재외 한인문학과 한국문학- 연구 방향과 과제를 중심으로

정덕준 한국문학이론과비평학회 2006 한국문학이론과 비평 Vol.32 No.-

Korean literature abroad has the double characteristics of korean literature and foreign literature. However up to now the study of korean literature abroad does not get out of verification of the national identity in large. Of course the theme that the study of korean literature abroad shows is the sense of the border man which korean people abroad have suffered and the loss of the national identity. Namely the works of korean literature abroad shows in large the aspects of the various lives that appear in the process of migration and resettlement, and the view for the future, and the longing for recovery of identity. That is, korean literature abroad shows mainly the double characteristics. Even though there is some difference according to region, the korean literature world abroad is changing to the writers of the third generation quickly. On this account the study of korean literature abroad also must go ahead the dimension of verification of the national identity and the expansion of the domain of korean literature. Here korean literature abroad can be isolated from the korean literature. On this problematic sense, 'Who' and 'What has been written' are actually important than 'Language' and ‘Reader'. Now in the period of the fusion and diaspora we must surpass the eyesight limited to the mother language and reader. Really, it is important that korean literature abroad shows what kind of character. We must certify a certain position that surpasses the confined nationality. And ultimately we know the universal quality and its meaning that the korean literature abroad in this region contributes to the world literature. Here we can certify ourselves more correctly.

민족문학, 제3세계 문학, 그리고 구원의 문학 — 구중서의 민족문학론 연구 —

이진형 명지대학교(서울캠퍼스) 인문과학연구소 2016 인문과학연구논총 Vol.37 No.1

his papar aims at the reconstruction of Ku jung-suh’s theory of national literature and the examination of its significance. Ku jung-suh discussed the national literature in oppositional or differentiated relation to the contemporary critics such as Kim Hyun, Back Nak-cheong, etc. On the definition of national literature as the “recognition through the knowledge of world literature”, he tried to actualize the terminology of national literature, and emphaseized the recognition of Korean literary tradition and its spirit. And he insisted the regional particularity and global universality of Korean literature through the recognition of Korean literature as the third world literature. This argumentation aimed at the historicization of the concept of national literature, that is the definition of the concept of national literature in the 1970s which diffentiated from the national literature in the 1920s, the nationalist literature in the 1930s, and the Korean literature after the 1945 Liberation. Particularly, he stressed the literary tradition and spirit in Hyangga, Goryeo Songs, Pansori novels, and Korean modern literary works. Then he thought that the universal humanism of “the thought of peace and nudity” was the core of national literary tradition. And he also thought that the global universality of Korean national literature could proved by means of the contribution of the spirit of the third world literature(universal humanism) to the reconfiguration of world literature led by the West(tricontinentalism). The Ku jung-suh’s argumentation on national literature was developed on the background of the rise of Koreanology, Korean literature, and Korean history, and at the same time on the base of religional source(Catholicism). His belief on “national literature=the literature of salvation” originated from that religional source. On that belief, he also insisted the effectivity of national literature over the context of the 1970s. But the highlight on the universal humanism involved the danger of the marginalization of regional particularity and the centralization of ‘western universality’, and the mission of national literature involved the danger of abstraction of literary discourse. On the other hand, it said that his try to actualize the terminology of national literature and recognize the literature as the literature of salvation was the important moment to consider the meaning and the task of national literature today.

