사회의 문학,반행동주의,아카데미즘: 1950년대 『사상계』의 문학성 인식과 최재서의 전략

정영진 ( Yeong Jin Jeong ) 민족문학사학회·민족문학사연구소 2012 민족문학사연구 Vol.48 No.-

Jae-seo Choi did not published his works in other literary magazines but continuously did in <Sasanggye (World of Thoughts)> mainly on the literary theory in terms of a theory. The college students majoring in literature in the 1950`s were influenced by the trend of the time that studied literature as the ``knowledge and idea`` in the academic aspect which is based on the distrust toward the literary circles. Choi emphasized the ``ideas`` in the literature by emphasizing the characteristic of the anti- activist and introspective ``intelligence`` and the sense of identity of literary people and intellects. He hoped literature to realize the complete humanity capable of overcoming the crisis of the times and comprehensive humanity. His literary theory of order and integration suggested the humanism as critical spirit or the anti-activist humanism rather than activist humanism. Choi`s academic literary theory supported the awareness of ``literary values`` which was thought out through the cultural strategy of <Sasanggye>, the educational magazine for intellects that pursued the modernization in all aspects, as the intra-literary principle. The autonomy of literature when he pursued the complete literature of integration and order and the literature as the humanism that aims for comprehensive and complete humanity indicates the integration of the literature itself into the society rather than the liberation from the society. In other words, Choi summarized the aesthetic norms of the literature which achieves the idea he regarded through <Sasanggye> or the zeitgeist and it was the response to the awareness of ``literary values`` in <Sasanggye> that emphasized the role of literature as the faculty in charge of humanity. The emphasis is placed on the aspect that the theoretical literary theory of Choi which supported the awareness of literary value in <Sasanggye> occupied a contrasting position against the collusion of the authority of the literary circles and literary knowledge centering on literary magazines. The academic literary theory of Choi indirectly revealed the closedness of the literary group by showing whether the literature can establish a relationship with the social reality as a unique system. This is the reason Choi could compromise with the strategy of <Sasanggye> of inducing intelligent public into modernization and social integration project through literature.

What Research Says About Using Literature for English Language Learning and Teaching

김태은 한국영어어문교육학회 2008 영어어문교육 Vol.14 No.3

This study aims to review and analyze the articles focused on using literature for English Language Learning and Teaching (ELLT) in the primary Korean journals. A total of 38 literature-related articles out of 2,183 have been published in the 7 prominent Korean journals from 1998 to 2007. The researcher investigated these articles based on various external dimensions—number and percentage of the literature-related articles published, year of publication, participants of study, research methodology, type of study, and type of literature genre used. In addition, the articles were classified under the two subject domains—(a) three elements involved in the transaction with literature (i.e., reader, literary text, and context) and (b) language development through literature experiences. The study revealed that although the interest in using literature for ELLT has become more amplified in recent years, the remarkably small number of the literature-related articles (1.74%) was published during 1998-2007. The genre of literature investigated in the reviewed studies or appeared in English textbooks was mainly fiction; in contrast, relatively little attention was paid to nonfiction. Such unbalanced exposure to literature genre could keep English language learners from developing the awareness of two contrasting, but underlying, texts—narrative and expository texts. In addition, the reviewed studies of the past decade were devoted to mainly explore how using literature is associated with reader, literary text, and context and assure that literature experiences help English language learners attain reading achievement, vocabulary growth, and improvement in listening and speaking.

