‘포스트’이론과 문학교육

여홍상 한국영미문학교육학회 2012 영미문학교육 Vol.16 No.3

This study aims at investigating a dialogic relationship between literary theory and literary education in the age of so-called “post”-theories in the ambiguous and controversial sense of the prefix ‘post’ both as after-theory and beyond-theory. The premise of this paper is that even though we are witnessing the proliferation and dominance of ‘theory’ in the current milieu of literary studies, it would be neither appropriate nor advisable simply to try to apply the extrinsic schema of theory to the interpretation of literary texts in the actual situation of the class. Instead, this paper argues that students’ “critical” competence in the sense of Paolo Freire’s “critical pedagogy” may be more naturally produced in the immanent process of closely reading the literary texts on the students’ own part rather than from a mechanical and reductive application of extrinsic ‘theories’ to the reading of the text. To illustrate this point, several examples of literary works across various literary genres are discussed and analyzed closely, along with some suggestions of practical pedagogic strategies involved in reading and teaching the specific texts. In particular, Susan Glaspell’s The Trifles for drama, E. B. Browning’s “The Cry of the Children” for poetry, and Joseph Conrad’s The Heart of Darkness for the novel are discussed in detail, as representative works of each genre. However, in our attempt to recuperate the ‘critical’ position suggested in the literary text, we should be cautious not to naively reproduce the “authorial ideology” in the text but to read “against the grain” of the text when necessary. In connection to the ‘critical’ reading of literary texts, even in the courses focusing on ‘theory,’ the teacher should not forget that the ultimate goal of studying a theory lies in providing a ‘critical’ perspective necessary for the actual reading of a literary text, not in learning theory for theory’s own sake. In this respect, many theory textbooks do their best to give rich examples of how to read actual literary texts in a critical perspective of a certain theory. It is often the case that many ‘theoretical’ works in fact rely on practical reading of particular literary texts or apply various kinds of literary strategies for their own theoretical or philosophical discourses. Beyond the literariness of theoretical discourses, some literary works may involve a self-reflective ‘theory’ concerning the aesthetic nature of literary texts, and the teacher may organize a literature course around the self-reflective mode of selective texts to explore the theoretical ramifications embedded in the literary work itself. The conclusion suggests that ‘critical’ competence of the students in literature classes may be enhanced not by a simple reductive application of the theory to the text but by a close and immanent reading of the literary work itself which presumably embodies a certain critical perspective to “make you see” the world in a different way. These essential ‘critical’ strategies in reading literary texts may extend to the broadened area of “cultural studies” in what we might call the age of post-literature, which is characterized by the proliferation of various kinds of non-literary cultual texts.

