한국 현대문학 연구와 『민족문화연구』—『민족문화연구』를 통해 본 한국 현대문학 연구의 동향—

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

This paper lays its purpose in examining the academic practice and significance of the Korean Cultural Studies which has been published by the Research Institute of Korean Studies, Korea University. To this end, first, the academic status which the Korean Cultural Studies accounts for was analyzed through a quantitative comparison between the Dong Bang Hak Chi, the Daedong Munwha Yeon'gu, and the Korean Cultural Studies, which have been published by university-affiliated research institutes since the 1950s or 1960s. As a result, unlike the Dong Bang Hak Ch and Daedong Munwha Yeon'gu, which attempted to form an academic network with countries around Asia, it was found that the Korean Cultural Studies intended to establish the strategy to integrate and unite the Korean Language and Literature, Korean History, and Philosophy of Korea—which can be said to be the foundation of Koreanology—within the magnetic field of ‘National Culture.’ Second, how research trends have changed by period was reviewed by diachronically examining the inclusion aspects by major and of modern literature papers, with respect to the papers included in the Korean Cultural Studies. As a result, it was found that the monographs from Korean Language and Literature and Korean History accounted for more than 80% of all papers included. It is interpreted that this could be the result coming out because of not only the absence of researchers capable of studying and lecturing on modern & contemporary literature and modern & contemporary history but also the lack of organization of related subjects, during the 1940s and 1960s, when many four-year universities were founded. In addition, the papers in the field of Modern Literature are categorized by period, which were organized into “A period to strengthen the foundation of modern literature research (1964-1979)—A period when the work theory and writer’s theory was established as a methodology for Modern Literature research (1980-1999)—A period when research objects and methods were diversified (after 2000).” Through this, we reviewed the academic-history position that the Korean Cultural Studies occupied for each period.

외부로부터의 격발들, 고유한 연구의 지정학에 대하여 ―한국현대문학연구와 이론, 예비적 고찰 혹은 그래프·지도·수형도

황호덕 상허학회 2012 상허학보 Vol.35 No.-

This study examined how 'foreign theory' was grafted onto an intrinsic field of “Korean modern literature studies” and how this has affected the ways of setting and implementing agendas in this field. This was done by looking at cases introduced in Sanghur Hakbo-The Journal of Korean Modern Literature and Journal of Korean National Literature(Minjok Munhaksa Yongu). In this study, 395 articles contained in Sanghur Hakbo - The Journal of Korean Modern Literature (from the first issue in 1993 through to the last issue of 2011) and 450 modern litearture-related articles in Journal of Korean National Literature (from the first issue in 1991 through to the last issue of 2011). First, all the main contents, the keywords and the bibliography were entered. Then, the journals’ data, such as their publication dates, numbers of papers in each issue, numbers of foreign reference books quoted from, names of these books’ authors and these books’ titles, the authors’ countries of origin and activity, groups of keywords and related keywords, and authors to be studied, were organized into a statistical format. These data were expressed as graphs and maps, and the major flows and the agenda change progresses were examined and interpreted. Then, how has the “theory”, which is used as an agenda in a specific place but also has global universality in itself, had connection with an intrinsic practice called the “Korean Modern literature Studies”? This study examined how the agenda which formed the basis of the Korean modern literature research over the last 20 years, such as modernity, colonization, media, translation, East Asia, censorship, Minjok, women, modernism, aesthetics and ego, spread and disappeared through the theory. The study then investigated which theories were used by the Korean society’s intrinsic demands and requirements. Then, by examining the statistical data, graphs and maps on these matters, this study objectively organized the course of research history of the last 20 years and predicted the problems that will need to be solved in future. 필자는 이 글에서 외국 이론이 한국현대문학 연구라는 고유한 장에 어떻게 접속되어 의제 설정의 전환이나 이행에 어떤 영향을 끼쳤는지를 『상허학보』와 『민족문학사연구』의 사례를 통해 검토하였다. 1993년 창간호부터 2011년까지의 『상허학보』 소재 총 395편의 논문과 1991년 창간호부터 2011년까지 생산된 『민족문학사연구』 소재 근현대문학 관계 논문 450편을 대상으로 했다. 초록의 주요 내용과 키워드 참고문헌을 전부 입력한 후, 발행연도 및 호수별 논문수, 외래 문헌 인용수, 피인용 외국저자 및 저서명, 피인용 저자들의 출신국가 및 활동국가, 키워드 및 인접키워드를 가공한 키워드군(群,) 연구 대상 작가 등을 통계화하여 그래프, 지도로 표상한 후 이로부터 주요 경향과 의제 변화의 추이를 검토하고 해석했다. 특정한 장소 속에서 의제화된 것인 한편, 그 자체로 세계보편성을 가진 것으로 알려진 ‘이론’은 과연 어떻게 한국문학 연구라는 고유한 실천과 관계맺고 있었던 것일까. 약 20년 간의 한국현대문학연구를 틀지운 근대, 식민, 매체, 번역, 동아시아, 검열, 민족, 여성, 모더니즘, 미적, 자기와 같은 의제들이 어떻게 이론을 통해 확산되고 또 명멸하였는지, 한국 사회의 내적 요구들이 과연 어떤 이론들을 호명하였는지에 대한 통계적 연구와 이에 대한 그래프, 지도를 통해 지난 20년 간의 연구사적 흐름을 비판적으로 정리하고 차후의 과제들을 전망해 보았다.

