형식주의자로서 찰스 올슨Charles Olson의 시학연구

구자광 시와세계 2008 시와세계 Vol.- No.21

"천둥이 말한 것" :_황무지_의 윤리적 읽기

구자광 한국T.S.엘리엇학회 2004 T.S. 엘리엇 연구 Vol.14 No.1

거르트루드 스타인의 글쓰기-『부드러운 단추들』을 중심으로

구자광 한국영어영문학회 2004 영어 영문학 Vol.50 No.3

‘대상 a(objet a)’ vs. ‘코라(khora)’: 지젝 vs. 데리다

구자광 한국라깡과현대정신분석학회 2008 한국라깡과현대정신분석학회 학술발표대회 프로시딩 Vol.2008 No.-

코즈모폴리턴 ‘생물지역주의’― 게리 스나이더의 경우

구자광 한국현대영미시학회 2010 현대영미시연구 Vol.16 No.1

This paper aims to look for a possibility of contradictory combination of region-centered bioregionalism and cosmopolitanism in Gary Snyder’s ecology through Immanuel Kant and Jacques Derrida. Snyder’s worries about regionalism implicit in bioregionalism urge him to introduce cosmopolitanism. Snyder proposes to keep a balance between cosmopolitanism and bioregionalism. In his essay on cosmopolitanism, Kant presents the idea of ‘a common right to the surface of the earth.’ The earth is a common land to all. All are ‘natives’ to the earth. According to Jacques Derrida’s interpretation of Kantian cosmo- politanism, Kant acknowledges the common right to the surface of the earth but Kant would like to reserve an exclusive right for what is ‘erected’ or ‘constructed’ on the surface of the earth. But Derrida says that when an exclusive right is secured, an ‘initial violence’ is done to the common right to the surface of the earth. Derrida argues that any ‘habitat’ is just an ‘illegally’ and ‘violently’ ‘constructed’ one that interferes with ‘the common right to the surface of the earth.’ All ‘habitats’ are ‘illegals.’ Any regionalism or even bioregionalism is one of ‘illegals’ in the light of the cosmopolitan right to the surface of the earth. With Kantian idea of cosmopolitanism and Derrida’s interpretation of Kantian cosmopolitanism, this paper shows that Snyder’s bioregionalism can be acceptable only if it is based on cosmopolitanism since even bioregions can be thought to be ‘constructed’ or ‘erected’ on ‘the surface of the earth’ that ‘originally’ belongs to all on the earth without any discrimination, animals, humans, plants, mountains, predators, enemies, etc. Any ‘re-inhabitation’ in land and ‘becoming natives’ to land which Snyder suggests in his ecological projects should begin with the idea of ‘pure land’ on which nothing has been ‘constructed,’ like ‘the surface of the earth.’ The common right to the surface of the earth should be given priority to. After this right is guaranteed, an ecological community can be ‘constructed’ or ‘erected’ on the surface of the earth regionally and temporarily, and only then, cosmopolitan bioregionalism can be put into practice.

형식주의자로서 찰스 올슨의 시학 연구

구자광 한국현대영미시학회 2003 현대영미시연구 Vol.9 No.2

데리다와 아감벤의 인간/동물관계에 근거한 윤리학과 정치학에 대한 연구

구자광 새한영어영문학회 2009 새한영어영문학 Vol.51 No.3

This paper aims to interpret Jacques Derrida's and Giorgio Agamben's ethical and political projects in terms of human/animal relations. They maintain that division of human/animal has been produced by operations of 'conceptual machinery'(Derrida) or 'anthropological machinery'(Agamben). In either case, the division has been established through the sacrifice of animals by the 'particular' species, humans. Conceptual and anthropological machinery has been instituted as the 'sacrificial structure.' Human/animal relations began with the 'initial violence' to animals. Derrida's acknowledgment that sacrifice is inevitable in any case leads him to thinking about institutions founded on 'the least violence.' Agamben claims the necessity to sever any 'nexus' or 'joint' that links human/animal life to institutions based on sacrifice. In Derrida, 're-founding' or 'inventing' a new 'least bad' institution starts with the coming animal others. The coming others make the machinery 'out of joint' which will drive humans to 'invent' a 'least bad law and politics.' Thus arises inevitable negotiations between the coming others and the existing machinery. Derrida will wait for the others to come and after that he can try any new political projects. The problem in Derrida seems to be that coming others can be used to serve the existing machinery just by providing opportunities to make the machinery work more effectively, less violently. Derrida would not give up the idea of improvement with all his deconstructive strategies. Agamben tries to just render any institutional divisions 'in-opera-tive.' By 'severing the nexus' in the machinery that has produced divisions, inclusion/exception, everything will return to its 'original context' in which no sacrificial exclusion was instituted. Instead of proposing any alternative institutions which will lead to the same stalemate as before, Agamben's political action of 'division of divisions' is just to return everything to its original 'free usage.' Following Benjamin, Agamben believes a possibility of 'happy life' could arise from 'free usage' of things liberated from the machinery. The 'coming community' can start with the free and liberated things. Agamben's project can open a totally revolutionary possibility.

