한국의 근대성 연구와 "근대주의"

황정아(Jung-A Hwang) 사회와철학연구회 2016 사회와 철학 Vol.0 No.31

포스트모더니즘의 위세가 꺾이고 근대-이후(post-modern)를 말하기가 한층 어려워지면서 근대가 갖는 근대다운 성격, 곧 근대성을 해명하는 과제는 한층 중요해졌다. 다시금 활발해진 근대성에 관한 연구는 한국 학계에서도 역사학, 사회학, 문학등의 분야에서 그간 여러 논쟁을 거치며 성과를 축적해왔으나 하나의 통합적 연구의 짜임새를 갖추고 진행되지는 않았다. 이 글은 여러 분야에서 이루어진 한국의 근대성연구가 어떤 공통의 수렴 혹은 결절의 지점을 만들어내는가를 살펴보려는 시도이다. 먼저 한국 역사학계의 오랜 논쟁구도였던 내재적 발전론 대(對) 식민지근대화론을 넘어서려는 시도로서 제시된 몇몇 역사담론을 대상으로 삼아 오랜 이분법의 극복을 향한 이론적 탐색이 어떤 근대성 개념에 기대고 있는지 알아본다. 이어 그 가운데 특히 탈근대주의 범주로 분류되고 근대성에 대한 근본적 비판을 표방한 식민지근대성론의 주장들을 상세히 읽어보면서, 이 담론이 식민성과 근대성 개념을 실패와 공백과 불가능이라는 전형적인 포스트-주의적 논리를 통해 정의함으로써 오히려 근대성의 경계를 확장해주는 결과에 이른 점을 분석한다. 한국 근대성연구에서 또 하나 두드러진 특징은 유럽중심주의적 근대성개념을 넘어서려는 문제의식이다. 이와 관련해서는 먼저 서구적 근대성 담론을 뚜렷이 의식하면서 그와의 대비혹은 대조를 통해 한국 및 동아시아의 독자적 근대성 개념을 구축하고자 한 몇몇 논의들이 도달한 지점을 가늠해본다. 이런 대안근대성 담론 가운데 최근 특히 주목받고 있는 유교적 근대성 논의가 현재의 근대성 연구 지형에서 어떤 함의를 갖는지도 살펴본다. 이상의 분석을 토대로 결론에서는 식민성에서 출발하면서도 기존의 탈식민담론과 구별되는 동아시아 혹은 한국 특유의 역사 서사 구축이 갖는 중요성을 강조한다. 또한 근대성을 온전히 해명하는 일은 역설적으로 근대의 지평에 갇히지 않고 근대 이후에 대한 모색을 유지해야만 가능하다는 점에서 ‘근대주의’의 극복이 여전한 과제임을 지적한다. With the theoretical popularity of post-modernism petering out, it became much harder to discourse on the “post-modern” period and the task of elucidating modernity has become ever more im portant. Studies on modernity have thus far built up some notable achievements in Korean academia as well, with wide-ranging debates in the realm s of history, social science, and literature. However, it does not mean that those studies have progressed in a highly structured manner. This paper explores whether such various discourses on modernity are indeed creating certain convergent points. First, some theoretical attempts to transcend the dichotomy between the Indigenous Development Discourse and the Colonial Modernization Discourse that generates long-standing debates in the Korean historical studies, will be investigated in an effort to understand the sem antics of the m odernity concept in those attem pts. The Colonial Modernity Discourse will also be exam ined, as it supposedly presents fundam ental criticisms on modernity, and it w ill be shown that the discourse has paradoxically led to the expansion of the boundaries of the modern as it defines the concepts of modernity and coloniality based on the archetypal postmodern logic which is highlighted by failure, lacuna, impossibility, and soon. Another noticeable element in the studies of modernity in South Korea is the problem atics of overcoming the Eurocentric concept of modernity. In this regard, as some discourses aim to establish a different modernity concept grounded on peculiarly Korean or East Asian historical experiences, this paper seeks to evaluate how well those discourses have achieved their professed goal. A particular emphasis will be placed on the Confucian Modernity Discourse, which has been drawing much theoretical attention recently among “alternative m odernity” discourses. In the conclusion, this paper underlines the importance of developing historical narratives unique to East Asia or Korea through redefining the coloniality concept. The task of overcom ing ‘Modernism’ is also a remaining challenge, because modernity can never be fully elucidated insofar as the perspective is trapped in the modern horizon.

