로빈슨 크루소 다시 쓰기 - 투르니에의 『방드르디』와 쿳시의 『포우』의 탈식민주의적 읽기

송지연 ( Song Geeyeon ) 한국불어불문학회 2018 불어불문학연구 Vol.0 No.114

Robinson Crusoe de Daniel Defoe, publie en 1719, est considere comme le premier roman moderne de la litterature occidentale. Le robinsonnade, un genre litteraire qui est inspire de Robinson Crusoe, engendre beaucoup de romans reecrits, les palimpsestes selon le narratologue G. Genette, du XVIII^e au XXI^e siecle. Lorsque l'ere postcoloniale est arrivee apres la seconde guerre mondiale, Robinson Crusoe est aprement critique par des romanciers du point de vue postcolonialiste. Vendredi ou les limbes du Pacifique(1967) de Michel Tournier et Foe(1986) de John Coetzee sont des chef-d'oeuvres du postcolonialisme. La litterature postcoloniale est guidee par la contre-ecriture ou la reecriture des oeuvres canoniques comme Robinson Crusoe. En ce qui concerne la reecriture, G. Genette rebaptise l'hypertextualite toute relation unissant un texte B(l'hypertexte) a un texte anterieur A(l'hypotexte) sur lequel il se greffe d'une maniere qui n'est pas celle du commentaire. Vendredi de Michel Tournier et Foe de John Coetzee sont donc des hypertextes ou l'on peut lire l'ancien sous le nouveau comme par transparence, comme dans un palimpseste du moyen age. Vendredi de Tournier montre un cas de la transvalorisation hypertextuelle qui consiste a prendre le parti de Vendredi contre Robinson, et a substituer en consequence a l'education de Vendredi par Robinson une education de Robinson par Vendredi. Foe de Coetzee est une continuation analeptique, chargee de remonter, de cause en cause, jusqu'a un point de depart plus absolu, ou plus satisfaisant parce que l'auteur estime que l'hypotexte peche par insuffisance de commencement et il entreprend d'y remedier. Robinson dans Robinson Crusoe a ete marchand d'esclaves noirs avant le naufrage, et il se prend pour un gouverneur general dans "son" ile. C'est un parfait colonisateur qui a la conviction de la superiorie de l'Occident et qui considere la civilisation autochtone comme barbare. Vendredi est un autrui qui ne peut pas parler ni se representer lui-meme, qui peut etre represente seulement par l'homme occidental(l'orientalisme selon E. Said), de sorte que Robinson prive Vendredi de son identite autochtone et authentique(H. Bhabha). Vendredi est aussi un prototype du sujet colonise reussi en detruisant son autre moi(un commentaire de G. Spivak). Michel Tournier aurait voulu dedier Vendredi a la masse silencieuse des travailleurs immigres de France. Il montre ainsi l'autocritique du cote de l'Occident. Dans Vendredi, Robinson reconstruit d'abord la civilisation occidentale comme dans Robinson Crusoe, mais apres l'explosion de la grotte, Robinson denonce la barbarie de cette civilisation et construit une nouvelle civilisation sauvage. Et Tournier rend le droit de parler a Vendredi pour qu'il devienne sujet, que le vrai Vendredi revive. Enfin, J. Coetzee declare que ce roman est une propagande turpide pour etendre la puissance commerciale et coloniale au nouveau monde. Robinson Cruso(sans e) de Coetzee est donc un personnage inerte et deprime qui ne s'interesse jamais a l'exploration coloniale, et Vendredi est un personnage qui a la langue coupee par les blancs pour montrer que l'identite des esclaves noirs peuvent etre construite ou remodelee conformement aux desirs des colonisateurs. L'auteur accuse dans Foe la violence des colonisateurs et met la douleur des colonises en relief. En resume, dans Vendredi et dans Foe, des robinsonnades reecrites du point de vue postcolonialiste, on peut s'apercevoir de la faute de la mission civilisatrice de l'ere coloniale, c'est-a-dire de definir la civilisation autochtone comme inferieure et de faire de l'indigene l'eclave pour le profit economique et pour l'exploitation colonialiste.

