‘개발주의서사’의 ‘성-섹슈얼리티’에 대한 ‘혐오-연민’ : 이문구의 『장한몽』과 윤흥길의 『묵시의 바다』를 중심으로

Abstract

This piece of writing aims to discover an implication of “misogyny” in a way of viewing from a gender-sexuality perspective masculinity of an age, which was considered major population of government sustaining the two axes called security and economic development during a developmentalist era. In light of understanding that developmentalist masculinity was formed in the process of consolidating the patriarchal state regime, “misogyny” is related to frustration, humilation and resulting self-hatred of masculinity that attempted to break into a developmentalist public sphere. “Hatred-pity” was born from this dynamics. <Janghanmong> reveals that the public sphere made up of social members follows a developmentalism ideology frame, working as a space giving birth to its all harmful effects. In the space man(author)’s sexual expression remains genderwise a significantly restrictive level. And woman, as a role player of releasing fatigue caused by an effort that “citizen-man” (white-collar) tries to enter the public sphere, is completely othernized; “hatred-pity” for “gender-sexuality” simultaneously implies both limitation of and possibility of reflection on developmentalist masculinity. <Sea of Revelation> deals with “gender-sexuality” in a demoralization frame, showing that “hatred-pity” works as an emotion to expose moral weak points castrated by developmentalism. Demoralization is mixed with modernization logic, which leads to a new othernized being of not only woman, but also masculinity. <Sea of Revelation> seems like a step forward than <Janghanmong> in a sense that the process of eliminating “hatred” from “hatred-pity” sentiment for the othernized beings is seen as reflection and growth that enable men, who failed to enter the public sphere, to overcome defeatism and sentimentalism. However, it is revealed that gender-restrictive idea was rather habitualized using a little more tender words in a way that woman is othernized to the farthest from the society by naturalizing “(female) gender-sexuality” and reproduced by a myth so called “maternal love.” In the end, despite a time discrepancy between the early and the late of 1970s, the two works share a common point that the growth intended by the “developmentalist epics” is emphasized mainly directed for masculinity.