특집논문 : 민족 영화 담론, 그 의미와 이슈들

주유신 ( You Shin Joo ) 한양대학교 현대영화연구소 2012 현대영화연구 Vol.8 No.2

The more full-fledged and profound discourses on the national cinema in South Korea must be needed, because a current transnational reality led by capitalism makes it more difficult for us to answer what role cinema plays in the construction of the cultural boundary and national identity. I will thus critically examine how to define the term “national cinema” after an introduction of the discourses on national cinema in the western film theory and construct a subject in national cinemas, as well as the dynamics between Hollywood cinema as the global dominant one in a transnational age and other national cinemas and the relationship of national cinema and transnational one. I hope such an approach would contribute to the productive discussion on national cinema including the identity of Korean cinema. Under the influence of anti-essentialism with regard to the national since the late 1980s, the historical conceptualization and critical study on national cinema have been more accomplished. During the period, the issues such as the role of a nation-state in both film production and reception and the relationship between cinema and ideology necessary for a nation-state`s building and maintenance were raised, and the discussion was consequently focused on what role cinema plays in the construction of a nation, national identity and national culture. In order to escape from being trapped in the limited conceptualization in terms of a nation and productively approach national cinema, the concept ``the national`` has been highlighted. That was the result that a nation-state and national identity were reconceptualized in a way of the constructive, the non-essentialist and the contradictory by anti-essentialists. The question on national cinema has been shifted from ``what is the relationship between cinema and nation?`` to ``how is the national in cinema constructed?``, just as the problematic from ``what is a nation?`` to ``how is a nation constructed?``. In a phenomena of a globalization, both transnational power and sub-national, local power are strengthened and the cultural hybridity of a nation-state is highly recognized, while the sovereignty of a nation-state is weakened. What influence would such a change give on cinema`s construction of the national and cultural boundaries as well as the concept of a nation or a state? What would happen to the location of an address when cinema is regularly produced, circulated and consumed across the national boundaries? I here attempt to explore the transition in terms of three frameworks, the relationship between Hollywood cinema as the most representative transnational one and other national cinemas, the third cinema, and trans-Asian cinema.

민족 영화 담론, 그 의미와 이슈들

주유신 한양대학교 현대영화연구소 2012 현대영화연구 Vol.8 No.2

The more full-fledged and profound discourses on the national cinema in South Korea must be needed, because a current transnational reality led by capitalism makes it more difficult for us to answer what role cinema plays in the construction of the cultural boundary and national identity. I will thus critically examine how to define the term “national cinema” after an introduction of the discourses on national cinema in the western film theory and construct a subject in national cinemas, as well as the dynamics between Hollywood cinema as the global dominant one in a transnational age and other national cinemas and the relationship of national cinema and transnational one. I hope such an approach would contribute to the productive discussion on national cinema including the identity of Korean cinema. Under the influence of anti-essentialism with regard to the national since the late 1980s, the historical conceptualization and critical study on national cinema have been more accomplished. During the period, the issues such as the role of a nation-state in both film production and reception and the relationship between cinema and ideology necessary for a nation-state’s building and maintenance were raised, and the discussion was consequently focused on what role cinema plays in the construction of a nation, national identity and national culture. In order to escape from being trapped in the limited conceptualization in terms of a nation and productively approach national cinema, the concept ‘the national’ has been highlighted. That was the result that a nation-state and national identity were reconceptualized in a way of the constructive, the non-essentialist and the contradictory by anti-essentialists. The question on national cinema has been shifted from ‘what is the relationship between cinema and nation?’ to ‘how is the national in cinema constructed?’, just as the problematic from ‘what is a nation?’ to ‘how is a nation constructed?’. In a phenomena of a globalization, both transnational power and sub-national, local power are strengthened and the cultural hybridity of a nation-state is highly recognized, while the sovereignty of a nation-state is weakened. What influence would such a change give on cinema’s construction of the national and cultural boundaries as well as the concept of a nation or a state? What would happen to the location of an address when cinema is regularly produced, circulated and consumed across the national boundaries?I here attempt to explore the transition in terms of three frameworks, the relationship between Hollywood cinema as the most representative transnational one and other national cinemas, the third cinema, and trans-Asian cinema.

