우리의 정신에 얼마나 깊숙이 발톱을 박아 넣었으며, 민주주의 혁명에 대한 사고방식까지 얼마나 바꾸어 놓았는지를 과소평가한다면 잘못이다. 프랑스혁명과 미국혁명에서 민주주의 혁명이라는 말은, 설득력이 있는지는 별개로 하더라도, 인민이빼앗긴 주권을 되찾는 과정을 그럴듯하게 가리킬 수 있었다. 이와 달리 반식민주의 이론가들은 아직 “발전하지 않은” 인민, 곧 아직 온전히 인민이 되지 못한 인민을 위한 민주주의 혁명을 상상하지 않을 수 없었다. 인도의 맥락에서 이것은 단지 식민주의적 사고를 내면화한 결과가 아니라 실천적 문제였다. 탈식민화는 충분히 수권되지 않은 상태에서, 아직 충분히 주체화되지 않은 집합적 주체를 대신하여수행되었다. 신민들은 시민이 되기도 전에 유권자가 되어야 했으며, 헌법을 작성하는 과업은 민주주의 혁명을 종결하는 것이 아니라“개시하는” 것으로 이해되어야 했다.[118] 네루와 같은 이론가들이 민주주의와 발전의 관계를 수정해야 했던 까닭이 여기에 있다. 술탄은다음과 같이 결론짓는다. “독립과 민주주의는 대중의 발전이 완성된 뒤에야 비로소 실현할 수 있는 이상이기를 그쳤다. 그 대신 그것들은 바로 저발전이라는 문제에 대한 이행기의 해답으로 변모했다.”[119]

네루의 발전주의는 유럽 발전주의의 결을 거슬러 작동한 탈식민화 이후의 발전주의였다. 사미르 아민의 “탈연계(delinking)” 개념은또 다른 사례이다.[120] 그러나 발전의 변증법적 전도만으로 이 개념의 엘리트주의적 함의가 사라지는 것은 아니다. 1967년에 시작된 탄자니아의 “집촌화(villagization)” 사업은 지금까지도 끊임없이 논쟁이 되풀이되는 사례이다.[121] 니에레레는 우자마(Ujamaa), 곧 아프리카 사회주의라는 이름 아래 농촌을 농업에 기반한 촌락민주주의의 한 형태로 재편함으로써 대안적인 아프리카 발전주의를 추구했다. 니에레레는 탄자니아를 아프리카 고유의 조건에 따라 발전을 달성하는 경로로 이끌고자 했다. 이사 G. 시브지(Issa G. Shivji)와 공동저자들이 세 권으로 된 니에레레 전기의 제목을 『반란으로서의 발전』(Development as Rebellion)으로 정한 것은 우연이 아니다. 그러나 이경우에도 발전은, “아프리카적” 형태를 취했음에도, 그 후견주의적 함의를 떨쳐 낼 수 없었다. 농업적 자치의 이론가들이 줄곧 우리에게말해 왔듯이, 농민들은 집촌화에 저항했다. 탄자니아 국가는 1973년에 새 마을로의 이주를 의무화할 수밖에 없었다. 이로 인해 발생한개인적·젠더적·경제적 갈등은 심각했다. 실패가 불가피했던 것은 아니다. 발전은 논리가 아니라 정치이며, 프리야 랄(Priya Lal)이 입증했듯이 탄자니아 집촌화의 실패는 담론의 작용에 의해 예정된 것이 아니라 지역의 역학에 좌우된 것이었다.[122] 그럼에도 탈식민화 이후의 발전주의가 직면했던 난점들은, 이 개념을 복원하려는 모든 시도, 심지어 “민중적 반식민 발전주의”를 복원하려는 시도조차도 발전이 부추기는 후견의 정치와 씨름해야 함을 뜻한다.

필수불가결하면서도 실패의 운명을 안고 있다는 점에서, 발전은 오늘날 세계질서를 이론화하는 데 이중구속으로 작용한다. 이러한논쟁이 탈식민화와 민주주의 이론의 연구자들을 정치이론의 다른 주요 연구 흐름들과 접촉하게 할수록 그 이중구속은 더욱 심해진다. 생태적 급진주의와 토지 수호에 관한 원주민의 이론화, 탈성장 공산주의, 그리고 제국 본국에 기반을 둔 환경운동의 “기후 식민주의” 내부에서, 또 그것에 맞서 벌이는 투쟁들이 그러한 흐름들이다.[123] 설령 탈식민화의 관점에서 발전을 복원할 수 있다 하더라도, 탄소 집약적 축적과 환경의 고갈, 그리고 자본주의가 인간과 자연의 관계에 초래하는 이른바 “물질대사의 균열”이라는 더 넓은 맥락에서는 복원할 수 없을지도 모른다.[124]

 

문화와 탈식민화

규모와 발전의 문제를 넘어, 탈식민화는 민주정치와 세계정치에서 문화가 수행하는 역할에 관한 새로운 질문들을 제기했다. 민주주의가 단지 공포된 규칙이나 특정한 제도적 구성에만 의존하는 것이 아니라 정치문화에도 의존한다는 점은 널리 인정된다. 민주주의 이론에서 가장 완강한 절차주의자들조차도 민주적 삶이 말 그대로 삶의 한 형태, 즉 “사회 전체에 영향을 미치는 문제들에 민감한 자유주의적·평등주의적 정치문화에 의존하는” 삶의 형태라는 사실을 부정하지 않는다.[125] 루소가 가르쳐 주듯이, 인민주권은 변용의 정치를 수반한다. 이를 위해서는 인민이 도덕적으로 거듭나 일반의지를 의욕할 수 있게 되어야 하며, 그렇게 의욕함으로써 집합적인 형태로 자율성을 획득해야 한다. 자신들이 영위할 수 있고 자신들의 것이라고 주장할 수 있는 문화적 삶을 쟁취함으로써 인민은 비로소 자기 자신이된다. 19세기의 “민족들의 봄”이 근대 민족주의의 탄생과 시기적으로 겹쳤던 이유 중 하나가 여기에 있다.

한 번도 부정된 적이 없는 이 사실은, 그럼에도 전후 민주주의 이론가들에게 깊은 불안을 안겨 주었다. 소련의 전체주의와 마오주의의전 지구적 확산을 경계하던 그들 가운데 상당수는 문화정치 자체를 일종의 “사회공학”이나 “세뇌”로 비난하는 데 가까이 다가갔다.[126](영화 〈시계태엽 오렌지〉는 1971년에, 〈1984〉는 1984년에, 〈브라질〉은 1985년에 개봉했다.) 가장 편집증적인 이들에게는 좋은 삶에 대한 경쟁하는 비전들 사이에서 중립을 지키는 것이 자유로운 사회의 표지였다. 특정한 민주적 문화를 장려함으로써 그 중립성을 침범하는 것은, 허용할 수 있는 설득과 허용할 수 없는 강제를 나누는 보이지 않는 선을 넘어가는 일이었다. 중첩적 합의에 관한 이론들, 헌법애국주의, 심지어 위르겐 하버마스(Jürgen Habermas)의 “상호주관적으로 해소되어 민주적 절차 속으로 [물러난] 인민주권”[127]까지도, 민주주의가 두터운 문화적 토대를 필요로 한다는 사실을 동시에 수용하면서도 우회하도록 고안된 갖가지 장치로 볼 수 있다.

이러한 양가성은 글로벌 노스의 많은 이론가에게서 나타났다. 반면 탈식민화의 주요 이론가들에게는 문화가 정치경제와 마찬가지로새로운 세계민주주의를 건설하기 위해 반드시 거쳐야 할 전장이라는 점이 자명했다. 이미 비시 정권의 지배 아래 있던 1942년에 쉬잔 세제르(Suzanne Césaire)는 “현재의 문제”란 식민지배 아래 억압된 무의식적 욕망들이 “존속 가능한 문화 양식의 출발점이 될 수 있는가”를확인하는 데 있다고 주장했다. 이러한 양식을 구체화하는 일은 “과거로의 회귀”나 상실된 아프리카적 본질에 대한 향수와는 아무런 관계가 없었다. 세제르는 이렇게 역설했다. “오히려 지금껏 우리 안에 갇혀 있던 엄청난 양의 다양한 에너지를 의식하는 것이 문제이다.”[128] 이것은 최대주의적 문화정치에 대한 세제르의 처방이었다. 자유로운 인민들의 세계를 창조하려면, 억압된 여러 과거를 그 과거에종속되지 않는 해방적 문화에 결부하는 복잡한 삼각관계의 조율이 필요했다.

