• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.245
• /
• pp.10-10
• /
• 1998

통일시대의 문학은 다시 좌.우문학, 즉 문학의 정치성.이념성을 주장하는 사회주의 계급문학과 문학의 자율성.예술성을 강조하는 자본주의 순수문학이 갈등을 겪을 수밖에 없을 것이다. 실상 분단의 비극은 이러한 삶의 두 속성, 문학의 근본이치가 정당하게 구현되지 못한 데서 오는 온갖 모순과 불합리를 의미한다.

• 한국학연구
• /
• no.51
• /
• pp.317-338
• /
• 2018

이 글에서는 식민지 시기 발표된 사회주의 계열의 문학 작품-특히 한설야의 작품-에 '바다'로 대표되는 매끈한 공간에 대한 지향과 더불어 사회구성체의 일원으로서 그간 일궈 왔던 '고향'-홈 패인 공간에 대한 향수(鄕愁)가 동시에 드러나고 있다는 점에 주목했다. 심훈의 『동방의 애인』을 비롯한 1930년대 전후 사회주의 문학작품에서는 "민족에 대한 전통적 애착심마저 버리고" 프롤레타리아 국제 연대의 '바다'로 나아갈 것을 결의했으나, '고향'에 대한 향수에 붙들려 기존 홈 패인 공간의 질서 속으로 회귀하고야 마는 사회주의자들의 면모가 드러나며, 이러한 사회주의자들의 면모는 식민지 말기에 이르러 다시금 대두된다. 식민지 말기는 총력전 체제의 강화 및 동아봉쇄주의로 인해 사회주의 투사들 대부분이 "구금되었거나 운동을 정지하고 어쩔 줄 모르는" 상황에 놓였으며, 이로 인해 해외 혁명 거점들로부터 단절되어 "절해고도(絶海孤島)"와 같은 위치에 놓인 사회주의자들에게 제국이 보낸 '전향'의 메시지가 도착한 시점이었다. 그렇다면 '고향'에 대한 향수에 붙들리는 한편, 식민지 말기 "절해고도"와 같은 경성의 '닫힌 공간'에 직면하여 제국의 전향 요구를 수취해야만 했던 조선의 사회주의자들은 위와 같은 민족·제국의 호명/향수를 뿌리치고, 다시금 '너른 바다'를 추구할 수 있었던 것일까? 이 글에서는 「과도기」·「씨름」·『마음의 향촌』·「피」 등 식민지 시기 한설야 소설에 나타난 바다/고향 표상을 분석함으로써, "너른 바다"로 표상되는 매끈한 공간성을 성취하고자 했던 당대 사회주의자들의 투쟁이 제국에 의해 포획되어 홈 패인 공간으로 조직된 식민지 조선의 지형에 어떠한 변화를 초래하는지, 나아가 식민지 말기 사회주의자들이 담지했던 사상적 전망이란 대동아공영권이라는 제국의 두터운 '홈'에 직면하여 어느 정도의 문화적 융해를 가능케 했는지 그 경합의 과정들을 가늠해 보고자 한다. 한설야 등 기존 식민지 말기 사회주의자들의 텍스트에 접근하기 위한 키워드가 "전향"이었다면, 이 글에서는 그럼에도 불구하고 이들이 좌절의 위기에 직면한 사상적 전망을 "살려 나가기" 위해 "바다"라는 매끈한 공간의 표상을 동원했으며, 이를 통해 여전히 "투쟁"의 흐름 속에 스스로를 위치시키고자 했음을 제시할 것이다. "바다"라는 공간적 표상에 입각한 이러한 문학적 상상은 비록 실현 불가능한 층위에 머무른다 할지라도, 그 자체로 당대 정치지리적 경계 너머로 나아가기 위한 문화적 도전이라는 측면에서 주목할 만한 시대적 의의를 지닌다.

