다문화가족 방문교육지도사의 돌봄시민성 형성에 관한 연구

Abstract

본 논문은 돌봄위기라는 전지구적 조건과 한국 다문화가족정책 실행 현장이라는 구체적 장소 안에서 오랜 시간 여성결혼이민자들과 그 가족과 함께 해 온 다문화가족 방문교육지도사들의 공적인 삶을 돌봄시민성 형성 과정으로 설명함으로써 다문화가족정책의 돌봄관리체계를 드러내고 어떻게 지도사들이 '건강가정 구현'과 '다문화사회 구현'이라는 양립불가능한 정책 목표 안에서 이주민여성들과 그 가족들과 관계맺고 다양성이 존중되는 사회로의 이행을 모색하게 되는지 살펴보고자했다. 기존의 다문화가족정책 연구에서는 ‘어떻게 이 여성들의 "다문화역량”을 강화시켜 다문화가족의 "건강가정” 통합과 "가족기능” 향상을 지원하게 하고 이를 통해 국가의 생산성을 높일 것인가' 라는 목표를 기계적으로 실행할 도구적 인력으로 접근되어왔다. 때문에 정작 이들 삶의 실질적 문제, 즉 이들의 돌봄에 대한 정책의 과잉 의존과 배제 그리고 그러한 조건 안에서 어떻게 자신이 돌보는 이주민여성들과 함께 공적인 삶을 구성해가게 되는지 주목하지 못했다. 이에 본 논문은 돌봄 관련 정책의 양적 팽창에도 불구하고 지속되고 있는 국가, 시장, 가족의 여성 돌봄 의존에 대한 문제의식으로 출발하여 다문화가족정책이라는 구체적인 정책 실행 현장 안에서 여성결혼이민자라는 “새로운 시민”들과 공적인 삶을 꾸려나간 지도사들의 경험을 돌봄시민성 형성 과정으로 보고 다음 내용을 토론하였다. 첫째, 다문화가족정책 기조에 내포된 돌봄 지원의 성격과 관리 체계를 분석하였다. 이를 통해 다문화가족정책에 암묵적으로 전제된 규범적 지향 안에서 지도사들은 어떻게 비시민으로 배제되고 어떤 도덕적 문제의식을 발전시키게 되는지 살펴보았다. 둘째, 지도사와 여성결혼이민자, 그 가족들이 관계 맺는 과정에서 하나의 표준화된 "한국식” 돌봄모델이 다양한 돌봄 실천들과 각축하는 과정을 살펴보았다. 이를 통해 지도사들이 어떻게 타자들과의 갈등과 긴장 속에서 이들을 동료시민으로 수용하거나 거부하면서 이들에 대한 책임의 영역을 조정해나가게 되는지 알아보았다. 셋째, 지도사들이 정책 실행 과정을 통해 축적한 현장지식을 중심으로 다문화가족정책의 새로운 규범적 방향을 탐색해보았다. 이를 통해 구체적인 돌봄관계 안에서 조정된 타자들에 대한 책임이 어떤 새로운 시민실천으로 이끌게 되는지 밝혔다. 이에 연구결과는 다음과 같다. 지도사들이 결혼이주여성의 생활공간에서 만나 함께 가족을 돌보는 과정에서 자신의 모성관과 가족관의 토대를 이루고 있는 “한국식” 돌봄모델에 관한 신념들이 도전을 받게 되고 그 과정에서 타인의 삶을 인식하는 태도와 실천의 변화를 통해 돌봄시민성이 형성되는 경험하게 되었다. 변화의 수준은 지도사들에 따라 달랐다. 기존의 신념체계에 따라 결혼이주여성과 그 가족의 삶을 판단하고 자신의 편견을 더욱 강화하게 된 지도사들도 있었고 반대로 타인의 삶을 경청함으로써 삶을 대하는 태도를 배우고 자신 역시 삶에 대한 근본적인 태도를 변화시킨 지도사들도 있었다. 지도사들의 개인적 위치와 경험에 따라 달랐지만 그렇다고 혼인여부, 가족형태, 연령, 전공, 경력, 자녀유무, 원가족과의 관계 등 개인의 특성으로 이러한 차이를 환원시켜 설명하기도 어렵다. 지도사 개인의 속성으로 환원시켜 설명할 수 없는 구조적 개입이 개인들에게도 변수로 작용하였다. 명백한 것은 지도사들이 “한국식 가족돌봄”에 관한 개인적 신념이 투철하고 열정적인 실천력을 가지고 있다고 해서, “다문화가족”이라는 이웃의 가족을 공적으로 더 잘 돌보게 되는 건 아니라는 것이다. 오히려 “다문화가족”으로 규정된 타인들의 삶을 있는 그대로 듣고 물음으로써 완강했던 자신의 신념체계가 흔들리고 갈등하도록 내어 줌으로써, 그리고 여기에 시장이 아닌 시민을 돌봄의 목적으로 하는 정책이 뒷받침되어 줄 때, ‘돌봄노동자’가 아닌 ‘돌봄시민’으로 스스로를 주체화하고 ‘더 좋은 돌봄’을 위한 시민성을 형성할 수 있었음을 확인할 수 있었다. 또한 간과되지 말아야 할 것은 이러한 듣기의 윤리가 ‘돌봄시민’ 개인의 책임으로만 전가되어서는 안 된다는 점이다. 연구 결과에서도 드러나듯 지도사들은 대상자의 필요를 혼신의 힘을 다해 듣고 해결하기 위해 노력하고 있음에 반해 정작 정책은 지도사들의 기본적인 필요를 묻지 않고 들으려 하지도 않을 때 지도사들은 “역차별” 정서에 휩싸이게 된다. 가족의 ‘생산성’,‘건강성’을 기준으로 지도사들의 돌봄을 도구적으로만 이용하여 국가발전이라는 상위목표에 기능하도록 하려고 할 때 돌보는 시민으로 여성 개인들이 스스로 고양시킨 “다문화수용성”은 한 순간 물거품이 될 수 있다. 이 연구는 다문화가족정책을 실행하는 지도사들의 공적 돌봄 현실을 돌봄시민성 형성 과정으로 규명해보고자 하였다. 여성주의 민주적돌봄윤리에 근거해 돌봄시민성을 개념화하고 지도사들이 이주민여성과 그 가족을 돌보는 과정에서 어떻게 노동-시민모델에 저항하고 협상하면서 돌봄시민성을 형성하게 되는지 서술하였다. 이를 통해 서로 다르게 구별지어진 사람들이 함께 살아갈 수 있는 사회로 나아가기 위해 시민은 동료시민을 어떻게 돌보고 정책은 어떻게 시민들의 삶을 끝까지 살피고자하는 열망으로부터 공공의제를 도출할 수 있을지 탐색하였다. ;Starting as a critical examination of the dependence on women’s care on part of the nation, the market and the family despite the quantitative expansion of care-related policies, this paper views the experience of instructors who have shared their public lives with “new citizens”-female marriage migrants- in the field of concrete policy implementation of multicultural family policy, as the development process of a civic identity of care and discusses the following. Firstly, this study analyzes the nature of care support involved in the basis of multicultural family policy and the structure of its administration. Through this analysis, the paper will examine the exclusion of instructors as noncitizens within the normative directions tacitly premised in multicultural family policy and their development of a critical assessment on related moral issues. Secondly, the study examines how the uniformly standardized “Korean”care model clashes with various applications of care, as the insturctors form relations with female marriage migrants and their families. Through this process, the paper will seek to comprehend how instructors accept or reject the migrants as fellow citizens amidst tension and conflict, and how they adjust the scope of their responsibilities toward the migrants and their families. Thirdly, the study explores new normative directions for multicultural family policy based on the field knowledge accumulated by instructors in enacting policy. Through this process, the paper