1970~90년대 민족문학론의 근대성 비판

강정구 ( Kang Jeong-gu ) 국제어문학회 2006 국제어문 Vol.38 No.-

이 논문은 1970~90년대 민족문학론의 시대적인 가치와 의미를 인정하면서도, 근대를 억압과 저항의 시대로 바라본 민족문학론의 인식을 문제 삼는다. 이런 인식이 근대를 이항대립적인 시선으로 바라보게 만들기 때문이다. 이 글에서는 탈식민주의의 논리를 참조해서 근대를 혼성과 모방의 시대로 규정하고, 이런 관점에서 민족문학론의 근대성 논의에서 가장 핵심이 되는 억압과 피억압 또는 억압과 저항의 논리를, 구체적으로는 근대 주체론, 근대문학 기점론, 근대 극복론을 비판·해체한다. 먼저, 민족문학론의 근대 주체론은 선도·대변의 대상이었던 `대다수의 사람들`을 민중으로 명명하고 억압적인 현실을 극복해 나아가는 저항의 주체로 전유한다는 점에서 문제점이 지적된다. 민중을 피억압·피지배 계층(김지하의 경우)으로, 그리고 진보사관에 근거한 변혁주체(백낙청의 경우)로 보는 것은, 지배권력과 민중 사이의 혼성적인 관계성을 무시한 태도이기 때문이다. 그리고, 민족문학론은 마샬 버먼의 “근대성의 경험”을 “일반적인 기준”으로 삼아서 1894년 동학농민운동說(백낙청의 경우) 혹은 1905년 애국계몽기說(최원식의 경우)을 근대기점으로 설정하는데, 이 때 문제는 그 “일반적인 기준”이 일면적인 시각으로 논의된다는 점이다. 이렇게 되면 근대적 경험과 근대문학의 다양하고 주목할 만한 측면들이 논의에서 제외되는 문제점이 있다. 끝으로, 민족문학론의 근대 극복론은 근대 시기의 反민중적인 억압성을 비판하고 민중 중심의 극복논리를 모색한 논의에 대한 것이다. 백낙청은 근대의 성과에 적응하면서도 근대적인 민중 억압을 극복하자는 `이중과제`를 제안하지만, 그의 주장은 지배권력과 민중의 관계가 혼성적인 근대의 상황을 간과한 채 억압에 대한 극복·저항 방안을 모색한 독아론적인 논리라는 점에서 중요한 한계가 있다. 오늘날은 지난 시대에 치열하게 응전한 민족문학론의 문제의식을 본받으면서도, 근대를 바라보는 이항대립적인 인식에서 벗어나 새로운 혼성성의 논리를 모색해야 할 시점이다. This essay is concerned that What is modernity of the discourse of minjokmunhak. The discourse of minjokmunhak. is discussed oppression-resistance in modernity. But the logic of oppression-resistance is stiff perspective. Because the discourse of minjokmunhak see 1970~80` minjung in binaristic the oppressed and a priori fighter, but in reality 197 0~80` minjung is hybrid and mimic sein. The Aim of this essay show the discourse of starting point of modernity, the discourse of modern subject, and the discourse of overcoming modernity, critically and dis-constructive. Frist, the discourse of starting point of modernity in the discourse of minjokmunhak is that they look minjung`s history experience in one-sided. Secondly, the discourse of modern subject in the discourse of minjokmunhak is that they minjung` reality and theory as image `from the oppressed to fighter` is estranged. Thirdly, the discourse of overcoming modernity in the discourse of minjokmunhak is that they see overcoming modernity in minjung` acton, but that is ideological fantasy. So the discourse of oppression-resistance is changed in the discourse of reality-resistance.