현대문학비평과 논증의 수사학

오형엽 ( Hyung Yup Oh ) 민족어문학회 2007 어문논집 Vol.- No.56

이 글은 문학연구 및 비평을 심층적으로 진행할 수 있는 기초를 마련하기 위해 ``현대문학비평``과 ``논증의 수사학``의 관련성을 고찰한다. 최근 새롭게 전개되고 있는 신수사학 중 ``논증의 수사학``이 보여주는 성과를 검토하고, 이를 참조할 때 얻을 수 있는 문학비평의 새로운 가능성을 모색하고자 한다. 이 글은 이러한 목적에 접근하기 위한 기초 작업으로서, 우선 수사학의 역사적 전개과정을 개괄하면서 문제를 제기한 후, ``논증의 수사학``에 해당하는 현대 수사학의 성과 중 그 출발점에 있는 카임 페렐만과 스티브 툴민의 논증 이론을 검토하고, 이들의 성과를 비판적으로 계승하고 종합적으로 재구성한 제임스 크로스화이트의 메타철학적 논증행위 이론을 고찰하고자 한다. 그리고 이러한 논증의 수사학과 관련성을 가지는 현대문학비평의 구체적 성과를 검토하기 위해 김인환의 문학비평을 살펴보려 한다. 카임 페렐만은 청중의 중요성, 논증적 상호 작용에서의 전제와 합의의 기본 특성, 논증에 표지를 세우는 공론과 같은 요소들을 강조한다는 점에서, 논증 이론 및 담화 분석에 핵심적인 틀을 제공한다. 청중을 고려하는 논증행위를 통해 차이를 존중하면서 합의에 이르는 의사소통의 가능성을 열어놓음으로써, 현대철학과 수사학이 도외시하는 사회적 비평을 가능케 하는 것이다. 수사학의 측면에서 페렐만의 논증 이론은 ``청자`` 중심의 ``의사소통 이론``이라고 볼 수 있다. 이 관점은 은유·환유·제유라는 ``표현``의 측면으로 축소되어온 수사학의 관심을 ``화자-표현-청자(청중)``이라는 의사소통의 관계망으로 확장하고, 그 맥락을 검토하면서 논증행위의 윤리적 측면까지 고려한다는 점에서 주목을 요한다. 스티브 툴민은 논증이 사용되는 구체적인 맥락에 주목함으로써 형식논리학의 불충분함을 비판하고자 한다. 그는 논증의 복합적인 성격을 고려하기 위해 ``영역(field)`` 개념을 도입하고, 양태적 용어들이 실천적 논증의 과정에서 수행하는 실질적 기능이 무엇인지 명백하게 제시하려 한다. 그리고 논증 과정에서 발생하는 명제들의 기능을 밝히고, 그 논증에 대항하는 비판들에게 어떻게 적절한 논증을 제시하고 분석하는지를 규명한다. 수사학의 측면에서 툴민의 논증 이론은 ``화자`` 중심의 ``화용론적 언어학``이라고 볼 수 있다. 이 관점은 언술의 구체적인 맥락과 실제로 작동하는 방식에 주목함으로써, 주장과 근거, 근거에 대한 이유와 이유에 대한 지지, 자격과 반박 등의 정당화 절차에 대해 구체적으로 검증한다는 점에서 주목할 필요가 있다. 제임스 크로스화이트는 페렐만의 ``청자`` 중심의 ``의사소통 이론``과 비트겐슈타인?오스틴?스티브 툴민 등의 ``화자`` 중심의 ``화용론적 언어학``을 종합적으로 수용하면서 논증행위 이론을 재구성한다. ``주장하기``와 ``질문하기``, ``갈등``과 ``청중``을 중심으로 재구성한 논증행위의 이론은 차이와 갈등을 이용하여 탐구를 수행하고 사회적 합의에 도달하려 한다. 그리하여 이성의 수사학은 차이로부터 발생하는 갈등을 비폭력적으로 해결하는 가능성을 강화하고, 공준이 무너지고 있는 사회적?문화적 현실 속에서 사회비평의 가능성을 옹호하며, 고등교육의 목적에 대한 신뢰할 만한 설명을 제시한다. 김인환은 수사학과 관련된 의사소통 이론 및 화용론적 언어학을 문학연구 및 비평에 접목시켜 독자적인 관점을 창안한다. 그의 문학 This paper investigates relativity of ``contemporary literary criticism`` and ``rhetoric of argument`` to ready footing that can progress literature study and criticism deeply. After coming into question summarizing historic unfolding process of rhetoric, this paper wish to investigate Cham Perelman and Stephen Toulmin`s theory that at the starting point among ``rhetoric of argument`` result of modern rhetoric. And this paper wish to investigate James Crosswhite`s meta-philosophical argumentation theory, and investigate Kim In-Hwan`s literary criticism to examine specific result of contemporary literary criticism that have relativity with rhetoric of argument. Cham Perelman offers central model on argument theory at point that emphasize audience, argumental interaction, public opinion. By have opened possibility of communication that arrive at mutual agreement respecting difference through argumentation that consider audience, his theory enable social criticism. Cham Perelman`s argument theory can be regarded as ``communication theory`` of the centering