1980년대 중국문학사 서술의 맹점 ― 路遙의 사례를 중심으로

성근제 ( Seong Geunje ) 한국중국현대문학학회 2017 中國現代文學 Vol.0 No.81

The ‘Theory of 20th Century Chinese Literature,' which is the history of literature stated from the view of the so-called New Era that emerged after Deng Xiao Ping seized power in the 1980s, is showing the limitation of its historical validity from the contemporary views. These historical discourses that are clearly centered on the intellectuals cannot reflect the contradiction of the Chinese ruling class and the contradiction of urban-rural relations, which were the major contradictions of the Chinese society after the reformation. For this reason, these contradictions remain as the blind spots of the history of contemporary history that describes China since the 1980s. In this respect, Lu Yao, the realist writer who represents the 1980s, is one of the most critical blind spots. Although he has been welcomed by many readers since the 1980s and is a writer with significant value in the history of literature who completed the contradiction of urban-rural relations with a novel-like epic, which is one of the major contradictions of the Chinese society after the reformation, Lu Yao is strictly excluded from the major publications on the history of literature. This study recognized this issue and intended to re-examine the value of Lu Yao in the history of literature and discuss how Lu Yao is described in The History of Contemporary Chinese Literature of Hong Zi Cheng, the most recognized author of the history of literature. Through this case study, this study pointed out the epic limitation of ‘belletrism' of the Theory of 20th Century Chinese Literature, which is represented by the history of literature written by Hong Zi Cheng. Moreover, it suggests the needs for the epic of alternative history for the comprehensive view of the development of Chinese literature since the 1980s and the needs to set new study topics for that purpose.

초기 《문예보》와 1950년대 중국 문학장

성근제 ( Seong Geunje ) 한국중국어문학회 2021 中國文學 Vol.107 No.-

이 논문은 1950년대 초반 《문예보》에 대한 다각적인 분석을 통해, 1950년대 중국 문학장의 일면을 새롭게 조명해 보고자 하는 시도이다. 《문예보》는 1949년 창간된 ‘문련’의 기관지이며, ‘국가급 간행물’로 지정된, 중국공산당의 핵심 간행물 가운데 하나이다. 1950년대 중국 문예계의 중요한 이슈 토론과 논쟁들은 대부분 《문예보》 지면을 통해 전개되었다. 때문에 《문예보》는 당시 중국의 문학장 형성 과정의 주요한 이슈와 특징을 살펴보기 위한 매우 적절한 연구대상 텍스트이다. 이 논문은 《문예보》에 대한 분석을 통해 1950년대 중국 문학장 내부의 갈등을 격화시킨 구조적 원인 가운데 하나가 문예 간행물과 조직에 대한 등급화 제도와 그 부작용에 있음을 지적하고 있다. 펑쉐펑, 후펑, 띵링, 천치샤 등, 1950년대 중국 문예계에서 가장 혹독한 비판을 받은 사람들 모두가 《문예보》와 직간접적으로 관련된 인물이었던 것은 국가 간행물 제도가 당시 중국 문학장에 미친 영향을 보여주는 중요한 예증이라 할 수 있다. This paper is an attempt to shed a new light on an aspect of the Chinese literary field during the 1950’s through a multilateral analysis of the early 1950’s WenYiBao. WenYiBao is an official organ of the Chinese Federation of Literary and Arts Circles first published in 1949 and is one of the central publications of the Chinese Communist Party designated as a ‘national publication’. A majority of debates and arguments regarding important issues unfolded on the pages of WenYiBao, making WenYiBao a greatly suitable text subject of study for examining prominent issues and characteristics of the formation of China’s literary field. This essay, through an analysis of WenYiBao, calls attention to the fact that one of the systemic causes that aggravated the conflicts within China’s literary field is the rank-based policy of their literary publications and organization and its byproducts. Those who were the most harshly criticized in the 1950’s literary field ―Feng Xuefeng, Hu Feng, Ding Ling, Chen Qixia ―being individuals either directly or indirectly associated with WenYiBao is a significant exemplification of the effect a national publication policy had on China’s literary field of the time.

