1980년대 여성해방문학 –젠더, 민족, 민중의 교차

Abstract

In this paper, women’s liberation literature from the 1980s was reviewed. While agreeing to a certain extent with the criticism that it contributed to the lower hierarchy of women by being overwhelmed by the grand narrative of nation and people, it was judged that there was a need to reevaluate the meaning of the women’s literature that women’s liberation literature of this period considered and practiced. In this paper, first, how to read women’s liberation literature that considered women’s literature in relation to national literature in the 1980s; second, what is the meaning of the complex concepts of gender, ethnicity, and people discussed in women’s liberation literature theory at the time; third, Targeting 『Gopi 1』, which was considered both a national literature and a women’s literature, we analyzed how the complexity of the female subject was achieved in the representation of the female people. I attempted to analyze their discussions and works focusing on the concept of Min-Jung(means the people), which was established as an alternative subject to the nationalist movement at the time. Their attempt is meaningful in that they attempted to create a crack in the concept of Min-Jung, which was composed of a single, male-centered subject after the end of the Gwangju Uprising and the enthusiasm of the movement, and to portray the female Min-Jung. In that it considers the complexities of gender, ethnicity, and people, it is based on feminist perspective theory that opposes that one category is privileged as an isolated category. This period also became the starting point for the later development of the concept of intersectionality. However, although women’s liberation literature claims to be literature that maintains the perspective of female workers, it appears to have been insufficient in its significance as an alternative discourse that can dismantle the entire male-centricity of national literature by using a strategy of inscribing women into the concept of Min-jung. Although I agree with the declarative proposition that the perspectives of the three categories must be thought of in a complex manner, awareness of how specific intersectionality is achieved still remains a task.