한나 아렌트 [인간의 조건상태(인간의 조건)] 3부 13장. 노동 및 생명삶

13.. 노동 및 생명삶Labor and Life

만져지는 거시기들 가운데 가장 내구성이 적은 것들(노동의 생산물들, 소비자의 좋은것들)은 생명삶과정 그자체를 위해 욕구되는 것들이다. 그것들은 생산되자마자 소비된다(174)The least durable of tangible things are those needed for the life process itself. Their consumption barely survives the act of their production; in the words of Locke, all those "good things" which are "really useful to the life of man," to the "necessity of subsisting," are "generally of short duration, such as— if they are not consumed by use— -will decay and perish by themselves."81 After a brief stay in the world, they return into the natural process which yielded them either through absorption into the life process of the human animal or through decay; 사람이만든 모습 안에서, 자체들의 하루살이 자리를 사람이만든 거시기들의 세계 안에서 획득하는, 이것들은 세계의 어떠한 다른 부분보다도 더욱 순식간에 사라진다(174)in their man-made shape, through which they acquired their ephemeral place in the world of manmade things, they disappear more quickly than any other part of the world. 그것들의 세계있음을 살펴보면, 이것들은 모든 거시기들 가운데 가장 덜 세계있음인 동시에 가장 본성자연적이다(174)Considered in their worldliness, they are the least worldly and at the same time the most natural of all things. Although they are man-made, they come and go, are produced and consumed, in accordance with the ever-recurrent cyclical movement of nature. Cyclical, too, is the movement of the living organism, the human body not excluded, as long as it can withstand the process that permeates its being and makes it alive. Life is a process that everywhere uses up durability, wears it down, makes it disappear, until eventually dead matter, the result of small, single, cyclical, life processes, returns into the over-all gigantic circle of nature herself, 본성자연에는 아무런 시작도 끝도 실존하지 않는다. 모든 자연적인 거시기들은 변함없이 죽음없이 반복 속에서 왔다리갔다리 할 뿐이다(175)where no beginning and no end exist and where all natural things swing in changeless, deathless repetition.

본성자연과 순환주기적인 운동은... 출생도 죽음도 알지못한다(175)Nature and the cyclical movement into which she forces all living things know neither birth nor death as we understand them. 태어남과 죽음은 단순한 본성자연적인 과정이 아니라 유니크하고 교환불가능하고 반복불가능한 실체들인 단일한 인디비두얼들의 세계와 관계된다(175)The birth and death of human beings are not simple natural occurrences, but are related to a world into which single individuals, unique, unexchangeable, and unrepeatable entities, appear and from which they depart. Birth and death presuppose a world which is not in constant movement, but whose durability and relative permanence makes appearance and disappearance possible, which existed before any one individual appeared into it and will survive his eventual departure. Without a world into which men are born and from which they die, there would be nothing but changeless eternal recurrence, the deathless everlastingness of the human as of all other animal species. A philosophy of life that does not arrive, as did Nietzsche, at the affirmation of "eternal recurrence"(ewige Wiederkehr) as the highest principle of all being, simply does not know what it is talking about.

"생명삶"이라는 낱말은... 세계와 관계된... 태어남과 죽음 사이의 시간적인 간격일 때 의미를 갖는다(175)The word "life," however, has an altogether different meaning if it is related to the world and meant to designate the time interval between birth and death. Limited by a beginning and an end, that is, by the two supreme events of appearance and disappearance within the world, it follows a strictly linear movement whose very motion nevertheless is driven by the motor of biological life which man shares with other living things and which forever retains the cyclical movement of nature. The chief characteristic of this specifically human life, whose appearance and disappearance constitute worldly events, is that it is itself always full of events which ultimately can be told as a story, establish a biography; 아리스토텔레스는, 이러한 생명삶을 단지 조에(하나님이주신 생명; 본성자연의 생명)가 아니라 바이오스(세계 내 존재의 삶) 곧 "일정정도는 실천의 어떤 종류" 곧 행동 및 로고스(발언; 이성; 낱말)이라고 말했다(175)it is of this life, bios as distinguished from mere zoe, that Aristotle said that it "somehow is a kind of praxis."32 For action and speech, which, as we saw before, belonged close together in the Greek understanding of politics, are indeed the two activities whose end result will always be a story with enough coherence to be told, no matter how accidental or haphazard the single events and their causation may appear to be.