한국 근대소설과 식민지 근대성: 시론적 연구-염상섭의 「만세전」을 중심으로

김명인 ( Kim Myoung-in ) 민족문학사학회·민족문학사연구소 2017 민족문학사연구 Vol.64 No.-

이 논문은 한국 역사학계에서 식민지 시대를 바라보는 양대 담론이었던 내재적 발전론과 식민지근대화론이 공히 지닌 근대 추종적 경향과 민족주의적 경향을 극복하여 지배와 저항, 포섭과 동의, 예속과 복종이 혼재하는 식민지체제에서의 근대성의 성격을 규명하기 위해 내세운 `식민지근대성론`을 식민지시대 문학을 중심으로 하는 한국 근대문학 연구와 연결하기 위한 시론적 작업이다. 그러나 이 논문에서는 이 `식민지근대성론`의 합리적 핵심을 받아들이되 식민지 근대성 범주 안에 식민주체의 헤게모니적 지배와 그에 구속되는 피식민 주체의 심리와 행동양식으로 요약될 수 있는 역사학계에서 말하는 `식민지 근대성` 으로는 다 포획되지 않는 근대성 자체의 해방적 성격와 식민지 지배의 근원적 폭력성, 그리고 이에 대한 피식민 주체들의 근본적 저항 또한 이 식민지 근대성 범주 안에 포함시킴으로써 기존의 `식민지근대성론`이 지닌 또 다른 근대절대주의를 지양하고자 한다. 또한 본 연구는 문학 연구에서 `식민지근대성론`과 유사한 문제의식을 지닌 탈식민주의 문학연구 방법론의 핵심인 양가성, 혼종성 개념을 받아들이되 여기에 `식민지 근대성` 개념을 적극 인입하여 탈식민주의 방법론이 지닌 현상적, 미시적 접근법의 한계를 넘어 식민지 시대 이후의 한국근대문학에 대한 거시적 접근을 가능하게 하고자 한다. 본 연구는 이를 위한 시론적 작업으로서 염상섭의 「만세전」을 주로 판본 비교와 시점 전략이라는 측면에서 재검토한다. 이를 통해 본 연구는 「만세전」이 `식민지 민족현실의 발견 서사`거나 혹은 `근대적 주체의 형성 서사` 둘 중의 하나가 아니라 강력한 근대적 이성과 민족적 정념의 힘으로 식민지 지배체제와 이데올로기 너머를 지향하는 근대적 해방의 서사임을 밝혀냄으로써 `확장된 식민지근대성론`의 한국 근대문학에 대한 적용의 가능성과 유효성을 입증할 수 있었다. This article is an experimental study for adaptation the `Colonial Modernity-discourse` in the academic field of Korean Hitory to the study of modern korean literature. The `Colonial Modernity-Discourse` is opposed to overcome the modernity-pursuing and na-tionalistic inclination of both the Theory of Immanent Development and the Theory of Colonial modernization. And it is also opposed to explain the modernity of colonial system in which rule and resistance, bringing-round and agreement is mixed each other. However, this article has expanded the category of the `Colonial Modernity` to the liberating power of modernity itself, the primitively violent nature of colonial rule, and the radical resistance of colony people against the colonial rule which are not included in `Colonial Modernity-Discourse`. And this article has intended to join this discourse with the Post-colonialism study on Korean modern literature which is similar to this discourse in the view of colonial system. This joining has some merits to complement each other, with that one could get microscopic methodology and terminology such as `ambivalence` and / or `hybridity`, the other could get macroscopic view over the colonial system and it`s era. For this experimental study, this article has examined the text of Yeom-Sang Seop`s novel Manse-jeon. And could reach to the conclution that the text is not the `narrative of the finding colonized national reality` or the `narrative of the building of a modern subject` but the `liberation narrative which is oriented beyond the colonial rulling system and ideology with the power of strong modern reason and national pathoses. And Accordingly it could testify the possibility and effectiveness of the adaptation the expanded `Colonial Modernity-Discourse` to Korean modern literature.