이러한 유형의 문화적 모더니즘이 어디서나 받아들여진 것은 결코 아니었다. 전미유색인지위향상협회(NAACP)부터 알제리의 ‘북아프리카의 별’(Étoile nord-africain)에 이르는 여러 단체는 문화정치를 분파주의적으로 정식화할 것인지 국제주의적으로 정식화할 것인지를 둘러싸고 분열했다.[129] 그러나 가장 뛰어난 이론가들은 문화혁명 자체의 과업을 국제주의적 틀 안에서 지역적 애착을 존중하는 일로이해했다. 상고르는 이를 “보편의 문명”이라고까지 불렀다. 이를 가장 두드러지게 표현한 것은 에메 세제르의 1939년 산문시 「귀향수첩」(“Cahiers d’un retour au pays natal”)이었다.

그리고 어느 인종도 아름다움과 지성과 힘을 독점하지 않는다

그리고 승리의 만남에는 모든 이를 위한 자리가 있다[130]

C. L. R. 제임스는 『블랙 자코뱅』(Black Jacobins) 1963년판의 부록에서 이 시구를 인용했다.[131] 상고르 역시 의회 연설에서 수십 차례이 시구를 인용했으나, 먼저 그것을 하나의 명제로 바꾸어 진술했다. 식민지 인민은 “주고받는 만남에 빈손으로 오지는 않을 것이다.” 제임스와 상고르 모두에게 탈식민화는 보편적 문화정치를 가동하는 것이었다. 그것은 세계의 인민들이 이룩한, 서로 환원할 수 없는 고유한 성취들로 구성되지만, 그 성취들이 지구상의 모든 사람에게 속할 수 있도록 한데 모으는 문화정치였다.

세제르의 시가 오랜 세월에 걸쳐 높은 평가를 받으며 수용되어 온 역사는, 수많은 급진주의자가 전 지구적 혁명문화의 창조를 건너뛸수 없는 필수 단계로 이해했다는 점을 보여 주는 가장 명백한 증거 가운데 하나이다.[132] 알리운 디오프가 1956년에 한 말에 따르면, 식민지 인민이 독립을 쟁취할 정당성을 부여한 것은 바로 그 문화를 창조하는 일이었다. “모든 사람이 중대한 문제들에 접근할 수 있고, 모든문화적 독창성을 누구나 접할 수 있어야 한다는 점이 중요하다.” 그는 “세계문화”를 이룩하는 일이 “우리 시대의 가장 중대한 도덕적·정치적 문제”라고 역설했다. “유럽은 이 문제 앞에서 실패했고, 그리하여 세계의 지도자로서 자격을 잃었다.”[133] 이 경우에도 다시, 탈식민화의 이론가들이 세계질서를 민주화하기 위한 전제조건으로 제시했던 것, 곧 문화혁명이 냉전기의 민주주의 이론에서는 사실상 반민주적 사회공학으로 분류되었다.

그러나 이번에도 상황은 달라졌다. 새로운 연구는 민주정치에서 문화의 역할을 단순히 관리하는 데 그치지 않고 정교하게 이론화할수 있는 지적 환경을 형성하는 데 기여하고 있다. 이러한 작업은 아직 초기 단계에 있지만, 이제 우리는 미국과 프랑스의 흑인 급진주의자들이 민주주의를 세계적 규모로 확장하려면 아프리카계의 모든 인민이 “자신들의 권리를 수호하고 자신들의 문화를 발전시키기 위해 함께 노력해야 한다”고 주장할 수 있었던 이유를 더 잘 이해한다.[134] 이제 우리는 한때 협소한 민족주의나 토착주의의 틀로 규정되었던 할렘 르네상스와 멕시코 인디헤니스모(indigenismo, 원주민주의)의 문화적 기획들을, 인종적 혼합에 부여된 낙인을 실존적 혼종성에대한 찬양으로 재정의하려는 초국적 노력의 일부로 이해할 때 더 잘 평가할 수 있음을 안다.[135] 제국들의 문화적 무능력에 관한 주장과나란히 놓인 반식민주의 지식인들의 “문화적 민주주의” 요구는, 이제 오로지 정체성의 차원이 아니라 정치적 차원에서 이해될 수 있다. 무사브 유니스(Musab Younis)가 보여 주듯, 가비주의의 깃발처럼 단순한 것조차 그 “민족됨의 미학”이라는 측면에서 평가할 수 있다. 이미학은 “아프리카 디아스포라를 식민 권력으로부터 국가로서의 지위를 되찾는 민족들의 대열 속에 다시 위치시킨다.”[136] 세계민주주의는 이처럼 서로 충돌하면서도 변화무쌍한 문화정치들로부터 출현해야 했다. 오늘날의 정치이론가들에게는 문화를 반드시 특수성과동일시할 필요가 없다는 점이 지난 수십 년의 어느 때보다 분명해졌다. 문화는 다문화주의적 자유주의의 틀 안에서 관리되어야 할 무엇일 필요가 없다. 오히려 새로운 “구체적 보편들”이 출현하려면 문화혁명이 필요할 수 있다.[137]

새로운 방향과 위험

민주주의 이론의 관점에서 탈식민화에 관한 최근 연구에 접근하면, 이 연구가 지역별·시대별로 격리되는 것을 막을 수 있다. 또한 역사적·지역적 차이를 서술하는 작업으로 환원될 가능성도 차단된다. 같은 이유로 이러한 관점을 취하면, 상당 부분 역사적·텍스트적 성격을 띠는 이 연구 흐름을 규범이론가들의 새로운 논증들과 접촉시킬 수 있다.

이러한 연계는 이미 이루어지고 있다. E. 텐다이 아치우메(E. Tendayi Achiume)가 최근 제시한 “탈식민화로서의 이주”라는 이론화가대표적인 사례이다. 아치우메의 논증은 유럽 식민주의가 자원과 사람을 불균등하게 분산시켜 온 역사에 근거한다. 그녀는 그 역사를 고려하면 국가가 자국민이 아닌 사람들을 배제할 권리를 지닌다는 관념이 약화된다고 주장한다. 경제적 이주민이 물질적 궁핍을 이유로목적지 국가에 입국하도록 허용되는 경우는 드물다. 그러나 그들의 궁핍은 그 밖의 모든 사람을 희생시켜 제1세계에 부를 집중시키는신식민 질서에 기초한다. 그녀는 아라시 아비자데(Arash Abizadeh)와 같은 이론가들의 논의를 바탕으로, 신식민적 세계질서의 현존 구조 안에서는 “제1세계와 제3세계의 사람들……을 집합적 ‘자기’의 지위를 함께 지니는 사실상의 정치적 동등자로 보아야 한다”고 결론짓는다. 그들은 “공유된 데모스”의 구성원이다.[138] 따라서 경제적 이주민은 바로 탈식민화에 근거하여 입국 허용을 요구할 정당한 지위를 지닌다.