아시아 내셔널리즘과 5.4 ― 5.4 운동에서 ‘문화’와 ‘민족’ 문제의 재인식

백원담 한국중국현대문학학회 2008 中國現代文學 Vol.0 No.47

This paper examines China's May Fourth New Cultural Movement from the perspective of Asian nationalism. It is to see the May Fourth Cultural Movement as one aspect of Asian nationalism and, at the same time, to re-contextualize it within the horizon of diverse attempts in Asia to overcome modernity. In doing so, a methodological attempt is made in order to address the problem of constructing an Asian political identity within the trend of global regionalization. Although Asia has a real historical existence, strictly speaking, it is a ‘modern construction’ of the West. It is not necessary here to repeat the historical vicissitudes of how Asia alienated itself. What is important is the fact that today's Asia has become totally integrated within the hegemonic global order, and from this position, what has become urgent is the reconstruction of Asia by Asia, the recovery of Asia's identity on its own terms. May Fourth was an anti-imperialist national movement of China, but the transformation of culture into politics found in the May Fourth movement symbolically shows the formation of the modern nation and the modern nation-state. This is because this transformation happened within the context of not one nation but of transnational cultural translation and practice. May Fourth emerges from the global historical moment of ethnic self-determination, the Russian revolution, and the March First anti-imperialist movement of the marginal, colonized land of Joseon. It self-transformed along with the march of world history, and it seems to be a vital task to reconceptualize May Fourth as a tradition of resistance in Asia. This is not to be blindly trapped by the illusion of western universalization called globalization, but to "recognize the subordinate identity that had been prescribed by the very identity produced by western universalism and to reconstruct our estranged identity as a form of resistance by rediscovering the universalism within us." As a method of this rediscovery, it is necessary to bring back May Fourth. An important task in recontextualizing May Fourth is to secure and protect the position of Asian nationalism. In the West, bourgeois nationalism was established before the formation of nation-states. However, in Asia, the formation of the nation and its particular characteristics were disturbed by the plunder and domination by western imperialism. The formation of the nation occurred within the national liberation movement, from the intense struggle against western imperialism and its system of domination. Here, while nationalism emerges as the ideological basis for nationalist movements, it takes on the characteristic of resistance against modernity's oppressive elements, on the one hand, and the characteristic of national ethnocentrism as a unifying logic, on the other hand. Asia's resistance nationalisms were ‘not about the essentialization of the difference in the concept of nation among them.’ When the foundations of national life was broken down by outside forces, re-mobilization had to occur at the level of the nation. The re-mobilization of national liberation movements led to the construction of a liberation front against global contradiction. And the national manifestations were practical and mutual pathways for the realization of a new world outlook. In other words, there is a need to historicize the moment when the May Fourth New Cultural Movement transformed from culture to politics, as an ideological and cultural resource of alternative regionalization in Asia. In short, we're talking about the wave that arose in the transformation from national liberation to socialist liberation, leaving in the wake a diverse ideological spectrum. what is important is to, first, pull out the duality in Asian nationalism: second, observe how Asian nationalism transforms antagonistically within the context of the nation-state and Asia: third, regionally recontextualize the phase in which it becomes both res... This paper examines China's May Fourth New Cultural Movement from the perspective of Asian nationalism. It is to see the May Fourth Cultural Movement as one aspect of Asian nationalism and, at the same time, to re-contextualize it within the horizon of diverse attempts in Asia to overcome modernity. In doing so, a methodological attempt is made in order to address the problem of constructing an Asian political identity within the trend of global regionalization. Although Asia has a real historical existence, strictly speaking, it is a ‘modern construction’ of the West. It is not necessary here to repeat the historical vicissitudes of how Asia alienated itself. What is important is the fact that today's Asia has become totally integrated within the hegemonic global order, and from this position, what has become urgent is the reconstruction of Asia by Asia, the recovery of Asia's identity on its own terms. May Fourth was an anti-imperialist national movement of China, but the transformation of culture into politics found in the May Fourth movement symbolically shows the formation of the modern nation and the modern nation-state. This is because this transformation happened within the context of not one nation but of transnational cultural translation and practice. May Fourth emerges from the global historical moment of ethnic self-determination, the Russian revolution, and the March First anti-imperialist movement of the marginal, colonized land of Joseon. It self-transformed along with the march of world history, and it seems to be a vital task to reconceptualize May Fourth as a tradition of resistance in Asia. This is not to be blindly trapped by the illusion of western universalization called globalization, but to "recognize the subordinate identity that had been prescribed by the very identity produced by western universalism and to reconstruct our estranged identity as a form of resistance by rediscovering the universalism within us." As a method of this rediscovery, it is necessary to bring back May Fourth. An important task in recontextualizing May Fourth is to secure and protect the position of Asian nationalism. In the West, bourgeois nationalism was established before the formation of nation-states. However, in Asia, the formation of the nation and its particular characteristics were disturbed by the plunder and domination by western imperialism. The formation of the nation occurred within the national liberation movement, from the intense struggle against western imperialism and its system of domination. Here, while nationalism emerges as the ideological basis for nationalist movements, it takes on the characteristic of resistance against modernity's oppressive elements, on the one hand, and the characteristic of national ethnocentrism as a unifying logic, on the other hand. Asia's resistance nationalisms were ‘not about the essentialization of the difference in the concept of nation among them.’ When the foundations of national life was broken down by outside forces, re-mobilization had to occur at the level of the nation. The re-mobilization of national liberation movements led to the construction of a liberation front against global contradiction. And the national manifestations were practical and mutual pathways for the realization of a new world outlook. In other words, there is a need to historicize the moment when the May Fourth New Cultural Movement transformed from culture to politics, as an ideological and cultural resource of alternative regionalization in Asia. In short, we're talking about the wave that arose in the transformation from national liberation to socialist liberation, leaving in the wake a diverse ideological spectrum. what is important is to, first, pull out the duality in Asian nationalism: second, observe how Asian nationalism transforms antagonistically within the context of the nation-state and Asia: third, regionally recontextualize the phase in which it becomes both resista...