모더니즘, 新感覺派, 现代主义 – 동아시아의 ‘modernism’ 문학 개념에 대한 일 고찰

김미지 한국현대문학회 2015 한국현대문학연구 Vol.0 No.47

This study aims to examine the historical context of the concept of ‘modernism’ in Korean modern literature, especially by comparing to the concepts in Japanese and Chinese literature. In the early 20th century, various branches of modernism literature which are sprouted from western literature had been adopted in the East Asian literary field. At first Japanese writers as Yokomitsu Riich announced the literature of ‘new sense(新感覺)’ in the 1920’s, and a full scale movement of modernist literature had been developed before and after the 1930’s. Before long a group of ‘modernist’ appeared in Kyungsung, the capital of colonial Korea and similarly in Shanghai, the semi-colonial city of China. And it is called and written that the former ‘모더니즘’ and the latter ‘现代主义’ in general in these days. It needs to be emphasized that the sign and concept of ‘모더니즘’ in Korean modern literature is a consequence of historical and ex post facto progress of criticism. The members of Guinhoe(九人會), which is known that the first ‘modernist’ group in Korean literature, had not named themselves as ‘modernist’ at that time except Kim, Ki rim. And it is also remarkable fact that they refused to be called as ‘新感覺派’. However, the Chinese modernist of Shanghai in the 1930’s has been called ‘新感覺派’ as well as ‘现代主义’, it also has historical contexts and is the result of complicated progress of chines literature. For long period the Shanghai modernist literature has been concealed especially after the establishment of The People's Republic of China until 1980’s. And after 1980’s the modernists of 1930’s had been reinstated in the field of Chinese literature in the category and name of ‘新感觉派(Xinganjuepai)’. However, the position and literary tendency of Shanghai modernist group was different with Japanese ‘新感覺派(Shinkankakuha)’, therefore, recently it is raised a question about the naming of ‘新感觉派’ and ‘现代主义’, for example, newly invented name ‘摩登主义(modengzhuyi)’ has appeared. ‘摩登(modeng)’ has two origin in that sign, the one is from ‘modern’, the western concept and sign’, and the other is from Chinese classical works originated from Buddhist scripture. The history of concepts and naming of ‘modernism’ in Korean and Chinese modern literature reveals the complicated and unsettled status of East Asian colonial literature. 현재 ‘모더니즘 문학’(한국)이라고 불리는 식민지의 수도 경성의 1930년대 문학(구인회를 중심으로 한)은 그 이름을 얻게 된 역사적 배경과 맥락이 존재한다. 당대에 원어 ‘modernism’과 일본어 음차표기인 ‘モダニズム’의 영향권 안에서 선택된 ‘모더니즘’이라는 음차어가 1930년대의 특정한 문학적 경향, 실천들에 붙게 된 것은 문학사적인 사후 작업의 결과였다. 현재까지 이 명칭은 우리 문학사에서 큰 반성 없이 쓰이고 있는데, 중국의 경우는 사정이 많이 다르다. 중국어의 경우 애초에 음차 표기가 용이하지 않은 사정도 있지만 기본적인 훈역주의의 원칙에 따라 ‘modernism’은 ‘现代主义’로 번역되고 소위 ‘모더니즘 문학’은 ‘현대주의 문학’이 된다. 그런데 중국 현대문학 연구에서 볼 수 있는 또 하나의 경향은 ‘현대주의 문학’과 ‘신감각파 문학’이 거의 동일시된다는 점이다. 일본의 ‘신감각파’ 문학을 직수입한 것으로 여겨져 온 30년대 상해의 일부 작가들이 일본의 ‘신감각파’를 고평하고 적극 소개하기는 했지만 이들을 ‘신감각파’라는 명칭과 범주로 두기에는 부적절하다. 한국에도 일본의 신감각파 작품들이 수입되고 읽혔지만 현재 ‘모더니스트’로 불리는 작가들은 자신들이 ‘신감각파’로 불리는 것을 거부했으며 ‘신감각’이라는 개념 자체를 부정하기도 했다. 한편 ‘신감각파’라는 협소하고 불충분한 개념 또는 ‘현대주의’라는 범박한 개념으로 중국 상해의 30년대 전위 문학을 포괄할 수 없다는 문제의식 하에 최근 중국에서는 ‘摩登主义文学’, ‘Modengzhuyi’라는 새로운 문학사적 명명을 도입하는 시도도 나타났다. 이는 일본의 ‘신감각파’를 ‘Shinkankakuha’로 특수화시키는 영미권의 아이디어와 유사한 면이 있는데, 그러나 ‘摩登’은 ‘modern’이라는 서양 중심적 연원을 완전히 지우지 않으면서도 중국의 전통적인 한자 문맥의 세계와 접속시키면서 보편과 특수의 변증법적 대화의 시도를 놓지 않고 있다는 점에서 특징적이다. 한국과 중국에서 ‘모더니즘’ 문학 개념의 굴절의 역사는 동아시아 식민지 근대 문학이 처했던 흔들리는 위상을 공통적으로 환기시킨다.

