식민지말기 지배담론과 국민문학론
A Study on a Dominant discourse and Kukminmunhakron(國民文學論) at the End of the Colonial era
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper is aimed at analyzing a relationship of a dominant discourse and subordinate discourse at the end of the colonial era. So far, discourse of kukminmunhak(國民文學) imitated and differentiated from a dominant discourse, but this paper insist that discourse of kukminmunhak reproduced the dominant discourse. The reason is as follows. Firstly, the subject from discourse of kukminmunhak, the subordinate subject, was without a clack. In other words, the subject of discourse was not de-constructive. The subordinate subject had a clear ambition as the imperial-subject, and realized the meaning of the Sino-Japanese War, and the Pacific War. Secondly, the discourse of kukminmunkak was estranged from the realty. In this discourse, korean imagined the subject as the role of the world of history. But Actually, korean was the object of the mobilization order for imperialistic war. The covering up the gap between discourse and reality was possible, by virtu of the imagination that the editors of kukminmunhak. They thought that korean farmer was the representation of korea.
Abstract
This paper is aimed at analyzing a relationship of a dominant discourse and subordinate discourse at the end of the colonial era. So far, discourse of kukminmunhak(國民文學) imitated and differentiated from a dominant discourse, but this paper insist that discourse of kukminmunhak reproduced the dominant discourse. The reason is as follows. Firstly, the subject from discourse of kukminmunhak, the subordinate subject, was without a clack. In other words, the subject of discourse was not de-constructive. The subordinate subject had a clear ambition as the imperial-subject, and realized the meaning of the Sino-Japanese War, and the Pacific War. Secondly, the discourse of kukminmunkak was estranged from the realty. In this discourse, korean imagined the subject as the role of the world of history. But Actually, korean was the object of the mobilization order for imperialistic war. The covering up the gap between discourse and reality was possible, by virtu of the imagination that the editors of kukminmunhak. They thought that korean farmer was the representation of korea.
참고문헌 (18)
- "『조광』 『인문평론』 『춘추』 『국민문학』 등", ~
- 강상희, "친일문학론의 구조", 한국근대문학연구, pp.41~58 (2003), 한국근대문학회
- 고봉준, "지성주의 파탄과 국민문학론", 한국시학연구, 17(17), pp.5~30 (2006), 한국시학회
- 고봉준, "전형기 비평의 논리와 국민문학론 -최재서 비평을 중심으로-", 한국현대문학연구, (24), pp.245~273 (2008), 한국현대문학회
- 김재용, "협력과 저항" (2004), 소명출판
- 류보선, "친일문학의 역사철학적 맥락", 한국근대문학연구, pp.8~40 (2003), 한국근대문학회
- 박광현, "국민문학의 기획과 전망", 배달말, 37, pp.321~347 (2005), 배달말학회
- 박노현, "내선인과 국민문학: 신민족에 의한 신문학 고안의 기획", 한국어문학연구, 42, pp.253~270 (2004)
- 방민호, "일제말기 문학인들의 대일 협력 유형과 의미", 한국현대문학연구, pp.231~279 (2007), 한국현대문학회
- 신주백, "일본의 패전 대책과 식민지 조선, 그리고 역설(1944.7～1945)", 일본문화연구, 18(18), pp.69~96 (2006), 동아시아일본학회
- 윤대석, "식민지 국민문학론" (2006), 역락
- 이원동, "국민문학의 좌담회 연구", 어문론총, 48, pp.229~256 (2008)
- 정종현, "식민지 후반기 한국문학에 나타난 동양론 연구", 박사, pp.2005
- 정종현, "1940년대 전반기 이기영 소설의 제국적 주체성 연구-동천홍, 광산촌, 생활의 윤리, 처녀지를 중심으로", 한국근대문학연구, (13), pp.121~152 (2006), 한국근대문학회
- 하정일, "탈식민의 미학" (2008), 소명출판
- 미야다 세즈코, "조선민중과 황민화 정책" (1997), 일조각
- 슬로보예 지젝, "이데올로기라는 숭고한 대상" (2002), 인간사랑
- 후지이 다카요, "김종한과 국민문학", 사이, 1, pp.131~150 (2006), 국제한국문학 문화학회