• Journal of the Korea Convergence Society
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.175-182
• /
• 2019

China, more than any other countries in the world shared similar ideological system with Korea historically. That is confucian patriarchy, which later combined with socialism and capitalism respectively. Therefore, the hardship that modern chinese women had to go through in the course of great social changes would provide meaningful cross cultural insights in various women issues in Korea. Thus this study attempts to focus on Ding Ling, who is considered to be one of the first women that brought the feminism up in China. One of her early works, and from Yan'an days were analyzed to mirror current feminist movement.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.159-183
• /
• 2015

This study examined the issue of criticism in Korean Chinese literature in 1990's. This is transitional time why China introduced a market economy system. It had an important effect on Korean Chinese society not the cultural climate but also literature. Besides, Diplomatic Relation between Korea and China in 1992 gave an impulsion to changing literature. So this study tried to take note of directionality of Korean Chinese literature through the Korean Chinese magazine Literature and Art(Munhakwayesul) and Zhangbaikshan. First issue of Korean Chinese literature in early 1990's is crisis and restoration of criticism genre. At that time criticism faced with what is modernity. Some critics insisted that criticism should to improve. So it was necessary to accept foreign theory. Then they were concerned postmodernism and deideology tendency. What was important thing is that they would find their culture identity. So few critics tried to communicated with world literature. Especially they emphasized communication with Korean writer who lives in other country. Ultimately they thought that Korean Chines literature must get literal universality and ethnic speciality. For example poet Nam-YoungJeon's totem poetry is representative work. The issues of Korean Chines criticism in 1990's are not directivity of literature but also directivity of culture identity. Korean Chines literature had departed from Socialistic realism little by little and had getting diversity. Above all things criticism aimed for international sense and ethnic culture identity.

• East European & Balkan Studies
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.153-186
• /
• 2013

Literature has been special for the Polish who suffered from the numerous invasions from surrounding countries for her geographical location at the center of Europe. In the late 18th century at a time when Poland was divided and ruled by Russia, Prussia and Austria, literature played an important role in uniting Poland. During the 2nd world war in which Poland was occupied by the Soviet Union and by Germany, and during the Cold War period under socialism system(1948~1989), the Polish literature was in the front to keep unique national culture with overseas migration community at the center. The Polish Diaspora literature from 19th century up to now has naturally embodied national sufferings from foreign powers in their literary tradition linked to the problem of 'migration'. In addition, they belong to other cultural sphere, but keep their own unique identity, which is similar to Korean Diaspora literature to a great degree. This study has two stages. In the first stage, it figures out the formation and trend of the Polish Diaspora literature followed by their meaning in the history of Polish literature. In the second stage, specific texts (two dramas) are analyzed before and after system transition in 1989. * Before system transition: S. Mrożek, Emigranci (1974), * After system transition: J. Głowacki, Antygona w Nowym Yorku (1992) Mrożek and Głowacki had themselves migration experiences with high achievement and recognition in literature not only in Poland but also in the world. In their works, hardships as 'strangers' in foreign countries, emotional wandering and agony, nostalgia to lost home land and exploration of identity were described vividly. By comparing the 2 literature texts, this study attempts to trace the change of Diaspora consciousness which Polish migrants experienced in foreign countries with different political system like socialism and capitalism.