“조선문학이란 무엇이냐” - 해방기 문학자들의 국어 인식과 조선문학의 형성 -

임세화 ( Yim Se-hwa ) 연세대학교 인문학연구원 2021 人文科學 Vol.123 No.-

해방기는 문학자들이 가장 열성적으로 모여 ‘조선문학’의 개념과 전망을 논의했던 시기로서‘문학어로서의 조선어(국어)’는 문제적인 대상이 되었다. 해방 직후 규범화된 ‘국어’로서의 ‘조선어’는 부재한 상태였고, 이론화된 문학과 학문, 사상의 언어는 조선어가 아닌 일본어(한문)였다. 미군정청(문교부)의 주도 하에 이루어진 ‘국어’ 창출과 ‘우리말 도로 찾기’는 오히려 ‘국어’의 외연, ‘언어의 가능성’을 축소시키는 ‘독재적 행위’로 받아들여졌다. ‘민족어’와 ‘민족문학’, ‘문학언어’라는 가치는 동궤에서 실천될 수 없는 엇갈리고 이질적인 질료들이었고, 문학자들은 - 체계화되는 순간 그 외연이 좁아지고 닫혀져버리는 - 언어와 문학의 가능성들에 대한 구상을 ‘정치’와‘문학’ 사이의 관계라는 또 다른 질문으로 이어나갔던 것이다. 문학자들의 전망했던 민족국가의 상과문학의 역할이 치열하게 논의되는 가운데, ‘문학어로서의 조선어(국어)’에 대한 담론과 상상들은 역으로 ‘조선문학’을 인식하고 그 정체성을 형성해나갈 수 있던 주요한 계기점이 되었다. ‘조선문학사’를 어디에서부터 다시 쓸 수 있을까에 대해 고민했던 한설야와, 일제시기부터 ‘조선문학’에 구어체 용어와 과거동사, 대명사 등을 도입했다며 ‘조선문학’에 기여한 공로를 자화자찬하는 김동인의 서술은 ‘언어’와 ‘민족문학’의 관계에 대해 질문하고 그 관계성을 재 설정하려했던 문학자들의 응답이다. 또한 번역어로서의 조선어에 대해 논하며 “조선말이 부족하다!”라는 지식층의 한탄에 “외국어를 번역할 말이 조선말에 없음을 느낄 때”, “그 부족이란 이유는 조선어만의 결함이 아니라 모든 언어의 공적 일면”이라며 조선어의 한계성을 일축한 이태준, “대중은 기실은 새말을 만드는데 있어서 서뿔른 순수주의자들보다는 사뭇 천재”라고 평하며 그것을 “문법과 문학의 싸움”이라고 언명했던 김기림의 감각은, 단일 언어주의의 기치와 위계적 언어 질서 속에서 국어 정화 운동을 펼치던 움직임과는 배치되는 특수한 것이었다. 다양한 스펙트럼을 보이는 문학자들의 궤적은 포스트식민의 냉전체제 속에서 ‘조선문학’과 ‘민족문학’이라는 기표를 오가며 ‘문학’의 요건과 역할에 대해 치열하게 묻고 답하는 과정에서 재구성되어가던 ‘한국문학’의 언어적 기원, 내지 전사로서 중요한 의미를 가진다. The liberation period was a time when literati most enthusiastically discussed the concept and prospects of Korean Literature. Immediately after liberation, Korean as a standardized national language was absent, and the language of literature, study, and thought was Japanese (Chinese writing), not Korean. The creation of Korean language and restoration of the national language under the leadership of the U.S. military government (theMinistry of Education)were rather accepted as a dictatorship to reduce the extension of Korean and the possibility of language. The literati continued to discuss the possibility of language and literature through the relationship between politics and literature. While the image of a nation state and the role of literature were discussed, the discussion of Korean as a literary language was a major chance to recognize Korean literature and to formits identity. Han Seol-ya, who thought about how to rewrite history of Korean Literature and Kim Dong-in, who evaluated himself as contributing to Korean Literature by introducing colloquial terms, past verbs, and pronouns fromthe colonial era, respond to questions about the relationship between language and national literature. In addition, Lee Tae-joon, who recognized the limitations of Korean language in translation as a general problem, and Kim Ki-rim, who said the public was genius in creating new words, were special contrary to Korean language movements developed in monolingualism and a hierarchical language system. The diverse spectra of the literati have importantmeanings as the linguistic origin or previous history ofKorean literature that had been reconstructed in the process of discussing the requirements and roles of literature in the postcolonial ColdWar system.