1920년대 초반 소설의 근대적 특성 연구 - 『동아일보』연재소설을 중심으로 : 1920년대 초반 소설의 근대적 특성 연구

임주탁(Yim Ju-Tak) 한국문학회 2006 韓國文學論叢 Vol.42 No.-

This article elucidates what the basis of each love discourse is and how it changes, in comparison with the love discourse suggested by Kwang-Su Lee"s 『Heartlessness』, published in the late 1910"s and the love discourse accommodated in the early 1920"s, the period after the 3·1 movement, focusing on the two long novels in the roman feulilleton of the Donga-Ilbo, 『The Drama of Illusion』by Do-Hyang Na, and 『what did you gain?』 by Sang-Seop Yeom. On the premise that the modernity discourse on the discovery of modernistic self and the manifestation of individuality is just characteristic inherited in the genre of novel, this ariticle tries to find out the life and the consciousness of characters in the novel, and the writer"s consciousness coping with the modern times through their love discourse. In the novel of 『Heartlessness』, the love discourse, recognized as the passageway to find out the modern individual and form the modern social relationships (in that sense, one of the "modernism" discourse), was based on the optimistic view that they can escape from the "traditional" idea , consciousness, order, and custom. However, in the early 1920"s roman feuilleton of the newspapers, more emphasis was layed on the tragic finale of the characters having pursued the romantic love with the rosy view. The characters trying to pursuing the "modern" things in the novel struggled between the estrangement between the reality and the ideal or fell prey to the conflict. In other words, It was the sacrifice of "the modern thing" which had substituted for "the traditional thing". This could be the question raised by novels against the reality of the love discourse based on the "modernism". Do-Hyang Na raises such questions through the philanthropism, grouped into the "modernism" and Sang-Seop Yeom through the revelation of most characters falling into the self-contradiction although participating in the love discourse. Of course, this way of confronting with the reality can not be claimed to be wholly new thing. The reason is that it is the unique way of the genre of novel itself. However, it is really new way in that it is the question raised against the "modernism" inclined by novels before the 1920s. The meaning of this question raised by the time can be elucidated that the way of facing with the reality in the novel, not regularized by the "nationalism discourse" or "modernism", began in earnest.

1930년대 중국의 統制經濟論과 근대 인식

金河林(Kim, Ha Rim) 중국근현대사학회 2018 중국근현대사연구 Vol.78 No.-

The article aimed to focus on the significance of the discourse of controlled economy that had been popular over the intellectual milieu of China in 1930s. The article pursued to overview the intellectual trend in that period, in particular, investigate various moments and points for its emergence within the context of the perception of modernization. In 1930s the world encountered a great deal of demand for the reformation of capitalism, which was closely connected to the formation and the spread of the discourse of controlled economy in China. The contrast between the crisis of the Great Depression by the United States of America and the celebration of the Five-year plan by the Soviet Union defined the characteristic of the discourse of controlled economy in China as contemporary reaction. The foundation of the Nanjing Government strongly involved in the formation of the discourse. The political circumstances since introduction of the government and the outbreak of the Manchurian Affair further complicated the discourse. The Principle of People’s Livelihood, a prototype of the Chinese non-capitalist modernization, played a significant role for the discourse of controlled economy to broaden its ideological scope by its being converged with the discourse, and the practice of Principle itself also became expanded and deepened by it. The article particularly emphasized that the discourse of controlled economy enabled related discussions for a subjective pathway to the modernization of China grounded upon the periodic circumstance of 1930s. Here, I argued that the implication for the discourse of controlled economy lay in the fact that it sparked the alteration of the discourse of modernization itself. Such qualitative change in perception further conditioned the intellectual trend in 1940s along with non-capitalist scope. There are three connected clues in terms of the acceptance to the discourse of controlled economy: First, the socialist perspective in Chinese intellectual milieu was rather gradually underscored via the structure of the discourse of controlled economy. Second, there had been formed a wide agreement with mixed economy as a result of subjective acceptance of the discourse. Three, there occurred politico-intellectual divergence according to the subjects, and accelerated the political changes in 1940s. The discourse of controlled economy in China not only reveal the intellectual significance of 1930s, but it also allow us to glimpse the characteristic of the Chinese Revolution in the twentieth century. More studies on the topic are anticipated.