1920년대 민세 안재홍의 민족론과 그 추이

이경미(Lee Kyung Mi) 한국동양정치사상사학회 2010 한국동양정치사상사연구 Vol.9 No.2

본 논문에서는 1920년대 민세 안재홍의 민족론이 어떤 형태를 띠고 있었는지를 살펴보고, 그것이 신간회운동이 전개되는 과정에서 어떠한 운동논리로 나타났는지를 추적하였다. 먼저 ‘진취와 반동’이라는 국제인식이 동아시아를 무대로 적용되는 과정에서 어떻게 ‘계급과 민족’이라는 문제의식과 연계되었는지, 그리고 그것이 식민지조선에 대한 사유로 이어지면서 ‘초계급적 민족통론’으로 나타나는 양상을 살펴보았다. 다음 장에서는 민세의 초계급적 민족론이 신간회의 전개과정과 맞물리면서 ‘민족단일’‘수도병진’‘갑을병립’이라는 세 가지 운동논리로 나타난 추이를 살펴보았다. 민세는 제1차 세계대전 이후 세계는 반동의 추세가 거세지는 상황으로 돌아가고 있지만, 동시에 러시아혁명이 표방한 인류해방이라는 가치 또한 앞으로 셰계사를 이끌어갈 진취의 추세를 형성하고 있다고 인식하였다. 그리고 이러한 세계의 흐름은 ‘대외적’인 피압박상태에 놓여있는 식민지상황에서는 계급과 민족 양 의식을 동시에 각성하여 ‘계급을 아우르는 민족통일’을 실천시키는 계기가 된다고 보았다. 이것이 민세의 초계급적 민족론을 지탱한 기본인식이다. 이러한 인식 하에 그는 신간회를 비타협적 민족주의와 사회주의 양 진영의 협동을 통해 초계급적 민족통일을 실천하는 민족단일당으로 발전시키려고 했다. 이처럼 ‘민족단일론’은 초계급적 민족론의 다른 표현이었지만, 운동의 확대와 함께 민족주의와 사회주의 간의 협동이 흔들리면서 그의 논리는 단일을 유보한 ‘병립론’으로 변해갔다. This paper examines An Jae-hong’s concept of the nation in the 1920s and its practical aspect in the process of Shin’ganhoe Movement(新幹會運動). First of all, I mentioned that he recognized the international society as the conflict between ‘the progressives and the conservatives(進取와 反動)’. And such recognition seemed to be connected with his perception of ‘class and nation(階級과 民族)’ problem in the East Asia, and Korea under the colonial rule. Under this situation, consequently, this idea was revealed as the concept of so-called ‘trans-class national unification(超階級的民族統一)’. In the next chapter, I described that his idea of trans-class national unification was appeared with practical Shinganhoe Movement in the idea of ‘the unitary nation(民族單一)’, ‘the progress of each other’s way(數道竝進)’, and ‘the compatibility of both ways(甲乙竝立)’. He thought that the idea of human liberation asserted by the Russian Revolution was still important and it would be the general trend in the world history, even though the conservative trend seemed to be growing after the World War I. Furthermore, he considered that such a flow of the world history would serve as a momentum for the colonial nation under the ‘externally’ oppressed condition to awaken both of class and nation consciousness. Therefore, he expected that it would help to fulfill the national unification combined all classes in Korea. This is his fundamental idea of trans-class national unification. In this sense, he tried to develop Shinganhoe into the national unitary party(民族單一黨) through the cooperation between the uncompromising nationalist and socialist. In short, the concept of the unitary nation(民族單一論) was another expression of trans-class national unification. However, as the cooperation between nationalism and socialism faltered, his argument was gradually changed from the unitary nation into the compatibility of both ideology.

