조선적인 것과 ‘모노노아와레’ — 식민지에서 상징계 구축하기 —

심희찬 한국일본사상사학회 2020 일본사상 Vol.0 No.39

이 글은 일본정신분석에 관한 가라타니 고진과 박규태의 연구를 참조하여 식민지조선의 지식인들이 ‘조선적인 것’의 상징계를 구축해나가는 과정을 추적한 것이다. 가라타니는 음독과 훈독에 착안하여 일본에서는 상징계로의 진입에 필요한 거세가 배제되었다고 논하고 그 특징을 모토오리 노리나가의 ‘모노노아와레’에서 찾는다. 한편 세계제국 중국과 가까운 위치에 있었던 조선은 중국보다도 더욱 강력한 거세와 억압을 추진했다고 한다. 다만 조선은 근대 이후 제국일본의 식민지가 되었고, 이때 국민국가라는 상징질서 구축을 위한 거세가 배제되었던 점에 주의할 필요가 있다. 박규태는 모노노아와레를 라캉 이론의 대상a에 빗대어 설명하고 타자와의 제로거리를 꿈꾸는 모노노아와레적 공동성(共同性)이 자칫 타자성을 삭제하는 모노노아와레적 공동성(空洞性)의 위기를 불러일으킬 수 있음을 지적한다. 이 글에서는 양자의 논의를 참조하여 식민지라는 특수한 상황에서 상징질서를 구축하려고 했던 식민지조선 지식인들의 논의가 상징계 바깥에 있는 대상a를 욕망하는 과정을 살펴보았다. 19세기 중반 이후 역내 시스템의 거대한 변화와 함께 국민국가의 고유성을 발견하려는 논의가 등장하지만, 기존의 중심이었던 중국을 완전하게 상대화하기는 쉽지 않았다. 이런 와중에 박은식과 신채호는 초월적 대타자 ‘조선’을 상정하고 이를 통해 제국일본의 상징질서에 균열을 일으키고자 했다. 이때 박은식과 신채호는 과거 노리나가가 그랬던 것처럼 목적론적 문헌학과 어원론에 의거했다. 그러나 이들의 기획은 대타자를 하나의 점에 고정시키는 것에 어려움을 겪었고, ‘조선’은 끝없는 기호의 환유 속으로 빠져 들어갔다. 최남선은 3.1운동이 실패로 돌아간 이후 모노노아와레적 감수성에 입각하여 개념화·원리화되지 않는 작은 것들에서 ‘조선’을 발견하고, 이를 ‘밝’이라는 최종심급에 위치시킴으로써 조선적인 것을 상징계에 진입시키고자 했다. 하지만 상징계로의 진입은 거세의 과정을 수반하는바, ‘조선’은 자신의 피를 그 대가로 치르지 않으면 안 되었다. 여기에는 타자와의 합일을 통한 존재의 완성이 아니라 너와 나를 익사시키는 모노노아와레적 공동성(空洞性)의 폭력만이 가득했다. This article traces the process by which intellectuals in colonial Chosun build up The symbolic of “A things of Chosun” by referring to the research of Kojin Karatani and Gyu-Tae Park on Japanese psychological analysis. Karatani analyzes that castration necessary for entering The symbolic has been excluded in Japan by focusing on reading Kan-bun, and the characteristics are found in Motoori Norinaga’s “Monono Aware”. Meanwhile, Chosun which was close to the world empire China, promoted stronger castration and repression than China. However, it is worth noting that Chosun became a colony of imperial Japan after the modern era, and castration to establish a symbolic order of nation-state was excluded. Park Gyu-tae explains the monono-aware by comparing it to the object petit a of Lacan’s theory, and the synergism of monono-aware dreaming of a zero distance from the other is the cavitation of monono-aware that eliminates the otherness. Point out that it can create a crisis. In this article, with reference to the discussions between the Karatani and Park, the discussion of the intellectuals of colonial Chosun who tried to establish a symbolic order in a unusually situation of colonization looked at the process of desire for object petit a outside The symbolic. Since the mid-19th century, discussions have emerged to discover the uniqueness of the nation-state along with huge changes in the regional system, but it was not easy to completely relativize China, which was the center of the civilization. In the midst of this, Park Eun-sik and Shin Chae-ho assumed a the Other “Chosun,” and tried to crack the symbolic order of imperial Japan. At this time, Park-Eunsik and Shin-Chaeho were based on teleological philology and etymology, as Norinaga did in the past. However, their plans had a hard time fixing the the Other to one point, and “Chosun” fell into the metonymy of endless preferences. After the March 1st Independence movement failed, Choi-Namsun discovered “Chosun” in small things that were not conceptualized and principled based on sensibility of mononoaware, and placed it in the final level of “bright” to enter the Symbolic of Chosun. However, entering the Symbolic entails a process of castration, and “Chosun” had to pay his own blood in return. Here, not the completion of existence through unity with the other, but only the violence of cavitation of monono-aware that drowns everyone.