around ``audience`` in side of rhetoric. Stephen Toulmin criticizes insufficiency of formal logic giving attention to concrete context that argument is used. He introduces ``field`` concept, and tris to actual function of conditional terminologies. And he clears function of propositions that happen in argument process, examines how to presenting and analyzing suitable argument to critiques that opposes to the argument. Toulmin`s argument theory can be regarded as ``speech-act linguistics`` of the centering around ``speaker`` in side of rhetoric. James Crosswhite reconstructs argumentation theory that accommodating Perelman``s ``communication theory`` of the centering around ``audience`` and Wittgenstein?Austin?Stephen Toulmin``s ``speech-act linguistics`` of the centering around ``speaker`` synthetically. Argumentation theory that have reconstructed in the centering of ``claiming`` ``questioning`` ``conflict`` ``audience`` tries to achieve investigation using difference and conflict, tries to reach in social agreement. Kim In-Hwan invents an original viewpoint that communication theory and speech-act linguistics connected with rhetoric being grafted together in literary study and criticism. His literary criticism secures viewpoint of ``synthetic rhetoric`` that combine ``rhetoric of figure`` and ``rhetoric of argument`` mutually, and examine closely literary principle applied to both writing and criticism. Kim In-Hwan`s viewpoint that investigates method of novel correlating grammar category, the linguistic internal regulation with description viewpoint imply the part of ``speech-act linguistics`` and ``rhetoric of communication``. Kim In-Hwan``s method of reading that emphasize simultaneously ``reading of details`` and ``reading of context`` has inner relation with ``communication theory`` and ``speech-act linguistics`` and ``meta- philosophical rhetoric`` in the point of giving attention to context and intertextuality. If we continue to study refering to these investigation, we may suspect following scientifical and critical contribution. First, literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of argument`` can seek mutual complement with literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of figure``. Second, literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of argument`` can think the ethicality and sociality as well as esthetics of text. Third, literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of argument`` supplies important suggestive point to approach in new problem area that contemporary literary criticism is facing. Fourth, We can secure new angle of literature education utilizing literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of argument`` to methodology of literature education.