제국의 소설과 되받아 쓰기

박경서(Park, Kyung-Seo) 신영어영문학회 2014 신영어영문학 Vol.57 No.-

The purpose of this study is to compare and analyse two Crusoes and two Fridays in Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and Coetzee’s Foe. First of all, this study counters Watt’s opinion that Robinson Crusoe reflects economical individualism, and argues that Robinson Crusoe opened the door of the history of British imperialism and colonialism in the 18th century. This study presents the reasons for the argument in the process of Crusoe’s life. Second, it shows Coetzee’s argument that Robinson’s myth in Robinson Crusoe is false, and especially, Coetzee’s Crusoe is neither a dynamic capitalist nor an imperialist in the 18th country. Last, it reveals a dominant-subordinate relationship through Defoe’s Friday and the defiance of imperial absolute power through the silence of Coetzee’s Friday. Coetzee tries to unveil the Robinson myth which justifies European imperialism and to dislocate the stereotyped figure of the Other in Robinson Crusoe through his novel, Foe.

초월적 섭리의 신과 스피노자의 ‘신 즉 자연’: 『로빈슨 크루소』의 이중 리듬

이혜수 한국비교문학회 2023 比較文學 Vol.- No.89

Like most early English novels, Robinson Crusoe is a hybrid narrative with heterogenous elements like spiritual autobiography, colonial fiction, or adventure story. In this essay I read Robinson Crusoe as a novel of double rhythm where both Christian God of Providence and Spinoza’s “God, or Nature” (Deus Sive Natura) play out their singular roles. Double rhythm in Robinson Crusoe is notable particularly in the context of recent environmental crisis such as the COVID 19 or Climate Change. Nature, or Spinoza’s God, exists in the novel silently yet tenaciously working as an inexhaustible and tolerant underlying potential that embraces a domineering modern man who thinks that he “conquers” nature. In other words, Spinoza’s thought of “the univocity of being” along with his immanent concept of God underlies and permeates into Nature in Robinson Crusoe while providential and anthropomorphic God looms in Robinson’s spiritual journey and his colonial self as well. Moreover, the double rhythm of the text is also found in the meaning of Robinson’s labor in the desert island. On the one hand, Robinson’s work is seen as an epitome of the ethics of labor in Protestantism associated with the spirit of capitalism. On the other hand, it could be interpreted as an instance of the Spinozist ontology of power (potentia). Following his conatus, Robinson survives through his labor and production with the consequent increase in his power of “action” and “understanding”; he not only improves in his surroundings but acquires Spinozist common notions that sometimes lead him into a glimpse of univocity of being. 대부분의 초기 영국소설처럼 다니엘 디포(Daniel Defoe)의 『로빈슨 크루소』 (Robinson Crusoe 1719)는 모험 이야기, 영적 자서전, 식민주의 서사 등 이질적 형식들이 섞여 있는 혼종성을 지닌다. 이 글은 『로빈슨 크루소』의 이러한 혼종적 특징을 염두에 둔 채, 기존 비평에서 별반 언급되지 않았던 작품의 주요 지점, 즉 기독교(프로테스탄티즘)적 섭리의 신과 더불어 스피노자의 ‘신 즉 자연’이 작품의 독특한 이중 리듬을 만들면서 의미를 형성해나가는 지점들을 살펴본다. 『로빈슨크루소』에 신이 존재한다면 그건 로빈슨을 섭리로 이끄는 기독교의 초월적 신뿐만이 아니다. 자신의 본성의 필연성에 따라 무한히 많은 방식으로 무한히 많은 만물을 생산하고 또 생산의 역량을 본질로 하는 스피노자적 신, 즉 자연 역시작품의 배경에 그치지 않고 서사 전체를 떠받치는 힘으로 작용한다. 『로빈슨 크루소』에서 펼쳐지는 무인도의 대자연, 로빈슨 같은 인간 하나가 아무리 총을 쏘아대고 자신을 섬의 왕이라 여기며 잘난 척 해봤자 이에 개의치 않고 유구히 자신의 리듬에 따라 생산하고 흘러가는 자연의 존재는 서사의 단순한 배경이 아니라 소설의 의미를 좌우하는 중요요소인 것이다. 작품에 나타난 두 신들의 대결은 모순되어 보이는 두 로빈슨—초월적 신의 이름으로 자연과 원주민을 정복·지배하는 로빈슨, 그리고 자신의 코나투스에 따라 자연의 리듬에 맞추어 노동하면서 활동역량과 이해역량을 늘려가는 로빈슨—의 묘한 공존이라는 작품의 또 다른 이중 리듬과도 연결된다. 본문에서는 먼저 스피노자의 ‘신 즉 자연’ 개념이 함축하는 ‘존재의 일의성’의 사유를 질 들뢰즈의 해석을 중심으로 살펴본다. 두번째 절에서는, 마치 스피노자의 ‘신 즉 자연’을 닮은 듯 누가 보지 않아도 부지런히 만들고 배우는 로빈슨의 노동을 스피노자적 역량의 존재론의 관점에서 읽는다. 그 과정에서 일어나는 성공과 실패, 무지와 배움을 통해 독자는 무인도의 로빈슨에게 긴요했던 것이 그를 이끄는 섭리의 신뿐 아니라 그의 존재와 부재(죽음)를 의미있는 사건으로 만들어주는 스피노자적 신(실체)의 변용으로서 타자(양태)임을 알게 된다.