<송곳니>: 상징적 거세의 우화

김철권(Kim, Chulkwon),임진수(Lim, Jinsoo) 한국영화학회 2020 영화연구 Vol.- No.86

본 논문의 목적은 정신분석학적 관점에서 언어에 초점을 두고 <송곳니>를 분석하는 것이다. <송곳니>는 아버지의 독재와 자식들의 저항보다는 근본적으로 언어의 문제를 다루고 있는 영화다. 영화에서는 담장을 경계로 두 개의 서로 다른 세계로 나누어져 있다. 그것을 나누는 기준은 이름이다. 담장 안에서 생활하는 가족 구성원들은 모두 이름이 없다. 아버지만 이름을 가지고 바깥세상과 집을 왔다 갔다 한다. 아들의 섹스 파트너 역할을 하기 위해 담장 밖에서 집으로 들어오는 크리스티나도 자기 고유의 이름이 있기에 일을 끝낸 후에는 담장 밖으로 나갈 수 있다. 이것은 이름을 가진 자만이 담장 안과 밖의 세상을 오고 갈 수 있다는 것을 의미한다. 인간이 태어나자마자 최초로 갖는 것이 이름이고, 이름이라는 최초의 시니피앙을 가지는 것은 그 인간이 상징계로 진입했다는 것을 의미한다. 상징계로 진입한다는 것은 상징계의 특징인 차이와 결핍을 받아들인다는 말과 같다. 이름을 가지면 나와 너의 차이가 생긴다. 그런데 가족은 이름을 가지고 있지 않기에 개와 사람 간에 차이가 없어지고 개와 사람이 같은 것이 된다. 그래서 모두 집을 지키는 개가 된다. 담장 안의 세상에서는 잔인하고 공격적이고 난폭한 행동이 난무하고 근친상간이 행해진다. 또 유아적 놀이와 물물교환이 이루어진다. 이런 점에서 담장 안은 상상계이고 담장 밖은 상징계이며, 담장 밖에서 넘어 오는 고양이나 차에 묻어오는 흙은 상징계로부터 떨어져 나간 찌꺼기, 즉 실재계로 볼 수 있다. 큰딸은 ‘브루스’라는 이름을 스스로 가지게 된 후에는 상징계에 진입하게 된다. 큰딸은 상징계의 주요 특징인 차이를 받아들임으로써 옳고 그름을 인식하게 된다. 또 상징계의 결핍을 받아들임으로써 자신의 송곳니를 아령으로 제거하고 담장 밖의 세상으로 탈출을 감행한다. 큰딸이 송곳니를 빼는 행위는 상징계로 들어가기 위한 결핍을 만드는 것이다. The purpose of this paper is to explore <Dogtooth> with focusing on language from a psychoanalytic point of view. The film <Dogtooth> fundamentally deals with the theme of language, rather than the dictatorship of the father and the resistance of his children. In the film, there are two worlds separated by the fence. The criterion for dividing them is the name. All family members living in the fence have no name except father. Only father who has his name goes back and forth between the house and the outside world. Christina who lives out of the fence enters the house to act as his son’s sex partner. She can go out of the fence after she finishes her job because she has her own name. It means only those who have name are permitted to come and go in and out of the fence. When a human is born, he gets his name at the very beginning. Having a name is having the first signifiant. It means he has entered the Symbolic. Entering the Symbolic means accepting the difference and lack that are characteristics of the Symbolic. Having a name makes a difference between you and me. All family members except father have no names, so they are not different from dogs. They become the same things as dogs. So everyone becomes a dog that keeps the house. Everyone acts like a dog. In the world inside the fence, cruel, aggressive and violent acts are rampant and incestuous sexual acts occur frequently. In addition, infantile plays and barters are carried out. In this regard, the house in the fence is the Imaginary, the outside world of the fence is the Symbolic. The cat and dirts on the car coming in the house from the outside of the fence can be regarded as the Real, the residue that has been removed from the Symbolic. The eldest daughter enters the Symbolic after she has the name ‘Bruce’ herself. She recognizes what is wrong and right by accepting the difference which is a major characteristic of the Symbolic. By accepting the lack of the Symbolic, she removes her dogtooth with a dumbbell and tries to escape to the world outside the fence. The act of her pulling out her dogtooth is to create a lack to enter the Symbolic.

