민족문학-세계문학론의 비판적 검토 : 경쟁적 모델과 순환적 모델

Abstract

Although the concept of World Literature (as a theory) is a necessity, it is also at the center of much academic controversy. Common questions about the definition of World Literature include the following: 'who' decides what is World Literature? Once that is answered, 'where' is World Literature to be located? When we say World Literature, 'what' kind of literature do we mean? When we say 'World", 'whose' world do we mean? What is the method of defining this 'World'? Can we accept and agree with this definition? Despite such controversies that surround World Literature, the concept has emerged as the core issue of current comparative literary studies. In this paper, we have attempted to examine the pros and cons of the competitive and the circulatory models of World Literature that the Western academics are actively discussing today. The competitive model that Casanova and Moretti suggest do not consider elements other than that of 'nation' and 'competition', and understand World Literature as a model that is based on the competition among the nations only. Damrosch's theory of World Literature focuses on various and fluid circulation and distribution of literary works, and can be called the 'circulatory model.'We seek to examine how the competitive model of the Minjok-World Literature, which represents the Korean theory of World Literature, formulates its reasoning, and what kind of issues emerge from this logic, and how the circulatory model may reveal certain aspects that are not paid attention to in the competitive model. The reason why Casanova and Moretti's competitive model is important for the theory of Minjok-World Literature is because the model places high regard on the possibility of marginal literature. In this view, Korean Literature belongs in the sphere of marginal literature, and the competitive model assumes that such literature has a higher possibility to reform in the field of World Literature than those literatures of nations at the center. On the other hand, in the competitive model, the problems of translation and writing cannot be considered closely. An attempt to expand the sphere of conceptual meaning through negotiating with the concept of 'World Literature' is important. However, this can only be problematic if such a discussion ultimately returns to the basic field of the Minjok (ethno-nationalist) literature. There is a need to reason Korean theory of World Literature not as a competitive model but fas a circulatory model.