본 논문은 한국 사회에서 병역의무의 보편화가 추구·실현되어온 과정에 대한 계보학적 탐색이다. 1950년대 병력동원 과정에서 누적된 문제가 당사자들에 의해 제기되는 1960년부터 군가산점제 폐지를 계기로 병역이행자들의 집단적 움직임이 재등장하는 1999년까지를 논문의 분석 시기로 삼았다. 해당 시기 동안의 병역 관련 제도와 담론을 분석하여 병역의무 보편화의 계기와 정당화 기제를 살펴보았다. 연구 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다.
한국 사회의 병역 보편화 과정은 병역 ‘대체’ 개념의 적용을 통해 중립적인 ‘인구’를 ‘병역/현역미필자’라는 병역이행의 대상으로 흡수하는 담론적 실천과 제도적 실행 속에서 이루어졌다. 1960년대 ‘미필/기피’의 사회적 구제 방안으로 병역을 ‘대체’하는 ‘근로’의 의무가 제시되었다. 그러나 병역 ‘대체’ 개념의 본격적인 제도화는 증대된 안보위기와 함께 이루어졌다. 1968년의 ‘1·21사건’을 계기로 박정희 정부는 ‘향토방위’를 위한 방위소집복무를 병역의무의 일종으로 위치시켰다. 이때 현역병 궐원시 보궐입영의 의무를 지니던 기존 ‘보충역’의 지위를 ‘병역/현역미필’로 개념화하고, 현역을 ‘대체’하는 의무 이행을 새롭게 요구하였다. 1969년의 방위소집을 시작으로 치안과 경제활동을 포괄하는 다양한 영역의 임무가 병역을 ‘대체’하는 의무로 제도화되었다. 병역 ‘대체’ 개념의 제도화는 ‘발전’과 ‘안보’를 일치시키는 박정희 정부의 담론적 행위와 제도적 실천을 바탕으로 가능하였다. 또한 정부는 병무청을 창설하여 병력 동원의 행정적 기초를 마련하고, ‘사회정의’ 확보 차원에서 병역회피자를 색출하는 작업을 벌이며, 대상자 전체의 병역 이행을 강제하였다. 이처럼, 병역의무의 보편화 과정은 군대에 가는 것을 국민의 당연한 의무로 여기게 하는 감시·규율의 작동과 함께 병역/현역 ‘미필’의 범주를 조절하면서, ‘병역’ 개념과 대상의 확대에 영향을 주는 생명(관리)권력의 작동이 주요하였다.
탈냉전·민주화 시기 병역 ‘대체’ 개념의 지속과 함께 사회 구성원의 평등 요구가 더해지면서 징병제 ‘강화’라는 ‘역설’이 발생하였다. 1990년대 병역 대상 인구의 감소에도 불구하고 ‘현역’ 자원의 증가가 이루어졌다. 이는 군복무기간의 단축으로 인해 자연적으로 증대된 인원에 더하여, 기존의 방위소집제도가 폐지되면서 ‘보충역’에 편입되던 인원을 ‘현역’으로 흡수한 결과다. 군사·안보활동과 관련된 현역복무 ‘대체’의 의무인 방위소집제도가 폐지되고, 공익·행정 목적의 공익근무요원제도가 신설되었다. 또한 산업·경제 부분의 대체복무제도 운영이 확대되었다. 이처럼 냉전시기 ‘자주국방’을 이유로 정당화되었던 병역 ‘대체’ 개념의 제도화라는 ‘유산’은 탈냉전·민주화 이후에도 ‘대체’ 의무를 통해 ‘국가’에 기여해야 한다는 요구로 이어졌다. 한편, 세계적 탈냉전과 사회 민주화의 진전으로 병역에서 제외·면제되었던 구성원의 평등 요구가 증대되었다. 1988년 남녀고용평등법의 시행으로 대표적인 ‘병역예외자’인 ‘여성’을 노동시장의 정규 구성원으로 ‘인정’하기 시작하였고, 1999년에는 병역이행자의 노동시장 진입을 우대하는 ‘군가산점제’가 폐지되기에 이르렀다. 이러한 변화는 노동시장과 군복무의 연계를 통해 병역이행자의 사회적 우선권을 유지하도록 하는 기존 병력동원·보상체제에 동요를 가져왔다. 병역제도를 운영하는 정부와 병역이행의 당사자들은 병역 보편화의 추구를 가속화하면서 이러한 동요에 맞섰다. 우선, ‘평등’한 병역이행을 위해, 병역 대상자의 신체·학력·질병 등의 조건을 완화하고 대상자의 범주를 조정·확대하였다. 동시에 현역을 대체하는 것이 불/가능하다는 ‘현역중심주의’에 기초한 병역 보편화가 추진되었다. 이처럼, 탈냉전·민주화는 앞선 시기의 병역 ‘대체’ 관념을 지속하면서, 징병제의 ‘강화’라는 결과를 가져왔다.