욕망의 탄생과 존재의 역설

양석원(Seokwon Yang) 한국비평이론학회 2009 비평과이론 Vol.14 No.1

This essay arms to examine closely the process through which Jacques Lacan makes a breakthrough in the psychoanalytic theory of desire in his reading of Hamlet Lacan's interpretation of Hamlet is as original and innovative as Freud's interpretation of Oedipus Rex. Just as Freud discovers in Sophocles's tragedy that man has Oedipal desire for his mother and antagonism toward his father, Lacan discovers in Shakespeare's tragedy that man is destined to face the question "to be or not to be" and his desire is desire of the (m)Other. If Freud reveals what a man desires at the depths of his being, Lacan shows how a man becomes a desiring being in the first place. Unlike Freud and his successors, Lacan argues that the central meaning of tragedy hinges not on the question of revenge but on the question of being Lacan translates Hamlet's famous question "to be or not to be" into the question "to be or not to be the phallus." Man should give up being the imaginary phallus, the phallus as a signifier. Hamlet dramatizes this process of human evolution from the imaginary to the symbolic order. The question "to be or not to be the phallus" is also the question "to have or not to have desire" since giving up the imaginary phallus and entering the symbolic order involves the acquisition of one's own desire. The dialectic of desire forces man to acquire his own desire through the interpretation of the (m)Other's desire, that is her lack. Hamlet's drama fleshes out this dialectic. Man becomes a desiring subject only through the interpretation of the (m)Other's desire and only by bring deprived of and mourning his phallus. Gertrude, however, reveals neither lack nor mourning since she indulges in the enjoyment of Claudius's real phallus, thus preventing Hamlet from being born as a desiring subject. Loss, symbolic castration, and mourning pave the way for the birth of desire. Only by losing and mourning the phallus does man take his position as a barred subject deprived of part of his being the symbolic order this is the paradox of being. Being dead and becoming the impossible object of Hamlet, Ophelia recovers her position as objet a, the object cause of desire in Hamlet's fantasy. It is her death that makes Hamlet confront and mourn the inevitable loss and become a desiring subject. Hamlet's mourning and subsequent death complete his tragedy as the drama of the linguistic animal who is inevitably subject to symbolic loss and castration. Lacan's reading of Hamlet at once developes and subverts Freud's Oedipal interpretation of Hamlet and explores the universal fate of the human being as a desiring subject in the symbolic order. Lacan's emphasis on the lack the Other and the nothingness of the phallus, however, makes him ultimately move beyond the symbolic order. A unique psychoanalytic account of Hamlet's tragedy as the birth and death of the subject of desire in the symbolic order, Lacan's seminar also marks his theoretical shift from the symbolic to the real, a shift that appears more clearly in his next seminar on Antigone.

