김현 비평의 사르트르 수용 양상 - ‘실존적 정신분석’의 영향을 중심으로

Abstract

This study aims to examine the relationship between Kim Hyun's criticism and Sartre's literary theory. Kim Hyun establishes his method of criticism by critically accepting Sartre's theory. In particular, existential psychoanalysis is a theory that has been actively considered since the beginning along with Freud's psychoanalysis. While Freud's psychoanalysis reveals a deterministic understanding of humans by emphasizing the effects of unconsciousness on human consciousness, Sartre's psychoanalysis values individuals' free choice by considering even unconscious as an extension of consciousness. This characteristic of Sartre, which is distinguished from Freud, is why Kim made him pay more attention to existential psychoanalysis. Kim derives two methodologies to be applied to analysis of literary works from existential psychoanalysis. First of all, human behavior and its expression should be considered a symbol that requires interpretation, among which the original experience of childhood are the first things to be analyzed. Freud's psychoanalysis and Sartre's psychoanalysis also identify childhood experiences as a revelation that requires interpretation. The former sees it as a primal symbol stuck in past trauma, while the latter sees it as a psychological phenomenon in which individual consciousness is selectively projected. Sartre describes the image of the original experience as transformable according to the latter. Based on Sartre's this view, Kim established another methodology of criticism. It is that the image of the original experience is transformable, so its conscious expression style must be noted. But Kim also distanced himself from the concept of Sartre. He distinguishes the action of consciousness from the action of unconsciousness in original experience. He thinks that consciousness is the cause of reprojecton, and unconsciousness is the cause of such consciousness. Thus, the original experience is a subject on which the traumatic nature of the first experience and the resulting selective transformation of consciousness should be considered simultaneously. Kim tries to analyze the work according to this methodology. In addition, Kim Hyun's criticism not only explains the writer's individual psychology or external phenomenon of the work, but also presents the writer's ethical attitude of facing conflicts and contradictions caused by acknowledging his responsibilities as a writer and choosing his life as a writer. This can be said to be the unique characteristic of Kim Hyun as a literary critic. It is noteworthy that he emphasizes the authenticity of the writer, but does not link it to Sart's engagement. This is deeply related to his critical consciousness of Sartre's distinction between poetry and prose in "What is Literature?"