1980년대 창비 그룹과 ‘문학적인 것’의 구축 : 사회과학적 시각의 도입 및 탈각을 중심으로

Abstract

The intention of this article is to look at the social science awareness and historical consciousness of the national literature camp in the 1980s to find out how these national literary theories constructed the literary identity. In the 1980s, as the social science education was expanded significantly, the national literacy camp felt a sense of crisis as the aspiring writers and readers become more involved in the social sciences. While introducing the social scientific perspective, they could not help but seek their own literary identity. Since 1983, the social scientific perspective that set workers as the dominant classes of the nation have been widely accepted. However, the national literary camp criticized the social science’s recognition of history as inevitable and lawful. They thought that history could be composed literally, and historical truth could be revealed through literature. Therefore, the national literature camp constantly emphasized the historical consciousness. The historical consciousness they speak meant a special ability combined with the creativity/imagination of professional writers. Literature was a professional field with the power to construct history in a way different from that of social sciences, and strengthening of professionalism meant strengthening of historical consciousness. This was a key mechanism in maintaining literary mindset. After the June Democracy Movement in 1987, the national literature camp shifts its direction from the active absorption of social science perspective. In 1988, while planning the national and allied forces, Baek Nak-Chung reissued and elucidated his position that, without acknowledging the initiative of the working class, literature must maintain its original attribute. Baek Nak-Chung defined the literary practice in socialist/social science perspective as an unfamiliar literature that is both ideological and unscientific. In this differentiated framework of ideology versus reality, the share of national literature camp was assigned to ‘(division) reality’. However, they perceived the awakened workers to be meaningful as a reader not writer in the field of literacy.