Earticle

A Study on Lee Gwang soo’s Gun－Sang focused on the viewpoint of Culture Theory Kim, Mi－Hyang Both culture and literature deal with not only human lives but also problems on the group, society and individuals, so we can understand the literature in the aspects of culture theory. Accepting the literature as culture rather than literature itself and understanding the meaning of literature are the new attempt which can discover how people cope with their sufferings in the literature. Also, this is the reason literature is shifted in our everyday lives. In that sense, this study handled people's lives in 1930s with the various viewpoints of the culture theory through Lee, Gwangsoo's Gun－Sang, a work written on the base of realism. First, <A Revolutionist's Wife> dealt with the era and cultural situation which could not but produce the work through fallen socialists, raising ideological issues in the 1930s with the sight of society theory. Next, the author, in <Polygon of Love>, approached Korean fallen society due to material civilization at the time and handled romantic issues by presenting characters who fell in free love. In the <Sambong's family>, the author treated of farmers' afflicting lives in the 1930s such as rural decline and immigration to Manchuria in the light of human theory, showing wandering Sambong's family. Also, the author focused on Korean potential evils or individual humanity issues rather than the oppression of Japanese Imperialism. The reason is that the work, Gun－Sang, has intention to objectively describe the characters' wicked acts and to urge the national awakening by criticizing them. However, this is another reason to criticize the author because he dealt with the confused society at the time and the cause of rural decline in the viewpoints of internal issues instead of the colonial situation. The literary achievement of this work is to escape from persistence to enlighten people, looking for artistry. Also, <Sambong's family>, the first novel which dealt with farmers' immigration, lively describes the personality of the characters, embodying their harsh realities. Especially, the author presented a character Eulsoon who actively correspond to her situations. Although she is an insignificant person in the society, the author described her as a character who more actively embodies creativity of life than other typical characters and showed readers Eulsoon with rare and unique features. This point may be the best achievement of this work.

This paper reviewed the works of Park Nam-soo in the context of them being post-war poems. Meanwhile, research into his poems as post－war poems has been mostly excluded in descriptions of literature history; however, this study was able to discover post-war signifiers revealed in his poems written during the 1950s and 1960s. The ritualistic aspect and the consciousness of atonement of bleeding in ruins shown in his poems are none other than for a new creation and take-off through a return to the origin, and this is associated with the “Discourse of Slash-And-Burn Farmers” by Lee Eo-ryeong. Through an analysis of individual works, it was found that he was poised in the position of post-war poets who had to prepare their own livelihood by “setting fire to” a wild land; however, the consciousness of original sin found in the poems of Park Nam-soo was not entirely faithful to the original sin doctrine of Christianity. This is because Christianity mentions an apocalyptic Messiah through original sin; however, Park Nam-soo is describing the creation of new life irrelevant to eschatology. The condition mark of darkness that is frequently used in his poems also shows dialectic sublimation while including his negative aspect and even overcoming that aspect. Therefore, darkness was found to be understood as a principle that enables one to proceed to the area of light and life at a higher tier. Also, the study analyzed his actual works by grasping several layers of eyes looking at darkness and ruins. In brief, this study is meaningful in that the study searched for signifiers concerning war by relating the poetic world of Park Nam-soo with the “Discourse of Slash-And-Burn Farmers” by Lee Eo-ryeong in the context of being post-war poems, which has been excluded and neglected, and identified the conscious or volitional factors of the poet who tried to criticize and overcome reality, focusing on the productivity of darkness and the possibility of the eye. Furthermore, the study even reviewed some works that revealed briefly his view of language.