주체문예론 연구(2) -‘주체문예리론체계’의 공시적 분석

김성수 상허학회 2022 상허학보 Vol.64 No.-

The purpose of this article is to perform a synchronous analysis of the theoretical structure of North Korea’s Juche Literary Theory. North Korea established the Juche Literary Theory in the field of literature and art as a part of “Systematizing the One Ideology of the Juche Idea” (1967) and set it as a unique theory. The ideologues of the Juche literary theory first discovered and recorded the ‘Anti-Japanese Revolutionary Literary & Art’ of Kim Il-sung made them into literary & art’ history traditions. Under the guidance of Kim Jong-il, they wrote Theory of Film Art , Theory of Literature Based on Juche Thought , and Theory of Juche Literary . According to the blueprint, Juche Literary Thought , Juche Literary Theory Study , Juche Music Series , Juche Art Series , Juche Film Theory Series , and Juche Literature Series were completed. Along with this, Kim Jong-il’s literary theory was reviewed in Literary and Art Gifted , Comrade Kim Jong Il’s Literary Theory Series , Comrade Kim Jong Il’s Literary Lead History , Comrade Kim Jong Il’s Theory of Thought: Literature and Arts , Comrade Kim Jong Il’s Literary and Art Achievements , was published as a series of Literary Revival in the 20th Century and Kim Jong Il . In the early 2000s, the theory of ‘military first literature’, which reflected the ‘military-first rule, military-first ideology’ to overcome the crisis of the collapse of the North Korean system, emerged rapidly in the early 2000s. However, it was only a temporary transformation of the Juche literary theory, and it was not systematized as a separate independent theory. There were no theoretical books published other than Military First Revolution Literature and Art and Kim Jong Il . In the system of Juche literary theory, the essence of literature changed from ‘communist anthropology’ to Juche’s anthropology. The ideology of literature changed from Marxism-Leninism through the Juche idea to ‘Kim Il-sung Kim Jong-ilism’. The creative method and aesthetics have changed from socialist realism to ‘Juche realism’. The characteristic components of socialist realist aesthetics also went through ‘partisanship, proletarian class character, people’ in the ‘popularity, class character, partisanship’ category, and ‘fidelity to the leader’ element was added in the Juche realist aesthetic. The status of the creative method has changed from the principle of realistic typology to creative guidelines such as ‘seed theory’ and ‘speed war’. The literary tradition changed from KAPF’s theory of succession of proletarian literature to the theory of monolithic anti-Japanese revolutionary literature and art, and then to the dualism of anti-Japanese revolutionary literary and artistic ‘tradition’ and progressive literature’s ‘legacy’. The typical figures representing each era are also positive protagonists, heroes-warriors, rider of the Chollima Movement under the socialist system, etc. symbolizing each era under the Juche ideological system, Juche’s human, 3 revolutionaries, ‘hidden heroes,’ military first fighters, ‘rider of the Mallima’ was created as a new humanoid. 이 글은 북한 주체문예론의 이론구도를 공시적으로 분석하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 북한은 ‘주사상의 유일사상 체계화’(1967)의 일환으로 문학예술분야에서 주체문예론을 만들어 유일무이한 이론으로 정했다. ‘항일혁명문학예술’을 문학예술사적 전통으로 격상하고, 김정일의 지도를 받아 영화예술론 , 주체사상에 기초한 문예리론 , 주체문학론 의 설계도에 따라 문예리론총서 주체적문예사상 , 주체적문예리론연구 , 주체음악총서 , 주체미술총서 , 주체영화리론총서 , 주체문학전서 등의 방대한 이론체계를 집대성하였다. 이와 함께 김일성, 김정일 저작의 문예이론과 지도지침을 위대한 수령 김일성 동지의 문학 령도사 문학예술의 영재 , 친애하는 지도자 김정일동지의 문예리론총서 , 친애하는 지도자 김정일동지 문학령도사 , 위대한 령도자 김정일 동지의 사상리론 문예학 , 친애하는 지도자 김정일 동지의 문학예술업적 , 20세기문예부흥과 김정일 시리즈로 출간, 보급하였다. ‘고난의 행군’기로 불리는 체제 위기를 극복하기 위한 ‘선군(先軍)통치, 선군사상’을 반영한 ‘선군(혁명)문학’ 담론이 2000년대 초 급부상하였다. 그러나 주체문예론의 일시적 변형일 뿐 별도의 독자적 이론으로 체계화되지 않았다. 선군혁명문학예술과 김정일 외에는 문예이론서가 나오지 않았다. 주체문예론의 체계를 공시적으로 분석하면, 문학의 본질을 전에는 막연하게 ‘인간학’으로 규정했는데 ‘주체의 문예관’에 의해 ‘자주시대의 문학은 주체의 인간학’이라고 재규정되었다. 문학의 이념은 마르크스레닌주의에서 주체사상을 거쳐 ‘김일성김정일주의’로, 미학은 사회주의적 사실주의에서 ‘주체사실주의’로 변모하였다. 사회주의적 사실주의 미학의 특징적 구성요소도 ‘인민성, 계급성, 당파성’ 범주에서 ‘당성, 로동계급성, 인민성’을 거쳐, 주체사실주의 미학에선 ‘수령에의 충실성’ 요소가 추가되었다. 창작방법은 사실주의적 전형화 원리에서 ‘종자론’ ‘속도전’ 같은 창작지침으로 위상이 달라졌다. 문학사적 전통은 카프의 프로문학 계승론에서 항일혁명문학예술 유일 전통론을 거쳐 항일혁명문학예술 ‘전통’과 진보적 문학 ‘유산’의 이원론으로 바뀌었다. 각 시대를 대표하는 전형적 형상도 사회주의체제 하의 ‘긍정적 주인공, 영웅—전사, 천리마 기수’ 등에서 주체사상체제 하의 각 시대를 상징하는 ‘주체적 인간, 3대혁명소조원, 숨은 영웅, 선군투사, 만리마 기수’ 등이 새로운 인간형으로 창조되었다.