민족을 넘어서? : 한일관계의 화해를 위한 아시아 신학모색

김애영(Kim Ae-Young) 한신대학교 한신신학연구소 2008 신학연구 Vol.52 No.-

This article is one of three presentations that were presented at “Korea-Japan Theological Forum 2006” held in Kyoto, Japan on November 24-25, 2006. In this article, I, first of all, examined an overall academic background and trend of the world context, in which today’s post-national or trans-national discourses that the subject of the Forum 'Beyond a Nation indicates is discussed. Paying attention to relatedness between neo-liberalistic globalization and the present discourses pursuing an outright rejection of any wholeness concept or thought and a breakdown of historical syntax from the perspective of today’s postmodern discourse that appeared as a criticism of meta-discourse or mecro-discourse, I critically studied how these post-national or trans-national discourses have been developed in Korean academic circles and what meanings and problems they have. In addition, I attempted to show that post-national or trans-national project has been developed, on the one hand, in close connection with a cultural war by a conservative right-wing group and, on the other hand, in connection with a cultural war by a radical line as a frantic criticism of patriotic nationalism. This thesis posed a question of what an Asian theological search for an improvement of Korea-Japan relation aims for, when Korean and Japanese theologians accept post-national or trans-national discourses by Western academic circles without any criticism, and without any proper admittance and reconciliation of past wartime atrocities by Japanese oppressive colonial rule on Korea, in spite of imports of postmodern, postnational or transnational project proposed as a criticism of too much self-centered worldview of nationalism and also as a criticism of national and patriotic discourses having contributed to ruling class interests. I strongly suggested that if Korean theologians, not freed from suffering of the Japanese colonial rule and national division until now, uncritically accept such discourses as postcolonialism, deconstruction and transnationalism without sincere consideration of historical, political, and economical contexts of East-North Asia, those theologians are, wittingly or unwittingly, in danger of complying with an attempt to overlook or castrate spirits of resistance, transformation and practice of nationalism. I tried to formulate Asia's theology by way of reconciliation of Korea-Japan relation. Asia's theology must concentrate on a thorough transformation of human and world conditions in times of today's unjust neoliberal globalization. Lastly, as a feminist theologian of South Korea experiencing suffering from national division and conflict, I critically argued that today's feminism and feminist theology influenced by the 'third wave of feminism' of postmodernism and poststructuralism by the 1980s have tended to regard nation, nationality, nationalism as outdated and discard it, and that such a tendency has a lot of problems. My intention is to make it clear that nation, nationality, nationalism is relevant in order to realize national equality in the world and to achieve Korea’s reunification.