문학장과 문학성

라영균(Ra Young-kyun) 한국외국어대학교 외국문학연구소 2004 외국문학연구 Vol.- No.17

Literature itself is not a literary thing but the literarily regarded texts. This means that literature merely is not a linguistic and aesthetic substance but a social act. The definition of literarity, that is to say, whether some work is literary is not based on the transcendental and universal value but completed through postulating the specific literary value and authorizing process of institutionalization in the individual and society group. In this way literary field is the social space for the laying the cornerstone of literary concept as the grouping, institutional and social product, and the struggling of the individual, several social groups or institutions anticipating the literary power. Literary field as a whole is made up of the structure which is divided into hohe literature and niedere literature. In case of hohe literature the main concern of engaging people is willing to maintain that literature does not reduce as a mere sign but retain the highly symbolic force. So the literature appealing to the masses strongly is considered as the unrefeind literature. In contrast, in case of niedere literature the symbolism or symbolic capital becomes secondary and is revealed remarkably toward the inclination to the commercial success. To separate opposing (hohe literature and niedere literature) literary area in the literary field, to begin with, rests on the method to define literarity or literary concept. Literary concept is the general idea of literature which is valid in the specific social group. In other words literature is the common idea of literarily considered text and defines how to realize the text in relation with the literary customs, production and acceptance. From the different point of view, literary concept becomes the frame of conformity drawing a line between literature and non-literature by excluding inconsistent text of the valid literary idea. In the first place the transition of literary field and shifting of literary power falls back on the change of literary concept.