규범적 논증의 또 다른 유망한 유형은 배상에 관한 것이다.[139] 식민 자본주의와 대서양 노예무역은 불균등하게 발전하면서도 통합된세계체제를 만들어 냈을 뿐 아니라, 발전과 축적에 수반되는 생태적 비용 또한 불균등하게 배분했다. 따라서 올루페미 O. 타이워(Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò)는 이에 상응하는 행성적 규모에서 배상을 구상해야 한다고 주장한다. 이 “전 지구적 인종 제국”을 탈식민화하려면, 배상은 현금을 통한 보상과 같은 회복 조치와 함께, 신식민주의적 금융기구인 국제통화기금(IMF)과 세계은행을 민주적 책임성을 지닌기구들로 대체하는 것과 같은 전 지구적 재건 조치도 포함해야 한다.[140] 테민 또한 1970년대의 국제 가사노동 임금운동에 기대어, 원주민들이 “대지 노동(earthwork)에 대한 임금”을 받을 권리를 지닌다고 제안했다.[141] 이 임금은 일종의 기후배상으로서, 원주민들이 오랫동안 보상 없이 수행해 온 생태적 돌봄과 관리 노동을 인정하는 것이 될 것이다. 최근 슉 잉 찬(Shuk Ying Chan)은 과거 식민지였던 국가들이 부유한 제국 본국의 재산을 강제 수용하는 일까지도 “식민주의의 구조적 부정의에 대한 지체된 배상”으로 옹호했다. 여기에는 외국 자산의 압류뿐 아니라, 그녀가 브라질의 농민 주도 농업 민주주의 운동을 인용하며 제시한, 자본주의적 농기업이 보유한 농지를 일방적으로 몰수하고 재분배하는 일도 포함된다.[142]

세계질서의 탈식민화에서 문화정치가 지닌 중요성을 받아들이면서 이 측면에서도 새로운 규범적 논증이 등장했다. 찬과 앨런 패튼(Alan Patten)은 글로벌 노스의 국가들이 글로벌 사우스와의 비대칭적 문화교류에서 혜택을 누리며, 이 비대칭적 교류는 과거의 식민관계에서 비롯되었을 뿐 아니라 그 관계를 재생산하기도 한다고 지적한다. 사회적 평등을 실현하려면 미국과 같은 국가들은 이러한 “인정의 실패”를 바로잡고, 글로벌 사우스에서 생산되는 영화·책·음악 등의 문화상품의 생산과 교역을 촉진할 의무를 지닐 수 있다.[143] 이는탈식민화에 관한 새로운 연구가 뒷받침하는 규범적 논증의 사례들이다. 이러한 사례들은 탈식민화가 역사적 접근을 취하는 이론가와규범이론가가 협업하기에 가장 좋은 분야 가운데 하나일 수 있음을 시사한다.

이러한 새로운 연구가 계속되기 위해서는 몇 가지 과제를 극복해야 한다. 탈식민화에 관한 새로운 연구와 그에 직접 선행하는 연구들사이에는 간극이 있다. 이 간극은 특히 제3세계주의 사상과 사회주의 사상에 관한 새로운 사고를 가능하게 한다. 그러나 그 대가도 따른다. 포스트식민주의 이론의 근본적 통찰 중 일부가 뒤로 남겨지고 있으며, 과도한 교정의 위험이 존재한다.

이전의 포스트식민주의 이론이 정치경제, 제도 구축, 정치적 행위의 문제들에 관해 안일했던 것은 분명하다. 이 글을 쓰는 지금 우리는 제국 연구가 다시 물질적 차원으로 돌아가는 것을, 곧 인제의 표현을 빌리자면 제국 연구의 ‘재물질화’를 목격하고 있다. 그러나 주체성에 관해 포스트식민주의 이론가들이 제시한 논증들, 즉 주체성의 분열적 성격, 호명을 통한 형성, 반정초주의에 관한 논증들은 여전히유효하다. 처음부터 스피박은 푸코와 들뢰즈, 그리고 당대의 페미니즘 이론가들이 순전히 서술적인 작업만으로 서발턴의 침묵을 극복할 수 있다는 환상에 굴복했다고 비판했다. 그러나 스피박은 “재현은 사멸하지 않았다”고 경고했다. “지식인으로서의 여성 지식인에게는 한정된 과업이 있으며, 그녀는 그 과업을 거창한 몸짓으로 저버려서는 안 된다.”[144] 오늘날 탈식민화 이론가들에게도 똑같이 말해야한다. 우리가 “역사적 재구성”을 수행하고 있다거나, 새로운 아카이브 자료를 확보했다거나, 또는 무엇보다 정당화하기 어려운 주장으로서 외면되어 온 목소리들을 내세우고 있다고 말하면서, 우리의 작업에 내재한 재현의 복잡한 역학을 “거창한 몸짓으로 저버릴” 수는없다. 제국 비판자들이 스스로를 반식민주의자라고 생각했는지, 스스로를 “소수자” 인물이라고 생각했는지, 자신들이 무엇을 하고 있는지 알고 있었는지, 자신들의 사상이 제국 본국의 사상으로 “환원”되는 데 조금이라도 신경을 썼을 것인지. 이는 고심하며 검토해야 할질문들이지, 당연시해도 되는 도덕적 사실들이 아니다. 그와 달리 가정하는 것은 이론가로서 자신의 책임을 부인하는 일이다.

단기적으로 극복해야 할 실천적 과제도 세 가지 있다. 첫째, 탈식민화를 깊이 연구하려면 정치이론가들은 해석 능력을 확장해야 한다. 유니스는 “이 글쓰기 전반에는 피할 수 없는 문학적 연루가 존재한다”고 상기시킨다.[145] 반식민주의 및 포스트식민 사상의 상당 부분은법률가나 철학자의 논고가 아니라 시, 회화, 음악, 과학적 가설, 조각, 소설, 심지어 농업 전문가의 논고라는 형태를 취한다. 서로 다른 문해율을 고려하면, 학자들이 구술문화·시각문화·공연문화 연구를 공개적으로 수용하고 이를 학문적 성과로 평가·보상하기 전까지 정치이론에서 탈식민화 연구는 엘리트 사상 연구에 머무를 것이다. 폴 길로이(Paul Gilroy)는 문화연구의 미학적 어려움이 상투적인 인종적·종족적 본질주의를 거부하는 일과 의식적으로 연결되어 있다고 오래전에 주장했다.[146] 유화보다 철학적 논고를 우선함으로써 이러한미학적 어려움을 피하는 길을 택한다면 탈식민화를 잘못 해석할 위험이 있다. 세계질서에 관한 새로운 비전들은 삼단논법으로 형식화되었을 뿐 아니라 회화적·극적 형태와 일상적인 글쓰기의 형태로도 표현되었다. 이를 제대로 분석하려면 이 분야가 좀처럼 그 가치를 인정하지 않는 다양한 해석 능력이 필요하다.

서발턴을 침묵시키는 실천 또한 흔히 시각적이었다는 사실은 사정을 더욱 어렵게 한다. 케빈 올슨(Kevin Olson)은 근대적 종속이 비가시성이 아니라 공개성을 통해, 곧 배제가 아니라 “말과 이미지의 대중적 유통”에 편입되는 것을 통해 이루어진다고 주장했다. 공론장, 인쇄문화, 시각문화처럼 “폭정을 해체하고 발화를 민주화한다고 주장하는 바로 그 제도들과 기술들이, 실제로는 서발턴을 종속시키는특히 교묘하고 효과적인 도구로 드러난다.”[147] 식민지 엘리트와 탈식민화 이후의 엘리트 양쪽이 사용하는 종속의 작동 방식을 파악하려면, 이론가들은 이미지와 소리가 어떻게 작동하는지를 연구해야 한다. 존 로크나 존 스튜어트 밀을 다시 한번 정밀하게 읽는 것만으로는 충분하지 않다.

둘째, 이 분야의 지리적 시야가 대폭 확장되면서 여러 지역·전통·언어에 관한 지식이 요구된다. 개인적 생애를 통해 이미 그러한 지식을 갖추게 된 경우가 아니라면, 가장 풍부한 재정 지원과 높은 명성을 지닌 박사과정이나 박사후과정 밖에서 이를 습득할 수 있는 사람은 드물다. 진정으로 전 지구적 범위를 아우르는 연구를 생산할 여건에 놓인 학자가 적다면, 그러한 연구를 평가할 수 있는 학자는 더욱적다. 바로 그렇기 때문에, 누가 어떤 종류의 연구를 생산할 수 있는가에 관한 명백한 불평등을 넘어, 이 분야는 다른 이의 해석을 그대로받아들이는 문화에 빠질 위험에 놓여 있다. 적절한 훈련의 부족은 대부분의 학자가 그동안 간과된 자료들을 역사적 맥락에 놓는 작업과그러한 자료에서 도출된 규범적 결론들을 평가하는 데 어려움을 겪게 되리라는 것을 뜻한다. 이것은 개인적 한계가 아니라 구조적 한계이다. 그처럼 다른 이의 해석에 순응하는 독해 문화를 피하려면, 정치이론가들은 이미 오랜 비판적 해석의 역사를 지닌 글로벌 노스 바깥의 학자들로부터 계속 배워야 한다. 모든 유형의 대학은 지역학과 언어교육에 대한 물질적 투자를 확보하기 위해 조직적으로 나서야할 것이다. 그렇게 하지 않으면 학생과 연구자 모두 탈식민화의 아카이브를 비판적으로 읽는 데 어려움을 겪을 것이다.

