It has been a long time since a polarized society has become a problem in Korea. However, the fact that the problem of polarization today is a problem of poverty is getting closer to common sense. Some say, “the expression of a polarized society covers poverty.” On the other hand, they continue to accuse the situation of Precariat, saying that there is a labor problem at the root of this problem. Here, the term precariat is a coined word created by the combination of proletariat and precario, which means unstable state, and seems to have appeared in Italy. The French synonym, precarite, was already a problem in France.
In addition, the polarization problem of Korea, in other words, polarization is not simply a differential or single-dimensional problem that there is a difference in the economic situation between A and B at some point, but that the polarization is in most cases that position change is impossible in mind. In other words, the problem is the fixation of polarization in the sense that it is impossible to escape from poverty. This context is what is expressed in France as exclusion sociale. This concept of social exclusion is being discussed in social welfare studies and social security law in Korea, and even constitutional researchers use this term, but it is probably not a concept that is often heard in constitutional studies. In fact, this social exclusion in France has not started to be used very recently. Already in the 1990s, long-term unemployed people were used to refer to a situation where they were away from social life. And this problem consciousness leads to the lowest income for social participation (“revenum inimum dinsertion”).
There is an argument that if we look to Korea, we should not seek a solution to such a polarized society through the intervention of the state. This debate includes standing on the perception that fixed polarization or social exclusion is not so serious, and in this case it will be the current state of polarization society acceptance theory. It is not at the level of this epistemology, but in the first place that the state intervention is unnecessary or harmful, insisting on the superiority of the vitality of private enterprises to revitalize enterprises as a result reduces poverty or argues for the failure of the government, There is also an injustice as well as an infringement of freedom, but the Constitutional Science’s response to this is currently not good.
Among the above discussions, mainly the last argument seems to be that the state directly attempts to intervene. However, as described in this article, in France, state intervention does not necessarily mean that the state uses its own hands. On the other hand, it has been pointed out earlier that in France the tradition of anti-etatisme also exists deeply. Here, this paper looks at France and tries to get some hints on the principle of the state, what role it plays, and how the state intervenes in the field of social security.