동아시아 지적 교류의 장으로서의 루쉰(魯迅)

Abstract

The East Asian discourse that has influenced Korean intellectual circles since the mid-1990s has significantly impacted Lu Xun studies in Korea. The result of expanding the scope of Lu Xun studies to include East Asian discourses is research achievements that can be summarized as comparative studies with Korean authors and an illumination of the elements of Lu Xun-style modernity. Since the mid-1990s, domestic Lu Xun studies conducted within the framework of East Asian discourse have emphasized the relevance of Lu Xun to East Asian civilizations and the characteristics of East Asian modernity. This is evident in references to “not just Chinese Lu Xun, but East Asian Lu Xun” and “Lu Xun as a method.” These attempts introduce the appropriation of Lu Xun by Japanese researchers and the reappropriation of Lu Xun by Chinese and Korean researchers through Japan. Recalling that this appropriation and reappropriation are based on a single problematic writer, Lu Xun, reveals the diversity and depth of Lu Xun’s life and literature messages. This paper will discuss Lu Xun’s influence on Japanese intellectual circles, including Takeuchi, and the intellectual explorations of a Chinese intellectual named Sun Ge, who used the knowledge he gained from studying in Japan (and Takeuchi in particular) to put it into an East Asian perspective. The discussion will center on the appropriation of Lu Xun by Japanese intellectuals and the reappropriation of Sun Ge, and the role of Lu Xun as an intellectual medium between Japanese and Chinese intellectuals. The issue will be clarified by briefly examining scholars’ views on Lu Xun’s identity. Regardless of whether Takeuchi sees Lu Xun as a literary artist or Maruyama as a revolutionary, Lu Xun comes across to me as a sincere narrator. The urgency and impatience to find meaning in familiar people and objects, the desire to recognize them correctly, and the dissatisfaction with immature expression are all evident in his work. The urgency and impatience, coupled with his obsession with figuration, remind us of the inexorable distance between the self and the object, which seems to recede the more we try to approach it. Lu Xun tries to think about and describe the visible and invisible simultaneously in the space created by the gap between himself and the object. The difficulty with technology is that we can find society in the work and ourselves as well. Lu Xun’s ultimate goal is to create art that reflects our society and ourselves, art that burns within us and makes us feel deeply and participate in society. Lu Xun’s unique way of questioning the present—if not Takeuchi, Maruyama, and Sun Ge, as briefly examined in this article—is surely the point at which he and his literature facilitate intellectual exchange in East Asia. Takeuchi’s lack of conceptual thought and position and his reliance on analogy and intuition are paradigmatic of the humanities. Consequently, Sun Tzu may find aspects of Takeuchi’s thought inconsistent with the disciplinary paradigm. In that case, both are looking for a humanistic paradigm in Lu Xun and his literature.