조연현 비평에서 ‘문학’과 ‘정치’ : 일제 말기와 전후 비평을 중심으로

고봉준(Ko Bong-jun) 한국근대문학회 2010 한국근대문학연구 Vol.11 No.2

한국문학사에서 문학과 정치의 관계는 다음의 세 가지 방식으로 논의되어 왔다. 첫째, 문학이 민족적?민중적 현실의 반영이며, 따라서 문학은 현실의 문제에 대해서 적극적으로 개입해야 하고, 현실의 변화에 대한 문학의 역할이 존재한다는 입장. 둘째, 문학은 정치?종교?도덕 같은 제영역과의 거리로 정의되며, 때문에 특정한 정치적 입장이 문학을 지배할때 문학은 고유의 가치와 기능을 상실한다는 입장. 셋째, 문학은 정치로부터 분리되어 존재하되, 문학의 가치는 인간의 존재와 삶의 진실을 해명하는 데 있다는 입장. 조연현의 비평은 세 번째 입장에 속한다. 문협정통파의 대표적 비평가인 조연현의 비평관은 흔히 사상적인 측면에서는 ‘생리’와 ‘구경적인 것’을 매개로 한 근대의 초극으로, 문학적인 측면에서는 순수문학론으로서의 휴머니즘으로 요약된다. 그리고 이러한 두 측면을 떠받치고 있는 문학적 입장이 바로 ‘문학’과 ‘정치’의 거리였다. 조연현은 한편으로는 문학과 정치의 분리라는 논리를 내세워 이데올로기적인 선명성을 강조한 좌익의 공식주의 문학론과의 차별성을 확보하려 했고, 또 한편으로는 ‘생리’를 내세워 “구경적 생의 형식”을 주장하고 문학을 종교의 수준에 근접시킨 김동리와의 차별성을 획득하려 했다. 그러나 해방 이전, 즉 일제말기에 조연현은 일제 파시즘에 동조하는 입장에서 다수의 비평을 발표했는데, 흥미롭게도 그 비평들에서도 그는 문학은 ‘작품’을 중시해야 한다는 입장을 견지했으며, 이러한 입장은 해방기와 전후에도 계속 유지되었다. 한편 조연현의 비평은 중요한 개념들의 계열화를 함축하고 있다. <근대-이성절대주의/합리만능주의-논리-정치>의 계열과 <현대-파토스적 욕망/실존적 요구-생리-문학>의 계열이 그것이다. 여기에서 ‘정치’가 ‘논리’와 동일한 계열에 속하듯이, ‘문학’은 인간의 파토스적 욕망과 실존적 요구에 관계하는 ‘생리’에 속하는 것으로 설정된다. 이는 ‘인간’과 ‘생리’가 ‘문학’과 ‘정치’가 결합되는 것을 막아준다는 것을 의미한다. 이런 점에서 ‘인간-생리-작품’은 동일하게 ‘문학’과 ‘정치’의 연관성을 순화시켜주는예술적 안전장치로 기능한다. 그런데 이러한 가치의 계열화는 몇 가지 심각한 문제를 낳는데, 첫째, ‘문학’과 ‘정치’의 분리를 텍스트의 차원에 고정시킴으로써 작가의 정치 참여나 작품의 이데올로기적 기능에 대해서는 말하지 않는다는 점, 둘째, ‘민족’, ‘전통’, ‘휴머니즘’ 같은 근대적 가치들을 매개로 근대를 초극한다는 형용모순을 노출한다는 점, 셋째, 두 계열을 대립적으로 이해함으로써 ‘생리’, ‘전통’ 같은 비논리적 대상을 현대(근대의 초극)에 위치시키게 된다는 점 등이다. In history of Korean literature, relationship between literature and politics has been discussed in mainly three branches as follows. First view claims that literature reflects ethnic aspect of reality as well as views of the mass public. According to this view, literature plays certain roles in changing the reality. Second perspective gauges status of literature by its distance from other areas of politics, religions and ethics. Thus, literature risks losing unique value and functions when political interests take over. Last view sees that literature is separated from politics, and its value lies in illuminating human existence and truths of life. Cho Yeon-hyeon’s critiques followed the last position. Cho Yeon-hyeon was a representative critic of the orthodox school of the literary association. In terms of ideology, his critique can be understood as transcendence of modernity through medium of ‘physiology’ and ‘pursuit of over common fate of the mankind.’ In literary aspect, his work was grounded in humanism as part of the theory of pure literature. Literary standing that supported these two aspects can be measured by distance between ‘literature’ and ‘politics.’ On one hand, Cho made efforts to secure independent identity of his critiques, apart from communist literary theory that emphasized ideological clarity, by dividing literary and political arenas. On the other hand, Cho put forth ‘physiology’ and emphasized ‘way of living that pursues to overcome common fate of the mankind,’ in an effort to differentiate his ideas from Kim Dong-ri who brought literature closer to realm of religion. Prior to liberation from the Japanese occupation, Cho published a series of critiques that sympathized with Japanese fascism. Interestingly, in these critiques, he maintained a position to put focus on ‘literary work’ in discussing literature; such perspective sustained through period of liberation and post-war eras. Cho Yeon-hyeon’s critiques implied a discourse on categorizing important literary concepts: they included <modern-absolute reason/rationalism-logic-politics> and <contemporary-desire of pathos-existential needs-physiology-literature>. Just as ‘politics’ and ‘logic’ fall into the same category, ‘literature’ is understood as belonging to ‘physiology’ that deals with human being’s desires of pathos and existential needs. In other words, ‘human needs’ and ‘physiology’ help to prevent collusion between ‘literature’ and ‘politics.’ In this regard, ‘human-physiology-literary work’ functions as an artistic buffer that weakens links between ‘literature’ and ‘politics.’ However, this kind of categorization of values accompanies grave problems. Firstly, it fixates separation of ‘literature’ and ‘politics’ on a level of texts, neglecting to consider writers’ political activities or ideological functions of literary works. Secondly, a matter of oxymoron arises as the argument tries to overcome modernity with modern values such as ‘ethnicity’, ‘tradition’ and ‘humanism.’ Lastly, by juxtaposing the two categories as antagonistic, illogical subjects such as ‘physiology’ and ‘tradition’ are placed in realm of contemporary value, that is, transcendence of modernity.