하근찬 장편소설 『야호(夜壺)』의 관전사(貫戰史)적 연구 - 국가권력의 폭력구조와 국민정체성의 이동을 중심으로

염창동 ( Ryuem Chang-dong ) 한국문학연구학회 2018 현대문학의 연구 Vol.0 No.66

이 글의 목적은 하근찬의 장편소설 『야호(夜壺)』를 통해 국가와 개인존재 사이의 딜레마를 고민하는 것이다. 『야호』는 1970년 1월부터 1971년 12월까지 약 2년에 걸쳐 『신동아(新東亞)』에 연재된 소설이다. 『야호』의 식민지말 태평양전쟁부터 해방이후 한국전쟁까지의 서사를 한 데 잇기 위해, 이 글에서는 ‘관전사(貫戰史, Trans-War History)’에 주목하였다. ‘관전사’는 ‘전전(戰前)’과 ‘전후(戰後)’를 단절이 아닌 연속으로 바라보게 한다. 이를 통해 태평양전쟁과 한국전쟁은 연속적이고 유사한 폭력구조를 보이는 전쟁임을 밝힐 수 있다. 두 차례의 전쟁 속에서 개인존재들은 국가의 호명에 따라 동원되는데, 이 시기 개인존재들을 호명하는 국가의 모습은 일관되거나 균질적이지 않았다. 이 과정에서 개인존재들의 내면에는 복수의 국민정체성(National identities)이 중첩된다. 특히 해방이후 국민정체성의 변화와 이동은 ‘포스트식민적 망각(amnesia)’을 수반하지만, 『야호』는 혼종적인 개인존재들을 통해 망각이면의 민낯을 드러내준다. 이를 통해 국가와 개인존재 사이의 딜레마는 해방이전과 이후 동일하게 작용하고 있으며, 전쟁이 끝난 지금까지도 여전히 현재진행형의 문제임을 지적한다. 결국 『야호』는 국가권력의 폭력과 동원메커니즘 앞에서 개인존재는 결코 자유로울 수 없음과 남겨진 고통은 온전히 개인으로서 감당해야 하는 것임을 증언한다. 국가와 개인존재 사이의 딜레마를 해결하기란 불가능에 가까운 일이다. 그러나 그것을 망각한 채 질문조차 던지지 않는 것은 더욱 위험한 일이다. 이 글은 그러한 질문을 하근찬의 『야호』의 개인존재들을 통해서 던져보는 작업이다. 국가권력의 폭력구조의 연속성과 유사성을 밝히고, 국가와 개인존재들 사이의 딜레마를 끊임없이 질문하는 것에서부터 『야호』를 비롯한 하근찬의 소설이 문학텍스트로서 지니는 중요한 가치가 되리라 기대한다. The purpose of this paper is to agonize the dilemma between the nation and individual through Ha Geun Chan’s full-length novel Ya-ho. Ya-ho is a novel published approximately over two years at SHIN DONG AH from 1970.1 to 1971.12. Ya-ho paid attention to ‘trans-war history’ to put together a preface from the Pacific War(end of Japan’s colonization) to the Korean War (after liberation from Japan). ‘Trans war- history’ helps us to look ‘prewar days’ and ‘postwar period’ not severance but succession. Through this, we can reveal that the Pacific War and the Korean War has a similar and successive violence structure. In these two wars, individuals were mobilized by the nation’s request and at that period, their request wasn’t consistent or equal. By this process, multiple national identities were overlapped in the individual’s inner side. Especially after liberation, the transition and movement of national identities accompanies ‘postcolonial amnesia.’ And Ya-ho reveals the back side of amnesia by hybrid individuals. From this, Ya-ho points out that the dilemma between the nation and individuals works equally at the time before liberation and after liberation and the problem is still on progress, even the war is over. Thus, Ya-ho testifies that in the front of the nation’s violence and mobilization mechanism, individuals can’t be free and have to handle the pain which still remains. It is nearly impossible to solve the dilemma between the nation and individuals. But forgetting it and not event throwing a question is much more dangerous. This thesis is a subject that throws questions like those through Ha Geun Chan’s Ya-ho. From disclosing the similarity and succession of the state power’s violence structure and constantly questioning the dilemma between the nation and individual, starting from Ya-ho, Ha Geun Chan’s novel is expected to have a significant value as a literature text.