한국한문학 연구의 문명사적 검토

沈浩澤(Shim Ho taek) 대동한문학회 2016 大東漢文學 Vol.48 No.-

본고는 한국한문학 연구의 역사를 문명사적 관점에서 검토해 본 개략적인 글이다. 한국 한문학의 역사를 창작의 시대와 연구의 시대로 양대분했을 때 이는 문명사가 동아시아 중심 질서에서 서구 중심적 근대로의 전환을 의미한다고 보고, 여기에 근거하여 한문학 연구시대의 역사를 다시 크게 세 시기로 구분하였다. 제1기는 서구의 근대적 문학관에 한국적 國字 기준을 더하여 국문학의 개념을 정립하던 시기이다. 이 시기 한문학은 본격문학이 아닌 準國文學의 지위에 있었으며, 한문학 연구는 한학에 조예가 있는 학자들에 의해 漢文學史書 형태로 전개되었다. 대표적인 예로 선정한 鄭萬朝의 朝鮮詩文變遷은 중화주의와 유교주의에 입각하였고, 金台俊의 朝鮮漢文學史 는 철저한 문학주의에 중화주의가 결합되었으며, 李家源의 韓國漢文學史 는 한 국한문학의 국문문학과의 대등의식, 중국문학과의 대등의식을 천명하였다. 제2기는 한문교육의 제도화와 한문학의 국문학 내적 위상 재인식을 토대로 하여 한문학 연구가 본격적 궤도에 오른 시기이다. 이 시기의 연구를 세경향으로 정리하였다. 하나는 서구의 문학주의의 관점에서 한국한문학을 연구하고 평가하던 것이요, 다음은 중국문학과 한학적 관점에서 접근하고 이해하던 경향이었으며, 세 번째로 한문학사 연구에서 한국사회 지배세력 변천과정으로서의 역사학과 결부시키던 방법이었다. 이 중에서 서구 문학주의에 의한 접근이 비평론 분야에서 특히 두드러진 성과를 거두었음을 지적하였다. 제3기는 한국한문학을 포함한 어문학 전반의 경향이 문학주의로부터 탈피했던 시기이다. 문학주의의 탈피는 서구 중심적 질서, 근대적 가치체계로 부터의 벗어남이며 그 의미는 앞서와 마찬가지로 다분히 문명사의 전환을 뜻한다고 하겠다. 탈근대 이후의 동아시아적 가치는 기존에 중국을 중심으로 논의되었으나 본고는 동아시아 내에서 다시 한국 민족문화의 가치를 인정하고 그 발전 가능성을 모색하고자 하였다. 그 방법으로 한문교육 제도화초기에 발의되었던 민족문화란 개념을 다시 끌어내었다. 여기서 한중 문화 관계, 民族과 文化의 관계를 중시하고 그 주어로서의 ‘民族’에 비중을 두어논함으로써 한국한문학 연구가 문명사를 넘어 정신사의 차원에 서야 함을강조하고자 하였다. This essay is a brief description of reviewing a history of Classical Korean literature from a history-of-civilization’s perspective. If we divide the history of Classical Korean literature into two parts, the creation-oriented era and the study-oriented era, we assume that it indicates the conversion from East-Asian-centric order to Eurocentric order. Based on this assumption, we can subdivide the history of the study-oriented era into three periods. The first period is when the notion of national literature became established through uniting Korean national alphabet criteria with Western modern literary views. Classical Korean literature was not considered to be in good standing at this time within the Korean literary field but instead in a “quasi status.” The study of Classical Korean literature had been mainly carried on by scholars who had profound knowledge of Classical Chinese studies, and had produced related academic history books called “the history of Classical Chinese literature.” As the typical examples, Jung Manjo(鄭萬朝)’s The Transition of Joseon Literature(朝鮮詩文變遷) was grounded upon Sino-centrism and Confucian-centrism; Kim Taejun(金台俊)’s The History of Joseon Classical Literature(朝鮮漢文學史) combined Sino-centrism with thorough literary-centrism; Lee Gawon(李家源)’s The History of Korean Classical Literature(韓國漢文學史) accentuated that Classical Korean literature has equal status not only with Korean literature created in the Korean language, but also with Chinese literature. The second period is when the study of Classical Korean literature came into it s own, along with the institutionalization of Classical Korean literature education and a new understanding of Classical Korean literature’s increasing internal status within the Korean literary field. The related studies during this period can be further categorized into three parts: the first part tends to approach Classical Korean literature from a Western literary-centric perspective; the second part has a tendency to approach Classical Korean literature from a Chinese literary and Sinological perspective ; the third part integrates historical studies as a transitional process due to ruling groups in Korean society. From among these, the Western literary-centric approach has produced outstanding study results in literary criticism. The third period is when the overall language and literature field including Classical Korean literature broke away from literary-centrism. This extrication from literary-centrism signifies the extrication from Western-centric order or a modern value system. It can mean quite the transition of the aforementioned