연기적 주권을 향하여 ― 미국 인디언 문학 비평에서 민족주의와 세계시민주의 논쟁
Toward Co-arising Sovereignty — Controversy between Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism in Native American Literary Criticism
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The recent American Indian literary scholarship has enacted heated debates on the issue of nationalism vs. cosmopolitanism. Foregrounding post-modernist’s double discourses and allegedly shared humanism, cosmopolitan literary critics assert that American Indian nationalists give way to political separatism and cultural binarism as they pursue to seek their literary sources and methodology from the indigenous cultural values and perspectives. On the other hand, the nationalist critics including Jace Weaver, Craig S. Womack and Robert Warrior want to enliven the native world-view and literary methodology which they claim have been ignored, debased, discounted, and marginalized by Euro-American cultural voices. The native nationalists criticize that the cosmopolitan critics desire to keep status quo by reminding our own contemporary cultural hybridity or having recourse to the post-modern bifurcated logic of yes and no. In fact, the nationalist critics do not deserve the cosmopolitans’ charge of politico-cultural separatism and binarism. The nationalists willingly recognize the validity of those literary works that go along with multicultural movements in the United States as much as those seeking the native tribal perspectives. They only try to reinvigorate the marginalized sovereignty of the indigenous people. Then, the nationalist critics goes toward the Buddhist’s concept of co-arising sovereignty in that they are resilient to cultural transformation while keeping the non-essential sovereignty that is formed with five aggregates. American Indian nationalism does not pursue essentialist nationhood but co-arising sovereignty.
Abstract
The recent American Indian literary scholarship has enacted heated debates on the issue of nationalism vs. cosmopolitanism. Foregrounding post-modernist’s double discourses and allegedly shared humanism, cosmopolitan literary critics assert that American Indian nationalists give way to political separatism and cultural binarism as they pursue to seek their literary sources and methodology from the indigenous cultural values and perspectives. On the other hand, the nationalist critics including Jace Weaver, Craig S. Womack and Robert Warrior want to enliven the native world-view and literary methodology which they claim have been ignored, debased, discounted, and marginalized by Euro-American cultural voices. The native nationalists criticize that the cosmopolitan critics desire to keep status quo by reminding our own contemporary cultural hybridity or having recourse to the post-modern bifurcated logic of yes and no. In fact, the nationalist critics do not deserve the cosmopolitans’ charge of politico-cultural separatism and binarism. The nationalists willingly recognize the validity of those literary works that go along with multicultural movements in the United States as much as those seeking the native tribal perspectives. They only try to reinvigorate the marginalized sovereignty of the indigenous people. Then, the nationalist critics goes toward the Buddhist’s concept of co-arising sovereignty in that they are resilient to cultural transformation while keeping the non-essential sovereignty that is formed with five aggregates. American Indian nationalism does not pursue essentialist nationhood but co-arising sovereignty.
참고문헌 (22)
- 김성철, "중관사상 - 단독" (2006), 민족사
- 남수영, "중관사상의 이해" (2015), 여래
- 용수, "中論" (2007), 도서출판 법공양
- 윤희조, "불교의 언어관" (2012), 씨·아이·알
- 원효, "대승기신론소⋅별기" (2006), 일지사
- 정순일, "인도불교사" (2011), 운주사
- 한자경, "불교의 무아론" (2006), 이화여자대학교출판부
- Blaeser, Kimberly M., "The Cambridge Companion to Native American Literature", pp.257~270, Cambridge UP
- Brooks, Lasa, "American Indian Literary Nationalism", pp.225~252 (2006), U of New Mexico
- Foster, Tol, "Against Separatism: Jace Weaver and the Call for Community", American Literary History, 20(3), pp.565~587 (2008)
- Krupat, Arnold, "Red Matters: Native American Studies" (2002), U of Pennsylvania P
- Krupat, Arnold, "The Turn to the Native: Studies in Criticism and Culture" (1996), U of Nebraska P
- Macy, Joanna, "Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory" (1991), State University of New York
- Means, Russell, "TREATY: A Platform for Nationhood", Fourth World Center for the Study of Indigenous Law and Politics, ~ (1995)
- Murray, David, "The Cambridge Companion to Native American Literature", pp.69~84 (2005), Cambridge UP
- Owens, Louis, "Native American Representations: First Encounters, Distorted Images and Literary Appropriations", pp.8~29 (2001), Nebraska UP
- Parker, Robert Dale, "The Invention of Native American Literature" (2003), Cornell UP
- Pulitano, Elvira, "Toward a Native American Critical Theory" (2003), U of Nebraska P
- Strong, Pauline Turner, "Tribe and Nation: American Indians and American Nationalism", Social Analysis, 33, pp.9~26 (1993)
- Weaver, Jace, "American Indian Literary Nationalism" (2006), U of New Mexico
- Womack, Craig S., "Red on Red: Native American Literary Separatism" (1999), U of Minnesota P
- Womack, Craig S., "Reasoning Together: The Native Critics Collective", pp.353~410 (2008), U of Oklahoma P