‘민중’과 ‘다중’의 관계론(/내재)적 함의 -1960년대 이후 한국문학장에서의 ‘민중’ 논의의 현재적 의미-

Abstract

The discussion of “people” in the Korean literature has been a major ideological coordinator of the national literature movement, and has been the mainstay of the solidarity and historical development of the resistance. After the collapse of the colonial era, the ‘National Literature’, which encompasses progressive literary people, including Imhwa, is a period of confrontation between left and right after liberation, careful and passive discussions of postwar literature and finally, Since the 1960s, he has been responsible for the full-scale reform of Korean society and advocacy and progressive transformation programs. Baek Nak - chung and ‘Changbi Group’ raised the task as ‘Citizens Literature’. 4.19 The entry into the paragraphs of the generations made the modernization of Korean society their historical task and made them have an abnormal and superior position of literature. Despite the weakness of other fields and oppressive dictatorship power, the people of Korean society, whose symbolic and emotional literary power is changing rapidly, strongly imprinted the necessity of recognition and resolution of the contemporary problems of modernization and Korean modern history . In the course of ‘Citizen Literature’, Baek Nak - chung, who was trying to emphasize the historical role of ‘citizen’, turned to ‘the theory of national literature’ and filled ‘the people literature’ with the core contents of national literature. It became a concern. Of course, it was because of the long-term power of the Park Chung-hee regime and the conspiracy to strengthen the persistence of the Cold War on the Korean Peninsula as a “hostile symbiotic relationship”. The ‘people’ as a universal and practical being that unifies class and class with the resistance of the ruling class to the ruling class has just emerged as an icon symbolizing resistance. At one time, it was pushed to the concept of ‘mass’ or ‘nation’, but ‘people’ was recognized as the third world version of historical reality as the master of history and the value it should aim for. However, in the 2000s, the ambiguous and conceptual dimension of the concept of ‘people’ was criticized as the philosophy of identity, and the awareness of the problem of ‘multitude’ was newly highlighted. In addition to the spontaneity and autonomy of the individual subject and the tendency to change, which are appropriate for the age of network power, there is a time when a reason for competing is sought and commonality is found in the commonality of I think that the motive strategy of ‘multitude’ which seeks a new relationship with the people is meaningful.