과제가 하나 더 있다. 최근 탈식민화가 정치이론에서 분출시킨 힘은 분명 근대 대학 안팎에서 일어난 지각변동의 결과이다. 그러나 그것은 소망충족의 한 형태일 수도 있다. 탈식민화의 역사에서 발견되는 제도적 실험의 광범위함이 우리를 흥분시키는 것은, 그것이 21세기의 우리에게 지금 불가능한 것, 곧 더 평등주의적인 토대 위에서 이루어지는 전면적인 제도 재설계를 이론의 차원에서 그려 보이기 때문이다. 소망충족 자체가 문제인 것은 아니다. 그러나 이는 학자들이, 다른 무엇이 아니라 탈식민화가 정치이론의 새로운 공용어가 된데에는 어떤 의식적 또는 무의식적 이유가 작용하는지 주의 깊게 살펴야 함을 뜻한다. 이러한 소망충족의 구조는 가능성을 열어 주는 동시에 제약을 가한다. 그것은 절반쯤 잊힌, 제국 없는 세계의 비전에 우리를 민감하게 만들지만, 반세기 전의 세계와 우리의 세계 사이에놓인 엄청난 차이에는 둔감하게 만들기도 한다. 앞으로 탈식민화가 수행한 세계질서의 실험들은 단지 다시 서술되는 데 그치지 않고 다시 실행되어야 한다. 21세기에 탈식민화가 무엇을 의미하는지는 우리가 밝혀내야 한다. 완전히 우리 힘만으로 해야 하는 것은 아니다. 우리를 도울 역사가 풍부하기 때문이다. 그러나 우리 자신의 방식으로 해야 한다.

 

---

 

저자 소개

케빈 두옹은 버지니아대학교에서 근대사상과 지성사를 가르친다. 『폭력의 덕목: 근대 프랑스에서 해체에 맞선 민주주의』(The Virtues of Violence: Democracy Against Disintegration in Modern France, 2020)를 비롯하여 혁명이론과 정치문화에 관한 다수의 논문을 집필했다.

---

[1].      A. G. Hopkins, “Rethinking Decolonization,” Past & Present, 200, no. 1 (2008): 211–47.

[2].      Odd Arne Westad, The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

[3].      Frederick Cooper, “Possibility and Constraint: African Independence in Historical Perspectives,” The Journal of African History, 49, no. 2 (2008): 167–96.

[4].      Frederick Cooper, Decolonization and African Society: The Labor Question in French and British Africa (Cambridge University Press, 1996); Gary Wilder, Freedom Time: Negritude, Decolonization, and the Future of the World (Duke University Press, 2015); Adom Getachew, Worldmaking After Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination(Princeton University Press, 2019); Ariella Azoulay, “The Family of Man: A Visual Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Thomas Keenan and Tirdad Zolghadr 편, The Human Snapshot (Sternberg Press, 2013) 수록, 19–48.

[5].      Karuna Mantena, “On Gandhi’s Critique of the State: Sources, Contexts, Conjunctures,” Modern Intellectual History, 9, no. 3 (2012): 535–63; Wilder, Freedom Time; Or Rosenboim, The Emergence of Globalism: Visions of World Order in Britain and the United States, 1939-1950 (Princeton University Press, 2017); Pınar Kemerli, “Revolutionary Self-Defense as a Rival Ethics of Nonviolence: Rojava and Kurdish Liberation,” New Political Science, 44, no. 1 (2022): 58–74.

[6].      Robert Delavignette, “L’union Française. À l’échelle du Monde, à la mesure de l’Homme,” Esprit, 1945년 7월: 214–36; Gary Wilder, The French Imperial Nation-State: Negritude and Colonial Humanism Between the Two World Wars (The University of Chicago Press, 2005); Mark Greif, The Age of the Crisis of Man: Thought and Fiction in America, 1933-1973 (Princeton University Press, 2015); Gili Kliger, “Humanism and the Ends of Empire, 1945-1960,” Modern Intellectual History, 15, no. 3 (2018): 773–800.

[7].      Begüm Adalet, “An Insurgent Mood: Lorraine Hansberry on the Politics of Home,” American Political Science Review, 119, no. 1 (2025): 165–178; David Scott, Conscripts of Modernity: The Tragedy of Colonial Enlightenment (Duke University Press, 2004).

[8].      Richard Bourke, “European Empire and International Law from the Eighteenth to the Twentieth Century,” Historical Journal, 64, no. 3: 812–21, 특히 812쪽.

[9].      Inder Marwah, Jennifer Pitts, Timothy Vasko, Onur Ulas Ince, and Robert Nichols, “Empire and its Afterlives,” Contemporary Political Theory, 19, no. 2 (2020): 274–305, 특히 275쪽; Jennifer Pitts, “Political Theory of Empire and Imperialism,” Annual Review of Political Science, 13, no. 1 (2010): 211–235; Gary Wilder, “From Optic to Topic: The Foreclosure Effect of Historiographic Turns,” The American Historical Review, 117, no. 3 (2012): 723–45; Bourke, “European Empire and International Law”; Merve Fejzula, “The Cosmopolitan Historiography of Twentieth-Century Federalism,” Historical Journal, 64, no. 2 (2021): 477–500; Siddhant Issar, “Review Essay: Agrarian Labor, Property, and Locke: Fashioning a Transnational Political Theory of Colonization,” Political Theory, 51, no. 1 (2023): 262–70; Nazmul Sultan, “What is Colonialism? The Dual Claims of a Twentieth-Century Political Category,” American Political Science Review, 119, no. 1 (2025): 435–448.

[10].    Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg 편, Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1988) 수록, 271–313; Edward Said, Orientalism (Pantheon Books, 1978); Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference (Princeton University Press, 2000). 차크라바르티가 생활세계에 관한 하이데거의 언어를 사용하는 데 대한 마르크스주의적 응답은 Andrew Sartori, Bengal in Global Concept History: Culturalism in the Age of Capital (The University of Chicago Press, 2008) 참조.

[11].    Stuart Hall, “Signification, Representation, Ideology: Althusser and the Post-Structuralist Debates,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, no. 2 (1985): 91–114; Leela Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction (Allen & Unwin, 1998); Greif, The Age of the Crisis of Man, 281–315; Gregory Jones-Katz, Deconstruction: An American Institution (The University of Chicago Press, 2021).

[12].    Leela Gandhi, “Utonal Life: A Genealogy of Global Ethics,” Bruce Robbins and Paulo Lemos Horta 편, Cosmopolitanisms (New York University Press, 2017) 수록, 65–90.

[13].    Jeanne Morefield, Unsettling the World: Edward Said and Political Theory (Rowman & Littlefield, 2022), xl.

