All Issue

2022 Vol.11, Issue 3 Preview Page
Subject and Topological Space of Geography Education in Lacan’s Psychoanalysis

라깡의 정신분석에서 본 지리 교육의 주체와 위상학적 공간

김미혜, 박철웅

Mihye Kim, Chul Woong Park

2022. pp. 319~359
PDF Citation
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to reveal that Lacan’s subject and topological space can be an alternative to the limitations faced by the ego and visual space. The Cartesian self has a privileged position to observe things because it has a perspective space view of a metaphysical way of thinking. In addition, by stitching the image of the other through the mirror stage and filling it in one’s inner self, it is sometimes mistaken as if it were the real one. In this way, the self, unaware of how it exists, has a mechanism of confrontation with the other. As an alternative to this, one must become a psychoanalytic subject of Lacan in order to know one’s own way of existence and to coexist with others. As the external other settles in the subject in an intimate way, the subject and the other have inter-subjectivity. In the signifier system, the subject is unconsciously structured while uttering, which is the same structure as topological space. Like a topological space, the unconscious subject becomes a space of intimacy where the outside and the inside are connected, that is, coexist with the other. The concept of extimacy can also be applied to foreign migrants covered in geography education, and it was revealed that the application of psychoanalytic space to them shows an ethical attitude toward others. The ego and the subject show different ethics towards the other, and the ego has reflexivity and the subject has shame. It was revealed that the reflexivity of whites was the root of racism that caused suffering to other races, and the subject’s shame was discussed as having ethics toward others. Lacan’s psychoanalysis suggests that geography education can be a tool for students to think, not another accumulation of knowledge.
Keywords
Ego
Subject
Topological space
Reflexivity
Shame
이 연구의 목적은 자아와 시각적 공간이 직면한 한계에 라깡의 주체와 위상학적 공간이 대안이 될 수 있음을 밝히는 데 있다. 데카르트적 자아는 사물을 관찰하는 특권적 위치를 갖는데 이는 형이상학적 사고방식의 원근법적 공간관을 갖기 때문이다. 또한 거울 단계를 통해 타자의 이미지를 꿰어맞춰 자신의 내면에 채움으로써 진짜 자신인 것처럼 오인을 하기도 한다. 이로써 자신이 어떤 방식으로 존재하는지를 모르는 자아는 타자에 대한 대결 양상의 메커니즘을 갖게 된다. 이에 대한 대안으로 자신의 존재 방식을 알고 타자와의 공존을 위해서는 라깡의 정신분석적 주체가 되어야 한다. 주체 내부에 외부의 타자가 친밀한 방식으로 정착하면서 주체와 타자는 상호주체성을 갖게 된다. 기표 체계에서 주체는 발화하면서 무의식적으로 구조화되는데 이는 위상학적 공간과 같은 구조이다. 이처럼 무의식의 주체는 위상학적 공간처럼 외부와 내부가 연결된, 즉 타자와 함께 공존하는 외밀성의 공간이 된다. 지리 교육에서 다루는 해외 이주민은 외부의 타자로 기술이 되어 있는데, 이들은 외밀성의 형태로 공간화되어 이주국의 주체성의 일부를 차지함을 밝히고자 했다. 자아와 주체는 타자에 대한 각각 다른 윤리성을 보이는데, 자아는 성찰성, 주체는 수치심을 갖게 된다. 백인의 성찰성이 타인종에게 고통을 주는 인종주의의 근원이었음을 밝히고, 주체의 수치심이 타자에 대한 윤리성을 갖는 것임을 논의했다. 라깡의 정신분석은 지리 교육에 또 다른 지식의 축적이 아닌, 학생이 사유할 수 있는 도구가 될 수 있음을 제언한다.
키워드
자아
주체
위상학적 공간
성찰성
수치심
References
  1. 교육부, 2018a, ｢초･중등 교육과정 총론(교육부 고시 제2018-162호[별책2])｣.
  2. 교육부, 2018b, ｢사회과 교육과정(교육부 고시 제2018-162호[별책7])｣.
  3. 교육부, 2021, ｢5-1 사회 교과서｣, 서울: 지학사.
  4. 권재일･김윤한･김효중･문양수･허창운, 1999, ｢언어학과 인문학｣, 서울: 서울대학교출판부.
  5. 김재룡, 2014, “수학적 개념을 통한 라깡의 심리학에 대한 이해와 그 응용,” 수학교육 논문집, 28(1), 45-55.
  6. 박종관･홍현철･양향자･윤지현･김기남･김지호･신혜은, 2022, ｢고등학교 여행지리｣, 서울: 천재교과서.
  7. 박철웅･조성호･강은희･이강준･홍철희･박병철･김지현･백승진･최재희, 2022, ｢고등학교 세계지리｣, 서울: 미래엔.
  8. 이유섭, 2015, “정신분석학의 자아 일고찰: 프로이트의 자아와 라깡의 자아를 중심으로,” 현대정신분석, 17(2), 47-77.
  9. 주경복, 1991, “언어의 분절체계,” 인문과학논총, 23, 127-141.
  10. 가타오카 이치타케, 2017, ｢疾風怒濤精神分析入門 : ジャック･ラカン的生き方のススメ｣, 東京: 青心書房(임창석 역, 2019, ｢라캉은 정신분석’에 대해 이렇게 말했습니다｣, 서울: 이학사).
  11. 고사까 슈우헤이, 1984, ｢イラスト西洋哲學史｣, 東京: 宝島社(방준필 역, 1990, ｢함께 가보는 철학사 여행: 탈레스부터 마르크스까지｣, 서울: 사민서각).
  12. 우치다 타츠루, 2002, ｢寢ながら學べる構造主義｣, 東京: 文藝春秋(이경덕 역, 2012, ｢푸코, 바르트, 레비스트로스, 라캉 쉽게 읽기: 교양인을 위한 구조주의 강의｣, 서울: 갈라파고스).
  13. Badiou, A., 2001, Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil, London: Verso.
  14. Badiou, A. and Elisabeth, R., 2012, Jacques Lacan, passé présent : Dialogue, Paris: Seuil(현성환 역, 2013, ｢라캉, 끝나지 않은 혁명｣, 파주: 문학동네).
  15. Barr, S., 1964, Experiments in Topology, New York: Dover Publications.