본성자연의 순환주기적인 운동이 성장과 부패를 선언하는 곳은 오직 인간세계 속에서 뿐이다(176)It is only within the human world that nature's cyclical movement manifests itself as growth and decay. Like birth and death, they, too, are not natural occurrences, properly speaking; they have no place in the unceasing, indefatigable cycle in which the whole household of nature swings perpetually. 오직 거시기들이 사람이만든 세계로 들어올 때에만, 본성자연의 과정들은 성장 및 부패에 의해 특징지워진다(176)Only when they enter the man-made world can nature's processes be characterized by growth and decay; 본성자연의 생산물들을 '이 나무' 또는 '이 개'라는 인디비두얼한 거시기로써 우리가 여길 때에만, 그에의해서 그것들을 에워싼 '본성자연의' 주위환경들로부터 그것들을 떼어내어 우리의 세계 안을향해 집어넣을 때에만, 그것들은 성장하기 시작하고 부패하기 시작한다(176)only if we consider nature's products, this tree or this dog, as individual things, thereby already removing them from their "natural" surroundings and putting them into our world, do they begin to grow and to decay. While nature manifests itself in human existence through the circular movement of our bodily functions, she makes her presence felt in the man-made world through the constant threat of overgrowing or decaying it. The common characteristic of both, the biological process in man and the process of growth and decay in the world, is that they are part of the cyclical movement of nature and therefore endlessly repetitive; all human activities which arise out of the necessity to cope with them are bound to the recurring cycles of nature and have in themselves no beginning and no end, properly speaking; 오브젝트를 거시기들의 공통된 세계에 더함으로써 끝목표가 달성되는 작업하기와 달리, 노동하기는 늘 똑같은 순환주기 안에서 움직이고, 이 순환주기는... 이 유기체의 오직 죽음에 의해서만 '노고와 고생' 역시 끝난다(176)unlike working, whose end has come when the object is finished, ready to be added to the common world of things, laboring always moves in the same circle, which is prescribed by the biological process of the living organism and the end of its "toil and trouble" comes only with the death of this organism.33

1. In the earlier literature on labor up to the last third of the nineteenth century, it was not uncommon to insist on the connection between labor and the cyclical movement of the life process. Thus, Schulze-Delitzsch, in a lecture Die Arbeit(Leipzig, 1863), begins with a description of the cycle of desire-effortsatisfaction— "Beim letzten Bissen fangt schon die Verdauung an." However, in the huge post-Marxian literature on the labor problem, the only author who emphasizes and theorizes about this most elementary aspect of the laboring activity is Pierre Naville, whose La vie de travail et ses problimes(1954) is one of the most interesting and perhaps the most original recent contribution. Discussing the particular traits of the workday as distinguished from other measurement of labor time, he says as follows: "Le trait principal est son caractere cyclique ou rythmique. Ce caractere est lie a la fois a l'esprit naturel et cosmologique de la journee ... et au caractere des fonctions physiologiques de l'etre humain, qu'il a en commun avec Ies especes anirnales superieures, ... II est evident que le travail devait etre de prime abord lie a des rythmes et fonctions naturels." From this follows the cyclical character in the expenditure and reproduction of labor power that determines the time unit of the workday. Naville's most important insight is that the time character of human life, inasmuch as it is not merely part of the life of the species, stands in stark contrast to the cyclical time character of the workday. "Les limites naturelles superieures de la vie ... ne sont pas dictees, comme celle de la journee, par la necessite et la possibilite de se reproduire, mais au contraire, par I'impossibilit6 de se renouveler, sinon a Fechelle de l'espece. Le cycle s'accomplit en une fois, et ne se renouvelle pas"(pp. 19-24).