만주국과 중국관

성근제 ( Seong Geunje ) 성균관대학교 성균중국연구소 2020 중국사회과학논총 Vol.2 No.1

이 글은 20세기 전반기 일본 제국주의의 아시아 대륙 침략 과정과 그 논리를 일본의 ‘중국관(中國觀)’이라는 틀을 통해 재조명해보고, 일본의 중국관이 한국의 중국관 형성에 어떤 영향을 미쳤는지를 초보적으로 고찰해 보고자 하는 데에 목적을 두고 있다. 일본은 한반도와 아시아대륙에 대한 제국주의적 진출을 정당화하기 위해 다양한 이데올로기들을 제출한 바 있다. 후쿠자와 유키치의 ‘탈아입구론’으로부터 제국 말기 대동아공영론에 이르는 일련의 이데올로기들은 아시아 내에서 일본의 지위를 특권화하기 위한 것이었다. 그런데 이를 위해서는 필연적으로 아시아에서 중국이 전통적으로 차지하고 있었던 지위와 위상에 대한 재조정이 요구되었다. 때문에 20세기 초반 일본의 아시아론의 이면에는 고유의 ‘중국관’이 숨겨져 있다. 만주국의 수립 과정은 이 일본의 ‘중국관’이 다양한 형태로 구체화될 계기를 제공하였다. 그리고 이 과정에서 일본의 ‘중국관’은 그 고유한 논리와 모순, 한계들을 모두 드러내게 된다. 그러나 그 모순과 한계에도 불구하고, 15년에 걸친 만주국 경험은 아시아 여러 나라들의 전후 냉전 시기에까지 의외로 많은 영향을 미쳤는데, ‘중국관’의 문제는 그 중요한 사례 가운데 하나로 꼽을 수 있다. 이 글은 이 일련의 과정에 대한 검토를 통해 오늘날 일본의 식민지 경험을 가지고 있는 아시아 여러 나라들의 중국관에 대한 역사적 재검토가 탈식민적 과제로서의 의의를 지닐 수 있음을 드러내 보고자 하였다. This article aims to re-examine the process and logic of Japanese imperialism’s invasion of the Asian continent in the first half of the 20th century through the framework of Japan’s ‘View of China’ and to give a rudimentary look at how Japan’s view of China influenced the formation of Korea’s view of China. Japan has submitted various ideologies to justify its imperialistic advance into the Korean Peninsula and the Asian continent. From Yukichi Fukuzawa’s “The Departure from Asia for Europe” to ‘The Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere theory’ at the end of the empire, Japanese Ideologies were aimed at prerogating Japan’s status within Asia. However, this inevitably required readjustment of the status traditionally occupied by China in Asia. Thus, behind Japan’s Asian theory in the early 20th century, a unique View of China is hidden. The Manchukuo process provided an opportunity for this Japanese ‘View of China’ to be expressed in various forms. And in the process, Japanese “View of China” reveals all its own logic, contradictions and limitations. Despite the contradictions and limitations, however, the 15-year experience of Manchuria has had an unexpected impact until the Post-War era in many Asian countries, and the issue of the View of China is one of the key examples. Through a review of this series of processes, This article attempted to reveal that historical reexamination of View of China in various Asian countries with Japanese colonial experience today could have significance as a decolonial task.

문화대혁명, 진보인가 반동인가? - 베이징 초기 홍위병 운동의 쟁점에 대한 재검토를 중심으로 -

成謹濟(Seong, Geunje) 역사교육연구회 2022 역사교육 Vol.161 No.-

This paper is an attempt to create a comprehensive survey of the modernity and universality that the issues and conflicts from the Cultural Revolutionary period hold from a new perspective through political keywords that are central and widespread in modern society. To achieve this, the paper puts its focus primarily on subjects regarding the Red Guard movement in the early days of the Cultural Revolution and at the same time, limits the area of study to Beijing to provide as much context as possible on the social conflicts of the time. The study especially focuses on the “fairness-justice” and “discrimination-hate” discourse-a core social discussion in Korean society today-as a medium to reinterpret the string of specific contexts. I consider these discussions as a form of “post-revolution discourse” encompassing the democratization process its outcome. “Post-revolution discourse” has been adopted as a means to readdress the Cultural Revolution because discussions concerning the Cultural Revolution can also be understood as a form of “post-revolution discourse” regarding the achievements of the 1949 Socialist Revolution. The objectives of social activism in the 20th century are relatively clear. It aimed to establish a just policy that would allow for a fair distribution of resources and the abolition of all discriminatory practices. China took the path of socialist revolution and Korea took that of democratic movements. While both countries’ movements bore fruit, both also had clear limitations. The question is: how should the social responses to the shortcomings be compared and evaluated? This is not, by any means, an attempt to equate China in 1966 and Korea in 2021, nor is it a bid to force ideological standards that distinguish revolutions and reactions upon each party. What this paper strives to accomplish is to investigate the possibility of utilizing different historical experiences as a cross-reference for pioneering interpretations, despite uncertainties as to what is truly revolutionary and what is reactionary.

신해혁명 온양기 廣東 개혁파 지식인의 신중국 상상

성근제(Seong Geunje) 한국중국현대문학학회 2010 中國現代文學 Vol.0 No.54

This article has a purpose to check an aspect of the concept on New China among Guangdong area’s pro-reform intellectuals in early 1900s, when the atmosphere for the Xinhai Revolution was ripening, based on analysis and study of New Canton(新廣東) by Ou Ju-jia(歐?甲), a pro-reform intellectual from Guangdong, and to sound out the necessity and possibility of setting a research theme of ‘local study’ based on recognition of particularity of Guangdong. New Canton(新廣東), published in 1902 with a subtitle ‘Canton by Cantonese’, was pioneering and influential material that clearly demanded local autonomy before the Xinhai Revolution, and a text that vividly contains perspective and critical mind of the intellectuals of Canton (Guangdong), which was the actual birthplace of revolutionary forces toward the Xinhai Revolution, on China and Guangdong ‘area’. Ou Ju-jia explains the reason that Guangdong must be autonomous, and it can be autonomous, and goes on to point out the specific plan for autonomy and factors that obstruct it. His perspective and prospect, revealed through the book, is differentiated from not only that of conventional Chinese intellectuals, but also that of revolutionary intellectuals after the Xinhai Revolution. If China’s modern history is shed new light with Canton centered, based on the view of Ou Ju-jia, we will embody the critical mind on the limit of writing modern history of China by focusing on Beijing, Shanghai and Chinese Communist Party’s revolutionary activity. Moreover, we will gain an advanced perspective on the necessity of deeper research and investigation on ‘region’ to find internal energies that penetrate the entire history of China in the 20<SUP>th</SUP> century.