특집 : 대도시 인구집중과 그 문화적 반영

송승철 ( Song Seung Cheol ),윤혜준 ( Yun Hye Jun ) 한림대학교 인문학연구소 1997 인문학 연구 Vol.4 No.-

이론과 문화연구 - 양자의 갈등과 한국영문학의 좌표 : 이론과 문화연구

송승철(Song Seung-Cheol) 한국비평이론학회 2006 비평과이론 Vol.11 No.2

Cultural studies have often been pit against the literary study for the last decade, and argued as an alternative or exit to save the humanities now struggling in crisis. In this article, however, I bring in a new dichotomy between theory and cultural studies, and aim to prove that, seen from the formation of English studies in Korean since the Korean war, this opposition may be effective to make Korean English studies more rigorous practices. For this purpose, I review the environmental situations from which what is called "Theory" was imported into Korea around the mid-eighties of the last century, and also look for causes that helped it expand toward "theorea," that is, the theoretical excess in Korean English studies. My conclusion is: theorea is almost inevitably and structurally embedded in our historical and morpho-spatial conditions; in this conditions, cultural studies, initially springing from the impulse to call up the marginalized voices back to the heart of academy, may be a valuable anecdote to adjust theorea. It not only helps us obtain more balanced perspectives; also, it redirects our attention towards things and their relationships as they are. Nevertheless, the history of Anglo-American cultural studies, especially subculture studies, shows frustrating as well as encouraging signals for its potential possibilities. As studies by Janice Radway and Paul Willis evidence, they practise ethnographic methodologies towards their study objects, just when they refused to accept the prevalent theoretical premises such as Althusserian ideological state apparatuses and the patriarchical marriage. But their research ends up in re-absorbing the poststructuralist theories back to their frame, thereby almost cancelling their initial potentials ethnography opened for them.

문화연구와 문학적 상상력: 인종기술학적 하위문화 연구에 대한 비판적 검토

송승철(Seung-Cheol Song) 한국영미문학교육학회 2004 영미문학교육 Vol.8 No.2

Cultural Studies has often been mentioned as a practical alternative for the humanities alleged to be now in crisis. If one of the driving motivations propelling the Cultural Studies is to eliminate the distance between the academy and lived experience, therefore bringing in the political impulse back to the anemic academy, the current hailing of Cultural Studies as a desideratum contains a self contradictory uncanniness. Cultural Studies should not mean a 'deus ex machina' to solve all the problems the humanities face on every condition. This article is aimed to examine the ethnographic studies of subcultures since the late 70s up to now, as a way of figuring out in what sense Cultural Studies might be a possible rescue for the ailing humanities. ""Subcultures"" studies have been claimed as the most remarkable achievements in the field. Besides, three representative researchers mentioned here-Janice Radway, Dick Hebdige, and Paul Willis-have adopted the ethnographic methodology as a key approach to measure the precise caliber of the people's artistic creativities and put them alive through the strictures of structural determination. My article shows that these three researchers, though starting from different scholastic climate and dealing with different objects, draw an identical trajectory of a considerable degree in terms of their treatment of the study objects or their understanding of individual agents. First, they all start from the proposition that men and women addicted to subcultural practices are not passive victims or dropouts from the established society. Far from it, it is argued that they are active creators of their own culture. Then, all three endeavor to identify the concrete locales of 'articulation' for those subcultural creativities by which subcultural practices may turn into effective and durable cultural activities of resistance that would survive the determining pressures of the social structure. The ethnographic imagination is adopted for this purpose: that is, to find out the solid and sustainable site of articulation between the individual creativity and social determination. However, judging from three representative studies of subcultures, my study shows several gaps that make the identified articulation less persuasive and even self-contradictory. In their development to explain the articulated relations, mostly by the aid of the Gramcian concept 'hegemony,' those studies come to reveal deeply unstable fluctuations in the use of 'creativity,' finally to revise some of their starting propositions.

최재서의 『문학원론』: 외적 질서와 내적 회한

송승철 ( Seung Cheol Song ) 영미문학연구회 2014 영미문학연구 Vol.27 No.-

The current study of Choe Jaisou’s critical works suffers two discontinuities due to his active collaboration with the Japanese regime in the late colonial period. This defect in his career has caused almost all the studies of his achievements to be delimited in range to his pre-1940s works. In other words, Choe as a scholar in the English studies after the 1945 liberation has been almost out of sight up to now. This study is a critical revaluation of Choe Jaisou’s Theory of Literature (1957), allegedly representative of his post-liberation career. Choe set out to write a general introductory book on the nature and function of literature when he took up a class on the theory of literature during the Korean War, which turned out to be a book with a strikingly unique format and high level of intelligence, compared with many other books of the genre published at that time. But what continues to bother scholars of his later generation is the fact that theses merits are densely entangled with some fatal drawbacks which mar his creative and rare critical insights. For a revaluation, Choe’s Theory of Literature is approached from four directions: the arrangement of literary themes, his view of literature, the descriptive method, and his interpretation of the history of English Literature. In the process of close reading of Theory of Literature and his other major works of post-liberation period as well, the present author tries to read the work in question by placing him in a wider context of not only Korean but British and American English studies of the time. The result is that all his characteristic literary view and descriptive style show certain ambivalent but sustaining tendencies. Choe’s view of literature as order shows a high level of similarity with Anglo-British version of liberal democratic theories, and in that sense, it can be likely to leave a room of being interpreted as a repentance or reflection in detour of his past historical errors. Even so, his reflection does not go a long mile. His liberal view of order presupposes the necessary existence of evil, which helps diminish actual feeling about the contemporary sufferings of post-war Korean society.