김소월 시의 근대와 반근대 의식

남기혁(Nam Ki-Hyeok) 한국시학회 2004 한국시학연구 Vol.- No.11

In this paper, I attempted to illuminate how traditionalism was formed and what connotation Chosunjueui(조선주의) as ideology has in Kim So-wol’s poetry. Especially I analyzed works intensively which were neglected in previous studies, in other words, the works which were not collected in Kim So-Wol’s two anthologies but collected in literary magazines, and the unpublished manuscripts which were discovered and collected in the literary magazine “Munhaksasang” in 1976. Kim So-Wol lived in the time of the colonial modern. He was a colonial intellectual who continued thinking on the horizon where the tradition and the modern crossed. His return to traditionalism came from the critical cognition of the colonial modern. Giving attention to the change of temporal and spatial landscapes arosed by the colonial modernization, he recalled the people’s anguish and thought about the nation and Chosun(조선). Imagining the nation and Chosun which the modern educational institute had invented caused the split of internal consciousness and identity of colonial intellectuals who refused to be assimilated himself to the colonial modern. So identifying himself as a colonial intellectual needed to use a dialect of both deconstructing subject and reconstructing subject. The dialect Kim So-Wol selected shows two directions that the poets in colonial period had to go through. On the one hand, Kim So-Wol attempted to in-ternal-dialogue with the discourse of modernity by expressing the voice of tradition. In this case he used the mystical- ritual language in Korea folk songs, legends, and rituals that could destruct the linear and representative order of modern rational language. On the other hand, he attempted to ex-press the voice of modernity in other poetic discourse, especially that of Chunbiron(준비론). In these ways, Kim So-Wol met ancestors’ records and led the oppressed that were concealed in past remembrance to the horizon of history. This gives us the vision for the “Illud tempus” that exposes the repression and violence of Modernity-Discourse, and that enable us to overcome the emptiness of the modern times. But Kim So-Wol did not consider the “Illud tempus” as the absolute. And he did not dreamed a futile dream that there would be Utopia somewhere. He knew the fact well that the colonial modern deprived people of the hometown. But in the late works such as sub-mission(忍從), the poetic “I” in Kim So-Wol’s poetry created the negative discourse against the colonial discourse through the aggressive and directive vioce. In this respect, we must re-evaluate Kim So-Wol’s traditionalism as an modern poetic discourse negating modernity for the tradition.

한국근현대연극사의 전통 담론과 근대성

백현미 한국극예술학회 2009 한국극예술연구 Vol.0 No.30

A study on tradition discourses in Korean modern drama focuses on the way the individual subjects in the dramatic community have translated and defined tradition, examining the connection among the elements that consist of tradition discourses. And the study leads to exploring the way how the tradition discourses have been connected with modernity in Korean drama. This paper examines the relationship between the tradition discourses and modernity in Korean modern drama history. It focuses particularly on the modernity in two aspects. First, the nationalistic/oriental modernity were presented through the tradition discourses. The nationalistic/oriental discourses have continued as a way to overcome the west-oriented modernity during the colonialized period and post-colonialized period. Second, the artistic modernity was presented through the tradition discourses. The variation of the western modern drama style such as realism, modernism, post-modernism in Korean modern drama history can be seen. Those styles on Korean drama history have not been the same as the styles in western drama history because the performance tradition has been different, dependant on the nation, the region, and the economic/cultural situation. 한국근현대연극사에서 전통연희를 활용한 연극의 창작과 그 창작 작업에 대한 논의들로 구성된 전통 담론은, 서양 발 근현대 연극 및 그에 대한 논의들로 구성된 연극론과 구별되며 공존했다. 본고에서는 전통 담론을 통해 드러나는 근대성을, 민족적/동양적 근대성과 예술적 근대성으로 나눠 살폈다. 근대계몽기 이후 1980년대까지 민족(주의) 근대성의 문제는 전통 담론의 중요한 인식 고리였다. 민족에 대한 자각과 민족의 미래에 대한 전망 모색은 한국근현대연극사의 중요한 근대적 주제였고, 이 근대적 주제의 연극적 실현은 전통연희의 재창조를 매개로 이뤄졌다. 민족적 근대성은, 서구적 근대성과 구별되는 동양적 근대성이라는 맥락과도 연계되었다. 전통연희가 근현대 서양의 연극 양식과 결합되면서 드러나는 예술적 근대성의 양상은 온전하고 직선적이라기보다 불안전하고 불연속적이다. 리얼리즘적 극 형식과 전근대적 세계관이 결합하고, 포스트모더니즘적 극 형식과 리얼리즘적 비판의식이 충돌하며, 전통연희의 충실한 재현이 모더니즘적 자의식을 드러내는 유효한 방식으로 기능한다.