제국의 소설과 되받아 쓰기: 두 명의 크루소와 두 명의 프라이데이

박경서 신영어영문학회 2014 신영어영문학 Vol.58 No.-

The purpose of this study is to compare and analyse two Crusoes and two Fridays in Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and Coetzee’s Foe. First of all, this study counters Watt’s opinion that Robinson Crusoe reflects economical individualism, and argues that Robinson Crusoe opened the door of the history of British imperialism and colonialism in the 18th century. This study presents the reasons for the argument in the process of Crusoe’s life. Second, it shows Coetzee’s argument that Robinson’s myth in Robinson Crusoe is false, and especially, Coetzee’s Crusoe is neither a dynamic capitalist nor an imperialist in the 18th country. Last, it reveals a dominant-subordinate relationship through Defoe’s Friday and the defiance of imperial absolute power through the silence of Coetzee’s Friday. Coetzee tries to unveil the Robinson myth which justifies European imperialism and to dislocate the stereotyped figure of the Other in Robinson Crusoe through his novel, Foe.

Sovereignty, Biopower, Immunity: Racialized Bodies in Robinson Crusoe

( Eugene Pae ) 21세기영어영문학회 2020 영어영문학21 Vol.33 No.1

This paper employs theories of biopolitics to examine the narrator’s rise to sovereign power and his exercise of biopower upon racialized bodies in Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. I argue that race is a crucial factor that not only enables but further complicates Crusoe’s exertion of sovereign authority. Drawing upon the narrative’s conflicted division between, or occasional conflation of, zoe and bios, key terms through which Giorgio Agamben explicates conditions of human life, this paper seeks to create an intervention in existing scholarly discussions by examining the complex nature of Crusoe’s sovereign power and sovereign exception. By closely examining scenes where Crusoe interacts with cannibals and his slave/companion Friday, with a particular focus on the narrator’s initial reluctance in, and ultimate enforcement of, punishing cannibals for their barbarity, this paper explores configurations of race in Defoe’s early novel. The analysis mainly focuses on how different characters’ racial identities serve as impacting factors in Crusoe’s sovereign decision. Crusoe’s sovereign power becomes a hybridized version of governing, in which elements of absolute sovereignty and disciplinary training merge. Roberto Esposito’s logic of immunization anchors the reading of Crusoe’s incorporation of the racialized Other into his sovereignty, in which his initial desire to establish a protective boundary between himself and foreign, threatening elements becomes altered. I read Crusoe’s education of Friday as a process of dilution that takes place in advance of immunization via vaccination. Tracing the theoretical discussions of governmentality and sovereignty in biopolitical theory through Defoe’s early novel, this paper seeks to examine how race serves as a biopolitical factor in Crusoe’s attempt to establish his sovereign power on the island.