인문대를 해체하라! -“전공인문학”에서 “교양인문학”으로

송승철 ( Seung Cheol Song ) 영미문학연구회 2013 안과 밖 Vol.0 No.34

This article is aimed to work out practical alternatives to improve the liberal arts education from the perspective of a practitioner in the humanities. The liberal arts education as well as the humanities has long been said to be sidelined in the Korean higher education system due to its exclusive emphasis on the departmental structure and professional education. Recently. However, with some changes to global economy, the humanities has been called from its status of an object of crisis to become a creative source for the production of economic profits. Some scholars in the humanities welcome this resuscitation as a great chance to save their practices from a denigration of outdated impracticality, while others are more suspectful of the possibility that their hard-won truth may be capitalized on by the greedy global economic corporations. Tracing, first, more than a century of history of the humanities from Matthew Arnold, through F.R. Leavis to the current dominance of Theory, and then, the half-century history of the liberal arts education since its inception up to now in the Korean higher education, the article shows its practitioners tend to have reinforced specialization in its competition with the social and natural sciences, with a consequence that they have been increasingly secluded from the popular interests of the masses and have been increasingly secluded from the popular interests of the masses and have restricted communication only to themselves of the masses and have restricted communication only to themselves increasingly with highly abstract jargons. Arguing that specialization has been for the most large part responsible for the current crisis of the liberal arts eduction in most of the Korean universities, this article comes up with some practical, even radical, alternatives, including disbanding the college of humanities, to bring the liberal arts education onto the center of higher educational system.

형식분석과 이데올로기 비판: 현대 맑스주의 비평방법론 검토

송승철 ( Seung Cheol Song ) 영미문학연구회 2006 안과 밖 Vol.0 No.21

"영원한 가족"의 흡인력

송승철(Song Seung-Cheol) 한림대학교 아시아문화연구소 2000 아시아문화 Vol.- No.15

특집 : 남성의 몸에 대한 인문학적 반성 ; 남성의 육체는 무엇을 보여주는가?

송승철 ( Song Seung Cheol ) 한림대학교 인문학연구소 2002 인문학 연구 Vol.9 No.-

비평용어사전 편찬과 번역에 대한 비판적 검토

송승철(Seung Cheol Song) 영미문학연구회 2001 안과 밖 Vol.10 No.-

N/A

레이먼드 윌리엄스의 『열쇳말』과 개념사

송승철 ( Seung Cheol Song ) 한림과학원 2012 개념과 소통 Vol.0 No.10

Raymond Williams`s Keywords, first published in 1976 and revised in 1983, concerns the complex process of linguistic changes, and their present significance, as applied to the ``everyday`` and ``general`` terms required to discuss issues of culture and society. The reputation of the work, however, is remarkably different within the community of conceptual history and outside of it. Inside the world of conceptual history, Keywords has often been mentioned as a critical target: being spurned by Quentin Skinner, for example. Outside, it has had considerable influence, especially in the area of cultural studies and critical theories. This article intends to approach the ``dialogue`` between Skinner and Williams, by reading Williams`s Keywords according to his original intentions, as well as by placing the book within the context of his overall academic development. Skinner`s criticisms may be summed up in three points: (1) Williams fails to distinguish words and concepts; (2) Williams collapses three different linguistic dimensions - meaning, reference, and attitude - into the internal structure of meaning alone; (3) the fundamental source of his failure is his idea of language as reflection. Williams made no rejoinder to Skinner, except indirectly through his supporters. We also should admit that the approaches of Skinner and Williams agree more often than they disagree. It is true Williams suffers some confusions, by his neglecting to distinguish semantics from pragmatics. Nevertheless, his focus on the internal structure of words does not arise primarily from expressing the reflectional idea of language, nor from any lack of understanding of the interactions within the words concerned, but rather from the delay between the inception of Keywords and its actual publication, and especially from the author`s intention to provide “an extra edge of awareness” to working-class people. This article concludes that Williams`s methodology of focusing on the internal structure of words and their development may be, when carefully used, a valuable addition to the methodolgy of conceptual history. Moreover, Williams`s intention to make words ``problematic`` should be accepted as a useful way to shake up the current approach, which is inclined otherwise to become too specialized within academic boundaries. The most significant question about Keywords may then be seen as understanding the ways that Williams problematized keywords, and to what degree he succeeded in his intention.