  16. Blum, V. and Secor, A., 2011, Psychotopologies: closing the circuit between psychic and material space, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(6), 1030-1047.
  17. Brown, T. and England, J., 2004, Revisiting emancipatory teacher research: a psychoanalytic perspective, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(1), 67-79.
  18. Brown, W., 2010, Walled States, Waning Sovereignty, Cambridge: Zone Books.
  19. Chiesa, L., 2007, Subjectivity and Otherness: A Philosophical Reading of Lacan, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  20. Cooper, M., 2003, Existential Therapies, London: Sage Publications.
  21. Copjec, J., 2006, The object-gaze: Shame, Hejab, Cinema, Filozofski Vestnik, 27(2), 11-29.
  22. Dash, G. and Cater, C., 2015, Gazing awry: Reconsidering the Tourist Gaze and natural tourism through a Lacanian–Marxist theoretical framework, Tourist Studies, 15(3), 267–282.
  23. Evans, D., 1996, An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis, London: Routledge(김종주 등 역, 1998, ｢라깡 정신분석 사전｣, 서울: 인간사랑).
  24. Fink, B., 1997, The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance, Princeton: Princeton University Press(이성민 역, 2010, ｢라캉의 주체: 언어와 향유 사이에서｣, 서울: 도서출판b).
  25. Gasparyan, D., 2014, Mirror for the Other: Problem of the Self in Continental Philosophy (from Hegel to Lacan), Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48(1), 1-17.
  26. Harrison, N., 2012, Aborigines of the Imaginary: Applying Lacan to Aboriginal Education, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 5-14.
  27. Hegel, G.W.F., 2004, Phenomenology of Spirit, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Jagodzinski, J., 2002, The ethics of the “real” in Levinas, Lacan, and Buddhism: Pedagogical implications, Educational Theory, 52(1), 81.
  29. Jones, R., Johnson, C., Brown, W., Popescu, G., Pallister-Wilkins, P., Mountz, A., and Gilbert, E., 2017, Interventions on the state of sovereignty at the border, Political Geography, 59(1), 1-10.
  30. Kapoor, I., 2014, Psychoanalysis and development: contributions, examples, limits, Third World Quarterly, 35(7), 1120-1143.
  31. Kaufman, E., 2013, Do Dual Structures Exist? Deleuze and Lacan in the Wake of Lévi-Strauss, Yale French Studies, 123, 83-99.
  32. Kingsbury, P., 2007, The extimacy of space, Social & Cultural Geography, 8(2), 235-258.
  33. Kingsbury, P. and Pile, S., 2014, Psychoanalytic Geographies, Farnham: Ashgate.
  34. Kirshner, L.A., 2012, Toward an ethics of psychoanalysis: A critical reading of Lacan’s ethics, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 60(6), 1223-1242.
  35. Lacan, J., 1973, Le Séminaire XI: Les quatre concepts fondamentaux de la psychanalyse, Paris: Seuil(맹정현･이수련 역, 2008,｢정신분석의 네 가지 근본 개념｣, 서울: 새물결).
  36. Laclau, E., 2009, Identity and Hgemony: The Role of Universality in the Constitution of Political Logics, in Butler, J.P., Laclau, E., and Zizek, S., eds., Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues, London: Verso.
  37. Lear, J., 2003, The idea of a moral psychology: The impact of psychoanalysis on philosophy in Britain, The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 84(5), 1351-1361.
  38. Lefebvre, H., 1991, The Production of Space, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
  39. Levinas, E., 1988, Totalite et infini: Essai sur l’exteriorite, Berlin: Springer.
  40. Loren, S. and Metelmann, J., 2011, What’s the Matter, Race as Res, Journal Of Visual Culture, 10(3), 397-405.
  41. Markham, M., 1999, Through the Looking Glass: Reflective Teaching Through a Lacanian Lens, Curriculum Inquiry, 29(1), 55-76.
  42. Mezzadra, S. and Neilson, B., 2012, Between Inclusion and Exclusion: On the Topology of Global Space and Borders, Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4/5), 58-75.
  43. Miller, J.A., 2008, Extimity, The Symptom, 9, 1-12.
  44. Mitchell, W.J.T., 2011, Playing the Race Card with Lacan, Journal of Visual Culture, 10(3), 405-409.