중일(中日) 근대문예론의 형성과 그 이동(異同)에 관한 소고(小考) - 왕궈웨이(王國維)의 문예담론과 쓰보우치 쇼요(坪內逍遙)의 문예론을 중심으로 -

정해리,류창진 중국인문학회 2024 中國人文科學 Vol.- No.86

This paper attempts to compare the literary theory of Tsubouchi Shoyo(坪內逍遙), which was developed from the 'arts-the arts' examined throughout Wang Guowei's(王國維) literary theory, and Wang Guei's literary theory, which was established as the early modern Japanese literary theory. As Tsubouchi Shoyo's first statement, 'Novels are art(美術)' in Shosetsu Shinzui(小說神髓) opened the chapter of modern Japanese literary theory, this paper aims to explore Wang Guowei's literary theories in relation to the formation of modern literary theory in China. Therefore, in the case of the formation of Japanese modern art theory, Tsubouchi Shoyo's use of Western literary theory and logic in his own way within the magnetic field of pragmatic thought and literary dance theory that spread throughout Japanese society in the 1880s, while building a literary theory that incorporated the discourse of the Japanese art world at the time, was used as a guide to examine the formation of Chinese modern art theory and Wang Guowei's literary theory treatise. This was further utilized to examine the shifts in the theses that were common to their literary theories. In fact, the formation environment of Sino-Japanese modern literary theory was different in terms of its reception and paragraph situation according to the way the two countries experienced modern East Asia, but there are also similar points. It is also true that Wang Guowei's and Tsubouchi Shoyo's views and arguments on the literary arts developed in very different ways after they published their literary theory works and related papers, depending on their respective life trajectories and the circumstances of their respective countries. Nevertheless, neither Tsubouchi Shoyo nor Wang Guowei built a separate literary theory that completely excluded the dominant discourse in the academic and literary circles of their time. Rather, Wang Guowei, who studied a wide range of disciplines, including mathematics and natural sciences, could be said to have been more attuned to and thought about the axioms of modern China's time and built his literary theories in response to them.

이론비평'을 통한 비평이론 교육

강우성(Woosung Kang) 한국영미문학교육학회 2013 영미문학교육 Vol.17 No.3

This paper purports to present practical teaching models and curriculum of literary theory at a graduate level in Korea by examining the theoretical and pedagogical implications of what might be termed "Theory Criticism" in several academic journals in Anglophone culture for the past 10 years. Critically analysing the recent trends of theory studies, especially during the period after the so-called "the Death of Theory," I argue that journals devoted to theory demonstrated the significant change in doing theory in terms of thinking possibilities of political potentiality and cultural diversification of theory itself. Among various journals, Diacritics, Critical Inquiry, and Parallax are chosen for their consistent commitment to the theoretical discussion in the field of literary studies. Theoretical concerns of these journals after 2005 can best be classified under three categories: increasing political interest, continued devotion to cultural or aesthetic phenomena, and the renewed reflection on what makes a theory a theory. Current shifts in theory studies mark a crucial challenge to our literary theory education in Korea, where classroom situation now suffers a dire lack of the discipline in critical thinking amidst relative proliferation of critical discourse outside the academia. One way to overcome such an indigence of theoretical education in Korea may come from the lesson of recent political turn of theory in Anglophone studies. It is urgent as well as necessary to positively adopt the pedagogy of theory criticism while maintaining the text-based close reading in dealing with theoretical texts. For this task, I present three teaching models practically applicable in literary theory education in Korea: seminar on theory criticism, theoretical encounter with literary texts, and thematic approach to theory. As the case of actual teaching experience based on the thematic approach indicates, literary theory education via "theory criticism" proved not only viable but practicable as well. The aim of teaching literary theory should be geared to enhance none other than the faculty of critical thinking itself.