보는 것과 아는 것: <현기증>에 나타난 응시, 환상, 그리고 죽음

양석원 문학과영상학회 2008 문학과영상 Vol.9 No.3

To see or not to see - that is the question of Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpiece Vertigo. The question of gaze and knowledge is the central issue in Gilles Deleuze’s and feminist film theories. Deleuze regards Hitchcock as a precursor of modern cinema who, introducing the mental image into the films, privileged the protagonist’s (and the spectators’) perception and knowledge of the relations between characters over his actions. Feminism is critically concerned with the male gaze that objectifies, persecutes, fetishizes and punishes female characters without seeing and knowing female subjectivity. From the Deleuzian point of view, the meaning of Vertigo hinges on when and how Scottie, the protagonist, and the spectators see the relations in which Judy, playing the role of Madeleine, the wife of Gavin Elster, inveigles him into the latter’s murder plot. Feminist criticism focuses on whether Scottie sees through the image of Madeleine as a construction of male fantasy into the real subjectivity of Judy. However, there is more to what Scottie sees or does not see than the relations of characters and female subjectivity in the psychoanalytic understanding of the film. Vertigo illustrates Scottie’s painful passage from the initial blindness to the final insight into the inevitable lack of symbolic castration that opens onto the uncanny void of human existence. Vertigo is a symptom that signals Scottie’s inability to confront this void, which is visualized by the image of the spiral that prevails throughout the movie. Scottie starts to look awry and steps into the strange world of fantasy when he first lays his eyes on Madeleine in Ernie’s. What catches sight of Madeleine in this scene is not Scottie’s conscious eye, but his unconscious “gaze” as an “organ-without-body,” and Madeleine captivates him as objet a, the object cause of desire in his fantasy. Implementing the symbolic mandate of investigating Madeleine cunningly imposed on him by Gavin the father figure, Scottie indeed pursues his own fantasy which is a scenario staging his impossible wish to regain the originally lost object of mother for which the image of Madeleine serves as a substitute. As fantasy is a screen that veils the fatal lack of symbolic castration, traversing fantasy triggers the traumatic confrontation with the abyss of the real. When Scottie finds out that Judy is Madeleine and thus Madeleine does not exist from the outset, he experiences the “loss of loss” and his fantasy structure collapses. But he desperately strives to hold onto his fantasy object until the very end of the film when Judy falls from the bell tower. Only at that moment can Scottie look down squarely at death without feeling dizzy, which implies that he traverses fantasy and goes through “subjective destitution.” Paradoxically enough, Scottie’s final gaze may parallel Oedipus’ final blindness since both indicate the recognition of human imperfection and nothingness. To see or not to see - that is the question of Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpiece Vertigo. The question of gaze and knowledge is the central issue in Gilles Deleuze’s and feminist film theories. Deleuze regards Hitchcock as a precursor of modern cinema who, introducing the mental image into the films, privileged the protagonist’s (and the spectators’) perception and knowledge of the relations between characters over his actions. Feminism is critically concerned with the male gaze that objectifies, persecutes, fetishizes and punishes female characters without seeing and knowing female subjectivity. From the Deleuzian point of view, the meaning of Vertigo hinges on when and how Scottie, the protagonist, and the spectators see the relations in which Judy, playing the role of Madeleine, the wife of Gavin Elster, inveigles him into the latter’s murder plot. Feminist criticism focuses on whether Scottie sees through the image of Madeleine as a construction of male fantasy into the real subjectivity of Judy. However, there is more to what Scottie sees or does not see than the relations of characters and female subjectivity in the psychoanalytic understanding of the film. Vertigo illustrates Scottie’s painful passage from the initial blindness to the final insight into the inevitable lack of symbolic castration that opens onto the uncanny void of human existence. Vertigo is a symptom that signals Scottie’s inability to confront this void, which is visualized by the image of the spiral that prevails throughout the movie. Scottie starts to look awry and steps into the strange world of fantasy when he first lays his eyes on Madeleine in Ernie’s. What catches sight of Madeleine in this scene is not Scottie’s conscious eye, but his unconscious “gaze” as an “organ-without-body,” and Madeleine captivates him as objet a, the object cause of desire in his fantasy. Implementing the symbolic mandate of investigating Madeleine cunningly imposed on him by Gavin the father figure, Scottie indeed pursues his own fantasy which is a scenario staging his impossible wish to regain the originally lost object of mother for which the image of Madeleine serves as a substitute. As fantasy is a screen that veils the fatal lack of symbolic castration, traversing fantasy triggers the traumatic confrontation with the abyss of the real. When Scottie finds out that Judy is Madeleine and thus Madeleine does not exist from the outset, he experiences the “loss of loss” and his fantasy structure collapses. But he desperately strives to hold onto his fantasy object until the very end of the film when Judy falls from the bell tower. Only at that moment can Scottie look down squarely at death without feeling dizzy, which implies that he traverses fantasy and goes through “subjective destitution.” Paradoxically enough, Scottie’s final gaze may parallel Oedipus’ final blindness since both indicate the recognition of human imperfection and nothingness.