will bring to light how the responsibilities toward others that have been adjusted within a concrete relationship of care will lead to new civic practices. The results of the study and political implications are as follows. As instructors met female marriage migrants in their living spaces and looked after their families together, the instructors’ own maternal perspectives and the beliefs in the “Korean” care system which formed the basis of their perspectives on family were challenged. In this process, the instructors experienced the formation of a civic identity of care through the attitude of acknowledging the lives of others and a change in practices. The degree of change differed among instructors. Some instructors judged the female marriage migrants and the lives of these families according to their existing belief systems and found their own biases reinforced. In contrast, other instructors learned a new attitude toward life by experiencing the lives of others and fundamentally changed their own perspective on life by experiencing the lives of others and fundamentally changed their own perspective on life. Although the changes correlated with an instructor’s position as an individual and their experiences, the changes cannot be easily described by reducing their causes to personal attributes such as an instructor’s marriage status, family structure, age, major, career experiences, the existence of children, or relationship with their own family. The structural interventions which cannot be reduced as the personal attributes of an instructor serve as variables on individuals themselves. What is clear is that an instructor with a steadfast belief in the “Korean family care” system and a passionate ability to apply policy will not necessarily care after multicultural families any better. Rather, the study was able to confirm that instructors who accepted and listened to the lives of others defined as “multicultural families” as they are, when their formerly tenacious belief systems were shaken and conflicted and when supported by policy that focused on caring after citizens and not the marketplace, were able to self-identify as “care citizens” instead of “care workers”and develop a civic identity of enhanced care. What should not be overlooked is that the ethical responsibilites of “listening” should not solely be relegated onto the individual “care citizens.” The results of the study show that even if instructors wholly dedicate themselves to listening to and solving the need of their subjects, a policy that does not ask after the fundamental needs of the instructors and does not attempt to listen to them will engulf the instructors in a culture of “reverse discrimination.” A policy that is based on family “productivity” and “health” and uses the care of instructors as tools for the higher goals of national development may destroy the “multicultural receptivity” built up by the individual women themselves as caregiving citizens. The directions for family policy implementation based on the field knowledge accumulated by instructors during the process of developing the civic identity of care are as follows. 1. Many researchers of multiculturalism emphasize the importance of civil education for indigenous people in multicultural social policy. Their position is that a civil consciousness reform movement must be enacted to address discrimination and exclusion of foreigners by Koreans, through such means as scholastic education, education programs for multicultural understanding in mass media, and enhancement of multicultural receptivity. However, there is no discussion on picking the central philosophy for this civil education and what kind of direction society should take. Implementing a “multicultural society” through changing individual citizens’ ethical consciousness faces clear limits. As Example18 demonstrates, individual growth and the exhibition of capacity as a care citizen will not prevent the consequences of “reverse discrimination” on minorities so long as the existing discriminations