한국문학사 서술의 정치적 무의식

Abstract

This study focused on examining possible meanings of descriptiveness that covers events and texts in the context of literary history. Demands for universality of applying certain descriptive nature to certain events indicate a strongest part of political unconsciousness on which almost all aspects of Korean literary history were based. Before examination into the issue of descriptiveness shown in historical description of Korean literature, this study should first face the universality as a foundation for such approach of literary history to historical description. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the questions of universality in associations with linear description toward the progression of history, and was also to examine theoretical discussions on latest historical composition, so that it could find out any answer again to questions about fundamental conditions of literary history description. It is necessary to re-examine a paradox of literary history description relying deeply on Western universality in terms of developmental theory of literary history as assumed basically by the world of Korean literary history. One of very deep-rooted approaches adopted in Korean literary history is a description about literary history development based on progression that is represented by historical and social change. The viewpoint about the outcomes of human life and culture as analogy of progressive life is often based on the theory of social evolution called Social Darwinism. The viewpoint that considers overall characteristics of life as progression and believes progression of human culture in future reflects unconsciousness intervened critically in the periodization of Korean literary history. However, the literary history as ‘a major narrative’ based on uniform voice and progressive ideology may have been impossible from the outset. Conventional literary history has shown its viewpoints toward dependence on subjectivity and rationality to set a semantic network of literary history, whereas future literary history should possibly consist of divisive descriptions about respective thematic theories that consider heterogeneous signs as one event.