한국 근대소설과 연애담론 - 1920년대 「동아일보」 연재소설을 중심으로

최미진(Choi Mi-Jin),임주탁(Yim Ju-Tak) 한국문학회 2006 韓國文學論叢 Vol.44 No.-

  This paper aims at studying the characteristics of the discourse on love in the serial novels published in newspapers, including Na Do-hyang"s The Drama of Illusion, Lee Hui-cheol"s Eup-hyul-jo and Yeom Sang-seop"s What Did You Get?, in the mid-1920s, when the Dong-A Ilbo served as a venue for a public discourse. Taking a closer look at the discourse on women prevalent in the Dong-A Ilbo at the time revealed that the discourse on women"s education and the discourse on women"s liberation had been undergoing a series of conflicts. The discourse on love in the serial stories published in newspapers showed similar characteristics as well.<BR>  First of all, one thing the three novels have in common was that both the subject and the object of love were modern intellectuals. Modern knowledge meant conditions for love and qualifications to enjoy a modern culture. This has something to do with the reality of the time when the modern intellectuals emerged as a new group in power. It was problematic, however, that the subjects of love in the three novels embraced the internal coloniality in the process of accepting the modern knowledge.<BR>  Second, the three novels considered the modern love of the West to be a standard and idealized the western model. Here lies the conflicts between the western-style romantic love, described as a standard, and Ellen Key"s free love and Henrik Ibsen"s Noraism.<BR>  Third, it was virginity that was emphasized as a prerequisite for the subject of love, women. The loss of virginity in itself represented a fallen love, so those women were excluded from the objects of love. The novels took women"s moral degradation for granted, based on the sole and absolute criteria of virginity. This might be a result of putting the reality of the time in context, when the goal of education for women was to nurture a "wise mother and good wife."<BR>  Fourth, money-centric materialism served as a major variant in a love relationship. Along with the loss of women"s virginity, materialism was facing a critical discourse, because it ran counter to the innocence of love.<BR>  Fifth, the subjects of discourse in three of the two novels, except for Eup-hyul-jo, were male characters representing the viewpoints of authors. This might be because of the fact that it was men who wrote those three novels, but also because the male-centered attitude had a big influence on a love relationship. The novels had a modern thinking system of the "modernity/traditions or Japan/Joseon" in action, which was used as a logic to justify a modern love and a love marriage. They also had risks, however, of being exposed to or assimilated into the coloniality of the Japanese colonial rule, in that Japan was described to have a comparative advantage.

시진핑 시대 중국의 보편화 전략으로서의 ‘중국담론’

宋寅在 ( Song In Jae ) 현대중국학회 2021 現代中國硏究 Vol.23 No.2

이 논문에서는 시진핑 집권기 중국의 이론 및 선전 활동의 새로운 화제로 부상한 ‘중국담론’의 의미와 맥락, 지향을 고찰한다. ‘중국담론’은 경제성장을 토대로 강국으로 부상한 중국이 자신의 경험과 진로, 체제에 대한 자신감을 강화하는 상황에서 형성되었다. 또한 ‘중국의 이야기를 잘 말하고, 중국의 목소리를 제대로 전파하자’는 집권 초기 시진핑의 메시지에 대한 응답이다. ‘중국담론’은 중국 경험의 이론적 승화이자 표현이라고 정의된다. ‘중국담론’은 소재는 중국 경험이고, 담론의 매개는 중국 경험을 해석하고 체계화한 중국 이론이다. ‘중국담론’은 중국 소프트파워 형성의 기반이자 글로벌 사회에서 중국의 담론권력을 강화하는 핵심역량으로 규정된다. 담론의 결실은 중국의 강화된 소프트파워를 표상하는 ‘담론중국’이고, 담론의 주체는 중국이다. 중국담론은 중국 자신의 형상을 바로 세우고 중국의 목소리를 강화하는 역할을 함과 동시에 근대성의 비서양 버전이라는 위상도 지닌다. 이 과정에서 서양이 주도한 근대성 담론, 세계체제, 서양이 묘사한 중국형상 등이 비판받는다. 더 나아가 서양이 주도한 세계질서를 비판하고 중국의 아이디어가 대안으로 제시되며 새로운 보편으로 자리잡고자 하는 지향이 드러난다. 이처럼 중국을 진지하게 대면하자는 중국담론의 이론적 시도는 중국적 보편의 확산으로 이어진다. 이 과정에서 시진핑의 이름으로 발표된 중국정부의 공식입장이 중국담론의 논거를 형성한다. 또한 서양 근대성을 비판하는 과정에서는 과잉된 자의식과 중국과 서양을 선과 악으로 대조하는 과도한 도식적 가치판단이 등장한다. 이는 자국의 부상을 대하는 중국적 인식의 특징을 드러낸다. 동시에 담론 제시 당사자의 의도와는 달리 보편화 가능성을 가로막는 함정이 될 수도 있다. This article examined the meaning, context, and orientation of ‘Chinese discourse’, which has emerged as a new topic in China’s theory and propaganda activities during the Xi Jinping administration. The ‘Chinese discourse’ was formed in a situation where China, which has emerged as a new power based on economic growth, has increased confidence in its own experience, career path, and system. It is also a response to Xi Jinping’s message in the early days of his administration to “tell the Chinese story well and spread the Chinese voice properly.” ‘Chinese discourse’ is defined as the theoretical sublimation and expression of the Chinese experience. The subject of ‘Chinese discourse’ is Chinese experience, the medium of discourse is a Chinese theory that interprets and systematizes the Chinese experience, and the fruit of the discourse is ‘Discourse China’, which represents China’s strengthened soft power, and the subject of the discourse is China. ‘Chinese discourse’ is defined as the basis for forming China’s soft power and as a core competency for strengthening China’s discourse right in the global society. Chinese discourse plays a role in correcting China’s self-image and reinforcing China’s voice, and at the same time has a status as a model of non-Western modernity. In this process, the discourse of modernity led by the West, the world system, and the Chinese figure described by the West are criticized. Furthermore, it criticizes the world order led by the West, and China’s ideas are presented as alternatives, revealing its intention to establish itself as a new universal. The theoretical attempt of Chinese discourse to face China seriously like this leads to the spread of Chinese universals. In this process, the official position of the Chinese government, represented by Xi Jinping, forms the context of the emergence of Chinese discourse and the rationale for the argument. Also, in the process of criticizing Western modernity, excessive self-consciousness and excessive schematic value judgments about China and the West appear. This reveals the characteristics of China’s perception of its rise. At the same time, contrary to the intention of the person presenting the discourse, it can act as a trap that blocks the possibility of universalization.