본고는 박경리의 󰡔토지󰡕에서 인물의 윤리적 주체화 과정을 살펴보았다. 사람은 세계 속에서 ‘나’와 ‘나 아닌 것’과의 관계를 맺고 살아가면서 이 관계로 인해서 갈등을 일으키기도 한다. 관계에서의 갈등은 존중되느냐 소외되느냐의 문제이기 때문에 인간의 존엄성과 연결된다. 특히나 󰡔토지󰡕는 인물들이 유기적으로 연결되어 있기 때문에 인물들의 ‘관계’에 대한 천착은 작품을 이해하는 중요한 지표가 된다. ‘나’와 ‘나 아닌 것’의 관계는 주체와 타자와의 관계로 상정할 수 있다. 󰡔토지󰡕에서 주체와 타자와의 관계는 주체가 타자를 어떻게 인식하느냐에 따라서 세 가지로 분류된다. 첫째, 주체가 타자를 소유의 관계로만 인식하는 경우이다. 둘째, 주체가 타자를 소유의 관계에 고착시키지 않고 변모를 보이는 경우이다. 셋째, 주체가 타자를 향한 책임을 느낌은 물론 대속까지 나아가는 확장된 타자 인식을 보이는 경우이다. 조병수, 김한복, 임명희 등이 이에 속하며 이들은 타자의 죄를 대속함으로써 고유성을 가진 윤리적 주체의 자리를 획득한다. 이상의 세 분류 중에서 본고에서는 인간의 최고의 존엄을 보이는 대속적 책임으로 타자와의 관계를 확장하는 윤리적 주체화 과정을 살펴보겠다. 레비나스는 자기중심적인 존재가 고유성을 가진 존재가 되려면 타자에게 윤리적인 책임을 가져야 한다고 역설한다. 이는 자신이 신체적 고통을 겪음으로써 고통에서 자신이 어쩔 수 없음을 인식하는 과정에서, 타자에 대한 인식 또한 고통과 같이 ‘알 수 없음’을 인지하게 되고, 나아가 타자의 고통을 자신의 고통으로 받아들이는 대속을 통해서 윤리적인 주체화가 가능하다고 본다. 󰡔토지󰡕에서는 인물들의 통과제의적 의식에 속하는 고통을 통한 주체의 분리에서 타자성의 열림 가능성을 인지하여, 대속적 책임을 수행함으로써 윤리적 주체가 실현된다. 작품 󰡔토지󰡕가 다양한 인물 형상화를 통해서 타자 지향과 타자 수용의 변별점을 구현하고 있다. 작가가󰡔토지󰡕를 통해 보여주고자 하는 것은 자기중심적인 주체가 아니라 타자의 고통을 직시하고 짊어질 수 있는 윤리적 주체로의 전환을 통해서 진정한 사랑과 평화가 공존하는 사회에 대한 희원이다.

This study examined the process of ethical subjectification in characters featured in Park Kyung-Ri’s book, Toji. The main plot of this book described the deprivation of national sovereignty by Japanese imperialism, the independence of Korea, and the collapse and revival of the noble Choi’s family. The time setting of the piece is from the late Joseon Dynasty to the liberation of Korea from Japan. The early discussion on Toji was mostly about the historical novel, but it does not focus on historical events and characters in the novel are not historical figures. About 600 characters appeared in the book have their own narratives over time. This originality of characterization is the reason why there is no specific agonist in Toji. According to E. Levinas, however, independent subject is merely a self-centered ego. A subject-centered character identifies itself with the other or excludes the other because of selfish motives and is even capable of committing a murder. E. Lenivas emphasized that self-centered subjects should take ethical responsibility for the other in order for them to become a subject with originality. They pay attention to the unacceptability of the other through their own pain, enabling to become ethical subject by perceiving the other’s pain as their own through the process of redemption. In Toji, the ethical subjectification can be realized by recognizing open possibility of otherness in the separation of the subject through pain in the passage rites, fulfilling the responsibility of redemption. It seems that Park Kyung-Ri was able to create various characters based on the originality of the other because she viewed others as ethical characters, the other in the identity rather than the subject to be identified. Toji has shown the difference between the orientation and acceptance of the other clearly through the diverse figuration of characters. Park tried to portray her desire for the individuals that have changed as ethical characters who could recognize the pain of others and are willing to take that burden, and for the society in which both true love and peace co-exist.