발레리와 로빈슨 크루소의 섬: 부재의 타자가 함께하는 풍경

김시원 ( Kim Siwon ) 한국프랑스어문교육학회 2018 프랑스어문교육 Vol.63 No.-

「로빈슨」이라는 표제로 폴 발레리에 의해 재창작된 로빈슨 크루소의 이야기는 대니얼 디포의 원작과 거의 닮지 않은 특성을 표현하고 있어 흥미롭다. 단순한 제목에 덧붙여진 부제가 잘 나타내고 있듯이 발레리가 창조한 “한가하고, 사색에 잠긴, 부유한 로빈슨”은 본래의 로빈슨과는 물리적 여건도, 정신적 성향도 같지 않다. 디포의 로빈슨과는 다르게 생존을 위해 투쟁할 필요가 없었던 발레리의 로빈슨은 물질적 풍요와 함께 거기에서 비롯되는 시간의 여유를 확보하고 완벽한 자신의 지적 삶을 만끽하고 있다. 그러므로 발레리가 디포의 로빈슨에서 차용한 것은 ‘섬’이 지니는 물리적 여건보다는 인물을 둘러 싼 ‘고독’의 상황이라고 할 수 있다. 「로빈슨」은 언뜻 행복한 고독자의 이야기이며 발레리가 꿈꾸었던 고독한 이상향에 대한 밑그림처럼 보일 것이다. 그러나 이 작품 속의 로빈슨이 은밀히 품고 있는 타자에 대한 감수성은 행복한 고독자로서의 그의 정체성에 의문을 제기하게 한다. 그는 외관상 절대 고독을 즐기는 듯 보이지만 사실 자신의 고독을 위로해 줄 대상을 찾고 있으며 타자의 존재를 상상하고 갈망한다. 보이지 않지만 존재하는 것으로 여겨지는 타자덕분에 로빈슨은 자신 만의 고립된 공간으로부터 나오며 섬 안에서 함께 살아가고 있을 타자에 대한 상상을 통해 세계와의 교감을 시도하고 있는 것이다. 본고에서는 간략하게나마 모든 로빈슨류의 작품들에 공통적으로 관련된 주제인 ‘주체와 타자’의 문제를 논의하고 있다. 「로빈슨」의 무대인 ‘섬’은 주체와 타자, 그 타자를 포함하는 세계 사이의 경계가 희미해지는 새로운 공간으로서 다시 해석될 필요가 있다. 대니얼 디포 이후 모든 로빈슨 크루소들에게 있어서 자신과 세계 사이에 놓인 인물의 딜레마는 보편적인 것이다. 자연과 문명 사이, 열대 섬과 자신의 조국 영국 사이에서 공간적 이원성과 정체성의 딜레마에 놓인 로빈슨 크루소를 발레리는 주체와 타자, 그리고 세계 사이의 모호한 관계에 의해서 재구성하고 있다. 인물의 이름과 섬이라는 배경 이외에 디포의 소설과 명시적인 유사관계가 없는 듯 보이는 발레리의 「로빈슨」은 고립된 자아와 열린 세계를 동시에 향해 있는 인물의 공간적, 정신적 딜레마를 통해 디포의 작품의 숨은 의미를 은밀하게 반복하고 있는 것이다. Le Robinson réécrit par Paul Valéry est intéressant par ses caractéristiques peu ressemblantes à l'oeuvre originale de Daniel Defoe. Robinson valéryen, représenté comme “oisif, pensif, pourvu”, n'a pas les mêmes tendances physiques et psychologiques que le Robinson d'origine. Robinson, qui n'a pas besoin de lutter contre la nature menaçante pour survivre, possède l'abondance matérielle et la liberté du temps pour jouir d'une vie intellectuelle parfaite. Ce que Valéry a emprunté à Robinson de Defoe, il s'agit moins de sa situation insulaire que sa solitude spirituelle. Le Robinson valéryen paraît d'abord une ébauche du monde idéal que rêvait Valéry. Pourtant, Robinson qui semble jouir sa solitude absolue, il a en fait la soif des autres. Il cherche ce qui réconforte sa solitude et rêve de la présence des autres dans son île. Par l'imagination de ceux qui sont invisibles mais présents dans son île, Robinson valéryen ne se déconnecterait plus du Monde. Cette étude aborde brièvement la question du « Sujet et Autres » que partagent tous les romans de Robinson. Cette étude tente d'étudier l'île de Robinson comme un nouvel espace où s'efface la frontière entre le Sujet, l'Autre et le Monde. Dans l'île de Robinson, espace le plus isolé, il existe une relation imprévue avec un Autre et une tentative de communication avec le Monde. Tous les Robinsons depuis Daniel Defoe partagent le même dilemme, soit spatial soit mental, entre son île et sa patrie, entre Soi-même et le Monde. Robinson valéryen reprend ainsi le sens caché du roman de Defoe à travers le dilemme robinsonner résulté de ses tendances opposées.