history-of-Civilization. We try to acknowledge Korean national value and to seek its potential for development while existing studies tend to discuss post-modern East Asian values from a Chinese-centric perspective. We dragged the notion of national culture out from the past again, which had been proposed at the early stage of institutionalization of Classical Korean literature education. We emphasized that, in the process of Korean-Chinese cultural relations and national(民 族)-cultural relations, we need to give weight to ‘nationality (民族)’ as a subject so that the study of Classical Korean literature can stand on its own from a spiritual historical study’s perspective, beyond the constraints of ‘history-of-Civilization.’

북한 ‘조국통일주제작품’의 역사적 변모양상

김경숙(Kim, Gyeong-Sook) 우리문학회 2016 우리文學硏究 Vol.0 No.50

북한문학사에서 사용하는 ‘조국통일’과 ‘민족통일’ 개념의 상관관계를 살펴보면 ‘조국통일’은 ‘민족통일’을 전제로 하면서 그것을 구체적으로 한정하는 개념이다. 북한이 말하는 조국은 사회주의조국인데, ‘사회주의’와 ‘민족’은 상호배타적인 개념이 아니라 상호결합적인 개념이며 나아가 ‘사회주의’가 ‘민족’을 규정하고 특화하는 관계이다. 이와 같은 특징은 ‘조국통일주제작품’의 개념과 범주 설정에도 그대로 적용될 수 있다. ‘조국통일주제’는 ‘남조선혁명주제’를 포함하면서도 그보다 범위가 훨씬 넓다. ‘남조선혁명주제작품’은 남한의 혁명가들과 인민들의 생활과 투쟁을 주제로 한 문학예술작품을 지칭한다면, ‘조국통일주제작품’은 북한인민들과 남한인민들 그리고 해외동포들의 다양한 생활과 활동을 반영한 문학예술작품을 지칭한다. ‘조국통일주제작품’은 북한문학에서 ‘갈등’이 가장 첨예하게 나타나는 분야이다. 따라서 ‘주체와 객체의 갈등문제’를 작품분석의 틀로 삼을 경우, 우리는 ‘조국통일’에 대한 북한의 인식실체가 무엇인지를 논리적으로 정확하게 판단할 수 있으며, 북한 ‘조국통일주제작품’의 역사적인 변모양상이 왜 그리고 어떻게 발생하게 되었는지를 보다 객관적으로 밝혀낼 수 있다. 북한의 통일의식은 시대를 넘어서서 언제나 동일하게 ‘남조선해방투쟁’의 시각으로 고정되어 있는 것이 아니고, 시대에 따라 이념지향적인 입장과 민족정서적인 입장으로 이분화 되어있는 것도 아니다. 그것은 분명한 한계와 허구성을 내포하고 있음에도 불구하고 ‘조국과 민족’ ‘전쟁과 평화’의 변주를 구사하면서 사회적인 상황과 정치적인 필요에 따라서 끊임없이 변모해왔으며, 미래의 또 다른 변모가능성을 향해 열려있다. 따라서 남북한이 보다 이상적인 통일을 이루기 위해서는 ‘상호인정의 원리’에 입각하여 대립과 갈등이 아니라 화해와 협력의 방향으로 관계를 변화시켜 나가야 한다. According to the correlation between “national liberation” and “national unification” in North Korean literature, “national liberation” requires “national unification” and limits it to a specific meaning. While “nation” in North Korea refers to “socialist country”, “socialism” and “nation” form a mutually inclusive rather than mutually exclusive concept;furthermore, “socialism” defines and specifies “nation” This characteristic can be applied as is to the concept and scope set-up of “national liberation literature.” The “national liberation” theme consists of “South Korean revolution”, but has a much broader scope. If “South Korean revolution literature” refers to literature and art focusing on the lives and struggles of South Korean revolutionaries and people, “national liberation literature” refers to literature and art reflecting the lives and activities of people in North and South Korea as well as Koreans overseas. The sharpest “conflict” in North Korean literature appears in “national liberation literature.” In other words, it is possible to make a precise logical judgment about the essence of North Korea’s idea of “national liberation” and clarify more objectively how and why North Korean “national liberation literature” changed through history by taking “conflict between subject and object” as the literary analysis framework. North Korea’s idea of unification is neither fixed on the same view-the “struggle to liberate South Korea”-beyond the boundaries of time nor dichotomized into the ideology-centered and national emotion-oriented position depending on the times. It has continuously changed depending on social circumstances and political needs by advocating “country and nation” and “war and peace” while clearly facing limits and containing fictiveness;it is also open to further variations in the future. Therefore, a more idealistic reunification of South and North Korea would require a shift in the current relationship toward reconciliation and cooperation based on “mutual recognition” rather than conflict and discord.