근대계몽기 법 담론과 그 균열의 양상

임회록(Lim Hoe-Rock) 한국문학회 2007 韓國文學論叢 Vol.45 No.-

  In enlightenment Era in modern korea, it was newspaper that civilization highbrows observe for the first time as groping transfiguration to modern age community. Newspaper acted important role creating reassignment of existing discourse and new discourse through new class of readers" formation and wide use of national script for the nation that did not exist before. Through newspaper, illuminatis were going to make modernistic nation-stage. Specially, Ideology which lead to be is civilization and it was system of law and education that accomplish its base. If art became systematic precondition of civilization, education was method to execute it.<BR>  Is writing that examine whether do so that subjects of enlightenment through 『Maeil Sinmun』(Newspaper every day) may get abroad discourse about method that become proposition of civilization in eagle to peoples how. Also, in intention of enlightenment bringing round writing that examine retroaction castle of modern age enlightenment flag clearing point of crack that is not done be .Its contents are as following. First, burdens of enlightenment talk that can escape mortified prison life receiving justice of evidence center if keep modernistic law through 『Maeil Sinmun』(Newspaper every day). Also, speak that modernistic process is equal in front of law everybody that do not allow distinction in social position. But, Subject of discourse looks attitude which praise local government official who punish criminals who do not keep law privately or support personal violence. This shows that subjects of enlightenment that get abroad law discourse are not escaping in traditional Confucian ideas.<BR>  By next time, readers of 『Maeil Sinmun』(Newspaper every day) rebirth to modernistic body politic through internalization of law discourse. So, readers of 『Maeil Sinmun』(Newspaper every day) are going to prosecute and advance administrations" irregulartities and corruption which do not keep law and realize brotherly love. But, everyday life exorcise, and fall gambling and miscellaneous games, and drink wine believing radish continuation still and work disturbance and part connected with their personal desire did action that oppose law fearing punishment. This shows that modernistic Buddhist priest"s robe was not internalized perfectly to everyday life of people up to now.<BR>  In this way, it dwindles yet that readers" crack shows at process that practice crack and this of enlightenment subject that do to get abroad law discourse through 『Maeil Sinmun』(Newspaper every day) show that frame of modernistic accident was not formed perfectly. That is, can know that modernistic law discourse did not tell to level that inspect and manages individual"s reason and behavior pattern yet. If enlightenment Era in modern korea is time that South Korea modern origin is formed, crack that look at this time gives one suggestion standpoint to us which grope to pass over modern age. Rupture is that is point of desire of subjects that is going to run away constantly from violence that modern age uses.