[14].    차크라바르티가 라나지트 구하(Ranajit Guha)와 같은 서발턴학파의 대표자들을 비판한 것은, 그들이 세속적 언어로 재현할 수 있는 기원적 봉기의식이라는 관념을포기하지 않았기 때문이다. 마찬가지로 스피박은 사티(sati)를 행하는 피억압 여성의 행위능력을 낭만화함으로써 미셸 푸코와 질 들뢰즈(Gilles Deleuze)처럼 서발턴주체를 대신해 복화술을 구사한 페미니스트들을 비판했다. 유사한 이유로 호미 바바(Homi Bhabha)는 모든 형태의 본질주의를 거부하기 위해 식민주의의 “이중화된” 모방적 주체를 강조했다. Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe; Ranajit Guha, “The Prose of Counter-Insurgency,” Ranajit Guha 편, Subaltern Studies II: Writings on South Asian History and Society (Oxford University Press, 1983) 수록, 45–84; Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” 참조. 이러한 철저한 반본질주의의 상당 부분은 바바의 다음과같은 결론에 집약되어 있다. “모방은 그 가면 뒤에 어떠한 현전이나 정체성도 감추고 있지 않다.” “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse,” October, 28 (1984): 125–33, 특히 129쪽. 엘리자베스 포비넬리(Elizabeth Povinelli)는 같은 이유로 다문화주의 정치를 비판했다. 그것이 수탈당한 이들로 하여금 자유주의 국가의 인정을 얻기 위한 술책으로 ‘진정한’ 원주민 정체성을 모방하도록, 즉 꾸며내도록 강요했기 때문이다. The Cunning of Recognition: Indigenous Alterities and the Making of Australian Multiculturalism (Duke University Press, 2002) 참조.

[15].    중요한 예외로는 Kevin Olson이 Subaltern Silence: A Postcolonial Genealogy (Columbia University Press, 2024)에서 스피박과 푸코 사이의 균형을 모색한 시도를 참조.

[16].    Kristin Ross, Communal Luxury: The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune (New York: Verso, 2015), 7.

[17].    Vincent Bevins, If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution (Public Affairs, 2023).

[18].    Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized (Beacon Press, 1991 [1957]), 90–116.

[19].    Mahmood Mamdani, Neither Settler nor Native: The Making and Unmaking of Permanent Minorities (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2020).

[20].    유엔총회, “Resolutions Adopted on the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Six Special Session,” (1974): https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F3201(S-VI); Antony Anghie, “Legal Aspects of the New International Economic Order,” Humanity 6, no. 1 (2015): 145-158; Getachew, Worldmaking After Empire, 142–175.

[21].    “La pratique de la théorie,” Internationale situationniste, 11 (1967년 10월), 54–69, 특히 54쪽.

[22].    Françoise Vergès, Un féminisme décolonial (La Fabrique, 2019); Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, Reconsidering Reparations (Oxford University Press, 2022); Lawrie Balfour, “The Politics of Reparations for Black Americans,” Annual Review of Political Science 29 (2023): 291–304; Kristin Ross, La forme-Commune. La lutte comme manière d’habiter, É. Dobenesque 옮김 (La Fabrique, 2023).

[23].    Juliet Hooker, Theorizing Race in the Americas: Douglass, Sarmiento, Du Bois, and Vasconcelos (Oxford University Press, 2019); Kemerli, “Revolutionary Self-Defense”; Siddhant Issar, Rachel H. Brown, and John McMahon, “Rosa Luxemburg and the Primitive Accumulation of Whiteness,” Jane A. Gordon and Drucilla Cornell 편, Creolizing Rosa Luxemburg (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021) 수록, 343–70; Thomas Meagher, “Walter Rodney and Samir Amin: From Relations of Underdevelopment to Global Decolonization,” Smita A. Rahman, Katherine A. Gordy, and Shirin S. Deylami 편, Globalizing Political Theory (Routledge, 2022) 수록, 99–108; David Austin, “Whose Dialectic? Walter Rodney, Marxism, and Africa,” Small Axe, 72, no. 3 (2023): 117–46; Zeyad el Nabolsy, “Amílcar Cabral’s Modernist Philosophy of Culture and Cultural Liberation,” Journal of African Cultural Studies, 32, no. 2 (2020): 231–50; Inder S. Marwah, “The View from the Future: Aurobindo Ghose’s Anticolonial Darwinism,” American Political Science Review, 118, no. 2 (2024): 878–89; Kevin Pham, “To Tighten or Relax Social Bonds?: Vietnamese Criticism and Self-Criticism, and Liberal Self-Exploration,” European Journal of Political Theory, 23, no. 3 (2024): 299–319.

[24].    Patricia Owens and Katharina Reitzler 편, Women’s International Thought: A New History (Cambridge University Press, 2021).

[25].    Jennifer Anne Boittin, Colonial Metropolis: The Urban Grounds of Anti-Imperialism and Feminism in Interwar Paris (University of Nebraska Press, 2010); Nico Slate, Colored Cosmopolitanism: The Shared Struggle for Freedom in the United States and India (Harvard University Press, 2012); Jeffrey James Byrne, Mecca of Revolution: Algeria, Decolonization & Third World Order (Oxford University Press, 2016); Sarah C. Dunstan, Race, Rights and Reform: Black Activism in the French Empire and the United States from World War I to the Cold War (Cambridge University Press, 2021); Musab Younis, On the Scale of the World: The Formation of Black Anticolonial Thought(University of California Press, 2022); Adalet, “An Insurgent Mood.”

[26].    Pitts, “Political Theory of Empire and Imperialism,” 227, 218.

[27].    같은 글, 218쪽.

[28].    Wendy Brown, “American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization,” Political Theory, 34, no. 6 (2006): 690–714, 특히 691–92쪽.

[29].    Daniel Immerwahr, How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States (Picador, 2019).

[30].    Jeanne Morefield, Covenants Without Swords: Idealist Liberalism and the Spirit of Empire (Princeton University Press, 2004); Kevin Bruyneel, The Third Space of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of U.S.-Indigenous Relations (University of Minnesota Press, 2007).

[31].    Kevin Duong, “The Left and Henri Bergson,” French Politics, 18 (2020): 359–79, 특히 368-372쪽; Souleymane Bachir Diagne, “A Note on African Socialism,” African Arts, 54, no. 3 (2021): 1–4; Ama Biney, The Political and Social Thought of Kwame Nkrumah (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011); Getachew, Worldmaking After Empire, 107–41; Faisal Devji, “Escaping the Global event: Pan-Islam and the First World War,” Modern Intellectual History, 21, no. 3 (2024): 503–523; Eli Zaretsky, Political Freud: A History(Columbia University Press, 2015), 38-79; Camille Robcis, Disalienation: Politics, Philosophy, and Radical Psychiatry in Postwar France (The University of Chicago Press, 2021); Nica Siegel, “Fanon’s Clinic: Revolutionary Therapeutics and the Politics of Exhaustion,” Polity, 55, no. 1 (2023): 7–33; Sonali Thakkar, The Reeducation of Race: Jewishness and the Politics of Antiracism in Postcolonial Thought (Stanford University Press, 2023).

[32].    Tejas Parasher, “Beyond Parliament: Gandhian Democracy and Postcolonial Founding,” Political Theory, 50, no. 6 (2022): 837–60.

[33].    Christian Filostrat, Negritude Agonistes: Assimilation Against Nationalism in the French Speaking Caribbean and Guyane (African Homestead Legacy, 2008); Christopher L. Miller, “The (Revised) Birth of Negritude: Communist Revolution and ‘the Immanent Negro’ in 1935,” PMLA, 125, no. 3 (2010): 743–49; Jackqueline Frost and Jorge E. Lefevre Tavárez, “Tragedy of the Possible: Aimé Césaire in Cuba, 1968,” Historical Materialism, 28, no. 2 (2020): 25–75; Kevin Duong, “Freud sous les tropiques,” Les Cahiers philosophiques de Strasbourg, 50 (2021): 13–52; Arwa Awan, “Aimé Césaire’s ‘Tropical Marxism’ and the Problem of Alienation,” Political Theory 52, no. 2 (2024): 317-343; Alys Moody, “Black Mythologies: René Ménil, Negritude, and the Critique of Anticolonial Primitivism,” Comparative Literature, 76, no. 2 (2024): 179–200.

[34].    Frost and Lefevre Tavárez, “Tragedy of the Possible.”

[35].    Onur Ulas Ince, Colonial Capitalism and the Dilemmas of Liberalism (Oxford University Press, 2018); Lucas Pinheiro, “A Factory Afield: Capitalism and Empire in John Locke’s Political Economy,” Modern Intellectual History, 19, no. 1 (2022): 1–28.