and inequalities “justified” by marketplace competition, such as the merit system and familism, are not resolved. When the problems of human existence, recognition, and ethics that are distorted by the marketplace society are not examined but education programs for “multicultural understanding” are forcefully enacted and legal repercussions for discriminations are pushed, the sense of loss, discrimination, and a feeling of infringed rights may grow in the indigenous population. It is of urgent importance to expand “multicultural” contacts and seek out possible places and routes for participation in a systematic context, so that indigenous people and migrants can share their daily lives, taking interest in each other’s needs and expanding opportunities of care, transforming the needs of the “other” into the needs of “ourselves.” The Healthy Family Support Center and Multicultural Family Support Center that currently exist strongly exhibit the nature of business-oriented departments and cannot provide citizens with the sharing of daily life. If local government organizations could provide spaces such as community support centers for the creation of various clubs, associations, and cooperatives centered around former and current in-home instructor, accessible “multicultural” spaces can be created in the local levels. 2. Next is the problem of how to approach the care of “citizens who were called to be carers” for policy enactment. For this purpose, this paper seeks to transcend the dichotomy of individual rights and public responsibility. There is no need to subject instructors to the dilemma of whether it is more important to secure individual rights by securing labor rights for instructors, or more important to emphasize the public responsibility of instructors in developing a care society of a multicultural society. Seeking a public route to let out the voices of women citizens who care after other citizens could form the basis of a new public care system that will reduce unequal care for citizens who had previously resorted to private care under the existing family policies. The nature of such a public route will be that of place of equal participation where women citizens can go beyond speaking out about “their rights” and speak out about “our needs” from knowledge that is accumulated from the field of public care. This study asserts that including the needs of the women citizens who enact care if both most important and minimally necessary in order to redefine multicultural family policy as a public care system that espouses the solution of care concerns, and not productivity concerns, as the higher goals of policy, and to break the vicious cycle of the “privatization of care.” 3. One problem to keep in mind is the discussion of “expertise.” As the experiences of instructors indicate, the kind of knowledge required in encountering female marriage migrants was not the sort that could be predicted and prepared by experts. The experiences were a heuristic process of meeting, colliding with, and listening to the lives of others and questioning them so that instructors could discover not only the needs of others but also their own changing needs. Cases where intial meeting indicated “problems” that required professional counseling personnel were later discovered to be cases of miscommunication, and furthermore not the problems of the female marriage migrants but the failures of the family, instructor, the department, or policy. Therefore, relying on “expertise” to “resolve” things that could be relieved in the context of everyday healthy communication, care and trust in the local community is not only a waste of time and resources but a potential cause of “reverse discrimination.” What is needed is not “expertise” but time and interest. One’s time and interest may naturally be connected to the lives of others when neighborly relations and one’s own daily life is not fractured in the local community but organically connected. Rather than instigating individuals to invest their time and