본고는 중국의 조선족문학과 구소련의 고려인문학을 연구대상으로 하여 두 나라 한인문학의 발전단계와 시기구분의 변화를 통시적으로 살피면서 동일한 시간의 흐름에서 두 나라 동포문학의 양상을 살피게 된다. 조선족문학은 김택영, 신채호, 안수길, 김창걸, 윤동주, 김학철, 이욱, 이근전, 김철, 김성휘, 임원춘, 이원길 등 문인들의 작품을 주축으로 하면서 발전하였고, 고려인문학은 조명희, 조기천, 김기철, 연성용, 조영길, 이길수, 주송원, 태장춘 등 문인들의 작품을 주축으로 하면서 발전하였다. 조선족문학은 19세기 후반기에 시작하였고 고려인문학은 1863년에 시작되었다. 볼 수 있는바 두 나라 한인문학은 모두 같은 시기에 시작되었음을 알 수 있다. 광복 전 조선족문학의 발전은 ① 이주~1931년, ② 1931년~1945년의 두 개 시기로 구분되고 고려인문학의 발전은 ① 이주~1937년, ② 1937년~1953년의 두 개 시기로 구분된다. 조선족문학의 발전단계가 광복과 직결되는데 반해 고려인문학의 발전은 광복과 무관하며 스탈린의 사망과 관련되는데 이는 고려인문학이 구소련의 정치변화와 밀접히 연관됨을 볼 수 있다. 광복 후 조선족문학의 발전은 ① 1945년~1957년, ② 1957년~1979년, ③ 1979년~1989년, ④ 1989년 이후의 네 개 시기로 구분된다. 고려인문학의 발전은 ① 1953년~1964년, ② 1964년~1985년, ③ 1985년~1991년, ④ 1991년 이후의 네 개 시기로 구분된다. 똑같이 네 개 시기로 구분되지만 거주국의 정치환경이 다름에 따라 구체적인 시간은 서로 다른 점을 볼 수 있다. 조선족문학과 고려인문학은 모두 6기의 발전시기로 구분되지만 매 단계의 구체적인 시간이 같지 않다는 것을 알 수 있다. 그리고 조선족문학은 시종 한글로 창작되었지만 고려인문학은 한글창작으로부터 러시아어창작으로 변화되었음을 보게 된다. 민족문학의 범주에서 한글이 갖는 중요성을 감안할 때 러시아어로 창작된 작품을 거주국문학의 범주에 귀속시키는가 아니면 민족문학의 범주에 귀속시키는가 하는 문제는 계속 검토되어야 할 부분이라고 할 수 있다.

The thesis aims to study Korean literature in China and former Soviet Union, investigating the development of Korean literature and the changes of different periods in two countries, and study the aspects of Korean literature in both countries in the same perod. Korean literature in China developed around the works by Kim Taek-yeong, Shin Chae-ho, AhnSu-gil, Kim Chang-geol, YunDong-ju, Kim Hak-cheol, Lee Uk, Lee Geun-jeon, Kim Cheol, Kim Seong-hui, Lim Won-chun, Lee Won-gil, and Korean literature in Soviet Union developed around the works by Jo Myeong-hi, Jo Gi-cheon, Kim Gi-cheol, Yeon Seong-yong, Jo Yeong-gil, Lee Gil-su, Ju Song-won, Tae Jang-chun. Before Korean Liberation, Korean literature in china started in the late 19th century while Korean literature in Soviet Union started in 1863. It is clear that Korean literature in both countries started in the same period. The development of Korean literature in China falls into two periods, from immigration to 1931, and from 1931 to 1945; while that of Korean literature in Soviet Union, from immigration to 1937, and from 1937 to 1953. Korean literature in China was directly connected with Korean Liberation while Korean literature in Soviet Union was connected with the death of Joseph V. Stalin, which implies that the literature is closely related to the political changes in former Soviet Union. After Korean Liberation, Korean literature in China falls into four stages: from 1945 to 1957, from 1957 to 1979, from 1979 to 1989, from 1989 to present. Korean literature in Soviet Union as well falls into four stages: from 1953 to 1964, from 1964 to 1985, from 1985 to 1991, from 1991 to present. Korean literature in both countries fall into four periods, but has different concrete time according to the different political environments in two countries. Korean literature in two countries is divided into six periods with different detailed time in each period. Korean literature in China is always carried out in Korean language while Korean literature in Soviet Union has brought on a change from Korean language to Russian language. Considering the importance of Korean language in national literature, whether the works by Russian language should belong to Korean literature or to Russian literature still requires further investigation.