  45. Naraghi, N., 2014, “Tehrangeles,” CA: e Aesthetics of Shame, in Kingsbury, P. and Pile, S., eds., Psychoanalytic Geographies, Farnham: Ashgate, 165-180.
  46. Oral, S.B., 2019, Absolute Knowing: Žižek and Subject-as-Trauma, Philosophical Studies in Education, 50, 127-139.
  47. Paasi, A., 2011, Borders, theory and the challenge of relational thinking, Political Geography, 30(2), 62-63.
  48. Phillips, J.W., 2013, On Topology, Theory, Culture & Society, 30(5) 122-152.
  49. Pohl, L., 2019, Hegel and the Shadow of Materialist Geographies, ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 18(2), 285-307.
  50. Sass, L., 2003, Lacan and 9/11, Raritan, 23(1), 162-166.
  51. Shin, M.A., 2008, Formation of a Discourse of Decolonization through Lacanian Concepts: Realized Dimension of Decolonization, Journal of English Studies in Korea, 15, 139-178.
  52. Soler, C., 1996, Time and interpretation, in Feldstein, R., Fink, B., and Jaanus, M., eds., Reading Seminars I and II: Lacan’s Return to Freud, Albany: State University of New York Press, 61-66.
  53. Stavrakakis, Y., 1999, Lacan and the Political, London: Routledge.
  54. Stronach, I., Corbin, B., McNamara, O., Stark, S., and Warne, T., 2002, Towards an Uncertainpolitics of Professionalism: Teacher and Nurse Identities in Flux, Journal of Education Policy, 17(1), 109-138.
  55. Taylor, G., 1985, Pride, Shame and Guilt: Emotions of Self-Assessment, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  56. Till, K.E., Sundberg, J., Pullan, W., Psaltis, C., Makriyianni, C., Cela, R., Samani, M., and Dowler, L., 2013, Interventions in the political geographies of walls, Political Geography, 33(1), 52-62.
  57. Uzlaner, D., 2017, Jacques Lacan and the Theory of the Religious Subject, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 29, 31-56.
  58. Van, R.K., Vanheule, S., Debaere, V., Inslegers, R., Meganck, R., and Deganck, J., 2014, A Lacanian view on Balint group meetings: a qualitative analysis of two case presentations, BMC Family Practice, 15(1), 1-9.
  59. Wachtel, P.L., 1969, Psychology, Metapsychology and Psychoanalysis, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74(6), 651-660.
  60. Williams, B., 1985, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  61. Williams, B., 1993, Shame and Necessity, Berkeley: University of California Press.
  62. Williams, B., 1995a, Nietzsche’s minimalist moral psychology, in Williams, B., eds., Making Sense of Humanity and Other Philosophical Papers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 65-76.
  63. Williams, B., 1995b, Naturalism and morality, in Altham, J.E.J. and Harrison, R., eds., World, Mind, and Ethics: Essays on the Ethical Philosophy of Bernard Williams, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202-203.
  64. Williams, B., 2002, Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  65. Winnubst, S., 2004, Is the mirror racist? Interrogating the space of whiteness, Philosophy & Social Criticism, 30(1), 25-50.
  66. Žižek, S., 1989, The Sublime Object of Ideology, New York: Verso(이수련 역, 2002, ｢이데올로기라는 숭고한 대상｣, 고양: 인간사랑).
  67. Žižek, S., 2006, How to Read Lacan, London: Granta Publications.
  68. Žižek, S., 2012, Less than nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism, London, New York: Verso.
  69. Wikimedia, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zuiderzee_1925_kaart_2021.jpg?uselang=ko
Information
  • Publisher :The Association of Korean Geographers
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국지리학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of the Association of Korean Geographers
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국지리학회지
  • Volume : 11
  • No :3
  • Pages :319~359
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.25202/JAKG.11.3.4
Journal Informaiton Journal of the Association of Korean Geographers Journal of the Association of Korean Geographers
Online Submission
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close