기억, 길, 혼존성 : 타의적 정체성에서 선택적 정체성으로의 트랜스(Trans-)

이정인(JungIn Lee) 한국외국어대학교 대만연구센터 2017 대만연구 Vol.- No.10

This article discusses themes such as trans-humanities, trans-nationalism, trans-identity through Taiwan movies, 〈Cape No.7〉 and 〈Etude〉. Korea and Taiwan are sharing the history of colonization, but two nations possess the same moments with different ways. In Taiwan, the identification is difficult and complicated. This paper focuses on the ‘Trans-’ in the process of identification of Taiwan. Referring to the survey of ‘Changes in the Taiwanese/Chinese Identity of Taiwanese’(the Election Study Center, NCCU, 1992-2016.12), the results is below. Taiwanese : 17.6%(1992) → 58.2%(2016) Both Taiwanese and Chinese : 46.4%(1992) → 34.3%(2016)Chinese : 25.5%(1992) → 3.4%(2016) What I am interesting is the figure steady upwards curve of Taiwanese. It means that Taiwanese have chosen their identity as only Taiwanese. The figure of 25.5% as Chinese(1992) was even more than the figure of 17.6% as Taiwanese(1992). Taiwanese identity has been transferred from Chinese and Taiwanese to only Taiwanese. Stuart Hall said that the identity is not given in the fixed conception, is evolving in the process. In modern history of Korea and Taiwan, national identity was mostly transferred by not arbitrary, for example as a colonist under the imperialism of Japan. Also Taiwan classified into 3 identities given by time when you came to the island of Taiwan such as Native taiwanese, Mainlanders and aborigines. When the national party(Guomintang) ruled Taiwan, Taiwanese were forced to identify themselves as Chinese, then after 90s, when the president Lidenghui governed Taiwan, they have been considering themselves as Taiwanese and the Taiwanese things. 〈Cape No.7〉 have been at the center of controversy, having a pro-Japanese’s review, even if Taiwan had been ruled by Japan. So 〈Cape No.7〉 has been criticized that still can not get out of the colonial view of history. But I wonder why Taiwanese accepted this movie. The critics on criticizing 〈Cape No.7〉, they are under the views of ‘Sinocentrism’. China has an intention which integrates Taiwan as one nation using mediated memory of colonial history, whereas Taiwan refuses to construction of memory by China, Taiwan tries to reconstruct the memory of Taiwanese. In 〈Etude〉 tried to explore the ‘Taiwanese things’ through crossing island of Taiwan by bike. So I focuses on the memory and hybridity for the reconstruction of Taiwanese things through these 2 movies. The quests for Identification or Taiwanese things examine the diverse reviews mediated through transnational and regional discourses. It concerns how difficult it has been to create local-ethnographies of what it means to be a dweller in Taiwan through any single historical interpretation. The memory of colonization can be serving as a mediated memory in the nation-state, such as Korea after Japanese-colonization has focused on the anti-Japan, that is, nationalism for the social unification using the memory of colonization and after Korean war has focused on the anti-communism using the memory of the war, so maintained pro-American. The memory of colonist has been used as the mediated memory for the unified nation state. The nation needs one homogeneous memory, so some memories uncomfortable for one homogeneous memory could be excluded and forgotten. So this article concerns hybridity and diversity from behind the homogeneous memory.

지역담론의 재인식과 ‘트랜스시스템사회(跨體系社會)’로서의 만주

박민호 한국중국현대문학학회 2021 中國現代文學 Vol.- No.99

Focusing on Wang Hui's concept of trans-systemic society, this study examines the content and direction of local research he presents, and makes it a task to review its meaning and limitations through his ‘view of Manchuria(满洲)'. After pointing out the problems of various researchers' regional discourses, Wang Hui uses the concept of ‘trans-systemic society’ to emphasize that ‘China as a region’ has a unique system that is open and flexible, different from the Western nation state. According to him, unlike a nation-state system that homogenizes, unifies, and has clear boundaries that distinguish you from me, China is a ‘trans-system’ in which the boundaries are not clear and rather bring mutual exchange and influence. He also uses this concept of ‘trans-system’ as a way to effectively understand the region of ‘Manchuria’ (or ‘Dongbei’). In an article published in 2004 when historical disputes between Korea and China were in full swing over the ‘Northeast Project’ issue, he argues that the issue of Manchuria should be approached in an academic way, not in a political way, and that it should escape from the error of ‘national narrative writing.’ However, in his writings on Manchuria, I was not difficult to find that his discussions are still subordinate to the logic of the nation state system based on international law, and that his concept of trans-system partially exaggerates the actual phenomena of Chinese history. His criticism of nationalism is, in fact, a criticism of nationalism stained with nationalism. In order to truly rewrite the history of ‘Manchuria’ away from ‘national narrative writing’, it must first be able to recognize the history of ‘Manchuria’ as a history shared by all countries that have the region as a historical space in the past, not a specific country. Otherwise, writing the history of Manchuria will always be limited to the history of a specific nation state.