The Vampire as a Figure of “Objet a”/ Object-Cause of Desire: Divided Subject and Desire in Bram Stoker`s Dracula

( Il Yeong Kim ) 한국영어영문학회 2016 영어 영문학 Vol.62 No.2

This article aims to interpret Dracula as a figure of Lacanian “objet a”/ “object-cause of desire,” examining the characteristics of the objet a embodied and manifested in Dracula. A subject, according to Jacques Lacan, emerges when it enters the symbolic order which demands the subject to forgo something. The objet a as “something lost” by the “symbolic castration,” therefore, becomes the object and cause of desire. The desire for the objet a, however, is accompanied with pain because the symbolic forbids it. The objet a, therefore, brings about “painful pleasure,” Lacanian “jouissance.” Likewise, characters in Dracula have conflicting attitudes to Dracula for whom they simultaneously feel attraction and repulsion, because Dracula the vampire is an “embodiment of jouissance.” The objet a as “something lost” is “absent” in the symbolic order, but it is also “present” as the “embodiment of the void in the symbolic order” which cannot inscribe the objet a. The location of Carfax, Dracula’s residence in London, is an index to the void in the symbolic order, and Dracula who inhabits Carfax is the embodiment of its void. The objet a ultimately reveals the dividedness of the subject who should undergo symbolic castration that splits him. The acknowledgement of the objet a, therefore, leads to the understanding of the “subject’s very being” which “ex-sists” beyond the symbolic order. The vampire hunters who aim to exterminate Dracula, however, reveal their limited vision by refusing to acknowledge the significance of Dracula/ the objet a as the channel to the “subject’s very being.” Furthermore, they can never carry out their self-imposed mission, because Dracula, as the objet a, is an “undead” which never dies, just as “desire never dies.”

희생제사와 할례의식, 부계 혈통

강옥선 한국문학과종교학회 2022 문학과종교 Vol.27 No.3

Abstract: Using the case of the sacrifice of the daughter of Jephthah and Isaac in the Bible, this paper examines the culture of sacrifice and circumcision, which can be said to be a genealogy of paternal descent. It proves that the sacrificial rites and circumcision rituals shown in the Bible stem from a covenant with God connecting paternal lineage. However, although it is an example of the same scapegoat, the differences are found in the process of victimization and the narrative. Isaac shows that if he is a representative victim of the patriarchal system through signs of a covenant with God, Jephthah’s daughter takes on the responsibility of the father’s hasty desire for war victory and has a voice criticizing the paternal lineage of the patriarchal system. As the sacrificial rite of blood in the Bible turns into a circumcision ritual, the circumcision ritual also examines the process in which the word of God functions as a sign of the covenant and becomes a symbolic ritual. Among the various interpretations of circumcision, this paper looks at circumcision as a symbolic castration by applying the theory of Lacan. It expands and studies the meaning of clitoridectomy that is being implemented in modern times. 성경에서의 입다의 딸과 이삭의 희생 제사 사례를 이용하여 부계 혈통 계보라 할 수 있는 희생 제사와 할례 의식 문화를 살펴본다. 성경에서 보여지는 희생 제사와 할례 의식은 결국 부계 혈통을 잇는 하나님과의 언약에서 비롯된 것임을 증명한다. 하지만 같은 희생양의 사례이지만, 희생되는 과정과 내러티브에서 그 차이점을 발견한다. 이삭은 하나님과 언약의 징표를 통해 가부장제를 잇는 대표적인 희생양이라면 입다의 딸은 아버지 입다의 책임을 스스로 떠맡으면서 가부장제도의 부계 혈통을 비판하는 목소리를 지니고 있음을 보여준다. 성경에서 피의 희생 제사가 할례 의식으로 변모하면서 할례의식 또한 하나님의 말씀이 언약의 징표로서 기능을 하고 상징적 의식으로 자리 잡아가는 과정을 알아본다. 할례에 대한 다양한 해석들 중에서 필자는 라깡의 이론을 적용하여 상징적 거세로 할례를 바라보고자 한다. 현대에 이행되고 있는 여성 할례(음핵절단)가 가지고 있는 의미까지 확장해서 연구한다.