• 기호학연구
• /
• v.59
• /
• pp.1-32
• /
• 2019

본고의 목적은 헤테로크로닉을 통해 1980년대 노동시의 정치성에 대한 해석을 달리하고자 함에 있다. 1980년대 노동시에 대한 지금까지의 평가나 해석이 주로 맑스주의에 기반한 사회주의 리얼리즘 차원의 것이었다면, 이 논문에서는 조금 다른 각도에서 80년대 노동시의 정치성에 대해 살펴보고자 한다. 랑시에르의 헤테로크로닉 개념을 바탕으로 1980년대 대표적인 노동시인인 박영근, 백무산, 박노해의 노동시를 살펴볼 것인 바, 이들 세 시인의 1980년대 노동시에는 랑시에르의 헤테로크로닉 개념에 비추어 살펴볼 수 있는 유의미한 양상들이 자리 잡고 있다. 이들의 노동시에는 장시간 노동과 열악한 노동조건, 저임금 등의 환경 속에서 벗어나고자 하는 열망과 저항이 여러 유형으로 나타난다. 이들 시에 나타난 '인간해방'과 '노동해방'은 이념과 계급투쟁, 혹은 전형성의 원리 및 사회주의 리얼리즘 차원에서 주로 언급되었지만, 본고에서는 1980년대 노동시에 나타난 노동해방과 계급해방에의 열망과 저항을 과거 사회주의 문학 이론에 입각하여 읽어내기보다는 '사회적 위계'의 해체와 새로운 구축이라는 시간성을 통해 달리 읽어보고, 당대의 노동시가 갖는 정치성의 지평에 대해 재고(再考)하는 계기를 갖고자 한다.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.1-30
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to review two books on the history of Korean literature written in Japanese, taking special interest in ancient Korean literature, examining transcultural patterns between the history of North and South Korean literature and that of Japanese literature, and thereby identifying perceptions and description patterns of the history of Korean literature from the perspective of comparative literature. This study analyzes two books with the same title The History of Joseon Literature written in Japanese by Kim Dongwook and Byeon Jaesoo. The two books are not translations of Korean books but were written in Japanese for Japanese and ethnic Korean readers in Japan. The History of Joseon Literature (1974) by Kim Dongwook mainly compares Joseon literature with Japanese literature. The History of Joseon Literature (1985) by Byeon Jaesoo, an ethnic North Korean in Japan, was written from socialistic perspectives. The two books have different standards for evaluating value of the history of Joseon literature and different perceptions about it. Due to the division between North and South Korea, the history of literature is unfolding in different ways in the two Koreas, and the two books reflect such differences. However, they have several common features. For example, they highly regard the value of literature written in Chinese characters and originality of hangga (a folk song of Silla), Hangeul (the Korean alphabet), and pansori (a form of Korean folk music in which a singer accompanied by a supportive drummer sings and chants an epic story). In addition, they both demonstrated that literature written in Hangeul and that written in Chinese characters interacted with each other as the same Korean literature. When the two books were written, the history of Korean literature had been considered a subunit of the history of East Asian or Chinese literature. However, as this study found, Kim and Byeon wrote the two books from a perspective of departing from this view based on nationalism, re-establishing the value of Korean literature, promoting Japanese people's understanding of the high quality of Korean literature, and imbuing ethnic Koreans in Japan with nationalistic pride.

• Russian Language and Literature
• /
• no.66
• /
• pp.277-307
• /
• 2019

В данной работе эмпирически проанализированы материалы об опросе читеталей, читательских конференции, вечерах рабочей критики и записках чтения крестьян в качестве исходных данных, чтобы изучить понимание и требования массового читателя как субьекта советской культуры. В результате массовый читатель в 1920-х годах предпочитают классическую литературу, а не современную, и они ценят использование ясного и чистого русского языка, отражающего жизнь реальности, но избегая чрезмерно повторяющихся тем (гражданская война). Можно сказать, что они предпочитают литературу, которая может влиять на людей. Эстетические вкусы массовых читателей были особенно консервативными, особенно с ясным выражением и простым языком. В 1920-х годах массовый читатель создавал идентичность в качестве культурного субъекта в советской литературе на основе опыта участии в новой литературе. Но в начале 30-х годов массовый читатель теряет возможность использовать свою роль и способность как субъект советской культуры. Сталинский процесс культурного объединения в социалистический реализм, утвержденный в 1934 году, был сосредоточен на управлении и руководстве массами как советских культурных реципиентов, а не на понимании масс как субъектов. В результате массовый читатель был маргинализирован в советской литературе.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.67-106
• /
• 2017