재일 한인 문학의 탈경계성과 수행성 연구

윤송아(Yoon, Song-Ah) 동남어문학회 2014 동남어문논집 Vol.1 No.38

This study aims at looking into literary reproduction aspects of ‘trans- boundary’ and ‘performativity’ together with practical semantic network shown in Korean-Japanese literature. This study was progressed by dividing Korean-Japanese literature into trans-boundary consideration and performativity one largely. In ‘trans-boundary consideration on Korean- Japanese literature’: First, the study clarified ‘trans-boundary’ by analyzing works that implemented trans-nationalism, post-nationalism, post- ideological ideal based on ‘trans-boundary imagination’. Second, this study closely examined creating process of hybrid junction and transfiguration centering on language, culture, and regions, and lightened up a fact that such reproduction of hybridity composed multinational, multicultural, ‘trans-boundary’ identity. Thirdly, the study looked into a fact that contemporary Korean-Japanese literature triggered positive awareness of issues on multicultural, multiracial society by overturning the notion like inferior physicality of Korean-Japanese that made colonial, imperial gazes solidified through trans-boundary, hybrid ideas. In ‘performativity consideration on Korean-Japanese literature,’ this study looked at a fact that Korean-Japanese literature was awakening ethnical responsibility and duties that would prepare universal field of hospitality on oppressive others after overcoming colonial history by means of divulging violent origins of imperialistic colony policy and on-sites of human right abuses together with performing literary reproduction on historical others, minority, ‘Homo Sacer’ after Korean-Japanese literature turned others viewpoints directed to inside toward outside. Moreover, the study intended to clarify another fact that Korean-Japanese literature devised the rise of ethnical subject that went into practical steps by making solidarity with others exceeding the reproduction of others. 본고는 재일 한인 문학에 나타나는 ‘탈경계성’ 및 ‘수행성’의 문학적 재현 양상과 실천적 의미망을 고찰하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 먼저 ‘재일 한인 문학의 탈경계성 고찰’에서는 첫째, ‘탈경계적 상상력’을 바탕으로 초국가, 탈민족, 탈이데올로기의 이상을 구현하고 있는 작품들을 분석함으로써 재일 한인 문학의 ‘탈경계성’을 규명하였으며, 둘째, 언어, 문화, 지역을 중심으로 혼종적 접합과 변용이 생성되는 과정을 고찰하고 이러한 혼종성의 발현이 다국가적이고 다문화적인 ‘탈경계적’ 정체성을 구성함을 밝혔다. 마지막으로 식민주의적, 제국주의적 시선이 구획해온 재일 한인의 열등한 신체성이라는 관념을 현 세대 재일 한인 문학이 탈경계적, 혼종적 발상과 기획을 통해 전복하면서 다문화, 다인종 사회에 대한 긍정적 문제의식을 촉발하고 있음을 고찰하였다. ‘재일 한인 문학의 수행성 고찰’에서는 재일 한인 문학이 자기 내부로 향하던 타자적 시선을 외부로 돌려 제국주의적 식민 정책의 폭력적 기원과 인권 유린의 현장을 폭로하고 역사적 타자들, 소수자들, ‘호모 사케르’에 대한 문학적 재현을 수행함으로써, 식민의 역사를 극복하고 억압적 타자들에 대한 보편적 환대의 장을 마련할 윤리적 책무를 환기하고 있음을 고찰하였다. 또한 타자의 재현을 넘어 그러한 타자와 연대함으로써 실천적 단계로까지 진입하는 윤리적 주체의 발흥을 도모하고 있음도 더불어 밝히고자 하였다.