한국 현대문학 연구 60년의 회고와 전망

장수익(Jang, Soo-ik) 국어국문학회 2012 국어국문학 Vol.- No.161

After 1950s, the studies on Korean modern literature was gotten into its stride. The studies on Korean modern literature overall have shown the three primary orientations as follows. The first orientation is endeavor for the positive basis for the further studies. Accordingly the studies on Korean modern literature has the primary literature source from the early enlightenment period to recent times and the secondly source related Korean modern literature. The second orientation is interpretations and evaluations on literature history for Korean ethnic community. In other words, the studies on Korean modern literature have performed interpretations and evaluations on Korean literature works that keep up with many difficult problems which Korean ethnic community was confronted with after modernization times. The third orientation is the well-establishing for academical theory. This orientation includes methodologies to understanding various thoughts and forms in literary works and to analyze and evaluate literary works allowing for various contexts surrounding them. I expect that these orientation of the studies on Korean modern literature would be embodied from now on, so more profound studies on Korean modern literature would be presented continuedly.

미국 한국문학 연구의 현단계와 한국현대문학 연구

최현희 ( Choe Hyon-hui ) 반교어문학회 2017 泮橋語文硏究 Vol.0 No.45

이 글은 2010년 이후 미국 한국학계에 제출된 한국현대문학 관련 연구서 네 권을 비판적으로 고찰하였다. 논의된 저서들은 `문학`으로부터 `담론`으로의 전회라는 대세를 적극적으로 반영하고 있다는 점에서 한국 내의 현단계 한국문학 연구와 방법론적으로 비슷한 경향성을 보이고 있다. 즉 한미 양국에서의 연구들은 공히, `문학`을 주어진 대상으로 대하지 않고 `한국현대문학`의 담론적 형성 과정에서 제작되는 것으로 취급한다. 미국발 연구들에서 이 글이 주목한 점은, `한국` 과 `현대`와 `문학` 중 이들이 특히 `한국`의 담론성에 초점을 맞추고 있다는 점이다. 이 글에서 분석한 연구들은, 근대 내내 일본과 미국이라는 제국이 지배하는 세계 질서 속에서 제국 측과 끊임없이 접촉하고 교섭하는 과정을 통해서, `한국`이라는 정체성이 어떻게 형성되어 왔는지에 초점을 맞추고 있는 것이다. 여기서 검토한 조희경, 권나영, 박선영, 이진경의 연구는 공히 이론적 객관성이라는 명분하에 연구 대상의 사물화를 수행하고 있으며, 이는 궁극적으로는 한국 (학)의 주변부성을 고정시킬 수 있는 위험성을 지니고 있다. 이 글에서 검토한 미국산 연구서들로부터 이런 위험성을 유독 강조해야 하는 이유는, 그들이 대상으로서의 `한국`의 특수한위 치성(positionality)에 대한 비판적 거리를 당연시하면서도, 주체로서의 자신들의 위치성은 보편화함으로써, 결국 미국 중심의 세계 체제를 영속화하고 한국의 주변부성을 고정시키는 결과를 낳을 수 있기 때문이다. 세계의 한 부분에 지나지 않는, 본질적으로 비보편적인 `지역 연구(area studies)`가 보편 이론에 어떤 기여를 할 수 있으려면, 모든 보편 이론이란 언제나 “교조주의” 적 현상 유지의 음모를 담고 있을지 모른다는 점을 경계할 수 있게 해주는, “회의적이며 비판적으로 머무를 수 있는 기회”를 제공해주는 지표로서 끝내 남아 있어야 한다. 