[36].    Karuna Mantena, Alibis of Empire: Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism (Princeton University Press, 2010); Nazmul Sultan, “Between the Many and the One: Anticolonial Federalism and Popular Sovereignty,” Political Theory, 50, no. 2 (2022): 247–74; Inder S. Marwah, “Darwin in India: Anticolonial Evolutionism at the Dawn of the Twentieth Century,” Perspectives on Politics, 21, no. 3 (2023): 880–95.

[37].    Adom Getachew and Karuna Mantena, “Anticolonialism and the Decolonization of Political Theory,” Critical Times, 4, no. 3 (2021): 359–88, 특히 372쪽.

[38].    Jeremy Friedman, Ripe for Revolution: Building Socialism in the Third World (Harvard University Press, 2021).

[39].    Léopold Sédar Senghor, Nation et voie africaine du socialism (Présence africaine, 1961); Diagne, “A Note on African Socialism.”

[40].    Sandipto Dasgupta, “Gandhi’s failure: Anticolonial Movements and Postcolonial Futures,” Perspectives on Politics, 15, no. 3 (2017): 647–62, 특히 658쪽.

[41].    Nazmul Sultan, Waiting for the People: The Idea of Democracy in Indian Anticolonial Thought (Harvard University Press, 2024), 24.

[42].    Martin Murray, South Africa: Time of Agony, Time of Destiny (Verso, 1987); Andrew J. Douglas, “‘The Brutal Dialectics of Underdevelopment’: Thinking Politically with Walter Rodney,” The CLR James Journal, 23, no. 1–2 (2017): 245–66; Friedman, Ripe for Revolution; Antoine de Boyer, “Consciencisme et islam: un essai de synthèse dans l’expérience socialiste ghanéenne,” Françoise Blum, Héloïse Kiriakou, Martin Mourre, Maria-Benedita Basto, Pierre Guidi, Céline Pauthier, Ophélie Rillon, Alexis Roy and Elena Vezzadini 편, Socialisme en Afrique (Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 2021) 수록, 43–64; Robcis, Disalienation; Sandipto Dasgupta, Legalizing the Revolution: India & the Constitution of the Postcolony (Cambridge University Press, 2024).

[43].    Louise Mandell, “Indian Nations: Not Minorities,” Les droits des minorités, 27, no. 1 (1986): 101–21.

[44].    Will Kymlicka, Liberalism, Community and Culture (Oxford University Press, 1989); Richard Spaulding, “Peoples as National Minorities: A Review of Will Kymlicka’s Arguments for Aboriginal Rights from a Self-Determination Perspective,” The University of Toronto Law Journal, 47, no. 1 (1997): 35–113; John Tomasi, “Kymlicka, Liberalism, and Respect for Cultural Minorities,” Ethics, 105, no. 3 (1995): 580–603.

[45].    James Tully, “Deparochializing Political Theory and Beyond: A Dialogue Approach to Comparative Political Thought,” Melissa Williams 편, Deparochializing Political Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2020) 수록, 25–59, 특히 26쪽.

[46].    Gerald Vizenor 편, Survivance: Narratives of Native Presence (University of Nebraska Press, 2008); Audre Simpson, Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States (Duke University Press, 2014); Nick Estes, Our History is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance (Verso, 2019); Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom Through Radical Resistance (University of Minnesota Press, 2020).

[47].    Jodi Byrd, The Transit of Empire: Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism (University of Minnesota Press, 2011).

[48].    Robert Gooding-Williams, In the Shadow of Du Bois: Afro-Modern Political Thought in America (Harvard University Press, 2009).

[49].    Lawrie Balfour, Democracy’s Reconstruction: Thinking Politically with W. E. B. Du Bois (Oxford University Press, 2011), 115–40.

[50].    Gerald Horne, Black and Red: W. E. B. Du Bois and the Afro-American Response to the Cold War, 1944-1963 (State University of New York Press, 1986); Carol Anderson, Eyes Off the Prize: The United Nations and the African American Struggle for Human Rights, 1944-1955 (Cambridge University Press, 2003).

[51].    Ella Myers, “Beyond the Psychological Wage: Du Bois on White Dominion,” Political Theory, 47, no. 1 (2019): 6–31; Andrew J. Douglas, W. E. B. Du Bois and the Critique of the Competitive Society (University of Georgia Press, 2019); Kevin Bruyneel, Settler Memory: The Disavowal of Indigeneity and the Politics of Race in the United States(University of North Carolina Press, 2021), 45-75; Adam Dahl, “Constructing Colonial Peoples: W. E. B. Du Bois, the United Nations, and the Politics of Space and Scale,” Modern Intellectual History, 20, no. 3 (2023): 858–882; Inés Valdez, Democracy and Empire: Labor, Nature, and the Reproduction of Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, 2023).

[52].    Onur Ulas Ince, “From ‘Chinese Colonist’ to ‘Yellow Peril’: Capitalist Racialization in the British Empire,” American Political Science Review, 118, no. 4 (2024): 1748–62.

[53].    Caroline Elkins and Susan Pederson 편, Settler Colonialism in the Twentieth Century (Routledge, 2005); Katsuya Hirano, “Thanatopolitics in the Making of Japan’s Hokkaido: Settler Colonialism and Primitive Accumulation,” Critical Historical Studies, 2, no. 2 (2015): 191–218; Danika Medak-Saltzman, “Empire’s Haunted Logics: Comparative Colonialisms and the Challenges of Incorporating Indigeneity,” Critical Ethnic Studies, 1, no. 2 (2015): 11–32.

[54].    Julian Bourg, From Revolution to Ethics: May 1968 and Contemporary French Thought (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007), 45–60; Julia Lovell, Maoism: A Global History (Knopf, 2019).

[55].    남남 반식민주의 연대를 다룬 최근 연구로는 다음을 참조. Vijay Prashad, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World (The New Press, 2007); Anne Garland Mahler, From the Tricontinental to the Global South: Race, Radicalism, and Transnational Solidarity (Duke University Press, 2018); Jackqueline Frost, “Queer Tricontinentalism? Daniel Guérin’s ‘Cuba-Paris,’” Third Text, 35, no. 1 (2021): 37–52.

[56].    Kevin Pham, The Architects of Dignity: Vietnamese Visions of Decolonization (Oxford University Press, 2024).

[57].    Salar Mohandesi, Red Internationalism: Anti-Imperialism and Human Rights in the Global Sixties and Seventies (Cambridge University Press, 2023).

[58].    Joshua Simon, “Institutions, Ideologies, and Comparative Political Theory,” Perspectives on Politics, 18, no. 2 (2020): 423–38; Murad Idris, “The Location of Anticolonialism; or, Al-Afghānī, Qāsim Amīn, and Sayyid Quṭb at the Peripheries,” Critical Times, 5, no. 2 (2022): 337–369.

[59].    Idris, “The Location of Anticolonialism,” 338.

[60].    Ornit Shani, How India Became Democratic: Citizenship and the Making of the Universal Franchise (Cambridge University Press, 2017).

[61].    Wilder, Freedom Time; Kevin Duong, “Universal Suffrage as Decolonization,” American Political Science Review, 115, no. 2 (2021): 412–428.

[62].    Penny M. Von Eschen, Race Against Empire: Black Americans Against Anticolonialism, 1937-1957 (Cornell University Press, 1997); Dahl, “Constructing Colonial Peoples.”

[63].    David Ciepley, Liberalism in the Shadow of Totalitarianism (Harvard University Press, 2007); Quinn Slobodian, Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism(Harvard University Press, 2018); Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights and the Rise of Neoliberalism (Verso, 2019).

[64].    Kyong-Min Son, The Eclipse of the Demos: The Cold War and the Crisis of Democracy Before Neoliberalism (University Press of Kansas, 2020), 8.

[65].    Robert Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory, 증보판 (University of Chicago Press, 2006), 51, 36; 다음도 참조: S. M. Amadae, Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice Liberalism (University of Chicago Press, 2003).