Record Keeping as a Tool for Improvement in Robinson Crusoe

( Tae Young Yu ) 한국근대영미소설학회 2016 근대 영미소설 Vol.23 No.1

This paper aims to elucidate the relationship between improvement and record keeping, as observed in Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. Robinson Crusoe’s act of record keeping synchronically enables both kinds of improvement, material and spiritual, which together form the twin pillars of the novel. In Crusoe’s records, the economic account that promotes his material progress is composed of bookkeeping and timekeeping. Bookkeeping allows Crusoe to take active possession of unoccupied land and render it his private property. Timekeeping serves to regularise his working life, which enhances his productivity. The self-reflective account that spurs Crusoe’s spiritual progress can be divided into an exploration of the self and an interpretation of the Bible. Through writing on his mental state in isolation, he begins to explore his self more seriously than ever before. By interpreting the Bible, Crusoe experiences a spiritual awakening, which is crystallized by his journal keeping. Crusoe’s records are the key to the interpretation of Robinson Crusoe as a novel that suggests the possibility of congruence of materiality and spirituality, and also the close relation between improvement and the act of record keeping which continues to this day.

Reterritorializing Colonial Bodies : Novelistic Origins of Robinson Crusoe

Yang, Yu-mi 한국중앙영어영문학회 2005 영어영문학연구 Vol.47 No.4

Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe might be termed an originary novel in the sense in which it reveals, at the same time as it conceals, the historical process of its own making in a singularly primordial way. Composed by the self and composing the self, its narrative mode of double genitive implies a split consciousness compelled to take its own process of unfolding into account. The novelistic consciousness (or Crusoe the novelist) functions here to lay siege to, and capture, the dislocating expanse between the colonist’s rambling wanderlust and his narrative desire for composition/composure. In the process, Crusoe’s island, the no-man’s-land on whose alien/alienating shore Crusoe the rambler finds himself stranded, is paradoxically transformed into the realm of bare, naked bodies in which the distinction between violence and law, exception and rule, fact and fiction, etc., is wholly effaced. The resulting narrative topography discloses the event of Ur-sprung or originary rupture at the threshold of modernity in which the phantasmatic opacity of reterritorialized colonial bodies is subtended by, and suspended over, sovereign gaze as the disembodied apparatus of technology.