본 연구는 한국 사회에서 병역의무의 보편화가 추구·실현되어온 과정을 역사·사회학적으로 분석하였다. ‘젠더’는 병역의무 보편화의 동력이자 정당화의 기제로 작동하였다. 또한 병역의무 보편화의 추구·실현은 병역제도를 운영하는 정부만이 아니라 병역이행의 당사자들에 의한 요청이기도 하였다. 병역이행 주체의 주체화/종속화 과정은 위계화/젠더화된 국민의 형성과 연동되어 있었다. 한편, 병역의무의 보편화 과정은 한국전쟁과 냉전·분단체제의 규정력을 드러내기도 하지만 탈냉전·민주화 이후 더욱 가속화된 보편화의 추구는 냉전·분단의 속성과 함께 ‘민주화’란 무엇인가를 질문하게 한다.

This study aims to genealogically follow how universalization of the military obligation has been pursued and realized in South Korea. It analyzes the institutions and discourses involved in conscription and examines the momentum to and justification of universalization of the military obligation in the period from establishment of coldwar divided systems to post-cold war democratization. The results are as follows.
Outbreak of Korean war and ‘post-cold war disposal’ of delayed military mobilization had led to massive troops and the formation of early condition of conscription operation based on burdens of soldiers themselves. The number of soldiers surged from 100,000 before Korean war to at most 720,000 after the war. Even after armistice, the government had insisted to hold massive troops on the excuses of ‘Korean-American alliance’ and ‘military aid’. It, however, had resulted in sacrificing the general public, who became military resources. Meanwhile, there had been discriminations based on education and class in distributing these ‘sacrifices’. Perspective soldiers with military obligation had considered military service as burden and ‘sacrifice’ because conscription had required longer services than stated in the law, premised on discriminative application of the military burden.
The military service in Korea had been universalized in the discursive practice and the institutional implementation where perspective soldiers had been expanded to include neutral ‘population’ by applying the notion of military ‘substitution’. In 1960s, obligated ‘work’ was suggested in ‘substitution’ for military service as means of social relief of those with military obligation ‘incomplete’. The notion of ‘substitution’ for military service, however, had been substantially institutionalized in the late 1960s and early 1970 with the aid of increased security crisis. With ‘1.21 accident’ in 1968 as a stimulus, ‘defensive mobilization’ for ‘homeland defense’ had been situated within the military obligation by Park Jung-Hee’s government. Starting with it, duties in various fields including policing and economic activities had been institutionalized as obligation ‘substituting’ the military services. As such, the concept of ‘substitution’ for the military obligation had been institutionalized on the basis of governmental discursive and institutional practices seeking to include the economic development into the field of military security and national defense. Korean government also had founded the Military Manpower Administration to lay the administrative foundation for the military mobilization, hunted down draft evaders to realize ‘social justice’ and forced all the perspective soldiers to serve the obligation. It implies that working of bio (administrative) power which had an effect on expanding the notion and target of ‘military obligation’, adjusting the scope of obligation ‘incomplete’, along with working of surveillance and discipline which regarded enlistment as national duty, had played an effective part in universalizing the military obligation.
In the period of post-war democratization, the paradox of ‘strengthening’ conscription has happened from increasing demand for equality, along with the continued notion of ‘substitution’ for the military service. While perspective soldier population has decreased in 1990s, the number of ‘active-duty’ soldiers has increased. It resulted from the fact that shortening the term of service has led to ‘naturally’ increased soldiers and abolishing previous defensive mobilization scheme has allowed the number of ‘active-duty’s to embrace reservist duty. Defensive mobilization scheme, which had been a duty of ‘substitution’ for active-duty service in the military security field, has been abolished and public service worker scheme has newly been introduced for the public and administrative purpose. It means that the institutionalization of the concept of ‘substitution’ for military service, which had been justified on the ground of ‘self-defence’ in the era of coldwar, has inherited previous legacy that one should contribute to ‘nation’ through ‘substitution’ obligation, even in the era of post-cold war democratization. In the meantime, global post-cold war and advanced democratization in the society provoked the increased demand for equality by citizens excluded or exempted from the military service. With enforcement of Act for Gender Equal Employment in1988, ‘women’, as typical ‘exempts from the military service’, started to be acknowledged as regular members of labor market, and the military advantage point policy, which used to give advantages for men who fulfilled their own military duty when they tried to enter labor market, had been repealed 1999. These shifts have disrupted existing troops mobilization and reward system, which had enabled men who fulfilled their military duty to retain social priority through connecting labor market with the military service. The government in charge of managing the military obligation system and those to whom to fulfill the service is their own obligation have accelerated the universalization of the military service to address the disruption. First, for ‘equal’ fulfillment of the military obligation, the condition for perspective soldiers including physical, educational, and medical ones has been lowered and the scope for perspective soldiers has been adjusted and expanded. The universalization of the military service also has been seek out, based on ‘active-duty preference’ which regards active-duty as non- substitutable. It shows that post-cold war democratization has led to ‘strengthening’ conscription, with continued presence of the previous notion of ‘substitution’ for military service.
This study analyzed how the universalization of the military service has been pursued and realized from the historical and sociological perspective in Korean society. ‘Gender’ acted as a driving force and justification for universalizing it. It also has been asked not only from the government in charge of the military system but also from those with military obligation. While subjection/subjectivication process of subjects with military obligation reveals the defining power of Korean war and cold war divided systems, further accelerated pursuit of the universalization asks questions about what is ‘democratization’ and the nature of ‘cold war and division’.