[66].    Duncan Bell, “What is Liberalism?” Political Theory, 42, no. 6 (2014): 682–715; Alexander Zevin, Liberalism at Large: The World According to the Economist (Verso, 2019).

[67].    Kevin Duong, “‘Does Democracy End in Terror?’ Transformations of Antitotalitarianism in Postwar France,” Modern Intellectual History, 14, no. 2 (2017): 537–63.

[68].    Begüm Adalet, Hotels and Highways: The Construction of Modernization Theory in Cold War Turkey (Stanford University Press, 2018).

[69].    Todd Shepard, The Invention of Decolonization: The Algerian War and the Remaking of France (Cornell University Press, 2006).

[70].    Paulina Ochoa Espejo, The Time of Popular Sovereignty: Process and the Democratic State (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011).

[71].    Nathan Pippenger, “Listening to Strangers, or: Three Arguments for Bounded Solidarity,” American Journal of Political Science, 67, no. 3 (2023): 764–75.

[72].    Erik Linstrum, Ruling Minds: Psychology in the British Empire (Harvard University Press, 2016).

[73].    Paul Gilroy, The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness (Verso, 1993), 154–70; Hagar Kotef, The Colonising Self: Or, Home and Homelessness in Israel/Palestine (Duke University Press, 2020); Nancy Luxon, “Fanon’s Psychiatric Hospital as a Waystation to Freedom,” Theory, Culture, and Society, 38, no. 5 (2021): 93–113; Siegel, “Fanon’s Clinic”; Adalet, “An Insurgent Mood”; Robcis, Disalienation.

[74].    Mantena, “On Gandhi’s Critique”; Priya Lal, African Socialism in Postcolonial Tanzania: Between the Village and the World (Cambridge University Press, 2015); Adom Getachew, “‘The Present as History’: Walter Rodney and the Search for Usable African Pasts,” Small Axe, 72 (2023): 50–65; Nazmul Sultan, “Self-Rule and the Problem of Peoplehood in Colonial India,” American Political Science Review, 114, no. 1 (2020): 81–94, 인용 90–91.

[75].    Massimiliano Tomba, Insurgent Universality: An Alternative Legacy of Modernity (Oxford University Press, 2019).

[76].    Kemerli, “Revolutionary Self-Defense,” 60.

[77].    Tomba, Insurgent Universality, 76.

[78].    Judith Surkis, Sex, Law, and Sovereignty in French Algeria, 1830-1930 (Cornell University Press, 2019).

[79].    Elia T. Zureik, The Palestinians in Israel: A Study in Internal Colonialism (Routledge, 1979); Walid Khalidi, “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 27, no. 1 (1997): 5–21, 특히 11–14; Shira Robinson, Citizen Strangers: Palestinians and the Birth of Israel’s Liberal Settler State (Stanford University Press, 2013), 47–55; Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, Colonizing Palestine: The Zionist Left and the Making of the Palestinian Nakba (Stanford University Press, 2023).

[80].    James Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia (Yale University Press, 2009).

[81].    Barbara Arneil, Domestic Colonies: The Turn Inward to Colony (Oxford University Press, 2017).

[82].    Russell Rickford, “‘We Can’t Grow Food on All This Concrete’: The Land Question, Agrarianism, and Black Nationalist Thought in the Late 1960s and 1970s,” Journal of American History, 104, no. 4 (2017): 956–80; Thea Riofrancos, Resource Radicals: From Petro-Nationalism to Post-Extractivism in Ecuador (Duke University Press, 2020); Ross, La form-Commune; Matthew Shutzer and Arpitha Kodiveri, “‘A Vast Bed of Combustible Fuel’: Sovereign Power and the Underground Commons in the Indian Anthropocene,” Radical History Review, 145 (2023): 13–36; David E. Gilbert, Countering Dispossession, Reclaiming Land: A Social Movement Ethnography (University of California Press, 2024).

[83].    D. A. Low, The Egalitarian Moment: Asia and Africa, 1950-1980 (Cambridge University Press, 1996), 1–30.

[84].    Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, Constance Farrington 옮김 (Grove Wiedenfeld, 1963 [1961]), 147–53.

[85].    Levi Gahman, Filiberto Penados, and Shelda-Jane Smith, “Environmental Defenders and Social Movements: The Violent Realities of Resisting Extractivism,” in The Companion to Development Studies, Emil Dauncey, Vandana Desai, Robert B. Potter 편 (Routledge, 2024), 176–80.

[86].    Gregory Thaler, “Equifinality in the Smallholder Slot: Cash Crop Development in the Brazilian Amazon and Indonesian Borneo,” Comparative Politics, 53, no. 4 (2021): 687–772.

[87].    Vizenor, Survivance; Estes, Our History is the Future; Kemerli, “Revolutionary Self-Defense”; Ross, La forme-Commune.

[88].    Yann Allard-Tremblay, “The Two Row Wampum: Decolonizing and Indigenizing Democratic Autonomy,” Polity, 54, no. 2 (2022): 225–49; David Temin, Remapping Sovereignty: Decolonization and Self-Determination in North American Indigenous Thought (University of Chicago Press, 2023).

[89].    Povinelli, The Cunning of Recognition; Kevin Bruyneel, “Challenging American Boundaries: Indigenous People and the ‘Gift’ of U.S. Citizenship,” Studies in American Political Development 18, no. 1 (2004): 30–43; Glen Coulthard, Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition (University of Minnesota Press, 2014); Robert Nichols, Theft is Property! Dispossession and Critical Theory (Duke University Press, 2020).

[90].    Cooper, “Possibility and Constraint: African Independence in Historical Perspectives,” 167–96; Manu Goswami, “Imaginary Futures and Colonial Internationalisms,” American Historical Review, 117, no. 5 (2012): 1461–85; Wilder, Freedom Time; Getachew, Worldmaking After Empire.

[91].    Or Rosenboim, The Emergence of Globalism: Visions of World Order in Britain and the United States, 1939-1950 (Princeton University Press), 168–69; Elisabeth Armstrong, Bury the Corpse of Colonialism: The Revolutionary Feminist Conference of 1949 (University of California Press, 2023).

[92].    Samir Amin, L’accumulation à l’échelle mondiale (Éditions Anthropos, 1970); Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (Bogle-L’Ouverture, 1972).

[93].    Douglas, “‘The Brutal Dialectics of Underdevelopment’”; Mahler, From the Tricontinental; Getachew, Worldmaking After Empire; Tomba, Insurgent Universality; Táíwò, Reconsidering Reparations; David Temin, “Development in Decolonization: Walter Rodney, Third World Developmentalism, and ‘Decolonizing Political Theory,’” American Political Science Review, 117, no. 1 (2023): 235–48.

[94].    Bennetta Jules-Rosette, Black Paris: The African Writers’ Landscape (University of Illinois Press, 1998); Umut Özsu, “‘In the Interests of Mankind as a Whole’: Mohammed Bedjaoui’s New International Economic Order,” Humanity, 6, no. 1 (2015): 129–43.

[95].    François Pacquement, “Le système d’aide au développement de la France et du Royaume-Uni. Points de repère sur cinquante ans d’évolutions depuis la décolonisation,” Revue internationale de politique de développement, 1 (2010): 51–75; Anghie, “Legal Aspects.”

[96].    Stefan Eich, The Currency of Politics: The Political Theory of Money from Aristotle to Keynes (Princeton University Press, 2022).

[97].    Fanny Pigeaud and Ndongo Samba Sylla, Africa’s Last Colonial Currency: The CFA Franc Story, Thomas Fazi 옮김 (Pluto Press, 2021), 138.

[98].    Dipesh Chakrabarty, “Author’s Response,” Review of Politics, 84, no. 4 (2022): 608–12, 인용 611.

[99].    Riofrancos, Resource Radicals; Armstrong, Bury the Corpse of Colonialism; Thaler, “Equifinality in the Smallholder Slot.”

[100].  Fejzula, “The Cosmopolitan Historiography.”

[101].  Goswami, “Imaginary Futures”; Arash Davari, “On Inexactitude in Decolonization,” Kitabkhana, 40, no. 2 (2020): 627–35.

