‘시적인 것’으로서의 노동과 성(性), 그리고 스타일-백무산과 장정일의 1980년대 시

Abstract

This article examines the value and meaning of the poems in the 1980’s focusing on the stylization of labor and sex. Here, the style pushes the ontological crack of existing language into the social crack, and also it is used there as the meaning of a device to acquire the new communicability and naturality of language. In the 1980’s, the epoch-making practice of the style started from Hwang, Ji-Woo’s new recognition on ‘what’s poetic’ and its critical application to contradictory reality. Park, No-Hae’s labor poems, too, belong to the practice of ‘what’s poetic’ in that they extended the possibility of reconstructing the existence of laborers greatly adding to the prospect of innovation. ‘The year of 87’s system’ brought about formal democratization in politics, economy, and culture. However, according to the failure and regression of capital globalization and mater narrative, the class fall of subordinate subjects was also visualized. Within the period of such risk, Baek, Mu-San made labor valuable with the laborers’ writing and the poetic expression of consciousness on innovation. In particular, he put forth the violence and immorality of the ruling system with sensuous parodies through the speech skills of the ruling class. Jang, Jung-Il intentionally montages the vulgar, sexual text and books written by Marx or Freud to highlight the corruption of the reality and subjects as a fact. Especially by making the form of self-humiliation struck by patriarchal Phallus in which a nation, capital, and father are integrated to the extreme to declare spoiled writing could be the only style. However, after the 1990’s, Baek, Mu-San moved to the time of land based on the theory on the cycle of the universe, and Jang, Jung-Il transferred to novels aiming for saints through methodological practice in Hwangeum(荒淫). And after the 1990’s, the styling of labor and sex changed to the confession and realization of becoming laborers, the risk of laborers to become included as ‘the objects of labor’ deprived of ‘the dignity of labor’ contrasting with it, and sensual criticism on the sexuality of the routine bipolarized by autonomy and violence.