이 논문은 󰡔삼국유사(三國遺事)󰡕에 나오는 ‘연오랑ㆍ세오녀’(延烏郞ㆍ細烏女)와 일본 󰡔고사기(古事記)󰡕에 나오는 ‘신라왕자 아메노히보코’(天之日矛) 이야기를 비교분석한 것이다. 한일 고대 문화 교류사는 자료의 부족과 왜곡이 심해 연구를 하는데 상당히 어려움을 겪는다. 그럼에도 불구하고 한일 고대 문화 교류에 대한 지속적인 연구는 현대를 살아가는 한일 현대인들에게 반드시 필요하다. 한국인과 일본인은 재레드 다이아몬드(Jared Diamond)가 말한 것처럼 성장기를 함께 보낸 쌍둥이 형제와도 같고, 동아시아의 정치적 미래는 양국이 고대에 쌓았던 유대를 성공적으로 재발견할 수 있는가에 달려 있다 해도 과언이 아니다. 그만큼 한국과 일본은 역사문화적으로 아주 깊은 영향관계를 맺고 있을 뿐만 아니라 지리적으로도 매우 가깝다. 이런 이류로 아마 고대에는 수많은 연오랑(延烏郞)과 세오녀(細烏女)들이 한반도와 일본열도를 왕래하며 문물을 창조하고 교역했을 것이다. 그들도 그들 나름대로 특수한 역사적 상황 속에서 그렇게 했겠지만, 그들의 행위 속에는 행복한 삶을 꿈꾸며 새로운 삶의 터전을 찾아 떠나는 개척자의 정신이 가득 차 있다. 이제 한국과 일본 양국은 한반도와 일본열도를 오가며 운명을 개척한 고대인들의 문화적 업적에 대해 신화를 넘어서 역사적 사실로 파악해야 한다. 왜냐하면 그렇게 될 때 아직도 근대적 민족국가의 이데올로기 틀 속에 갇혀 살아가는 한일 양국의 젊은이에게, 당대 자신들의 운명을 개척한 그들처럼, 미래의 ‘연오랑과 세오녀’, 미래의 ‘아메노히보코’(天之日矛)와 ‘아카루히메’(阿加流比賣)가 되어 동북아 미래의 주역이 되라고 말할 수 있기 때문이다. 이를 위해서 한국과 일본의 역사적 갈등에 대해 그 근본적인 뿌리에서부터 반성해야 한다. 이러한 관점에서 한국과 일본의 젊은 세대들은 대립적 민족주의를 넘어, 지금과는 전혀 다르게, 서로를 위한 역사의 창조적 지평을 한일고대 문화에서 창출해 내야 한다.

The purpose of this paper is study on comparative analysis of Yonorang and Saeonyeo in Samgukyusa (The Heritage of the Three States) and Amaenohiboko, prince of Silla, in Kojiki of Japan. We have difficulty in studying the history of ancient cultural interchange between Korea and Japan due to the lack of data and historical distortion. In spite of this difficulty, it is necessary for modern Koreans and Japanese to make a continuous research into the history of ancient cultural interchange between Korea and Japan According to Jared Diamond, Koreans and Japanese could be twin brothers growing up together. It is safe to say that the political future of East Asia depends on whether they can rediscover successfully a close bond between ancient Korea and Japan. Korea and Japan are geographically close and have profound cultural and historical profound relationship between them. It is reasonable to assume that Many Yonorang and Saeonyeo might travel a lot back and forth between Korea and Japan to create a new culture and trade between two nations. They were filled with pioneer spirit to dream of happy life and search for new home in their action in a special historical situation. It is time for korea and Japan to study cultural achievement done by ancient people traveling between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Islands from a historical perspective not from myth. We can say to the young people of two nations living in confined ideology of nation state that they will be able to paly leading part in Northeast Asia in the future like Yonorang and Saeonyeo and Amenohiboko and Akaruhime improving their lots. In order to do this, we must reflect upon historical conflict in fundamental way. In this light, young Korean and Japanese generation should set up creative horizon of history in ancient Korea－japan culture beyond conflictual nationalism in a different way.