이 글은 한국학으로서의 한국현대문학연구가 그러한 지표가 될 수 있는 가능성을 미국 한국학계에서 나온 최근 연구들에 대한 비판을 통하여 모색해본 결과물이다. This paper critically examines four recent achievements from modern Korean literature field of American Korean studies, through which one may easily measure how sweeping the aftermath of the linguistic turn has been on both sides of the Pacific, especially in the field of modern Korean literature. The linguistic turn in literary studies, moving focus from literary text or text`s literariness to discursive formation of Literature, has been regarded causing the irreversible transformation in literary studies field in both Korea and the US. Among the three conceptual pillars of Modern Korean Literature, American Korean studies are more concerned about the middle one, Korean, than the other two, unlike Korean Korean studies. In other words, American Koreanists are more focused on how Korean- ness being formed in modern Korean literature under the pressure of Japanese and American imperialist regional and global world order. The four books examined here are Heekyoung Cho`s Translation`s Forgotten History(2016), Nayoung Aimee Kwon`s Intimate Empire(2015), Sunyoung Park`s The Proletarian Wave(2015), and Jin-kyung Lee`s Service Economies(2010). I focus on how their theoretical insistence on objectivism unconsciously results in the reification of the object, in this context modern Korean culture. Faithfully insisting on the inexhaustible complexity of discursive elements and layers of modern Korean literature, they ultimately relegate Korean-ness to the margin of the imaginary field of universal theory. To put differently, they are theoretically self-contradictory in the sense that their keen sense on subject`s positionality is applied only to the object of their studies in their blindness toward their own positionalities.

『한국언어문학』 소재 현대소설에 대한 연구사

장수익 한국언어문학회 2013 한국언어문학 Vol.85 No.-

This thesis is composed for classifying the history of studies on Korean modern novels and short stories publicated in 『Korean Language & Literature』 no.1~82. For 50 years, 1,583 pieces were publicated in 『Korean Language & Literature』 and 278 pieces of paper were on Korean modern novels and short stories. These 278 pieces were rearranged, following the publishing time of novels that each paper dealed with. In these 278 pieces of papers applied various methods for studying Korean modern novels and short stories from the time of enlightenment to 1990's ; text-linguistics, lexicology, narratology, psycho-analysis, sociology, feminism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism etc.. So the members of the Society for Korean Language & Literature have framed the semantic web of Korean modern literature finely though there are the areas not yet dealt with by the scholars. I believe that the areas will be dealt with soon or later, so the study of Korean modern literature, especially Korean modern novels and short stories, will make further progress.