중국 조선족 문학과 중국어 창작 -리근전의 중국어 창작과 번역 발표를 중심으로-

이해영 한중인문학회 2011 한중인문학연구 Vol.34 No.-

조선족 문학은 중국의 소수민족 문학이면서도 정작 중국 학계에서는 철저히 외면당해왔으 며 조선족의 작가 중에는 만족, 티베트족, 회족, 몽고족 등 기타 중국 내 소수민족의 작가들처 럼 전국적인 문명을 획득한 작가가 배출되지 못했다. 그 가장 중요한 원인은 중국 조선족 문 학이 중국을 창작환경으로 하면서도 중국의 통용문자인 중국어가 아닌 한국어 내지 조선어로 씌어졌으며 극히 적은 몇 편의 작품만이 특별한 수요에 의해 중국어로 번역되었기 때문이다. 그러므로 조선족 문학은 지금까지 중국 내 조선족을 그 독자 층으로 상정하고 있었으며 여태 까지 중국 조선족 문학에서 한국어(조선어) 창작의 문제는 지극히 당연한 것으로 받아들여져 왔고, 중국어 창작의 문제는 러시아 고려인 문학, 재일동포문학 등 기타 해외 한민족 문학에서 민족어 창작이냐 거주국 언어 창작이냐의 문제처럼 심각하게 표면화되거나 거론되지 않았다. 그러나 개혁개방과 시장경제의 충격으로 인한 조선족의 민족 집거지의 해체에 따른 생존환경 의 변화와 창작환경의 변화, 중국 문학 속에서 조선족 문학의 위상 정립의 요구 등으로 하여 중국 조선족 문학에서 중국어 창작의 문제는 더는 간과할 수 없게 되었다. 이러한 맥락에서 본고는 중국 조선족의 제1세대 작가이자 주로 중국어로 창작하였고 발표는 번역하여 한국어 (조선어)로 하였던 리근전의 중국어 창작과 번역 발표의 의미에 대해 상세히 살펴봄으로써 변 화된 환경에서 조선족 문학의 발전을 위한 대안을 모색하고자 했다. 리근전은 중국 조선족의 제1세대로서 광복 후, 미귀환한 작가이다. 그러나 리근전은 조선 족의 기타 제1세대 작가들과는 달리 조선어보다는 한어에 익숙했으며 한어가 그의 습작기의 제1언어였다. 이는 리근전이 아버지를 따라 이주한 곳이 한족이 대다수 살던 지역이었고 그가 참군을 통해 부대에서 문자를 익혔던 것과 연관된다. 그러므로 리근전에게 있어서 문학창작의 제1언어, 자연스러운 언어는 조선어가 아닌 중국어이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 리근전은 자기가 조선어로 창작할 수 없다는 사실을 다른 사람들에게 밝히는 것을 극히 꺼려했고 그의 대표작이자 중국 조선족 문학의 대표작이기도 한 두 편의 장편소설 범바위와 고난의 년대가 중 국어로 창작된 뒤 역자에 의해 조선어로 번역되어 출간된 것임을 끝까지 고백하고 있지 않다. 이는 리근전이 고향이었던 조선 자강도에서부터 몸에 배인 민족성과 또한 조선족 작가라면 당연히 조선어로 창작해야 한다는 리근전 식의 자의식 때문으로 해석할 수 있다. 그러므로 리 근전에게 있어서 번역발표란 조선족의 삶에 대한 문학적 형상화로서의 작품의 내용적 측면과, 창작에 앞서 미리 상정한 독자층으로서 조선족 독자대중을 염두에 둔 지극히 당연한 것이고 오히려 조선족 작가로서의 자의식 때문에 감추고 싶은 불편한 부분이었다. 적어도 리근전이 첫 장편소설을 발표하던 1960년대로부터 두번째 장편소설을 발표하던 1980년대, 그리고 지금 에 이르기까지 조선족 문학작품은 조선어로 쓰는 것이 당연한 것으로 받아들여졌고 중국어 창작은 전혀 고려되지 않던 부분이었다. 그러나 이제 우리는 보다 적극적으로 주위의 변화된 환경에 적응하고 조선족 문학의 발전 을 모색해야 할 단계에 와 있으며 조선족 문학은 더는 중국어 창작을 외면할 수 없는 단계에 와있다. 그러나 조선족 문학에서 중국어 창작을 적극 추진하는 문제는 해외 한민족 문학의 범 주 설정이라는 대단히 근본적인 문제와 민족어 교육과의 양립이라는 대단히 민감한 문제를 넘어야 한다. 특히 중국의 소수민족 정책으로 민족어의 습득만 이루어지지 않으면 조선족의 정체성을 기억할 수 없다는 문제는 조선족에게 조선어야말로 기타 민족과의 이질성을 인지시 키고 민족적 정체성을 획득하기 위한 유일한 방법이자 징표이다. 본고는 민족어 교육과 중국어 창작을 대립항 즉 대타적 차원에서 상호보완적인 관계로 전 환시키기 위한 환충지대로 번역 발표의 방안을 제시해보았다. Tibetan、Hui people and Mongolian people, there has ever been no well-known Korean-Chinese writer. The main reason is that although literature of Chinese Korean Nationality takes China as the creative background, it doesn't take Chinese which is the most-accepted standard language to do writing. Except a very few works are translated into Chinese for some special reason, other works are totally in Korean. Until now literature of Chinese Korean Nationality still take Korean-Chinese as its reader, so writing in Korean seems to be normal. At the same time, writing in Chinese unlike other overseas literature of Chinese Korean Nationality such as Korean literature in Russia and Korean literature in Japan faces the matter of choosing the national language or the language of the country of residence. However, as Reform and Open Door policy happened in China, also as the impact of market economy, Korean-Chinese national gathering area faces the disintegration and their living environment and authoring environment of Chinese Korean Nationality has been changed. In order to get a steady place in Chinese literature, Chinese writing of Chinese Korean Nationality has risen to an important level which can not be ignored. For this reason, we studied on Li Genquan, one of the first generation Korean-Chinese writers, who did Chinese writing and then translated his works into Korean language. This thesis tried to analyze the meaning of his Chinese writing and translation in detail so as to seek the appropriate way for Korean-Chinese literature to deal with the changing environment. Li Genquan, as the first generation of Chinese Korean Nationality, belonged to “non-returned” writers after National Independence. Different from the other Korean-Chinese writers of the first generation, Li Genquan was more familiar about Chinese language than Korean language and also took Chinese as the first language in his writing. This is indissolubly linked with the fact that he settled down in Han people's gathering area with his father and studied Chinese characters in the troop after he joined the army. With all these reasons, for Li Genquan, the first language of literature creation and the natural language is not Kroean but Chinese. However, Li Genquan had conflict complex about the fact that he himself can not write in Korean language proficiently. As for his representative masterpieces, Tiger Cliff and Hard Age which are also two novels of the representative works in Korean-Chinese literature, he kept silence on the fact that professional translator translated his works into Korean after he wrote them in Chinese. This may be explained by his national consciousness and his self-awareness. He came from Jagang-do and in his blood did national consciousness exist. His self-awareness reminded him that as a Korean-Chinese writer, he should write in Korean language. Because of this, in the translated version of Li Genquan's works, did he try to cover the very natural things that the content of his works was based on the living status of Korean-Chinese and the potential readers were also Korean-Chinese. At least, Li Genquan's first novel in 1960s and his second novel which was published in 1980s and even today's literature works have never considered writing in Chinese but still take the Korean writing for granted. However, nowadays, we need to adapt to the changes surrounding us actively. Besides, we stand at the moment when we can not ignore Chinese writing if we intend to develop the literature of Chinese Korean Nationality. Inevitably, to promote Chinese writing of Korean-Chinese literature has some problems, such as the fundamental issue of setting Korean-Chinese literature category oversea and the hot issue which is opposed to national language education. Especially, because of China's ethnic minority policy, if one doesn't receive national language education, he or she will probably forget his nationality gradually. This big problem makes Korean-Chinese understand that Korean language is the only way for them to get to know their specificity and their nationality. This thesis aims at convert the relationship between Korean national language education and Chinese writing from opposition into mutual complementarity. With regards to this, translated version is suggested to be a way of dealing with this problem.