이 글은 최근 한국 현대시의 장르 해체적 징후와 그 구체적 양상을 살펴보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 21세기를 전후해서 한국시단에서는 그 어느 시기보다도 장르의 분열적 양상들이 다양한 방식으로 나타난다. 이러한 시 장르의 해체적 징후는 재래적인 전통서정시의 문법으로는 21세기적인 새로운 도시의 정서와 체험을 온전히 담을 수 없으며, 그로 인해 새로운 시대에는 새로운 어법과 새로운 양식이 필요하다는 신진 시인들의 문제의식에서 출발한다. 이 같은 시단의 상징적 ‘해체’ 작업은 젊은 시인들의 개별적인 욕망과 단독자적 의지에서 촉발된 것이라기보다는 문학예술 전반의 변화에 대한 시대정신의 요청이 개입되어 있다. 이에 따라 이 글에서는 먼저 이른바, ‘해체론 시대’의 언어철학과 시 장르의 본질적 관계를 대략적으로 점검하고 이후 김중일과 김이듬의 구체적 작품세계를 분석하였다. 그 결과, 90년대와 이천 년대를 전후해서 나타난 문단의 장르 해체적 징후와 그 표지들은 대개의 경우, 이른바 ‘해체론 시대’의 인식 구조의 변화 혹은 동시대의 철학적 사유와 유사성을 띠며 전개됨을 확인할 수 있다. 예를 들면 현대 생활세계를 ‘불편’한 시선으로 바라보는 김중일 시인에게 그것은 마법의 시간 혹은 환각의 세상에 대한 제시를 통해서 나타난다. 의식과 무의식, 기억과 망각, 꿈과 현실, 가상과 실재 사이의 경계에서 무한 상상력을 발산하는 김중일의 시적 공간은 그 자체로 오늘날의 왜곡된 현실 담론에 대한 부정이고 저항이다. 이러한 시적 경향은 김이듬의 경우에도 마찬가지로 발견된다. 특유의 자폐적이고 불연속적인 언어를 밀도 있게 행사하며 서정적 주체의 분열을 감내하는 그녀의 시쓰기는 위계 없는 질서세계를 꿈꾸는, 그리하여 본원적 삶의 가치를 환기하고자 하는 ‘아름다운 팜 파탈’의 노래이다. 한편, 21세기의 새로운 시공간에서 장르 해체의 징후 혹은 새로운 장르의 생성과 소멸은 그야말로 자연스러운 일일 것이다. 이런 측면에서 최근의 젊은 시인들이 각자의 개성 있는 상징체계를 마련하고 이를 통해 차이의 스펙트럼을 보여주며 생산해 낸 시편들은 나름의 의미를 부여할 수 있다. 그러나 이 과정에서 기성의 시 양식에 대한 무조건적인 거부행위는 결코 용납될 수 없다. 어느 시대이건 서정시의 존재론은 다양한 음역을 확보할 때, 그 가능성을 인정할 수 있는 까닭이다.