식민지 근대 여성문학 연구의 현황과 전망

이영아 한국여성문학학회 2011 여성문학연구 Vol.26 No.-

이 논문에서는 2000년대 이후 진행된 식민지 근대 시기의 여성문학연구에대해 개괄하고, 그 성격 및 한계와 전망에 대해 논의해보고자 했다. 오늘날 여성문학연구는 많은 난제들을 가지고 있다. 첫째, 여성문학 연구가보다 구체적이고 민감하게 현재적 문제의식과 맞닿을 수 있도록 하는 노력이필요하다. 둘째, 여성문학 연구가 여성작가ㆍ작품의 범주 내부에서만 만들어지는 것에 대한 극복이 요구된다. 셋째, 불연속적이고 단편적인 연구에서 벗어나본격적인 여성문학사의 기술이 이루어져야 한다. 특히 아직까지도 여성문학연구의 구심점이 될 만한 총체적인 한국근대여성문학사가 기술되지 못하고 있다는 점은 현재 한국 여성문학론이 부딪히고 있는 가장 큰 문제이다. 여성문학사가 산출되기 어려운 것은 여성문학의 흐름에대한 심도 있는 접근을 할 만한 연구환경이 여성문학 연구자들에게 주어지지 않기 때문이다. 한국문학연구 분야에 여성연구자들의 수는 90년대 이후 급속도로 증가했으나, 아직도 ‘여성’ 문학연구자들과 ‘여성문학’ 연구자들은 ‘주변부’에 위치하고있다. 여성문학 연구자들이 여성해방의 근원적 목표의식을 공유하고 있다면여성문학의 연구를 통해서 뿐 아니라 지금의 ‘우리’가 처한 현실에 대한 실천적 연대와 투쟁 방안에 대해서도 고민이 필요하다. This paper aimed to survey the researches of Korean women's modern literature which have produced since the year of 2000. It also searched for the problems of these researches and the way to solve the problems. Nowadays the studies of Korean women's modern literature have some problems. First, these studies should try to meet problematic reality of Korean women more concretely and penetratively. Second, these studies need to overcome the narrow category of 'the study of women's literature'. At last, these studies is wanted to narrate the history of Korean women's modern literature. Especially the description of the history of Korean women's modern literature is most important for the progress of the studies of Korean women's modern literature. However, it is very hard because of the poor conditions that researchers of this area are in. Therefore, their academic conditions should be solved at first in oder to be narrated the history of Korean women's modern literature, and eventually, to develop the studies of Korean women's modern literature.

探究韩中现代文学比较研究 -以21世纪初10年(2001∼2010年)的韩国为中心-

유재성 동아인문학회 2011 동아인문학 Vol.20 No.-

The article aims to explore the progress on the research performance conducted during the first decade of the twenty-first century (2001~2010) and examine the principal of the study considering how the direction of Han Chinese scholars had conversed from the self-monitoring and thorough introspection standpoint among the three issues that are suggested by Professor Park Jae-woo in his comparative study on modern Korean and Chinese literatures amid active research request of the academic circles of Korean literature. In regard to data collection, the study gathered and put together all dissertations and books on the comparative studies of modern Korean and Chinese literatures that were published between 2001~2010 in Korea, except for papers released in China and other countries. As a study result, a total of 66 desertions were published and 17 of them were released by Korean scholars who study Chinese literature, while ten of them wereby scholars of Korean literature; there were two articles co-authored by scholars of Chinese and Korean literatures, which totaled 29 papers. On the other hand, 37 papers were released by Chinese scholars and 27 of them by Han Chinese scholars of mainland China and 9 articles by ethnic Korean scholars. Of them, one paper was co-authored by Korean and Chinese scholars. The study is classified by its direction, such asparallel comparative study, comparative study of impact, and interaction research. The article aims to explore the progress on the research performance conducted during the first decade of the twenty-first century (2001~2010) and examine the principal of the study considering how the direction of Han Chinese scholars had conversed from the self-monitoring and thorough introspection standpoint among the three issues that are suggested by Professor Park Jae-woo in his comparative study on modern Korean and Chinese literatures amid active research request of the academic circles of Korean literature. In regard to data collection, the study gathered and put together all dissertations and books on the comparative studies of modern Korean and Chinese literatures that were published between 2001~2010 in Korea, except for papers released in China and other countries. As a study result, a total of 66 desertions were published and 17 of them were released by Korean scholars who study Chinese literature, while ten of them wereby scholars of Korean literature; there were two articles co-authored by scholars of Chinese and Korean literatures, which totaled 29 papers. On the other hand, 37 papers were released by Chinese scholars and 27 of them by Han Chinese scholars of mainland China and 9 articles by ethnic Korean scholars. Of them, one paper was co-authored by Korean and Chinese scholars. The study is classified by its direction, such asparallel comparative study, comparative study of impact, and interaction research.

