『인문평론』에 나타난 ‘지나(支那)’- 자기화 된 만주와 제국의 ‘안의 밖’ 지나 -

Abstract

Since the modern times, literature has tried to exercise leadership on the times in any forms. Yet, like all kinds of desires, this is also related to the reality. In particular, this was not an easy one in the rapidly changing situation when KAPF fell out and the Sino-Japanese War broke out in late 1930s. Inmunpyungnon tried not to lose leadership of literature even during the complex period from October 1939 to April 1941, that is, from the end of the Sino-Japanese War to the Pacific War. The space which was continuously emphasized in Inmunpyungnon with the intention of leadership on the times was 'jina(支那-China).' With a focus on this, this paper aims at examining how Inmunpyungnon which tried to lead literature at that time recognized the place called jina, which was different not only from Gyeongseong (Seoul) and Tokyo but also from Manchuria, and based on the specific aspects and affects about it, it also aims at investigating the matter of a political order and identity, which was different from ”the new order in East Asia” or ”the one-body theory of East Asia.”Manchuria, the “place to escape from Joseon society” and the second living space with about 1.2 million immigrants, was the place where the gain and loss of the reality should be considered. However, compared to this, jina was the space that is relatively free from Joseon people's life. jina was a unique place with its own characteristics in that it was the only nation that was located outside of the empire among the three East Asian countries and secured a certain amount of distance from the national view point of Joseon. The intellectuals of colonial Joseon often regarded the situation of Manchuria before and after Manchukuo as barbarism and disorder. This view point was also applied to jina. However, more important thing is that jina was explained as “uncivilized”, also as having its own features and potential from them. For instance, Han Seol-ya emphasized that both its nature and artificiality were unfamiliar but new, pointing out that the ways to explain jina were also not about jina itself but underestimated it at the writers’ distraction. Bae Ho’s experience is also worthy of attention. While doing sightseeing in Beijing with a Chinese college student, he received special treatment. The Chinese students were the target of physical custody, but he could avoid it as westerners could. The interesting part is his sense of this preferential treatment. It was not such a pleasant experience to him. The internal logic and that of assimilation becomes clear easily at the place where the relationship between the ruling and the ruled ones became equal such as in Manchuria, but in some part, the differences in the power relationship between the ruling and the subjugated group could be understood in jina. In short, through this sense about jina, it could be made sure that even though the logic of the empire could be repeated faithfully, the assumption that Japan was identical to Joseon was merely “imaginary identity.” In addition, Joseon inside the empire was different in kind and therefore stood out as ”the outside of inside.”