Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies (KSJCS)
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 66, No. 6, pp.195-229
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2022
Received 14 Oct 2022 Revised 28 Nov 2022 Accepted 02 Dec 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2022.66.6.006

집, 일상, 감시: 팬데믹 시기 집의 재구성과 ‘감시 돌봄’ 실천 연구

채석진**
**조선대학교 신문방송학과 조교수 sjchae@chosun.ac.kr
Home, Everyday Life, and Surveillance: An Ethnographic Study on the Practices of ‘Surveilling Care’ at Home
Suk Jin Chae**
**Assistant Professor, Chosun University sjchae@chosun.ac.kr

초록

이 글은 2년간의 현장 연구를 기반으로, 팬데믹 시기 개별 가구들이 어떻게 상이하게 돌봄 위기에 대응하며 집과 일상을 재구성하며 돌봄 실천을 하였는지 탐사한다. 이 연구는 집이라는 사적 공간에서 경험하는 감시는 거리, 상점, 학교, 사무실과 같은 공적 공간에서 경험하는 감시와 질적인 차이가 있음에 주목하여, 거주민들이 자기 집에 직접 설치한 가정용 감시 기술이 어떠한 속성과 양식의 돌봄 관계를 조립하고 있는지 살펴본다. 이 글은 세 부분으로 구성된다. 먼저 가정용 감시 기술과 돌봄 관계에 관한 논의로, 가정용 감시 기술을 매개로 정부와 기업의 집에 대한 침범이 돌봄 실천과 어떻게 긴밀하게 맞물려 작동해왔는지 논의한다. 또한 돌봄 관계를 고립되고 자율적인 주체들의 개별적 행위가 아닌, 다양한 차원에서 다양한 주체들이 연결되어 수행하는 집합적 행위로 논의한다. 다음은 현장 연구에서 만난 세 가구의 이야기로, 팬데믹 시기 개별 가구가 돌봄 위기에 대응하며 어떻게 가정용 감시기술을 채택하여 돌봄을 수행하였고, 이 속에서 어떠한 속성의 돌봄 관계가 조립되고 있는지 살펴본다. 이를 통해 이 연구는 돌봄 실천에 관한 두 가지의 지배적인 경향에 도전한다. 하나는 돌봄을 주로 집에서 수행되는 고립된 실천으로 가정하는 경향에서 벗어나, 집이라는 공간이 공적 영역의 변화와 맞물려 끊임없이 재조립되는 공간이며, 돌봄 실천이 다양한 주체들이 다양한 공적/사적 영역을 가로질러 항시적으로 연결되어 구성하는 행위임에 주목한다. 다른 하나는 미디어 테크놀로지가 공적/사적 영역의 다양한 주체들을 가로질러 수행되는 돌봄을 매개하는 핵심적인 행위자임에 주목하여, 돌봄 실천을 (기존 연구가 초점을 두었던) 인간 행위만이 아닌 비인간적 요소들의 행위까지 포함하는 인적-기술적-사회적 네트워크 속에서 구성되는 것으로 탐사한다. 이러한 접근방식을 통해 이 연구는 ‘돌봄 전경’(caringscapes)(Mckie et al. 2002)에 대한 총체적인 이해를 추구한다. 결론으로 이 글은 팬데믹 시기 집에서 가정용 감시 기술을 매개로 구성하는 ‘감시 돌봄’ 실천이 광범위하게 조립되고 있으며, 이는 현재만이 아니라 미래의 돌봄 관계를 침식하고 있다고 주장한다.