문학교육의 이론과 실제 - 이론의 실천성에 대한 논란을 중심으로

최지현 한국국어교육학회 2012 새국어교육 Vol.0 No.89

Quite a number of literature teachers complain that literary education theories can not help them teach a literary text. Furthermore, they assert those are to stay in a empty discussion. Their argue is about the role of the literary education theory. However it is also considered as setting up the relationship between theory and practice. In this context, I investigated the relationship between academy discourse and education discourse of literary education in South Korea. I also discussed how the incorrect preconceptions about the phenomenon of educational theory, the barriers to enter from educational discourse to academic discourse, and the lack of understanding as a researcher on educational field make a literary education theory be in controversy. And finally I came up with an assignment to carry out from three paths of actualization of academy discourse on literary education, that’s to say, ‘Transition’, ‘Adjustment’, and ‘Didactical transposition’, Quite a number of literature teachers complain that literary education theories can not help them teach a literary text. Furthermore, they assert those are to stay in a empty discussion. Their argue is about the role of the literary education theory. However it is also considered as setting up the relationship between theory and practice. In this context, I investigated the relationship between academy discourse and education discourse of literary education in South Korea. I also discussed how the incorrect preconceptions about the phenomenon of educational theory, the barriers to enter from educational discourse to academic discourse, and the lack of understanding as a researcher on educational field make a literary education theory be in controversy. And finally I came up with an assignment to carry out from three paths of actualization of academy discourse on literary education, that’s to say, ‘Transition’, ‘Adjustment’, and ‘Didactical transposition’,

‘제3세계 문학론’과 ‘식민주의 비평’의 극복

오창은(Oh Chang-eun) 우리문학회 2008 우리文學硏究 Vol.0 No.24

1970년대 중반 이후 본격적으로 제기돼 1980년대 초반 뜨거운 논쟁을 불러 일으켰던 ‘제3세계 문학론’은 1970ㆍ1980년대 비평을 이해하는 핵심적 담론이다. 1980년대 문학에 대한 객관적 인식을 위해서는 1970년대 중반 이후의 문학비평 담론의 흐름에 주목해야 한다. 제3세계 문학에 대한 인식으로 한국문학은 라틴 아메라카의 종속심화 독점강화 논의를 한국적으로 재해석 할 수 있었다. 백낙청, 김종철, 구중서 등의 ‘제3세계 문학론’은 한국비평담론의 자생성 획득 과정에서 나온 주목할 만한 논의였다. 민족적 과제에서 더 나아가 ‘연대’의 모색으로 이어진 ‘제3세계 문학론’은 서구중심주의 극복의 과정에서 도출된 것이었고, 더불어 스스로 주변성을 인식함으로써 주체화되어 가는 여정에서 직면하게 된 비평담론이었다. ‘제3세계 문학론’은 민족문학 담론과 결합함으로써 한국적 문학담론의 형성 가능성을 타진할 수 있었고, 더불어 폐쇄적 민족주의와 갈등하는 비평이론으로서 기능하게 되었다. ‘불의 시대’라고 일컬어지는 1980년대는 1970년대가 배태시킨 인과론적 결론일 수 있으며 세계인식에 있어 선배 비평가들이 견지하려했던 ‘민족문학과 세계문학’의 긴장사이에서 발생한 인식론적 고투의 소산이다. ‘제3세계 문학론’은 한국비평담론에서 ‘식민주의 극복’의 과제가 한국적 특수성과 밀착된 탈식민적 인식과 연결될 수 있음을 실증했고, 서구 문학에 갇히지 않은 한국문학의 주체성을 예시해 주었다. The Third World Literary Theory, which had fully dominated the discourse in the mid-1970s and became a hot issue in the early 1980s, is a core discourse in the understanding of criticism in the 1970s and 1980s. There have been two strong tendencies up until recent years: one is to attempt to consider the literature of the 1970s as separate from that of the 1980s, and the other one is to attempt to stress on the specialization of literary discourse as of 1987. In the core of the literary criticism that was prevalent both in the 1970s and 1980s, however, existed the deepening process of national literary theory and the discussion of realism triggered by the Third World Literary Theory. There are already three different analytical frameworks based on the Third World Literary Theory, which have been discussed in social science: modernism theory, dependency theory, and production mode theory. Particularly, the dependency theory and production mode theory make up the core cognitive structure in the social structure debate in the 1980s. For an objective recognition of the literature in the 1980s, it is necessary to pay attention to the literary criticism discourse after the mid-1970s in which the recognition of the Third World lay as a universal form of resistance, and as the logic of national independence led by the people intervenes, it has become more revolutionary. The recognition of the Third World has provided us with an opportunity to reinterpret the discussion on the deepening dependency and strengthening monopolization in Latin America from the perspective of Korea. Therefore, the realization that Korean society is a post-colonial, state-monopolized capitalist society has become widespread, and the desire for democracy along with the growth of people-consciousness strengthened. A close and careful discussion is required in the process in which thoughts and discussions by Baek, Nak Cheong, Kim, Jong Cheol, Lim, Hyeon Yeong, and Park, Tae Soon were criticized and substituted by Chae, Kwang Seok, Kim, Myeong In, Baek, Jin Ki, and Hyun, Joon Mans people-led revolution theory. We can, however, realize that the deepening recognition of the Third World played a crucial role in the center of the discourse. As the national literary theory joined the Third World, it could overcome reactionism and provide the basis on which it could join hands with right-wing nationalism. Therefore, the radical ideas led by Chae, Kwang Seok were possible only based on the influence of national literature, realism, and the Third World literary theory that had progressed since the mid- and late-1970s. The 1980s, often referred to as the "era of fire," was the logical outcome of the 1970s, and the universality that existed in the tension between national literature and global literature, the very relationship that critics of the past strived to take as a world viewpoint, was overthrown by the speciality, national independence and people independence, delineated by critics of latter times.