새로운 혹은 다른 문학사의 구상과 한국근(현)대시연구

구인모 한국문학연구학회 2020 현대문학의 연구 Vol.0 No.70

There is growing interest and demand for the description of literary history in recent years in and outside the Korean literature studies. The description of a new or different literary history was an important consequence of turn that the Korean literature studies went through since the 1990s. The discussion process, however, excluded the study on modern Korean poetry. It was because the studies on Modern Korean Poetry described the history of literature only around national literature and ideology as resistance literature and hypertexts by literary giants since the 1970s. It was also because the studies in Modern Korean Poetry did not look squarely at the complex functional relations around the boundaries and categories of modern Korean poetry while forcing a match between the history of modern Korean poetry and the universality of world literature. Studies in Modern Korean Poetry should first describe fully the fundamental changes of space-time in non-Euclidean literature and the regulation, circulation, and coexistence patterns of non- homogeneous literary phenomena and practices in order to address its double tasks involving its isolation from the venue of discourse about the description of contemporary literary history and the description of a new or different literary history. For this, it will be useful to consult the methodology of historical studies since empiricism and the cases of French and Chinese literary history in the U.S.A. The description of a new or different literary history is also a process of asking fundamental questions about literature and searching for their answers. The Korean literature studies will be able to move to a new stage in the middle of these efforts. 최근 한국문학연구 내외에서 문학사 서술에 대한 관심과 요구가 점차 더해지고 있다. 새로운 혹은 다른 문학사의 서술은 1990년대 이후 한국문학연구가 거친 중요한 전회의 귀결점이지만, 그 논의의 과정에서 한국근(현)대시연구는 제외되어 왔다. 그것은 1970년대 이후 한국근대시연구가 우선, 저항문학으로서 민족문학과 민족이데올로기, 문호(文豪)들의 초정전(hypertexts) 중심의 문학사만을 서술해 왔기 때문이다. 그리고 지금까지의 한국근대시연구가 한국근대시의 역사를 세계문학의 보편성에 무리하게 일치시키는 한편으로 한국근대시의 경계와 범주를 둘러싼 복잡한 함수 관계를 직시하지 않았기 때문이다. 이와 같은 동시대 문학사 서술 관련 담론의 장에서의 고립, 새로운 혹은 다른 문학사 서술이라는 이중의 과제를 위해, 우선 한국근대시연구는 근본적으로 비유클리드적인 문학의 시공간의 변화, 비균질적인 문학적 현상과 실천들의 단속, 순환, 병존 양상을 온전히 서술해야 한다. 이를 위해 실증주의 이후 역사학의 방법론, 미국에서 이루어진 프랑스문학사와 중국문학사의 사례들을 참조하는 것은 유익하다. 이러한 새로운 혹은 다른 문학사 서술은 문학에 대한 본질적인 질문을 던지고 해답을 구하는 과정이기도 하다. 이 가운데에서 한국문학연구는 새로운 단계로 나아갈 수 있을 것이다.