재일조선인 한글문학 속의 민족과 국가

이정석(Joung Suk Lee) 한국현대소설학회 2007 현대소설연구 Vol.- No.34

The special condition whereby the people of the colony reside in the colonizing country makes the disparity of the nation and the people a crucial factor that cannot be dealt with lightly when addressing the Korean-Japanese people. In particular, the tragic failure to realize a one modern nation-state for the Korean people aggravates the situation. The juncture where this tragic issue emerges sharply is the question of the Chosun nationality. If Chosun is the symbol of the contradiction found in the subtle national jurisdiction over the Korean-Japanese people of Chosun and the modern Korean history, ``Japanese-Korean literature`` is the asset of the Korean people that they created in a foreign land by overcoming all types of obstacles. Therefore, Japanese-Korean literature is, by itself, a precious resource that examines the social and cultural traces of the Koreans, and contributes to mending the polarity of the North and South Korean cultures, enriching the literature on the reunification of Korea. Meanwhile, Japanese-Korean literature shows in detail how modern national consciousness was developed and how the sense of jurisdiction towards the modern nation is developed. MunYaeDong, a sub group of the JoChongRyun, insists on purely Korean literary creations, to resist the Japanese language, the language of the colonizing nation. If MunYaeDong authors are geared towards the nation, they are different from the authors who mull over the issue of the Japanese-Korean based on the state whereby the national framework, that is the Japan, is recognized. Instead, the Korean people centered movement of the Korean-Japanese people of Chosun is strongly backed by the logic of self-preservation against the discrimination and assimilation policy of Japan to preserve the identity of the Korean people. Therefore, this movement is an extension of the Korean people centeredness that resisted the colonial rule. If so, the fact that the Korean people centeredness of the Korean-Japanese people of Chosun who do not hesitate to engage in social and political struggle while being fixated on the homogeneity of blood relations, language and culture is geared towards a nation of the Koreans in the modern era is not a foreign concept by all means. However, the problem is a unified nation of the Koreans, strongly desired by the Korean-Japanese people does not exist, and that this non-existent nation is replaced by North Korea. The Korean-Japanese people`s combative centeredness on the Korean people that is geared towards unified and self-autonomous nation of the Koreans while calling on each individual into a unified, collective entity, the Korean people, despite its intention, acts to continue the North Korean regime as it meets North Korea`s socialism based patriotism. Meanwhile, as the number of the Koreans in Japan who are naturalizing to become Japanese as the society of the Korean-Japanese people seeks a way to settle in Japan permanently, literature in Korean of the Korean-Japanese people of Chosun is deteriorating. To solve this issue, it is necessary for the literature in Korean of the Korean-Japanese people of Chosun move away gradually from the all too rigid framework of the Korean people and the nation. Instead, there is a need to mull over specific Korean people issues, while searching for a literary direction that can embrace the experience of Diaspora as a minority group and universal human issues. This is a requirement for the Japanese-Korean literature to consolidate its position as a ``literature of the minority.``

국어교과서와 ‘(국)문학’ 이데올로기 - 4차 교육과정기 국어교과서의 ‘국문학사’ 인식 및 수록 작품을 중심으로

정종현 동국대학교 한국문학연구소 2011 한국문학연구 Vol.0 No.41

In the 4th curriculum period(Dec. 1981~Jun. 1987), the texts in ‘Korean’ textbook are serving in allowing national culture and Korean to be essential. The Korean textbook was the thoroughly gendered text. Important branches of textbook are formed by the rhetorical writing and the expository writing of being emphasized masculine rationality, by the knowledge(learning) in ‘firm’ shape, and by the nationalistic vision of being suggested with male patriot's voice as well as the simple dimension as saying that the majority of writers in textbook texts are men. ‘Literature’ is performing a role of contributing emotionally to such ‘masculine’ national culture and nationalistic vision. ‘Literature’ as the aesthetic text is reduced. On the other hand, the weight of ‘(Korean) literature history’ as knowledge increased. The knowledges related to Korean literature history such as Jo Yun-jae, who emphasizes continuity of Korean-alphabet literature by having Chinese literature as the other, as the discussion of Jeong Byeong-uk, who makes it essence for the shape of the main agent, which accepts a foreign thought creatively, and as the writing of Kim Yun-sik, who lays the cornerstone of ideology in national literature by emphasizing continuity of Korean literature, specify the shape of national literature history as the progress that has realized modernity itself based on the internal development theory and the theory of the embryo of capitalism since the 1960s. Narrators in Korean literature history aimed to restore heritage of Korean and the Korean alphabet, which were abandoned in the culture of centering on Chinese writing. As well as the discussion of Jo Yun-jae, Jeong Byeong-uk and Kim Yun-sik, 「oral literature and record literature」 in Jang Deok-sun, who emphasizes on oral language and literature, are one of accurate cases of showing the aspect that a flow of romanticism-based humanities is institutionalized in the academic circles since the 1970s. ‘Korean literature(history)’ in the Korean textbook was keeping ideology of literature together as culture of pursuing universal ideal at the same time while functioning as ideology of national creation based on national literature. ‘Literature’ ideology, which was based on culture of pursuing freedom fundamentally in the Korean textbook into which the national ideology was penetrated, did need to be removed or trimmed sprouts. The specific literary works, which address the theme called genuineness and transcendence, which is selected to be recorded in real textbook, are cases of circumstantially proving this. 4차 교육과정기(1981.12~1987.6) ‘국어’ 교과서의 지문들은 민족문화와 국어를 본질화하는 데 복무하고 있다. 국어교과서는 철저하게 젠더화된 텍스트였다. 남성적 이성이 강조되는 논설문, 설명문 등과 ‘단단한’ 형태의 지식(학문), 남성 지사의 목소리로 제시되는 민족주의 비전 등이 교과서의 중요 갈래를 형성하고, ‘문학’은 그러한 ‘남성적’ 민족문화와 민족주의적 비전을 정서적으로 보조하는 역할을 수행하고 있다. 미적 텍스트로서의 ‘문학’이 축소되어 있는 데 비해 지식으로서의 ‘(국)문학사’의 비중은 증가했다. 한문학을 타자로 하여 국문문학의 연속성을 강조하는 조윤제, 외래 사상을 창조적으로 수용하는 주체의 형상을 본질화하는 정병욱의 논의, 한국문학의 연속성을 강조하며 민족문학의 이념을 정초하는 김윤식의 글 등, 국문학사 관련의 지식들은 60년대 이래의 내재적 발전론과 자본주의 맹아론 등을 기반으로 하여 근대성을 자체적으로 실현해온 진보로서의 민족문학사를 구성한다. 국문학사의 서술자들은 한문 중심의 문화에서 버려진 국어와 국문의 유산을 복원하고자 했다. 조윤제, 정병욱, 김윤식의 논의는 물론이거니와, 구술적 언어와 문학에 대해 강조하는 장덕순의 「구비문학과 기록문학」은 70년대 이후 학계에서의 낭만주의적 인문학의 흐름이 교과서에 제도화되는 양상을 보여주는 적실한 사례의 하나이다. 국어교과서의 ‘국문학(사)’는 민족문화에 기반한 국민 창출의 이데올로기로 기능하면서도, 동시에 보편적 이상을 추구하는 교양으로서의 문학의 이념을 함께 간직하고 있었다. 국가 이데올로기가 관철된 국어교과서에서 근원적으로 자유를 추구하는 교양에 기반한 ‘문학’ 이데올로기는 제거되거나 순치되어야 했다. 실제 교과서에 선별 수록된 순수와 초월이라는 주제를 다루는 구체적인 문학 작품들은 이를 방증하는 사례이다.