resources, there is a need to listen to their needs and develop agendas based on these needs in order to share the assessment of problems of the field workers and field knowledge within the local community. In the cases of the participants of this study, many instructors expressed a desire to proactively share their time if a space for female marriage migrants and their children could be secured. A beneficial synergistic effect could be created if activists in the existing women’s rights organization with organizational experience could systematically support and train these instructors so that their desires would not be frustrated by circumstances. 4. As a precondition to enable all these things, the paper asserts that the treatment of instructors must be improved. As their experiences indicate, the imputation of the failure of policy on the workplace of the instructors may collapse the hard-built tower of “coexistence.” Despite suffering from innumerable inequalities and discriminations such as unchanging hourly pay, wrongful dismissals, overtime, problems in employment stability and safety, and abuse of power, the authorities have not made any responses to these problems in the decade since the in-home education program was started in 2007. Only in the past year have instructors been addressed in local centers according to the guidelines on the full-time worker switchover guidelines for temporary workers in public employment and have the problems in the treatment of instructors been mentioned in the parliamentary inspection of the administration and resulted in a response from the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. As the bulk of the instructors are in their middle age, the application of pensions raise the issue of “legal” dismissals and other problems in the transition to full-time employment, but the pathways to sufficient conflict resolution and discourse exist. There is such a path if the instructors can build up trust that they themselves would not have to shoulder the burden of the failure of policy. 5. As a preparatory step for the above, the Framework Act on Healthy Homes must be reformed as a priority. Following its enactment in 2005 to the present, the Framework Act has assumed the family to be based on heterosexual couples and limited its definition as arising from “marriage, blood relations, and adoptions” only. The Act has been criticized as being a family exclusion act that excludes various families that do not fit these conditions. Although discussions for reforming the Act have taken place, the “normal” standard of a “healthy family” has been strongly maintained. Through efforts for reforming the law to legally include various families without discrimination should be continued in the future, this study proposes a more fundamental form of legal reform. If we are to more proactively destroy the vicious cycle of the privatization of care through the reconstruction of the “Korean” family model, the goals of Korean family policy cannot remain as “enabling social resources,” “empowering social development”: a utilitarian family building exercise. Transcending the functionalism of national development policy “by the family,” the Framework Act must first be reformed to respond the individual needs “of the family” members in order to secure the status of a care-centric family policy. This study seeks to investigate the public care reality of the instructors who enact multicultural family policy as a development process of citizenship of care. The paper bases the concepts of this identity on feminist democratic care ethics and describes how the instructors fight against the labor-citizen model during the process of caring after the migrant women and their families and how they develop their citizenship of care. In order to develop a society where people of different categories can live together, this paper explores the formation of a public agenda from the desire for citizens to look after their fellow citizens and for policies to fully care after the lives of citizens.