문학이라는 장치 －식민지/제국 체제와 일제말기 문학장의 성격－

Abstract

This study aims to examine the institutionality or apparatusness of modern literature, and to clarify the singularity of colonial/imperial regime and colony’s literary sphere. Foucault’s concept of dispositif is “a thoroughly heterogenous ensemble consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions–in short,the said as much as the unsaid”. Agamben generalize it into “anything that has in some way the capacity to capture, orient, determine, intercept,model, control, or secure the gestures, behaviors, opinions, or discourses of living beings”. In the light of Agamben’s concept, dispositif means not the omnipresence of disciplinary powers, but multilayered uneven conditions into which living beings are captured. In this sense, dispositif doesn’t only perform some disciplinary control function, but also provides sites for developing the ‘human’ desire. So it also becomes the form of subjectification which is constituted in antagonism between dispositif and living beings. 208 현대문학의 연구 44Colony is the colony under the determination of uneven asymmetry ontological, legal, political relationship between colony and empire. The concept of dispositif is applicable to clarify the historical singularity of the colony, because this relationship is connected directly with the conditions of humanization and subjectification. For indicating the implicated relationship between colony and empire, I use the concept of the ‘colonial/imperial regime’. The condition of durability as regime of the colonial/imperial regime, depends upon the rationalization of control, the internalization of desire, and the absolutization of visibility. And literature as inorganic element of this regime, operates as dispositif, which offers appearances of subjectivity to living beings of the colony. The modern literature as a certain ‘significant’ writing/reading/speakin g/hearing regime, which is made by manifold discursive, undiscursive conditions, constitutes ‘the reflexive (internal) subject’ and ‘the subject of imaginary solidarity’=national subject. These subjects seizures the dreams that want to possess the ‘proper self’, and the dreams that want to communicate infinitely, in the separated territory respectively. If literature as dispositif which produces these subjectivities premises a certain regime of ‘communicability(Mitteilbarkeit)’, when this communicability reaches a deadlock, the characteristics as dispositif of dispositif would be exposed clearly. During the total war, since the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War, the characteristics as the ‘regime’ of the colonial/imperial regime was revealed clearly, and the structural change of literary sphere come to the surface in the form of ‘the crisis of Choseon Literature(朝鮮文學)’. In the wake of the war, mobilization, and internalization of the colony, the structure of literary sphere changed and that produced the technician-writer and translator-writer who had been concealed in dispositif of the modern literature.