손창섭의 『부부』론

공종구 ( Jong Goo Kong ) 현대문학이론학회 2014 現代文學理論硏究 Vol.0 No.58

이 글은 『부부』가 오이디푸스 콤플렉스를 기원으로 하는 손창섭 소설의 전체 지형에서 아주 중요한 의미를 지니는 텍스트로 기능하고 있다는 문제의식에서 출발했다. 이러한 문제의식을 바탕으로 이 글은 이 작품이 손창섭 소설의 기원으로 기능하는 오이디푸스 콤플렉스의 자장 안에서 작동하고 있다는 점을 밝혀내고자 하였다. 「신의 희작」 이전의 작품들에서와 마찬가지로 『부부』에서도 성적인 욕망과 리비도를 부정적인 타자로 형상화하는 서사 문법의 기본 틀은 그대로 반복된다. 하지만, 두 가지의 중요한 차이를 드러내면서 반복되고 있다. 먼저, 「신의 희작」 이전의 작품들에서와는 달리 『부부』에서는 성적인 욕망과 리비도에 대한 혐오와 폭력의 강도가 약화되어 드러난다. 더불어 여성인물들을 숭고한 대상으로 고양하는 승화의 전략 또한 상당히 약화되어 나타난다. 이 두 가지의 차이를 드러내는 『부부』에서 성적인 욕망이나 리비도를 부정적인 타자로 형상화하는 서사의 양상은 크게 두 가지 방향으로 나타난다. 하나는 상징계의 규범이나 타자의 개입에 의해 자신의 성적인 욕망이나 리비도를 조정하는 ‘상징적인 순치와 교화’의 양상이다. 상징적인 순치와 교화 모티프의 초점화로 기능하는 인물은 아내 서인숙과 남편 차성일이다. 다른 하나는, 상징계의 규범이나 타자와 화해하거나 타협하지 않은 채 시종일관 자신들의 성적인 욕망의 추구나 실천을 계속하다 자살이라는 극단적인 선택을 하거나 남편과 이혼하는 ‘상징적인 거세와 처벌’의 양상이다. 상징적인 거세와 처벌 모티프의 초점화로 기능하는 인물은 권석주와 박은영 여사이다. 이러한 서사 설정을 통하여 손창섭은 「신의 희작」 이후에도 완전히 해소되거나 소멸되지 않고 자신을 자극하던 오이디푸스 콤플렉스로 인한 어머니에 대한 원한 감정과 죄의식을 해소하고 있다. 또한 손창섭은 이 작품을 통해 오이디푸스 콤플렉스와의 화해나 타협을 보다 더 적극적으로 시도하고 있다. This article starteded from critical mind which 『Couple』 functioned as text which has a very important meanings in full terrain of Son Chang-seop`s novel. The purpose of this article was to reveal that 『Couple』 operates within the magnetic field of the oedipus complex which functions the origins of Son Chang-seop`s novels. As in previous works, the framework of narrative grammar which shapes sexual desire and libido into negative others in the 『Couple』 is still repeated. However, two important differences is revealed. First of all, unlike previous works, the strength of hatred and violence to the sexual desire and libido in the 『couple』 is weakend. Sublime strategy which female characters are exalted with object of sublime also is considerably weakened. Aspects of narrative in the 『Couple』 which shapes sexual desire or libido into negative others appear two main directions. One is the aspect of symbolic acclimation and enlightenment which of adjust their sexual desire by the rules of symbolic interaction. The other is the aspect of symbolic castration and punishment. Through these narratives set, Son Chang-seop completely dissolved resentment and guilt feelings to the mother which caused by the oedipus complex. In addition, through this work he tries reconciliation and compromise to the oedipus more actively.