트랜스문화론의 변주 (Ⅲ) : <‘트랜스모더니티’, 혹은 ‘통․횡․교․범․전․대․초 - 근대성’>에 관한 사유 - T. 토도로프, 『아메리카 정복』을 중심으로

임헌 한국프랑스학회 2016 한국프랑스학논집 Vol.95 No.-

L’objectif de ce travail est d’examiner et approfondir la problématique de la ‘transculturologie’, surtout par rapport à la ‘transmodernité’. Laquelle est un sujet, paraît-il, tellement pertinent et important à cet âge en modernisation globale. Ce travail part d’abord d’une perspective de notre époque, soi-disant ‘une ère trans-multi-hyper-global-glocal’ qui représente les tendances actuelles de ce monde présent, éminement rapide, trans- frontal et digital-smart. Il ne serait pas d’exagérer trop si l’on dit que le premier trait de ce monde en globalisation, ce sont les phénomènes transculturels, ce qui se passe à tous les coins de la terre, d’ailleurs d’une vitesse lumineuse ou supersonique. Ainsi donc, les deux facteurs majeurs de ce changement radical se résument que voici : ‘phénomène global- glocal’ et ‘culture digitale-smart’. Et fâce à cette mutation fondamentale ou paradigmatique de la civilisation mondiale, il serait tout à fait naturel de réfléchir sur les dimensions diverses de la transculturologie, dont la méthodologie majeure était déjà examinée dans notre première étude débutante, qu’on pourrait appeler 「Trans-I」. Et suite à laquelle, dans le deuxième travail précédent, 「Trans-II」, on a essayé de réfléchir sur la réciprocité de la transculturologie et du ‘transhumain’. Dans les paradigmes de celui-ci sont contenus les variants tels que ‘cyborg, humanoïde et androïde, posthumain’, etc. Au fond, en tant qu’une sorte des êtres hybrides entre l’humain et la machine, ou l’organisme et la cybernétique, ils sont tous des thèmes majeurs de la futurologie, qui sont tellement intéressants ainsi qu’on en voit souvent les représentations dans les genres de science- fiction : ‘cinéma, roman, bande dessiné, animation, jeux d’ordinateur’. Et dans ce troisième travail présent 「Trans-3」, on a l’intention de poser et approfondir, en gros, deux grandes questions, dont l’une est les rapports de la transculturologie et de la transmodernité, et l’autre concerne les champs divers et significatifs de la transmodernité, notamment autour de T.Todorov, La Conquête de l’Amérique. Quant à celle-là, la transmodernité serait un paradigme essentiel de la transculturologie, tout comme les rêciprocitês de la modernitê et de la culturologie, qui se fait en effet une sorte de la métascience à l’ère actuelle, éminement transculturelle. Et concernant celle-ci, on ne pourrait insister trop sur son importance, car l’envergure sémantique de la transmodernité s’ouvre à la dimension plurielle de la transréalité globale. C’est ainsi donc qu’on a pu explorer les zones multiples de la transmodernité, dont la problématique a commencé à être posée par le <Groupe de la modernité/colonialité> en Amérique latine. En effet on pourrait comprendre sans peine pourquoi il pose les problèmes épistémologiques et pratiques de la transmodernité, qui a finalement l’intention de dépasser la perspective eurocentrique de la ‘modernité’ et, par là, d’ouvrir une nouvelle vision de la modernité en se débarrassant de ses côtés négatifs. Il serait donc tout à fait normal et naturel que cette nouvelle notion de la modernité, à savoir la transmodernité se conceptualise en Amérique latine, grand continent qui s’est fait la plus grande victime des ‘conquistadors occidentaux’ aux empires européens, emergant tour à tour depuis le 16ème siècle en gros, âge de la Renaissance, c’est-à-dire plus de cinq cents ans. De quoi T. Todorov lui-même précise que le nombre total des améri-indiens tués compte au moins soixante-dix millions ; c’est un fait incroyable si l’on pense que les victimes juives du nazisme durant la deuxième guerre mondiale comptent six millions environ. Et ce qui paraît spécialement cher vis-à-vis de ce concept de la transmodernité, c’est qu’il ouvre l...