‘이론 이후’의 문학에 어떤 희망이 가능한가?

강우성(Woosung Kang) 한국영미문학교육학회 2006 영미문학교육 Vol.10 No.1

  In the aftermath of the explosive proliferation of theories for some 30 years, it is now fashionable to refer to “the death of theory” as a way of expressing or reshaping the critical concerns about the future of literary studies. Some conservative critics insist that now is the time to return to the study of literary “text itself,” while literary theorists present the idea that it is impossible to do without theory even if we admit that literary theory can no longer be counted upon as the legitimate guide for literary scholars. After the decline of so-called “grand narratives” and after a few rounds of “free plays” by psychoanalysis and deconstruction, however, theory today definitely loses its intellectual attractiveness in many, if not all, fields of humanities. With these contentions and diagnoses, this paper argues that the recent appearance of discourses on the crisis of literature, which is based on the critique of the enthusiasm for literary theory turning sour, does not merit a full critical attention, because what the critics of “text itself” contend still presupposes a theory of their own, that is, an a-political formalism.<BR>  Moreover, even the critic like Karatani Kojin, who laments over the death of modern literature in the Western countries as well as countries like Korea and Japan, believes that it is not theory but the post-industrial society that assumes such a decisive threat to the future of literature. Focusing on the critical implications of deconstruction, especially the concept of literature in the deconstructive criticism, this thesis explores the way to refashion the status of literature and literary theory in the future. Literature takes a significant place in Derrida"s deconstruction, but not as an independent realm but rather as a signifier to unsettle and destabilize any kind of coherence. As a theory of what makes a theory a theory, deconstruction contributes to the demonstration of the necessary theoretical moment in every text. What matters is not to theorize whether theory is possible or desirable but to figure out the way to develop a theory about the theoretical moment of literary text itself. Deconstruction would feature only a first step.

문학과 교육 문학교육의 위기와 문학교육이론의 성장

오문석 ( Moon Seok Oh ) 조선대학교 인문학연구원 2010 인문학연구 Vol.0 No.40

The serious reflection on the failure of modern literary education has led us to the theoretical maturation of literary education. It is because we could discover the causes of failure when we attempted to apply literary theories directly to literary class. The education of literature in Korea, which began in the 1980s, was founded upon two main ideas, New Criticism and Literary History, which brought about two disastrous consequences. One is the cult of literary canon; the other the malicious prevalence of an educational tendency which emphasizes knowledge implantation. Furthermore, the absence of specific theoretical tools for teaching literature in classrooms invited the necessary failure of literary education. Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to argue that the Korean theory of literary education was sprouted from the critical examination of the reality of modern literary education which was predicated on New Criticism and Literary History. In other words, the birth of the theory of literary education was ironically the fruit of the failed education of literature. As many scholars have argued, the causes of failure were largely due to the fact that the theory of literary education was parasitic on literary theory. This argument led to create a tendency that put an emphasis on the difference between literary theory and literary educational theory. This tendency was reflected on the education of literature so that the goal of literary education was modified from literariness to literary competence. Nevertheless, our school education of literature is still focused on inculcating factual knowledge about canonical works. This phenomenon can be attributed to the lack of critical analyses about the failure of literary education. The malfunction of modern literary education can be seen as a result of a fundamental change in social formation - the change that a new type of consuming subject of modern literature emerges while the old consumers fades away. However, those in charge of literary education either did not recognize or willingly overlooked this change. Accordingly, close examinations about this newly emerging subjects are required in order to rebuild the system of literary education in the future.