Abstract

Drawing on a two-year ethnographic fieldwork, this article explores a new form of surveilling care practices at home. In particular, it focuses on how individual households have reassembled their everyday lives and care practices with domestic surveillance technologies during COVID 19 pandemic. The pandemic has brought about significant changes in our daily life. One of them is the rise of surveilling practices in both public and private spaces. This study investigates how individual households have adopted domestic surveillance technologies in response to the care crisis during the pandemic and how it affects the nature of care relations at home while paying attention to the differences in the experience of surveillance between public and private spaces. Ten Korean families residing in various countries participated in this ethnographic study that took place between 2020 and 2022. Among the ten families, this article focuses on the experiences of three families living in the central part of South Korea. This article consists of three parts. First, with theoretical discussion on the relations between domestic technologies and care practices, it shows how government and corporate surveillance of homes have been intertwined with caring practices by parents. Then, with the stories of three families whom I met in the fieldwork, it tells how individual households have transformed care practices with various domestic surveillance technologies during the pandemic. Finally, this study considers how those households have reacted to the care problem differently and have formed various care relations at home. In doing so, this study contributes to the discussions on care at home in three aspects: Care practices are viewed as collective acts of the connected and dependent subjects, rather than as individual acts of isolated and autonomous subjects; home is considered not as an isolated space, but as a social setting that undergoes ongoing transformation in tandem with broader sociotechnical changes; media technology is considered as a significant actor mediating care practices across time and spaces, breaking away from the tendency of care studies to focus primarily on human actors. Through this approach, this study seeks for a holistic understanding of the changes in ‘caringscapes’ (Mckie et al. 2002) during the pandemic. In conclusion, this article argues that the expansion of surveilling practices at home erodes our capacity to build caring social relations.

Keywords:

Surveilling care, care practices, caringscapes, domestic surveillance technologies, everyday life

키워드:

감시 돌봄, 집의 재구성, 가정용 감시기술, 일상, 돌봄 전경

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by research fund from Chosun University, 2022 (이 논문은 2022학년도 조선대학교 학술연구비의 지원을 받아 연구되었음).

논문의 초벌은 한국언론학회 2022년 가을철 정기학술대회에서 발표하였고, 일부 내용은 한국지능정보사회진흥원 미래전략보고서(채석진, 2021b; 채석진·오연주, 2022)에 실렸다. 더 완성된 논문이 되도록 구체적이고 통찰력 있는 제안과 의견을 주신 익명의 심사위원님들께 감사드립니다.