This article is a recent genre of Korean modern poetry and dismantling scanning purposes, embodiment of signs and aspects. The 21st century at the genre in Korea: only profitable constitute appears in a variety of ways. These signs are as follows: by genre of de-constructing. Traditional-traditional lyric’s grammar is not a new experience for the city's sentiment toward the fence untouched. As a result, the new era is the need for a new law and a new form is budding poets from the expression in question. This is symbolic of the ‘de-constructing’, such as: the young poets from all of the individual desires and only sole is not triggered. It is a literary arts-wide change request to intervene for the Zeitgeist. The Eagle, the first language of philosophy: ‘Deconstruction theory’ relationship check the approximate nature of the genre. Since I have analyzed Kim, Jung-il and Kim, Ee-dum’s concrete work world. As a result, the so called age of recognition of change or ‘Deconstruction theory’ contemporary philosophical reason and can confirm that the unfolding similarities. For example, the poet’s magic hour or hallucinations of the world appears through the present for. Also, Kim has another autistic and discontinuous language and lyric subject’s cleavage, density to endure. She is not dreaming the world order in this process to life in this weonjeog in the way of value added to the beautiful Pampa of the no-harm. Meanwhile, in the 21st century a new poetry or a new genre, the signs of disintegration of the genre of space creation and destruction are indeed natural. In this regard, the recent young poets laid the symbolic of their unconventional and this shows the spectrum of differences. They can grant their own meaning of Psalms. However, in the process, rejecting the older forms of poetry is never tolerated cannot be unconditional. Which era it Lyric to free various transliteration of the ontology is, when he is likely to accept the account.

The signs of new literature appeared in earnest in the history of Korean literature in 1990’s. They are inherent in the literature in 1990’s, making a discussion about ‘ugliness’ possible, which is beyond or different with existing beauty. As the ‘indifferent pleasure’ is made by sense in the history of beauty, the ‘disgusting displeasure’ is also made by sense in the history of ugliness. The Korean literature in 1990’s or after 1990’s has established its differentiated identity from former ages through latter one. The representative writers showing the latter tendency are Jang Jeong-Il, Pyeon Hae-Young, Kim Eon-Hee, Baek Min-Seok, and Cheon Woon-Young at that time. It may be a coincidence, but it is interesting that Jang Jeong-Il shows the world of ugliness with sight, Pyeon Hae-Young with smell, Baek Min-Seok with hearing, and Cheon Woon-Young with taste. As the history of ugliness says, the sense they show causes disgusting displeasure. However at the same time, they have mysterious charm attracting us strongly, because they arouse allegoristic and paradoxical meaning about reality here and now inside the attraction. In this respect, the appearance of various senses and the beauty of ugliness shown in those writer’s works are not a coincidence, but the historical product made naturally in the current of times since 1990’s

It seems that Soviet-Korean literature and Korean literature is taking quite different positions. But, Soviet-Korean literature and Korean modern literature had a deep affinity in the emigrant-literature(in the latter era of the Joseon Dynast). Most of Soviet-Koreans(Корейцы, koresarami) are the proletariat. They emigrated to Russia, looking for ‘a land of milk and honey’. Soviet-Koreans were independent life in Soviet Kolkhoz(колхоз). Soviet-Koreans punished the landed class in a kolkhoz policy of Soviet. As a result, they were able to possessed a landed property. And, the life of regional community in a kolkhoz is not out of the ordinary life. Kolkhoz was recognized a hometown. Korean emotion of Soviet-Koreans entirely have reformed Soviet in national policy. Soviet-Koreans, in this place, aggressively Joined, too. According to policy of the Communists, that area of wasteland was transformed into a kolkhoz(Hometown). Despite policy of Soviet, the kolkhoz became the real paradise to Soviet-Koreans. They constructed a hometown subjectively in spite of the repressive government policy. In conclusion, the kolkhoz is hometown in Soviet-Korean Literature. And, that serves many important functions with spatial background of the many Soviet-Korean Literature. In the same way, kolkhoz was recognized a hometown in Soviet-Korean Literature, kolkhoz life was ordinary. The children grew in kolkhoz, and leaved for a metropolis. The children succeed in a metropolis, and then, they tried to bring their parents to the metropolis. But, the kolkhoz was hometown to their parents’ generation. Because of this, the parents were in discord with the generation to come, which includes their children. These Soviet-Koreans life became a part of daily life. There’s life is not a stranger any more in CIS(the Commonwealth of Independent States). To diaspora, kolkhoz is the last bastion and space of vital importance to the welfare of Soviet-Koreans