When 맑스는 노동을 "본성자연과더불은 사람의 신진대사"로 규정했다(177)Marx defined labor as "man's metabolism with nature," in whose process "nature's material [is] adapted by a change of form to the wants of man," so that "labour has incorporated itself with its subject," he indicated clearly that he was "speaking physiologically" and that labor and consumption are but two stages of the ever-recurring cycle of biological life.34 This cycle needs to be sustained through consumption, and the activity which provides the means of consumption is laboring.36 Whatever labor produces is meant to be fed into the human life process almost immediately, and this consumption, regenerating the life process, produces— or rather, reproduces— new "labor power," needed for the further sustenance of the body.36 From the viewpoint of 생명삶과정 그자체의 절박함... 로크가 말한 "서브시스턴스(생계; 아래-지속됨)의 너쎄시티(필수욕구됨; 먹고사니즘)"(178)the exigencies of the life process itself, the "necessity of subsisting," as Locke put it, laboring and consuming follow each other so closely that they almost constitute one and the same movement, which is hardly ended when it must be started all over again. "서브시스턴스(생계; 아래-지속됨)의 너쎄시티(필수욕구됨; 먹고사니즘)"은 노동과 소비, 둘다를 모두 지배한다(178)The "necessity of subsisting" rules over both labor and consumption, and labor, when it incorporates, "gathers," and bodily "mixes with" the things provided by nature,37 does actively what the body does even more intimately when it consumes its nourishment. Both are devouring processes that seize and destroy matter, and the "work" done by labor upon its material is only the preparation for its eventual destruction.

1. Capital(Modern Library ed.), p. 201. This formula is frequent in Marx's work and always repeated almost verbatim: labor is the eternal natural necessity to effect the metabolism between man and nature.(See, for instance, Das Kapital, Vol. I, Part 1, ch. 1, sec. 2, and Part 3, ch. 5. The standard English translation, Modern Library ed., pp. 50, 205, falls short of Marx's precision.) We find almost the same formulation in Vol. Ill of Das Kapital, p. 872. Obviously, when Marx speaks as he frequently does of the "life process of society," he is not thinking in metaphors.

2. Marx called labor "productive consumption"(Capital [Modern Library ed.], p. 204) and never lost sight of its being a physiological condition.

3. Marx's whole theory hinges on the early insight that the laborer first of all reproduces his own life by producing his 생계수단means of subsistence. In his early writings he thought "that men begin to distinguish themselves from animals when they begin to produce their means of subsistence"(Deutsche Ideologic, p. 10). This indeed is the very content of the definition of man as animal laborans. It is all the more noteworthy that in other passages Marx is not satisfied with this definition because it does not distinguish man sharply enough from animals. "A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labourprocess, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement"(Capital [Modern Library ed.], p. 198). Obviously, Marx no longer speaks of labor, but of work— with which he is not concerned; and the best proof of this is that the apparently all-important element of "imagination" plays no role whatsoever in his labor theory. In the third volume of Das Kapital he repeats that surplus labor beyond immediate needs serves the "progressive extension of the reproduction process"(pp. 872, 278). Despite occasional hesitations, Marx remained convinced that "Milton produced Paradise Lost for the same reason a silk worm produces silk"(Theories of Surplus Value [London, 1951], p. 186).

4. Locke, op. cit., sees. 46, 26, and 27, respectively.

5. Ibid., sec. 34.

노동하기 활동의 파괴적이고 게걸스러운 국면은 오직 세계의 관점으로부터만 그리고 작업으로부터 구별할 때에만 확실하게 보인다. 작업은 재료를 신체화하기 위해서 준비하지 않으며, 재료를 작업을 위한 원료로 바꾸고, 그 원료를 생산물을 완성하는 데에 쓴다(179)This destructive, devouring aspect of the laboring activity, to be sure, is visible only from the standpoint of the world and in distinction from work, which does not prepare matter for incorporation but changes it into material in order to work upon it and use the finished product. 본성자연의 관점으로부터 보자면, 파괴적인 것은 노동이 아니라 오히려 작업인데, 왜냐하면 작업과정은 재료들을 본성자연의 손들 바깥으로 취해버리며, (노동처럼) 살아있는 신체의 본성자연적인 신진대사의 즉각적인 경로를 통해서 본성자연에게 되돌려주지 않기 때문이다(179)From the viewpoint of nature, it is work rather than labor that is destructive, since the work process takes matter out of nature's hands without giving it back to her in the swift course of the natural metabolism of the living body.