『민족문화연구』 누적 100호로 본 한국 고전문학 연구 경향과 과제

김준형 고려대학교 민족문화연구원 2023 民族文化硏究 Vol.101 No.-

『민족문화연구』 누적 100호를 통해 한국 고전문학의 연구 경향을 살피고, 향후 연구 방향에 대한 고민하였다. 누적 100호에 수록된 1,200여 편 내외의 논문 중 고전문학 관련 논문은 대략 440여 편 정도다. 전체의 35%다. 『민족문화연구』에는 특집 섹션이 총 63개인데, 여기에는 크게 세 가지 요소에 주목했다. 첫째, 특집호의 흐름이 ①인문학 위주에서 다른 분야까지 포섭했다. ②동일한 기획 주제가 반복되었다. ③기관의 역할을 위한 특집이 적지 않다는 점 등이 세 양상으로 나타났다는 것이 그러하다. 둘째, 특집호에는 한국문학과 다른 분야 학문과의 협업 양상에 변화를 보였다는 점이다. 초기에는 국학을 중심에 두고 다른 분야의 학문을 포용하는 방식이었다면, 후기에는 국학을 넘어 동아시아 보편 질서 안에서 한국문학의 위상을 찾는 방식으로 이동했음을 알 수 있다. 셋째, 특집호에는 한국문학의 독자적인 방향성을 설정했다는 점이다. 근대와 민족이라는 거대담론에 기초한 한국문학 연구는 2000년 이후로 소시민의 일상에 초점을 맞춘 생활사 위주의 미시담론으로 변환하였다. 이런 도정에서 ‘나’라는 개인의 존재에 대한 물음이 연구의 중심에 놓인 것도 당연한 결과였다. 특집호가 아닌 일반 논문들도 흐름은 크게 다르지 않다. 초기 민족문화연구 에 수록된 논문은 국학을 중심에 둔 민속학이나 민족정신의 흐름이 간단없이 이어졌음을 입증하기 위한 고전시가에 초점을 맞췄다. 하지만 2000년 이후로 언어 인식에 따른 문화적 이질성 문제가 더 이상의 장애 요인으로 작동하지 않으면서, 한문학 연구가 활발해졌다. 또한 국제적인 보편성 아래에서 한국문학의 특수성을 읽어내려는 경향이 강해졌다. 또한 중심보다 주변에 관심을 보인 것도 같은 맥락에 놓인다. 권력자 중심이 아닌 익명화된 소수자에 관심을 보인 것도, 그리고 여성과 문화가 한국문학의 중심에 놓인 것도, 음악과 미술 등과 교섭하는 연구 성과들이 강조된 것도 같은 흐름에서 파생된 결과다. 한국문학의 소멸까지 이야기되는 시점에서 새로운 과제를 나열하는 것은 염치없는 일이다. 차라리 중세에서 근대로 이행하던 시기의 고민을 엿보아, 그에 기초하여 오늘날 한국문학 연구의 방향성을 고민하는 것이 효과적이다. 첫째, 문학 연구의 목적성. 둘째, 학문 간 연대 및 공동 작업의 필요성. 셋째, 자료 공유 및 정리 작업의 필요성 등은 거기서 생산된 물음이다. 이를 통해 한국문학 연구의 구심점을 마련해야 한다는 점, 학문 간 연구 및 공동 작업에 창의성을 발휘할 수 있는 자율성이 필요하다는 점. 그리고 자료와 공유 및 정리 작업은 한국문학 연구의 기초인데, 그 모범적 사례를 고려대 해외한국학자료센터에서 찾을 수 있다는 점을 방향성으로 제시하였다. Through the cumulative 100th issue of KOREAN CULTURAL STUDIES, I looked at the research trend of Korean classical literature and thought about future research directions. Of the approximately 1,200 papers included in the 100th issue, approximately 440 are related to classical literature. It is 35% of the total. KOREAN CULTURAL STUDIES has a total of 63 special sections. Looking at the special issue, it is noteworthy in three major respects. First, looking at the flow of the special issue, three aspects are revealed. ① It focused on the humanities and included other fields. ②The same planning theme was repeated. ③This includes the fact that there are quite a few special features for the role of the institution. Second, the special issue showed a change in the pattern of collaboration between Korean literature and other academic fields. In the beginning, it was a method of embracing studies in other fields based on Korean Studies, but in the later period, it was seen that it moved beyond Korean Studies to a method of finding the status of Korean literature within the East Asian universal order. Third, the special issue also showed an aspect of setting an independent direction for Korean literature. Since 2000, research on Korean literature based on the macro-discourse of homeland and nation has shifted its focus on the daily lives of small-scale citizens to micro-discourse centered on life history. In this journey, it was a natural result that the question of the existence of the individual ‘I’ was placed at the center of the research. General papers that are not part of a special issue are not much different from the flow of a special issue. The early papers included in National Culture Studies focused on folklore centered on national studies and classical poetry to show that the flow of national spirit progressed and developed in a linear manner. However, since 2000, Chinese literature has shown significant progress as the problem of cultural heterogeneity due to language recognition no longer acts as an obstacle. The tendency to read the specificity of Korean literature under international universality has become stronger. Also, the increased interest in the periphery rather than the center can be explained in the same context. This is why the focus is on anonymous minorities rather than those in power. The same result is that women and culture are placed at the center of Korean literature, and research results that negotiate music and art are emphasized. After reviewing this, I also thought about the tasks of Korean literature research. Rather than raising a special task at a time when we are talking about the disappearance of Korean literature, it is more meaningful to translate Kim Chun-dong’s concerns from the period of transition from the Middle Ages to the modern era into today's problems. Through this, three issues were raised. First, the purpose of literary research. Second, the need for interdisciplinary solidarity and collaboration. Third, there is the need for data sharing and organization. Through this, a central point for Korean literature research must be established and autonomy to demonstrate creativity in interdisciplinary research and collaboration is needed. He also suggested that sharing and organizing data is the basis of Korean literature research, and that exemplary examples can be found at Center for Overseas Resource on Korean Studies.