This study focuses on two specific history of Korean literature in Chinese: the outline of The History of Joseon Literature (2010) by Li Yan and The History of Joseon Literature (1988, 2008) by Wei Xu-sheng; it was conducted to compare narrative viewpoints to the history of South and North Korean literature and therefore identify distinguishable characteristics. As a result, the following was concluded. First, The History of Korean Literature by Cho Dong-il and The History of Korean Literature in North Korea (15 volumes) include thorough discussions on division of historical eras, concept of genres as well as individual literary works and applied such discussions on writing literary history. However, Wei Xu-sheng and Li Yan's The History of Korean Literature did not illuminate theoretical discussion of South and North Korea. Li Yan's outline of The History of Joseon Literature was published in 2010 and the first edition of Wei Xu-sheng's The History of Joseon Literature was published in 1986 and later was published as revised editions in 2000 and 2008. Regarding published dates, it is a matter of course to reference Cho Dong-il's The History of Korean Literature, published in the 1980s, or The History of Korean Literature in North Korea (15 volumes), published in the 1990s; nevertheless, neither Wei Xu-sheng nor Li Yan used those texts in their works. Their works were heavily influenced by the narrative tradition of the history of national literature and therefore, entailed unsophisticated discussion on the division of historical eras or the concept of genres. Second, those two texts also emphasized external factors such as politics, society, economy and culture and explicitly mention these factors in historical overview of each chapter. Such an approach is commonly used in narratives of literary history under socialist regimes, including The History of Korean Literature in North Korea (15 volumes). Accordingly, evaluations based on 'political standards' - stress of people, nationality, practicality and so forth - in main texts are particularly accentuated, akin to narratives of literary history under socialist regimes. Finally, since those two Korean literature history works are written by Chinese scholars, they focus on correlation between Chinese literature history and Korean literature history. However, several genre-related terminologies such as Xiaopin (a kind of essay), Yuefu (a kind of popular song/poem), Yuyan (fable), Shuochang (telling of popular stories with the interspersal songs), Shizhuan (biography or/and memoirs in history) were adopted directly from Chinese literature. In analyzing Korean literature using terminologies introduced from Chinese literature, differences between original and alternative definitions were not examined in detail. While some terminologies and concepts were adopted directly without further consideration as to state of the two nations, it is also interesting to note that dichotomy, mainly used in Korean literature history, was used to discuss the genre of Cheonki (romance tale), relevant to Suyichon and Keumosinhua, rather than follow traditions of Chinese literature history.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.171-206
• /
• 2016

Russian anarchist thinker P. A. Kropotkin had a significant impact on the school of thought, the literary field and the anarchist movement in East Asia in the early 20th century. This paper examines the history of the translation of Kropotkin in terms of the routes and paths of translation in colonial Korea in comparison with those in Japan and China. It is a known fact that the acceptance of Kropotkin in colonial Korea is owed to pioneering translation works in Japan, but it appears that there have been various transformations and magnetizations in the process of translating the texts into the Korean language. Despite a disturbing censorship, the works of Kropotkin, such as "I appeal to the youth ("Aux Jeunes Gens" in French)", were imported, translated and distributed by various routes throughout the 1920s and there were various versions of translated Korean texts. At this point, it is noteworthy that there are works which were translated from Chinese texts about Kropotkin, such as the works of Yu Seo (柳絮), and it can be said that there is a relationship between Korean translations and Chinese original texts. Since the 1930s, the phenomenon of the appropriation of Kropotkin as a litterateur and critic rather than an anarchist thinker is particularly apparent, and this allows us to understand that Kropotkin became a major pathway to interpret Russian literature in East Asia. In colonial Korea, translations of Kropotkin were generally via Japan and China, but the process of translation also showed the struggle to accept and adapt 'the foreign text' into the Korean language.