시(문학)의 정치성의 이면 －자율성의 욕망과 정치성의 발견－

Abstract

This study has been made with the questions about the relationship between politics and autonomy of literature. In order to solve the contradiction between the two, a hypothesis has been set up so that the autonomy of literature embeds the political. The method to verify this hypothesis was made by analyzing the desire of literary autonomy that appears in the unconsciousness of discourse makers. At first, this study examined the discourses on Paek-Seok Poetry for which researches have been consistently submitted without any temporal discontinuity. The fact that could be identified through the discourses on Paek-Seok Poetry was the common criterion of evaluations always based on its political nature even if they appear to be contradictory with one another. Why the ultimate criterion was such political nature, although there are possibly various criteria one could apply to judge a poem? To find reasons for that, reference was made to the comparatively recent researches on the resistance poetry and labor literature. The reason of referring to these discussions was because the discourses on resistance poetry and labor literature could be discussed apparently as being situated in the frontline of the political nature of literature, and only these recent discussions are relatively free from the two terrain dual of literary field. The conclusion is as follows: In the resistance poetry or labor literature presented in reply to what literature can do politically, the discourse makers tend to present the boundaries of literature being used politically. This proves that the autonomy of literature lies at the backside of the political nature of literature, and even if the autonomy of literature is suppressed by the subjects of literature, the proposition is once again summoned in the discursive appearance of political nature. It also means that the previous hypothesis that autonomy embeds politics can be built as a proposition. In effect, the analysis and interpretation on such conclusion becomes the final conclusion of this study. In order that literature exists as literature in the modern society, it appears that the subjects of literature require the “transformation of practical skills”, and as they become suppressed in the dominant atmosphere where realism is generally accepted, an analysis was carried out with emphasis on political subjects, not aesthetic subjects, which internalize realism both consciously and unconsciously. To mention it in Garatani Gogin style, it is literary man who discovered the political nature that leads the external attitude of realism, just as the internal man discovered the landscape. The aesthetic autonomy of modern literature is in fact just an empty signifiant. Literary subjects considered this signifiant as an insurance of literature. The proper object suitable to this signifiant had to be discovered and by putting‘politics’which had always been considered in the opposite, in the empty place of signifiant, they made an attempt to realize this desire. Therefore, the desire of autonomy has emerged as a practical variant called politics.