한국문학의 ‘복수의 근대성’, 아시아적 타자의 새 발견 : 외국인 이주노동자와 한국문학의 새로운 윤리감에 대한 모색

고명철(Ko Myeong-cheol) 한국비평문학회 2010 批評文學 Vol.- No.38

Korean literature has groped for the possibility of different modernity from Western modernity; it schemed and pursued ‘plural modernity’ as a generic term for non-capitalist modern enhancement to stress the distinctiveness and multiplicity of modernity holding out against ‘singular modernity.’ What must not be disregarded in the pursuit of ‘plural modernity’ Korean literature has achieved up to now is, however, the pursuit of ‘plural modernity,’ which was investigated within the nation-state, the Republic of Korea; that is, within the framework of one individual nation’s crisis. Korea openly underwent the fictitiousness of such a framework of one single nation’s crisis by way of the IMF. Hence, despotism of the neoliberalist order deviated from a nation’s boundary and loomed large as a critical-pending question of the entire global crisis, ‘plural modernity’ Korean literature must pursue, has since confronted multifarious dilemmas that cannot be resolved by only a nation’s viewpoint. A sensitive issue in the Korean society among the dilemmas concerns the reality of foreign migrant workers. Korean literature in the previous viewpoint of a nation was to deal successfully with ‘singular modernity’ that centered in the Western society, which has perceived the critical reality of foreign migrant workers in Korea and revealed contradictions and ills of Korean capitalism. Korean literature desires a global reform to achieve the class liberation of workers as resolving the dilemmas. The scheme for pursuing ‘plural modernity’ setting about within such a boundary of a nation extends to the issue of foreign migrant workers, the severity of which gradually rises within the global boundary of the neoliberalist order. Korean literature is hence confronted with a new assignment. The rapid influx of foreign migrant workers to the Korean society cannot be disregarded, and Korean literature must never overlook the agony in their life in the Korean society. The reality of their life becomes conscious in our life in this global system of the 21st century capitalism. The pursuit of ‘plural modernity’ in Korean literature in the interest of overcoming European-centered ‘singular modernity’ can allow a deviation from the boundary of a nation and be more fertile as encountering with the reality of foreign migrant workers. Doing so, Korean literature can newly disclose ‘Asian others ? foreign migrant workers,’ whom it previously failed to properly recognize; and therefore embellish the sense of new literary ethics linking with the awareness of the issue.