흔들리는 열도, 그래도 문학

김계자 서울대학교 일본연구소 2016 일본비평 Vol.- No.15

From rapid economic growth to low and minus growth, post-war Japan who pursued phantasm of “growth” came to an end. Modern Japan is quaking due to economic polarization problems, endless disasters, and continuous conservative shift. During this period, what role did literature play? This article examines sensational literary works and followed phenomena at the time of economic depression and reconsiders the actual meaning of literature in modern Japan. Two outstanding keywords of modern Japanese literature are healing and humor. A series of novels about gourmet have prevailed recently, because they provide consolation in anxiety of modern society. However, they need close watch on their patterns of consumption as simple fantasies without revealing the fundamental structure of pain. The novel Flame by Matayoshi Naoki created a noticeable sensation in the literary world in 2015, illustrating humor with materials from comedy entertainment. The success of this novel shows one characteristic of modern literature, which is an act of literary consumption as an industrial content. In addition, novels describing the agony of people that comes from economic depression and criticizing closed society have also succeeded. Especially, since 2010 “literary award on the street” has introduced novels that depicted the experience of homeless people, and such movement is expected to evoke the proper meaning of literature by relativizing the standardized mainstream literature and to propose the possibility of literature as a place for horizontal communication among common readers. Since the collapse of economic bubble, modern Japanese literature is struggling to describe the problems that cannot stay in the individual area. Miyabe Miyuki’s detective novels are noticeable examples. If a certain literature is requested in spite of economic depression, such literature can be considered as in the form nearest to the proper meaning of literature.

중국대학 한국문학교육을 위한 작품선정 -1990년대 이후 문학을 중심으로-

신윤경 ( Yoon Kyeong Shin ) 연세대학교 언어연구교육원 한국어학당 2012 외국어로서의 한국어교육 Vol.37 No.-

Literature selection for the Korean Literature Education from Universities in China -Focus on literature since 1990`s-. Teaching Korean as a Foreign Language, 37, 223~242. When we teach foreign students Korean literature, we consider most on How to teach Which literature. Especially for foreign students learning Korean literature overseas, ths selection of the literature is very important. It, however has not been carried out properly due to the limited local situations and this has driven foreign students to lose their interest in Korean literature and has demotivated them as well. Therefore, this thesis aims to review current issues in selecting Korean literature and to develop selection criteria and process of Korean literature for Korean literature education. Target sample of the study is foreign students majoring Korean from universities in China because China has long history in Korean education and Koreanology, and Korean literature is one of the most common majors of the department of Korean education in universities. As a first step, we reviewed the literature from their text books and found out that the literature selection was not diversified, especially, no comtemporary literature since 1990`s could be found. Therefore, new selection criteria for literature selection was designed based on the literature being taught in Korean universities today and a list of literature was selected through the selection process based on the criteria. Through this exercise, a list of literature was chosen for Korean literature education. We believe these carefully selected literature will enable students to learn Korean, Korean culture, Korean society better.

