1990년대 이후 탈냉전과 민주화와 더불어 한국에서는 한국전쟁기 민간인 학살에 대한 진상규명작업이 활발히 전개되어 상당한 성과를 거두어왔다. 거창사건추모공원은 그 대표적 결실 가운데 하나로서 희생자 유족들의 주도로 산간벽지인 사건 현장에 사상 유례 없는 대규모 민간인 희생자 추모공원을 만들어냈다. 그렇다면 이 공간은 거창사건의 진실을 충실히 재현해내고 있는가? 이 연구는 이 공간을 한국전쟁기 민간인 학살사건을 둘러싸고 진행중인 기억의 정치의 장으로 간주하고 그 담론적·공간적 특징을 분석한다. 우선 담론적 재현 양상의 측면에서는 ‘양민’ 이미지의 강조와 ‘학살’ 개념의 말소가 특징적이다. 거창사건 희생자들은 다른 지역의 ‘민간인’ 희생자들과는 차별화된 ‘양민’임을 강조함으로써 사건을 탈맥락화·국지화시키는 한편, 사건이 극악한 일부 군인들의 예외적 소행이었고 이들이 이미 적법한 절차를 통해 처벌되었음을 강조함으로써 국가폭력에 의한 학살의 역사적 실재를 크게 축소시키고 있다. 둘째로 공간적 재현 양상에서는 부러진 위령비로 대표되는 구 묘역(박산합동묘역)과 새롭게 5만평에 달하는 부지에 대규모로 조성된 신묘역간의 긴장, 국가에 의해 죽은 사람들의 공간이 국가를 위해 죽은 사람들의 공간을 모방했다는 모순성, 그리고 ‘참회’와 ‘환희’ 두 군상의 의미론적 상충 등을 특징적 양상으로 지적할 수 있다. 거창사건추모공원이 드러내는 입지와 규모의 극단적 부조화, 언표된 장소적 기표들 간의 충돌과 언표되지 않은 역사적 의미의 파열음으로 가득찬 공간들간의 모순은 무엇을 드러내는가? 거창사건의 담론적 재현과 공간적 재현의 괴리는 탈냉전과 분단이라는 모순적 상황 속에서 한국전쟁에 대한 기억의 정치가 선택한 일시적 타협의 산물로서 해석된다.

Since 1990’s, with the start of post-cold war and democratization, many facts on civilian massacres at the time of Korean war were unearthed thanks to the civil and official efforts of truth finding. Memorial Park for Geochang Massacre is one of the outcomes, which could have been built as a large scale park at a remote mountain side by the active family members of the victims. This paper examines whether this place represents the truth of Geochang massacre authentically or not. First of all, from the aspect of discursive representation, the emphasis on the image of ‘yangmin(good civilian)’ and the obliteration of the concept of ‘genocide’ are most conspicuous. The family members of the victims of the incident underline that they are ‘yangmin’ different from other civilian victims of Korean war. Therefore, excluded from a broader frame of civilian genocide of Korean war, they tried to decontextualize and localize the incident. Moreover, the family members unwittingly diminishes the truth of the incident by highlighting that this incident was an exceptional case committed by a modicum of ruthless soldiers and they were already punished with a legitimate process. The recent renaming of the monument from ‘Baksan-gol, the site of massarcre’ to ‘Baksan-gol, the site of victims’ illustrates this stance quite well. Secondly, in terms of spatial representation, the conflicts between an old graveyard and a new graveyard were distinct: the former is symbolized with a broken monument while the latter is newly constructed at a large-scale eight acre site. Therefore, ironically enough, the place for the victims of national violence has the same form with the place for the doers of national violence. More ‘disturbing’ truth can be found from two incompatible monuments named ‘repentance’ and ‘glory’. From this contradictory site of Memorial Park for Geochang Massacre filled with ruptures between visible signs and invisible historical meanings, what is spoken of and represented? We interpret the irony of discursive and spatial representation as a negotiating tactic of politics of memory in the paradoxical context of post-cold war and national division.

Since 1990’s, with the start of post-cold war and democratization, many facts on civilian massacres at the time of Korean war were unearthed thanks to the civil and official efforts of truth finding. Memorial Park for Geochang Massacre is one of the outcomes, which could have been built as a large scale park at a remote mountain side by the active family members of the victims. This paper examines whether this place represents the truth of Geochang massacre authentically or not. First of all, from the aspect of discursive representation, the emphasis on the image of ‘yangmin(good civilian)’ and the obliteration of the concept of ‘genocide’ are most conspicuous. The family members of the victims of the incident underline that they are ‘yangmin’ different from other civilian victims of Korean war. Therefore, excluded from a broader frame of civilian genocide of Korean war, they tried to decontextualize and localize the incident. Moreover, the family members unwittingly diminishes the truth of the incident by highlighting that this incident was an exceptional case committed by a modicum of ruthless soldiers and they were already punished with a legitimate process. The recent renaming of the monument from ‘Baksan-gol, the site of massarcre’ to ‘Baksan-gol, the site of victims’ illustrates this stance quite well. Secondly, in terms of spatial representation, the conflicts between an old graveyard and a new graveyard were distinct: the former is symbolized with a broken monument while the latter is newly constructed at a large-scale eight acre site. Therefore, ironically enough, the place for the victims of national violence has the same form with the place for the doers of national violence. More ‘disturbing’ truth can be found from two incompatible monuments named ‘repentance’ and ‘glory’. From this contradictory site of Memorial Park for Geochang Massacre filled with ruptures between visible signs and invisible historical meanings, what is spoken of and represented? We interpret the irony of discursive and spatial representation as a negotiating tactic of politics of memory in the paradoxical context of post-cold war and national division.

, , , , , ,

Korean War, Geochang, Massacre, Commemoration, Politics of Memory