Equally bound up with the recurring cycles of natural movements, but not quite so urgently imposed upon man by "the condition of human life" itself,38 is 노동하기의 둘째 과제는, 세계의 내구성을 위협하는 그리고 인간의 쓸모를 위한 그것의 피트니스(들어맞음; 적응)를 위협하는, 인간의 인공체를 침입하는, (인간 스스로가 초래한) 본성자연의 성장과 부패에 맞선, 끝나지않는 항상적인 싸움, 그것이다(179)the second task of laboring— its constant, unending fight against the processes of growth and decay through which nature forever invades the human artifice, threatening the durability of the world and its fitness for human use. The protection and preservation of the world against natural processes are among the toils which need the monotonous performance of daily repeated chores. 즉각적인 몸의 욕구들의 질서명령에 복종하여, 본질적으로 평화로운 (욕구충족의) 완성됨(이라는 첫째 노동의 과제)과 달리, 노동하기의 (둘째 과제인) 이러한 싸움은, 본성자연에 맞서 그것이 방어해야하는, 세계와 더욱 밀접한 연결을 가진다(179)This laboring fight, as distinguished from the essentially peaceful fulfilment in which labor obeys the orders of immediate bodily needs, although it may be even less "productive" than man's direct metabolism with nature, has a much closer connection with the world, which it defends against nature. In old tales and mythological stories it has often assumed the grandeur of heroic rights against overwhelming odds, as in the account of Hercules, whose cleaning of the Augean stables is among the twelve heroic "labors." A similar connotation of heroic deeds requiring great strength and courage and performed in a fighting spirit is manifest in the medieval use of the word: labor, travail, arebeit. However, the daily fight in which the human body is engaged to keep the world clean and prevent its decay bears little resemblance to heroic deeds; the endurance it needs to repair every day anew the waste of yesterday is not courage, and what makes the effort painful is not danger but its relentless repetition. The Herculean "labors" share with all great deeds that they are unique; but unfortunately it is only the mythological Augean stable that will remain clean once the effort is made and the task achieved.

● 여기까지가 3부 13장 노동 및 생명삶Labor and Life인데, 아렌트는 <노동과 본성자연 또는 생명삶 사이의 관계됨>을 집중적으로 정리해나가고 있습니다.첫째 노동의 과제는 몸의 욕구충족, 곧 생계(서브시스턴스)의 너쎄시티(필수욕구됨; 먹고사니즘)을 생산하는 것입니다. 그러나 이러한 노동에 의한 생산물들(필수품; 소비재)은 예상수명이 가장 짧은 하루살이들이며, 생산되자 마자 소비되는 것들이란 특징을 갖는다고 아렌트는 규정합니다. 그러므로 작업에 의한 생산물들 곧 몇세대를 견뎌내는 오브젝트들과 달리 이들 '소비되는 좋은것'들은 가장덜 세계적이며 그런 점에서 상대적으로 인간세계 안의 거시기들 가운데에서는 가장 본성자연적인 것이지만, 노동에 의해 아티큘레이션되어져서 인간세계 안으로 들어왔기 때문에, 성장과 부패의 운명을 갖습니다. 이로부터 둘째 노동의 과제가 생긴다고 아렌트는 추론해냅니다.둘째 노동의 과제는, 인간세계 자체를 본성자연의 공격으로부터 안전보장하려는 싸움으로써의 노동하기입니다. 인공체 안에 들어온 필수품들의 성장과 부패(경제학 용어로는 공황, 과잉생산, 재고넘침 등등)에 맞서서, 그리고 본성자연의 위협(자연재난 등)에 맞서서, 인간세계의 인공체들을 방어하는 노동이, 바로 이 둘째 과제의 노동하기입니다.아렌트의 관점에서 볼 때, 인간생명삶 안에서 노동(하기)은 필요조건이지 충분조건이 될 수는 없으며, 그러한 충분조건은 오직 행동(하기)라는 것이다보니, 노동을 신격화하는 맑스계보들과 계속해서 대립하는 그의 분석논증을 접하게 되는군요.