‘코리아문학’의 통일·통합 (불)가능성 : 남북 문학 교류의 역사와 과제

김성수 서울대학교 통일평화연구원 2018 통일과 평화 Vol.10 No.2

This paper examines the history of literary exchanges between South Korea and North Korea based on the issue of literary dissemination of the 4.27 Panmunjom Declaration(2018.4.27) & September Pyongyang Joint Declaration(2018.9.19) and to explore future challenges. The communication and exchanges between South Korean literature and North Korean literature were attempted three times in 1961, 1989, and 2005. After the 4.19 Revolution, North Korean literary writers proposed literary exchanges in the name of racial literature, which went in vain due to the 5.16 Military Coup. The Inter-Korean Literary Writers Conference was pushed forward actively with the efforts of Hwang Seok-Yeong, etc., in 1989, which eventually turned out to be fruitless. At that time, the blueprint for literary exchange plan and cooperation was drawn in the wake of the Racial Literary Writers Conference(2005), establishment of ‘6.15 Racial Literary Writers Association’(2006), and publication of its Tongil Munhak(Unification Literature, 2008). However, the literary exchange was 1discontinued due to North Korea's nuclear test and South Korea's conservative regime. Now, the ‘inheritance and new parallel-advance’ policy were proposed for resumption of literary exchange to keep pace with the changes of situations in 2018, a period of watershed for the peace system. It is imperative to inherit the federation of 2006 while moving ahead with the generational shift and the change of media contents. At this time, the normative concept of unification literature and racial literature should not serve as a mechanism for psychological suppression in the society. It would be necessary to abandon the vested rights of South Korean literature and North Korean literature and to reshape the Korean literature. That would be epitomized by formation of internet network(YouTube) hubs for ‘linguistic literature materials of the Korean race’ worldwide for practical communication, rather than normative unification and integration. 이 글은 ‘4.27판문점선언’(2018.4.27), ‘9월평양공동선언’(2018.9.19)의 문학적 확산이란 문제의식을 가지고 남북한 문학 교류의 역사를 검토하고 향후 과제를 모색하는 것을목적으로 한다. 남북 작가·문학의 소통·교류가 시도된 것은 1961, 1989, 2005년 세 차례였다. 4.19혁명 후 북한 작가들은 민족문학의 명분 아래 문학 교류를 제안했으나 5.16 쿠데타로 무산되었다. 1989년 황석영 등의 노력으로 남북작가회담이 적극 추진되었으나좌절되었다. 그때의 교류 계획과 협력의 청사진은 ‘민족작가대회’(2005)와 ‘6.15민족문학인협회’ 결성(2006) 및 기관지 『통일문학』 간행(2008)으로 실현되었다. 하지만 북한의 핵실험과 남한의 보수정권 때문에 더 이상의 교류는 중단되었다. 이제, 평화체제로 가는 길목에 선 2018년의 정세변화에 맞춰, 문학 교류의 ‘계승과 신설 병진’책을 제안한다. 2006 년의 연합조직을 계승하되, 세대교체와 미디어 콘텐츠 변화를 꾀해야 한다. 이때 통일문학, 민족문학이란 개념이 더 이상 사회적 심리적 억압 ‘장치’가 되면 곤란하다. 남북한 문학의 기득권을 버리고 ‘코리아문학의 리부트’가 필요하다. 당위적 통일·통합이 아니라실질적 소통을 위한 전 세계 ‘한겨레 언어문화 자료’의 인터넷망(유튜브 등) 허브 구축이그런 예라 하겠다.

문학 교과서와 재외 동포 문학교육 -조선족 문학 작품을 중심으로-

최미숙 ( Mee Sook Choi ) 한국독서학회 2011 독서연구 Vol.0 No.26

The objectives of this study were to examine how high school literature textbooks are dealing with literary works written by Choseonjok (overseas Koreans) in China and to suggest desirable directions for the education of overseas Korean literature. In the results of analyzing units related to overseas Korean literature in literature textbooks under the 7th National Curriculum and new literature textbooks, we found characteristics such as emphasis on universal human sentiments, emphasis on the characteristics of Korean literature, and promotion from subsidiary materials to main materials. By analyzing the three characteristics, we suggested directions for the education of overseas Korean literature as follows. First, based on emphasis on the characteristics of Korean literature, we should include overseas Korean literature in the education of general literature. That is, overseas Korean literature should be covered on the dimension of education for the acceptance and creation of literature. Second, more diverse works of overseas Korean literature should be dug out and included in textbooks. Lastly,overseas Korean literature should be approached not only from the viewpoint of Korean literature but also from the viewpoint of ‘literature of marginal people’ in consideration of the peculiarity that Choseonjok are Koreans and, at the same time, Chinese. Literary education needs to handle overseas Korean literature not as a special category but as one of general categories. This will help learners read such works naturally in their daily life.

关注文学教育的学习链 - 关于中学国语教育“泛文学化”现象的反思 -

왕이루 서울대학교 국어교육연구소 2013 국어교육연구 Vol.32 No.-

The concept of “literature education” in this paper refers to using the literature works as teaching materials in class. The purpose of literature education in university and in primary or middle school is not the same. The main focus of literature education for the students in primary and middle school is to help students improve the language skill. But the current situation is that we does not meet the main requirement of the literature education for the teenagers, present a serious tendency of “overemphasizing literature itself”, characterized by high percentage of literary works in the teaching materials, as well as paying too much attention to literary appreciation, etc. We should specify the ultimate goal of the education of Chinese language and literature, understand the value of teaching literature, recognize the position of literary appreciation in the language learning. To differentiate literature education in the primary and middle school from those in university, realize the actual role of literature education for the junior students as the first link in the entire chain, that is to proceed to the next step smoothly after the education, then to finally take the occupation in relation to literature or any other career.