노예와 식인종: <로빈슨 크루소>에 나타난 감정과 식민주의적 욕망

배경진 ( Kyung Jin Bae ) 한국18세기영문학회 2014 18세기영문학 Vol.11 No.2

Daniel Defoe adopted a form of the spiritual autobiography for hisfirst novel Robinson Crusoe, allowing the eponymous hero to describehis life as commercially and religiously advantageous. The novel, despiteits religious tone, reveals Crusoe’s ceaseless attempt to satisfy his desireof acquisition. Indeed, Ian Watt, in The Rise of the Novel, identifiedCrusoe as an economic individual in the early modern age. Crusoe’splantation in Brazil, cultivated by indentured servants and slaves, bringsan enormous sum of money by the novel`s conclusion, and his slavingtrade to Guinea ends in his isolation on the island. His wealth, rooted inslavery and colonization, enables us to read his account of life alongwith his colonial desires, and it is interesting that he is not entirelyinsensitive to the wrongs of slavery and violence against natives. Hisjustification of colonial desires, which an economic reading of the novelilluminates critically, is intriguingly involved in his humane emotions. Inthis paper, I do not challenge but rather reinforce the economic approachto the novel by demonstrating that Crusoe`s emotions?such as pity,compassion, anxiety, fear, abhorrence, and indignation?allow him todisclaim any responsibility for his colonial desires and thus legitimizehis pursuit of interest. At first, I examine how Crusoe justifies hisslavery in the case of Xury and Friday and then reinterpret the massacrein the novel in terms of Crusoe`s emotions. Crusoe, a colonialist during the early modern age, betrays humaneemotions to depict himself as a man of humanity. Yet his heartlesspursuit of interest is never defeated by his humane concern about others. While he always endeavors to gratify his desires, and enjoys the benefitsthereof, slavery and the massacre portrayed in the novel demonstrate thatCrusoe not only denies any sort of responsibility for such atrocities butalso attempts to evade criticism of his decisions and behaviors. Thenovel, written when British colonial involvement in the New World wasgrowing, not only depicted the acquisition of advantages but alsoincluded the elaborated rhetorical strategy of self-justification, makingevident the close relationship between the rise of the novel andeconomic transformation in Britain.

근대의 모순: 디포의 『로빈슨 크루소』에 형상화된 개인의 완성과 붕괴

전인한 ( In Han Jeon ) 영미문학연구회 2004 영미문학연구 Vol.7 No.-

This paper purposes to examine and debunk the so-called ``the myth of the individual`` projected in Daniel Defoe`s Robinson Crusoe (1719), by scrutinizing the process through which the discourse of ``the sacredness of the autonomous individual`` is established and at the same time collapsed. To achieve this purpose, this paper discusses first how ``the sacredness of autonomous individual`` is established by the order of the Glorious Revolution (1688/9), projected in the Bill of Rights and the Toleration Act, and how Robinson Crusoe can be the literary agent of that order. This paper argues that Crusoe completes his modern individuality through acquiring political and economical autonimity grounded on his religious conversion, which indeed signifies his religious autonimity. Yet, this paper also points out that the religion Crusoe espouses is the Calvinistic one that stresses one`s voluntary isolation in this sinful world to keep one`s soul intact, thus draws attention to the possible outcome of Crusoe`s autonimity based on this religion-that is, the invulnerability of one`s individual sphere leading to one`s incapability of forming a social relationship with others. Crusoe`s relationship with Friday signifies the isolation of the modern individual: the modern individual`s inability to constitute a valuable association with others is revealed as Crusoe regards Friday as one who violates his sacred sphere and thus tries to make him subjected as his shadowy self. Crusoe`s troublesome relationship with others including Friday is thus the collapse of the individual, as one`s incapability of shaping a valuable relationship with others indicates the impossibility of forming a mutually beneficent society for which the discourse of ``the sacredness of autonomous individual`` is originally conceived. This paper concludes that the process of completing the concept of the modern individual is actually one of collapsing the individual, in that the sphere in which the modern individual exists and exerts his right to happiness as a social individual is negated ironically by the very process of guaranteeing that individual`s inviolability.