이 논문은 2008년 촉발된 미 쇠고기 수입반대 촛불운동을 탈중에 의한 탈경계운동으로 이해하고자 한다. 탈경계운동은 온라인/오프라인, 운동/비운동, 전문가/시민, 일상/과학/정치 등의 경계를 넘어서는 혼성적 운동을 가리킨다. 이 논문에서는탈경계운동으로서의 촛불운동을 운동주체, 운동방식/운동공간, 운동의제, 운동성과의 4가지 차원으로 나누어서 분석했다. 첫째, 나는 촛불운동의 주체를 탈중으로이해한다. 이들은 서로 다른 계급, 젠더, 세대들로 구성된 다양한 정체성을 가지고 있었다. 그러면서도 특정한 목적을 위해서 탈중심의 네트워크로 연대하는 무리로 이성의 공동체를 이루는 동시에 감정의 공동체를 이룬다. 둘째, 운동전개의 방식과 공간은 탈중심적이고 탈경계적이다. 상향식과 하향식의 운동방식이 동시에존재하는데 이는 자발적으로 참여한 시민들과 기존의 시민단체가 결합된 결과로보인다. 또한 온라인과 오프라인의 동시 연결과 기존미디어와 뉴미디어의 긴밀한결합으로 운동이 진행되었다. 따라서 로컬/내셔널/글로벌을 가로지르는 다차원적인 스케일과 다양한 시위전략을 동원하는 촛불운동의 가장 두드러진 특성은, 집회현장을 투쟁이 축제가 되고 축제가 투쟁되는 공간으로 전환하는 투쟁방식을 창출한 것이다. 셋째, 운동의제가 일상/과학/정치의 경계를 허물고 각기 다른 부문의사회운동들을 융합시키는 다양한 이슈와 쟁점들로 확장된 점이다. 의제에 대해 시민-전문가-언론의 연대가 형성되고, 혼성적, 복합적 영역의 의제를 다루기 때문에전문영역들에서도 상호협력이 일어난다. 넷째, 다차원적이고 지속적인 운동성과의경향을 보인다. 운동성과는 정치적, 제도적, 운동조직적, 주체형성적인 측면으로나누어 볼 수 있다. 결론적으로 탈중에 의한 탈경계운동은 ‘차이의 운동’을 넘어한국 사회운동의 생성변화에 중요한 흐름을 이루고 있으므로 앞으로의 연구에서보다 깊이 분석되어져야 할 것이다.
This paper interprets the 2008 candlelight movements in Korea, caused by the import of American beef, as a trans-boundary movement mobilized by the post-mass. Here “trans-boundary movement” means a collective action that goes beyond the binaries of online/ offline, movement/non-movement, protest/ festival, and citizen /expert, and that transcends any categorical distinctions among daily life, science and politics. In this paper, I examined the candlelight movement in terms of four aspects: its subject, its repertoire and site, its issue, and its effect.
Based upon findings gained from that research, first of all, I conceptualized movement participants as the 'post-mass.' The reason is that participants in the movement do not conform to contemporary theories of the ‘multitude’ and the middle class. The post-mass designates a decentralized and networked group whose members transcend class and gender, age and generation, race and region, and many other types of social grouping and forming solidarities for a certain purpose. Such groups are hybrid and plural, but they lack coherence and teleology. The community they form is emotional as well as rational. Second, the mobilizing structure of the candlelight movement was decentered, and there was no boundary in the space and site that its movement participants deployed their struggle. Its operation relied on both bottom-up and top-down approaches as it combined citizens’ voluntary participation and movement organizations’ strategic involvement. The candlelight movement also defied such categories of online /offline, old media / new media, and local / national / global. In the demonstrations,diverse strategies were mobilized and the struggle was transformed into a carnival. Third, the movement issues were hybridized, going beyond the distinctions between daily life, science, and politics. In the processes of setting and then disseminating an agenda, citizens, experts, and media were allied.
Because the issues were complex and mixed, multiple types of cooperation and coordination took place among diverse scientific, social, legal, and economic areas. Fourth, the movement’s long-term effects were multi-dimensional, leading to political, institutional, organizational, and biological changes. The candlelight protest not only led to political, but also to legal and institutional changes, especially in the area of food safety. At the same time, movement organizations gained momentum that attracted more members and produced more movement activities, and many new movement organizations were founded to pursue concerns initially raised by the candlelight protest. Citizens who participated in the movement were changed into different subjects as they engaged in political and social issues: they empowered themselves, believing that they could change society and their lives. In conclusion, it might be said that the trans-boundary movement by this post-mass contributed to the diversification of social movements in Korea, and thus that it calls for more studies on the post-mass and on trans-boundary movements this case study addressed.