김현의 마르쿠제 수용과 기억의 문제

Abstract

This thesis is to study how Kim Hyun accept H. Marcuse’s theory and how it affect Kim Hyun’s latter criticism. The understanding of how Kim Hyun accept H. Marcuse’s theory is important not only for explain the characteristic of the way critic Kim Hyun accept foreign theory, but also for comprehending the Kim Hyun’s criticism after 1980. ‘Civilization without repression’ and ‘the memory of suffering’ are two key concept of this analysis. In chapter2, Marcuse’s Civilization without repression is based on dichotomy reality principle/performance principle, basic repression/surplus repression. Kim overlooked this dichotomy, and interpret Civilization without repression as aesthetic world. The expectation and belief about G. Bachelard’s theory is the reason for this kind of acceptance. Kim Hyun thinks that Bachelard’s imagination theory and aesthetic world can overcome the problem of alienation and make absolute freedom possible. The another key concept of H. Marcuse, the memory of suffering is paid little attention in this period. In chapter 3, the focus of analysis is the characteristic and dilemma of Kim Hyun’s criticism. The memory of suffering is a main analytic tools. It seems that H. Marcuse’s concepts like the memory of suffering, eros, and time are not important tools in Kim Hyun’s criticism in 1980’s, but those are very helpful for understanding Kim Hyun’s criticism in this period. Kim Hyun encounters two dilemma; one is contradiction in pleasure principle, and another is the danger of methodological negation. The memory of suffering carved in body is considered as a solution of these dilemma. Kim Hyun and H. Marcuse meet at the memory of suffering again. H. Marcuse who is paid little attention in Kim Hyun’s latter criticism returns through the concept, memory of suffering. This is because the memory of suffering is a method of resistance which anyone who refuses to give up ‘great refusal’ in barbaric reality can’t help resort to.