북한 ‘종자론’의 문예론적 특성과 통치담론화에 관한 연구

장용철 사단법인 한국평화연구학회 2012 평화학연구 Vol.13 No.4

North Korea set up a “Juche, or Self-reliance Literary Theory” which puts an emphasis on Juche Ideology in the early 1970s. Kim Jong-il, North Korea's dear leader, proposed a “Seed Theory” as a key creative writing methodology for a juche literary theory. A “seed” here is the “nucleus” which is the central fact as well as an idealogical kernel of literary works as well. The reason why Kim Jong-il advocated the seed theory in that period of history is because that in the literary and art sector which functioned as an important ruling mechanism of his regime, he inserted a seed of “juche” in the literature and arts and attempted to make it play a right function which was capable of producing the pieces which were responsive to his regime and would contribute effectively to establishing a single system of North Korea. Also, as in that period in the political and social aspects, socialist countries in Eastern Europe were riding the waves of openness, North Korea tried to stick to its own independent system through such a seed theory in the aspect of culture. Afterwards, the seed theory worked as a key theory for “juche literary theory” and served as the principle for creating and evaluating the general literary pieces. Entering into the 2000s, the seed theory reappeared by Kim Jong-il as a part of “new thinking.” What the seed theory appeared as a principle for creation across the politics and society as a whole beyond literature is because that it is Kim Jong-il's independent ruling theory which connotes a view of his philosophy and also is a way through which North Korea would hold fast to and reproduce a seed of “juche ideology,” identity which the North Korea system requires. Therefore, North Korea is likely to continue to use this seed theory as a principle for creation across the political, social and economical spectrum as well as a mechanism for politic-social consent in the “speed battle” including its big group creation in the future. 북한은 1970년대 초반 주체사상을 중시하는 ‘주체문예이론’을 정립하였다. 김정일은 주체문예이론의 창작방법론으로 ‘종자론’을 제시하였는데, 여기서의 ‘종자’란 작품의 중심을 이루는 ‘핵’이며, ‘사상적 알맹이’이라고 정의하였다. 김정일이 이 시기에 종자론을 주장한 것은 체제의 중요한 통치기제로 작용하는 문학예술 분야에 있어, ‘주체’라는 종자를 삽입, 유일체계 확립에 있어 효과적으로 기여하는 체제 순응작품 생산에 순기능 역할을 하기 위한 것이다. 또한 정치사회적으로 이 시기는 동유럽 사회주의 국가들이 개방화의 물결을 타고 있어, 북한 나름의 독자체계를 고수하기 위한 문화적 대응의 측면이 있었다. 이후, 종자론은 ‘주체문학론’의 핵심이론으로 기능하며, 문예작품 일반의 창작 및 평가원칙으로 적용되었으며, 2000년대에 들어 다시 김정일에 의해 ‘신사고’라는 통치담론의 일환으로 등장하였다. 종자론이 문예분야를 넘어 정치사회 전반에 걸쳐 창조의 원칙으로 등장한 것은 종자론은 바로 김정일의 철학관이 함축된 독자적인 통치이론이고, 그것은 결국 북한 체제가 요구하는 정체성이기도 한 ‘주체사상’의 종자를 고수, 재생산하는 방식이기 때문이다. 따라서 북한은 향후에도 종자론을 정치·사회·경제 전반에 걸쳐 창조의 원칙으로, 대집단창작을 비롯한 '속도전' 등에 있어 정치사회적 동의기제로 사용할 것으로 보인다.