‘문화론적 연구’의 현실 인식과 전망

천정환 상허학회 2007 상허학보 Vol.19 No.-

This thesis intends to make a check the present status of ‘cultural studies’, and to suggest that new study and writing advance radically. Korean modern literature has been divided into three groups; political enlightenment literature, inner description and modernism literature, and popular romantic literature. The situation that each status and role of them are changed and stopped, is what we call ‘the end of modern literature’. But we should reconsider ‘literary things’ of ‘modern literature’, reflect ‘small literature-ism’ which subsides into aestheticism, and reorganize literature so as to be suited to new cultural circumstance for people and life. Today, literary study and literature should ethically understand Korean socio-cultural situation of ‘polarization’ and reflect the inequality of eduction and culture. The mighty force of Korean (popular) culture is the barricade against the polarization. Searching for a way of intervention and solidarity in the field and making tension and union between aesthetics and ethics are the duty of ‘cultural studies’. The first aspect of ‘cultural studies’ starts from the study of modernism in ‘Korean’ ‘literature’ and goes into the study of ‘cultural history’. The second aspect of it is the step that the first aspect is settled and extended, literary history is reconstructed, and the cultural and discourse practice constitute ‘cultural studies’. In other words, ‘cultural studies’ does not be limited to new ‘Korean literary history’ or ‘cultural history’ ‘studies’ and it can contact with cultural -political reality of ‘here and now’. 이 글은 ‘문화론적 연구’가 처한 현재의 자리를 점검하고 ‘국’ ‘문학’이 낳은 새로운 연구와 글쓰기를 더욱 급진화하자는 제안을 목표로 한다. 본질적으로 ‘문화론적 연구’는 문학이 지식체계와 문화전반에서 지니는 지위 및 역사에 대해 민감한 태도를 취하며 ‘국’ ‘문학’의 정상성 규범에 대해 성찰한다. 한국 근대문학은 크게 보아 세 축의 상호작용에 의해 이루어져 왔다: 정치적 계몽주의 문학, 내면성의 문학과 모더니즘소설, 그리고 대중적 낭만주의문학. 이 각각의 위상과 역할이 달라지고 중단된 상황이 소위 ‘근대문학의 종언’이다. 지금의 시점에서 필요한 것은 ‘근대문학’이 생산한 ‘문학적인 것’을 재고하고 미학주의에 대해 반성하여 새로운 사회적 상황에서 문학이 인간과 삶을 위해 기능하도록 재-규범화하는 것이다. ‘문화론적 연구’는 문학의 사회문화적 맥락을 되살리는 데 효과적인 방법의 하나다. 오늘날 문학연구와 문학은 ‘양극화’라는 한국의 사회-문화적 상황에 대해 윤리적으로 이해하고 교육과 문화의 불평등에 대해 성찰하게 해야한다. 문화의 큰 위력은 양극화에 대한 바리케이드로서, 여기에 개입하고 연대할 방도를 찾고 미와 윤리의 긴장과 융합을 이끌어내는 것이 문화론적 연구의 임무이다. 문화론적 연구의 제1국면은 근대성 연구에 정향된 ‘국’ ‘문학’으로부터 출발하여 문화사로서의 문화론으로의 진입까지이며, 제2국면은 제1국면 연구의 안착ㆍ확장과 문학사의 재구, 그리고 문화적ㆍ담론적 실천으로서 구성되는 단계이다. 즉 ‘문화론적 연구’는 새로운 ‘국문학사’나 ‘문화사’ ‘연구’에 한정되지 않고 ‘지금-여기’의 문화-정치의 현실과 접속할 것이다.

특집 : 인문학의 한류를 위한 세계적 시야의 한국어문확 연구와 교육; 한국 현대문학 텍스트의 확장과 "문화론적 연구" -2013년 AAS(Association for Asian Studies) 국제학술대회에서 한국 현대문학 연구의 성격-

전우형 ( Woo Hyung Chon ) 겨레어문학회 2013 겨레어문학 Vol.51 No.-

This study explores the trends of modern Korean literature studies in the context of international conferences. In such international wide conference as Association for Asian Studies (AAS), the researchers themselves decide the themes and organize the presentations. With the overall theme set by the organizers, however, the presenters are also offered the opportunities to present their own agendas. They are only classified as the Asian researchers without being exposed to wholesale exclusion and segregation. The seeming loose self-identification among the presenters that “we are Asian researchers” paradoxically opens up for the possibilities for solidarity and communication beyond exclusion and classification. The joint research as a prevalent mode of the international conference speaks to the precedent vibrant discussions among the co-researchers. Free from the exclusive environment and the classifying signifiers like “Korean,” “modern,” and “literature,” the international conferences provide academic venues for exploring the new aspect about modern Korean literature studies. This study discusses the movement and the direction of the studies on modern Korean literature in the international conferences through the specific presentations on modern Korean literature in the annual international conference held by AAS in 2013. By trying to defining the “movement” of modern Korean literature studies, this study will contribute to setting out the “direction” of the future studies.