민족주의에 대한 예이츠의 상반되는 두 목소리

구자광 한국예이츠학회 2005 한국예이츠 저널 Vol.24 No.-

There are two contradictory voices in W. B. Yeats concerning Irish nationalism. One is for support of Irish nationalism against the English colonial reign and its accompanying heroic sacrifices for the cause of Ireland. The other one is criticism against excessive demands for sacrifices for the sake of independence of Ireland. Instead of putting the first voice ahead of the second one, Yeats tries to record the two voices at the same time: the voice of justification of sacrifices for nationalism and the voice warning danger in nationalism as a commentary on nationalism. These ambivalent attitudes toward nationalism cannot be understood just as his uncertainties and ambivalent stance he took on Irish politics and his lack of understanding of reality. Rather, Yeats could be said as a faithful recorder of the inner territories of experiences of individuals in everyday life and reality under colonial reign and its countermovement of nationalism. He does not ignore the intimate and latent feelings of individuals (on the side of body) heard through the loud exclamations of nationalistic causes (on the side of spirit). Yeats can be said as a postcolonial poet in so far as he supports Irish nationalism but with a hint of anti-nationalistic attitudes, he also raises questions about danger in postcolonial politics. He cannot be called just a crude propagandist of Irish nationalism. Rather by taking balanced attitudes toward nationalism and excessive sacrifices of individuals through nationalistic causes, Yeats suggests that nationalism could be an ideology and gives a warning sign that postcolonial politics should not forget its dark side.

게리 스나이더의 생태학적 삶을 위한 논의에 대한 연구

구자광 한국현대영미시학회 2006 현대영미시연구 Vol.12 No.1

Jakwang GuHuman attitudes toward the animal can be revealed through human responses to conflicts and tension between the human and the animal mostly arising around boundary with accompanying human conceptualization of the animal. Conflicts and tension between the two are most likely to be resolved into intensifying and strengthening the human ego. Human intolerance to unexpected intrusions of animals prevents any genuine interpenetration or interdependence of the two members of eco-community. To activate true interpenetration, humans should be ready to open their gates to animal-neighbors. Human conceptualization of animals can be investigated through human attitudes toward animals and ways of addressing animals at encounter with the animal. Humans place themselves as adult-disciplinarians and animals are posited as children needing discipline and lessons in manners. And human-adults address animal-children with baby talk or in a commanding tone. There are differences depending on gender. The relationship between men and animals repeats that of father and child based on discipline and punishment. Woman treats animals as the mother looks after her child with care and love. Either way, the basic assumptions repeat the structure of "adult centrism" as a basis of any power relationships. Only disciplined and well-mannered animal-children which can keep a deferential distance from humans are taken care of and allowed to live near patronizing human-adults. Prepared with a new concept about boundary as a "porous" one, humans should try to build up genuine relations with animals freed from any human centered assumptions. Alternatives are always possible. A new way should be tried without repeating any pre-arranged ways. A new way is always under construction.

자유시 ―찰스 번스틴의 경우

구자광 한국현대영미시학회 2019 현대영미시연구 Vol.25 No.2

The aim of this paper is to understand American language poet, Charles Bernstein’s ‘language poetics’ through Walter Benjamin’s ‘pure language’ and Giorgio Agamben’s ‘inoperativity.’ According to Benjamin, language for communication and information through ‘expression’ and ‘meaning’ of subject’s intention is language constructed by bourgeois concept of language. Benjamin’s ‘pure language’ means communicability freed from ‘intention’ and ‘meaning’ of bourgeois language and ‘expressionless’ language indifferent to expression. Agamben’s ‘pure’ can be attached to what practices ‘inoperativity.’ Agamben’s ‘pure capability’ is capability of incapability which can render its own capability inoperative. Agamben names this capability of its own incapability as ‘sui generis praxis.’ Human subjectivity is the place where this ‘sui generis praxis’ happens. Agamben’s ‘inoperativity’ ‘suspends’ specific and concrete operations and ‘exposes’ possibilities of ‘different’ operations at the same time. Benjamin’s ‘pure language’ is communicability as communication of communication exposed through suspension of specific and concrete communication based on expression and meaning of bourgeois language. Language in Bernstein’s ‘language poetics’ is language freed from bourgeois language and ‘expressionless’ language indifferent to expression and language operated by Agamben’s ‘inoperativity.’ Bernstein’s ‘language poetics’ ‘suspends’ ‘Official Verse Culture’ based on bourgeois language and ‘exposes’ possibilities for ‘different’ ‘foreign’ languages. Bernstein’s ‘language poetics’ halts ‘free verse’ by poet subjects presupposed by ‘Official Verse Culture’ and ‘lyric’ of ‘expression of universal human feeling’ by ‘Official Verse Culture.’ ‘Free verse’ by ‘language poetics’ is ‘free verse’ freed from ‘free verse’ and ‘lyric’ by poetics of ‘Official Verse Culture.’ ‘Free verse’ of ‘language poetics’ where ‘sui generis of language’ happens can be said to be the place where ‘sui generis praxis’ of free verse happen.