동남아의 시따, 인도의 시따: 여성주의 관점의 비교연구

Abstract

This article is dealing with the interpretation and portrayal of Sita in Southeast Asia and in India, the heroine of great epic Ramayana which was born in India and spread to Southeast Asia, in feminist perspectives. The influential epic Ramayana on Southeast Asian culture resulted many related studies but most of them did not focus on what and who was Sita. Getting grow the number of educated women, it is inevitable to consider the critics on the male centered narratives in reality. And as such it is necessary to validate the idea that Southeast Asian woman enjoy higher social position than that of Indian woman. The outcome of the research is as follows. First, many Southeast Asian versions of Ramayana are not based on Valmiki’s version, but on Jain version or some other periphery Ramayanas. And in those versions, Sita is a daughter of Ravana, being expelled for the reason of drawing Ravana’s portrait. Apart from the Valmiki version which is focused on ‘fire ordeal’ to prove Sita’s chastity, Southeast Asian versions do not treat Rama’s jealousy to his wife’s sexuality directly. It might be the reason for those Southeast Asian women enjoyed more freedom than that of Indian women socially and sexually. Second, among Southeast Asian versions the story was made happy ending for Sita. It could be possible for Sita not to commit suicide but to enjoy her life in the place where women lived positive way with reasonable position in history. The sincerity of Sita which is related to public imagination was quite something in India where the socio-cultural pressure to control the female sexuality to keep the patriarchal order was significant. But in Southeast Asia the pressure was not so much serious and thus Sita could be reunited with Rama and lived happily ever after. Third, Southeast Asian versions do not show any crucial overturn the male-centered narratives with all those evolution of the story on behalf of Sita. Still, the main theme of those versions was the tragedy of Rama’s doubt on sita’s chastity and its inappropriateness. The progressive perspectives of some Indian and Southeast Asian versions of Ramayana on women also limited to suggest little betters on ethics and prejudice rather than bring up totally new ideas or reinterpretations. It is because woman related agendas could not come up for discussion, something beyond the socially permissible bounds at the time. On the point that Sita was depicted as the symbol of beauty and the ideal of chastity indicated Ramayanas are male-centered epic per se both Valmiki versions and Southeast Asian versions together. To make it clear, though Southeast Asian versions tended to pro-feminine, as long as the paradigm of the equality of the sexes was not connoted in the narratives, they could not be more progressive than that of Indian counterparts. It is true that the Ramayanas in Southeast Asia shaped full of local senses of tradition and culture but in relation to Sita and her position, there was no fundamental differences between Indian versions and Southeast Asian versions.