[102].  Duncan Bell, Dreamworlds of Race: Empire and the Utopian Destiny of Anglo-America (Princeton University Press, 2020), 39.

[103].  Jacob Collins, The Anthropological Turn: French Political Thought After 1968 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020), 73–77.

[104].  Joy Wang, “Colonial Genealogies of Pluralism: Consociation as Disavowal in Contemporary Democratic Theory,” American Political Science Review. 2024년 온라인 출판: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542400090X.

[105].  Fezjula, “The Cosmopolitan Historiography,” 500.

[106].  Frederick Cooper, “Writing the History of Development,” Journal of Modern European History, 8, no. 1 (2010): 5–23; Amy Allen, The End of Progress: Decolonizing the Normative Foundations of Critical Theory (Columbia University Press, 2016).

[107].  Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe.

[108].  Peter Bauer and Basil Yamey, The Economics of Under-Developed Countries (The University of Chicago Press, 1957), 174; 다음도 참조: Dieter Plehwe, “The Origins of the Neoliberal Economic Development Discourse,” in The Road From Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective, Philip Mirowski, Dieter Plehwe 편 (Harvard University Press, 2015 [2009]), 238–79; Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 39–73.

[109].  Fredric Jameson, “Modernism and Imperialism,” in Nationalism, Colonialism, and Literature, Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson, Edward Said 편 (University of Minnesota Press, 1990 [1988]), 43–68, 인용 47.

[110].  Dipesh Chakrabarty, “The Legacies of Bandung: Decolonization and the Politics of Culture,” in Making a World After Empire: The Bandung Moment and its Political Afterlives. 제2판, Christopher Lee 편 (Ohio University Press, 2019 [2010]), 45–68.

[111].  Temin, “Development in Decolonization.”

[112].  Marwah, “Darwin in India,” 881; Marwah, “The View from the Future.”

[113].  Anibal Quijano, “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentricism, and Latin America,” Nepantla, 1, no. 3 (2000): 533–80; Walter Mignolo, “Coloniality at Large: The Western Hemisphere in the Colonial Horizon of Modernity.” CR: New Centenniel Review, 1, no. 2 (2001): 19–54; 다음도 참조: Boaventura de Sousa Santos, The End of Cognitive Empire: The Coming of Age of Epistemologies of the South (Duke University Press, 2018).

[114].  Uma Narayan, Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third-World Feminism (Routledge, 1997); Yoav Di-Capua, “Arab Existentialism: An Invisible Chapter in the Intellectual History of Decolonization,” American Historical Review, 117, no. 4 (2012): 1061–91; Armstrong, Bury the Corpse of Colonialism; Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò, Against Decolonisation: Taking African Agency Seriously (Hurst & Co, 2022); David Temin, “A Decolonial Wrong Turn: Walter Mignolo’s Epistemic Politics,” Constellations, 32, no. 1 (2025): 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12744.

[115].  Anghie, “Legal Aspects,” 147.

[116].  Begüm Adalet, “An Empire of Development: American Political Thought in Transnational Perspective,” American Political Science Review, 119, no. 1 (2025): 193–207.

[117].  Vergès, Un féminisme decolonial.

[118].  Ornit, How India Became Democratic; Dasgupta, Legalizing the Revolution.

[119].  Sultan, Waiting for the People, 24.

[120].  Samir Amin, “A Note on the Concept of Delinking,” Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 10, no. 3 (1987): 435–44.

[121].  Issa Shivji, “Nationalism and pan-Africanism: Decisive Moments in Nyerere’s Intellectual and Political Thought,” Review of African Political Economy, 39, no. 131 (2012): 103–16; Friedman, Ripe for Revolution, 125–63; Getachew, “The Present as History”; Dan Bulley, “Beyond the Eurocentricism of Immigration Ethics: Tanzania and pan-African Ujamaa,” Journal of International Political Theory, 20, no. 2 (2023): 181–99.

[122].  Lal, African Socialism.

[123].  Simpson, As We Have Always Done; Kyle Whyte, “Settler Colonialism, Ecology, and Environmental Injustice,” Environmental Sociology, 9, no. 1 (2018): 125–44; Kohei Saito, Marx in the Anthropocene: Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism (Cambridge University Press, 2022); Kate Aronoff, Alyssa Battistoni, Daniel Aldanda Cohen, and Thea Riofrancos, A Planet to Win: Why We Need a Green New Deal (Verso, 2019), 100–17; Max Ajil, A People’s Green New Deal (Pluto Press, 2021); Quiot J. Swan, Pauulu’s Diaspora: Black Internationalism and Environmental Justice (University Press of Florida, 2020).

[124].  John Bellamy Foster, “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology,” American Journal of Sociology, 105, no. 2 (1999): 366–405.

[125].  Jürgen Habermas, “Popular Sovereignty as Procedure,” Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, William Rehg 옮김(The MIT Press, 1998 [1988]), 465–90, 인용은 488.

[126].  Ciepley, Liberalism in the Shadow of Totalitarianism.

[127].  Habermas, “Popular Sovereignty as Procedure,” 486.

[128].  Suzanne Césaire, “Malaise d’une civilisation,” Tropiques, 5 (1942): 43–49, 인용은 48.

[129].  Gerald Horne, Black and Red, 206-210; Benjamin Stora, Messali Hadj. Pionnier du nationalism algérien, 1898-1974 (Le Sycomore, 1996), 43–64.

[130].  Aimé Césaire, “Cahiers d’un retour au pays natal,” The Complete Poetry of Aimé Césaire, 대역판, A. James Arnold·Clayton Eshleman 옮김(Wesleyan University Press, 2017), 12–61, 인용은 54–55. 번역은 일부 수정했다.

[131].  C. L. R. James, The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution, 개정 제2판(Vintage Books, 1989), 401.

[132].  Adam Spanos, “The Rendezvous of Victory: Translations of Bandung Humanism,” Comparative Literature, 74, no. 1 (2022): 1–24.

[133].  “La culture moderne et notre destin,” Présence africaine no. 8–10 (1956): 3–6, 인용은 6.

[134].  Dunstan, Race, Rights and Reform, 22.

[135].  David Luis-Brown, Waves of Decolonization: Discourses of Race and Hemispheric Citizenship in Cuba, Mexico, and the United States (Duke University Press, 2008).

[136].  Younis, On the Scale of the World, 36.

[137].  Mantena and Getachew, “Anticolonialism and the Decolonization of Political Theory.”

[138].  E. Tendayi Achiume, “Migration as Decolonization,” Stanford Law Review, 71 (2019): 1509–74, 인용은 1549; Arash Abizadeh, “On the Demos and its Kin: Nationalism, Democracy, and the Boundary Problem,” American Political Science Review, 106, no. 4 (2012): 867–82.

[139].  Balfour, “The Politics of Reparations.”

[140].  Táíwò, Reconsidering Reparations.

[141].  David Temin, “Wages for Earthwork,” American Political Science Review, 119, no. 1 (2025): 179–192.

[142].  Shuk Ying Chan, “Expropriation as Reparation,” American Journal of Political Science, 69, no. 2 (2025): 423–437.

[143].  Shuk Ying Chan and Alan Patten, “What’s Wrong with Neocolonialism: The Case of Unequal Trade in Cultural Goods,” American Political Science Review, 118, no. 4 (2024): 1643–57.

[144].  Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” 308.

[145].  Younis, On the Scale of the World, 20.

[146].  음악과 관련하여 길로이는 다음과 같이 경고했다. “흑인 민중문화의 정치와 미학을 진지하게 논하려면, 대부분의 비판적 판단이 토대로 삼는 안이한 본질주의를도저히 유지할 수 없게 만드는, 인종 내부의 실질적인 차이들과 불편하게 대면해야 한다.” The Black Atlantic, 36.

[147].  Olson, Subaltern Silence, 12, 21.

 

Political Theory
2025년, 제53권 제4호, 557–593쪽
© 저자(들) 2025
논문 재사용 지침:
sagepub.com/journals-permissionsDOI: 10.1177/00905917251349855journals.sagepub.com/home/ptx