References

  • Andrejevic, M. (2020). Automated media. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429242595]
  • Berker, T., Hartmann, M., Punie, Y., & Ward, K. (2005). Domestication of media and technology. Maidenhed, UK: Open University Press.
  • Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Chae, S. J. (2016). Ethics in intimate ethnography: Researching the underemployed women. Media and Society, 24(3), 47-88.
  • Chae, S. J. (2021a). On breathing in the era of the pandemic. Korean Journal of Communication & Information. 109, 40-66. [https://doi.org/10.46407/kjci.2021.10.109.40]
  • Chae, S. J. (2021b). Home, surveillance, and everyday life: Digital-Based care and children’s rights. In National Infomation Society Agency (Ed.), Digital transformation from children’s perspective. Korea’s recovery strategy through the digital.
  • Chae, S. J., & Oh, Y. J. (2022). Digital transformation toward a caring society. Korea’s innovation strategy through the digital. National Infomation Society Agency.
  • Choi, Y., & Hwang, S. (2022). During the pandemic, has Korean society taken good care of children? : Focusing on the elementary school care system and distance education. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 113, 207-248. [https://doi.org/10.46407/kjci.2022.06.113.207]
  • de Certeau, M. (1988). The practice of everday life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • de La Bellacasa, M. P. (2011). Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 85-106. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710380301]
  • de La Bellacasa, M. P. (2017) Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds. London, UK: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Doty, P. (2020). Oxymorons of privacy and surveillance in “smart homes”. Proceedings of the Association for Information science and Technology, 57(1). [https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.222]
  • Doty, P. (2021). Privacy, surveillance, and the “smart home”. In M. Ocepek & W. Aspray (Eds.), Decoding where to live: Information studies on where to live in America (pp. 93-124). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Fisher, B., & Tronto, J. (1990). Toward a feminist theory of caring. In E. K. Abel & M. K. Nelson (Eds.), Circles of care: Work and identity in women’s lives (pp. 35-62). New York, NY: SUNY Press.
  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/space: Software and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262042482.001.0001]
  • Lambert, C. (2015). Shadow work: The unpaid, unseen jobs that fill your day. Berkeley, CA: Conterpoint.
  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lynch, K. (2007). Love labour as a distinct and non-commodifiable form of care labour. The Sociological Review, 55(3), 550-570. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00714.x]
  • Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society. London, UK: Open University Press.
  • Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  • Maalsen, S., & Sadowski, J. (2019). The smart home on FIRE: Amplifying and accelerating domestic surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 17(1/2), 118-124. [https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v17i1/2.12925]
  • Makinen, L. A. (2016). Surveillance on/off: Examining home surveillance systems from the user’s perspective. Surveillance and Society, 14(1), 59-77. [https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v14i1.5488]
  • Martin, A., Myers, N., & Viseu, A. (2015). The poltics of care in technoscience. Social Studies of Science, 45, 625-641. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715602073]
  • McKie, L., Gregory, S., & Bowlby, S. (2002). Shadow times: The temporal and spatial frameworks and experiences of caring and working. Sociology, 36(4), 897-924. [https://doi.org/10.1177/003803850203600406]
  • Mol, A., & Hardon, A. (2021). Caring: A fluid concept for adaptable engagements. In J. Bowen & N. Dodier (Eds.), Pragmatic in quiry: Critical concepts for social sciences (pp. 185-205). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003034124-16]
  • Mol, A., Moser, I., & Pols, J. (2010). Care in parctice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcripts Verlag. [https://doi.org/10.1515/transcript.9783839414477]
  • Morley, D. (2000). Home territories: Media, mobility, and identity. London, UK: Routledge.
  • Murphy, J., & Parry, S. (2021). Gender, households and sustainability: Disentangling and reentangling with the help of ‘work’ and ‘care’. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 4, 1099-1120. [https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620948432]
  • Murphy, M. (2015). Unsettling care: Troubling transnational itineraries of care in feminist health practices. Social Studies of Science, 45, 717-737. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715589136]
  • Park, H. (2021, April 6). Corona 19 home-withdrawal effect... LGU+ “U+ smart home subscribers 30% increase in 1 year. Herald Economy. Retrieved from http://mbiz.heraldcorp.com/view.php?ud=20210406000085
  • Park, S. J., & Abelmann, N. (2004). Class and cosmopolitan striving: Mothers’ management of English education in South Korea. Anthropological Quarterly, 77(4), 645-672. [https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2004.0063]
  • Rapoport, M. (2012). The home under survillance: A tripartite assemblage. Surveillance & Society, 10(3/4), 320-333. [https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v10i3/4.4280]
  • Silverston, R. (1994). Television and everyday life. London, UK: Routledge.
  • Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808418]
  • Ticona, J. (2020, Fall). Essential and untrusted. Dissent. Retrieved from https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/essential-and-untrusted [https://doi.org/10.1353/dss.2020.0080]
  • Ticona, J., & Mateescu, A. (2018). Trusted strangers: Carework platforms’ cultural entrepreneurship in the on-demand economy. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4384-4404. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818773727]
  • Tronto, J. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality, and justice. New York, NY: New York University Press.
  • Ur, B., Jung, J., & Schechter, S. (2014). Intruders versus intrusiveness: Teens' and parents' perspectives on home-entryway surveillance. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '14), 129-139. [https://doi.org/10.1145/2632048.2632107]
  • Wise, M. J. (2004). An immense and unexpected field of action: Webcams, surveillance and everyday life. Cultural Studies, 18, 424-442. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0950238042000201590]
  • Zheng, S., Apthorpe, N., Chetty, M., & Feamster, N. (2018). User perceptions of smart home IoT privacy. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 1-20. [https://doi.org/10.1145/3274469]
  • Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89. [https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5]
  • Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

Appendix

부록

  • 박혜림 (2021, 4, 6). 코로나19 집콕족 효과…LGU+ “U+스마트홈 가입자 1년새 30%↑. <헤럴드 경제>. Retrieved from http://mbiz.heraldcorp.com/view.php?ud=20210406000085
  • 채석진 (2016). 친밀한 민속지학의 윤리: 청년세대 여성들의 취약한 삶, 노동, 디지털 미디어 사용 연구하기. <언론과 사회>, 24권 3호.
  • 채석진 (2021a). 팬데믹 시기의 숨쉬기에 대하여. <한국언론정보학보>, 109권, 40-66.
  • 채석진 (2021b). 집, 감시, 일상: 디지털 기술 기반 돌봄과 아동 인권. 한국지능정보사회진흥원 (편), <아동의 관점으로 보는 디지털 전환_대한민국 디지털路 회복전략 8>.
  • 채석진·오연주 (2022). <돌보는 세상을 위한 디지털 전환_대한민국 디지털路 혁신전략 9>, 한국지능정보사회진흥원.
  • 최이숙·황선영 (2022) 팬데믹 시기, 한국사회는 아이들을 잘 돌봐왔는가?: 초등 돌봄 제도와 원격교육을 중심으로. <한국언론정보학보>, 113권, 207-248.