채만식의 ≪심봉사≫ 계열체 서사 연구

공종구(Jong Goo Kong) 한국현대소설학회 2014 현대소설연구 Vol.- No.55

This article started with the problem of consciousness and the purpose that 『Simbongsa』 reflected Chae, Man-sik`s resistance will to the violence and oppression of the traditional family system. The decisive motive which Chae, Man-sik hanged on 『Simbongsa』 tenaciously is the his criticism and resistance will to the traditional family structure which was based on patriarchal ideology. In this context, this paper interpreted 『simbongsa』 as the practice of Oedipus desire which want to interrogate and punish oppression and violence of the traditional family system which is based on despotic power of patriarch. 『Simbongsa』 repeated the grammar and pattern of novels which reflected Chae, Man-sik`s resistance and confrontation to the traditional family system which based on despotic power of patriarch. Parodic appropriation of 『Simbongsa』 has be revealed two main aspects of appropriation. One is for simbongsa`s shaped part, and the other is the ending part. Simbongsa who functions as the subject of the narrative in the 『Simbongsa』 has been shaped as the character who has moral and ethical shortcomings compared with Simbongsa in the 『Simchongjeon』. Chae, Man-sik seems to reveal his criticism and resistance will to the traditional family system most clearly through the disastrous tragic ending which again to return to the blind which his eyes were stabbed himself. In this context, this article interpreted Simbongsa as metaphorical substitution of the traditional family system, and Simbongsa`s act blind his eyes again by the act of himselves stabbing as symbolic manifestation of the symbolic castration and punishment to the Korean`s traditional family system.

라깡과 버틀러, 위반과 전복의 담론 : 성정체성, 젠더 멜랑콜리, 오이디푸스 콤플렉스를 중심으로

박선영 한국라깡과현대정신분석학회 2012 현대정신분석 Vol.14 No.1

본 논문은 버틀러 이론이 갖는 정치적, 사회적 변혁의 함의에도 불구하고 그녀가 반정신분석적, 반라깡적 입장을 견지하면서 성적 본질주의를 벗어나지 못함을 비판적으로 고찰한다. 그녀는 라깡과 정신분석에 대한 자의적 해석과 왜곡을 통해 오히려 자신이 비판하는 자연주의적, 환원주의적 본질주의에 함몰되었고 라깡이론이 갖는 정치사회적, 임상적 함의를 오독한다. 이에 버틀러의 성정체성 형성과 젠더 멜랑콜리, 멜랑콜리적 동일화, 레즈비언 팔루스 등에 대한 비판적 분석을 통해 그녀의 동성애 헤게모니를 비판하며, 이에 대한 프로이트와 라깡 이론과 해석을 설명한다. 또 오이디푸스 콤플렉스에 대한 라깡과 레비-스트로스의 비교분석을 통해 버틀러의 잘못된 라깡 오독을 분석한다. 라깡의 상징계, 오이디푸스 콤플렉스는 레비-스트로스부터 출발하였을지라도 그것과는 분명히 거리를 두었고, 버틀러가 비판하는 보편성과 초월성을 주장하지 않는다. 구조적 조작자로서의 실재적 아버지, 거세 콤플렉스, 실재 개념 등은 라깡이론이 형이상학적 구조주의 안으로 범주화될 수 없음을 반증한다. This paper tries to give a critical reflection on the Butler’s theory of the gender melancholy, melancholic identification, gender identity formation, and lesbian phallus et al. Butler’s theory of the melancholic identification has its aim a radical criticism against the sexual essentialism based on the norm of the psychoanalytic heterosexuality, and advocates the homosexuality. On this point her theory and approaches made a remarkable contribution of gender-based theory of the sexual identity in feministic perspective. But she misunderstood and neglected the clinical facts of theories and views of Freud and Lacan in gender identity. Her fallacy can be summarized as a biological, formalistic approach in gender identity, and the one-sided emphasis on the homosexualism. And She doesn’t consider sexual difference located in the real, and doesn’t understand Lacan’s symbolic and oedipus complex rightly. Lacan didn’t assert universality of symbolic, on the contrary, his symbolic intended to openness. So this paper argues against Butler’s contradiction and fallacy, and presents Lacan’s certain concepts in relation to them. Finally, this paper tries to show differences between Lacan and Levi strauss and superiority of Lacan’s theory in Oedipus complex.

홀로코스트와 전체주의 분석

홍준기(Joon-Kee Hong) 한국현대정신분석학회 2008 현대정신분석 Vol.10 No.1