지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The radical theory of the national literature in the 1980’s, through the opposition between the subject and the other, was based upon the strategic writing in which the other is actively excluded and the other is subject to the subject. Such strategic writing made the radical theorists of the national literature gain blind self- identity lacking self-reflection and create a literary theory, which emphasizes the outlook on the world of the labour class exclusively.
Kim, Myoung In, adopting Chae, Kwang Seok’s logic, maintained that in the literary works of intellectuals, the view of the world of ‘working productive populace’ should be accepted through ‘ontological determination’ and this view should be shared with one and another, saying now literature is in danger. In the meantime, Cho, Jeong Hwan, criticizing popular ‘national literary theory’ as ‘populism’ and insisting we acquire ‘the partisanship of the labour class’ in order to overcome the ‘populism’, advocated the literary theory of ‘labour liberation’.
The logic of Kim and Cho was the logical peak of the national literary theory and other the hand it was the limitation of he national literary theory. Since the advent of the national literary theory in the 1970’s, the theory has been connected with the theory of the literary movement based upon social change all the time. In the 1970’s, when the concept of populace was discussed in earnest, it was defined somewhat vaguely as “always majority, and people in charge of production directly but both suppresses and cultural alienators”. Afterwards, in the national literary theory, it is defined as an avant-garde class (labour class) which leads the populace right. Under the situation the logic of Kim and Cho was a necessary fruit of the national literary theory as a literary movement. Especially, the logic of Cho showed ‘exclusivity’ typically which may occur when the national literary theory developed in the light of ‘class’.
The logic of Jeong, Nam Young, who has argued with Kweon, Seong Woo and Kim, Young Hyun, too, corresponded with that of Cho. The ground that Kweon, in the course of arguing with Jeon, could rebuke Jeong and Cho as ‘doctrinists’ is also derived from their ‘exclusive literary theory’
Recently, based on the concept of modernity, an effort to grope for the national literary theory with a new view now bears fruit, deviating from the long-pending bipolar opposition between realism and modernism. In the 70’s and 80’s, the national literary theory developed in the way of excluding the modernism, on the basis of oppositional relationship between the realism and the modernism. On the other hand, in the 90’s, the theory is supposed to develop in the way of accepting the possibilities of the national literature in the realism and the modernism, actively. The new attempt of the national literature camp is expected to extend the extension and intension of the national literature.
Kim, Myoung In, adopting Chae, Kwang Seok’s logic, maintained that in the literary works of intellectuals, the view of the world of ‘working productive populace’ should be accepted through ‘ontological determination’ and this view should be shared with one and another, saying now literature is in danger. In the meantime, Cho, Jeong Hwan, criticizing popular ‘national literary theory’ as ‘populism’ and insisting we acquire ‘the partisanship of the labour class’ in order to overcome the ‘populism’, advocated the literary theory of ‘labour liberation’.
The logic of Kim and Cho was the logical peak of the national literary theory and other the hand it was the limitation of he national literary theory. Since the advent of the national literary theory in the 1970’s, the theory has been connected with the theory of the literary movement based upon social change all the time. In the 1970’s, when the concept of populace was discussed in earnest, it was defined somewhat vaguely as “always majority, and people in charge of production directly but both suppresses and cultural alienators”. Afterwards, in the national literary theory, it is defined as an avant-garde class (labour class) which leads the populace right. Under the situation the logic of Kim and Cho was a necessary fruit of the national literary theory as a literary movement. Especially, the logic of Cho showed ‘exclusivity’ typically which may occur when the national literary theory developed in the light of ‘class’.
The logic of Jeong, Nam Young, who has argued with Kweon, Seong Woo and Kim, Young Hyun, too, corresponded with that of Cho. The ground that Kweon, in the course of arguing with Jeon, could rebuke Jeong and Cho as ‘doctrinists’ is also derived from their ‘exclusive literary theory’
Recently, based on the concept of modernity, an effort to grope for the national literary theory with a new view now bears fruit, deviating from the long-pending bipolar opposition between realism and modernism. In the 70’s and 80’s, the national literary theory developed in the way of excluding the modernism, on the basis of oppositional relationship between the realism and the modernism. On the other hand, in the 90’s, the theory is supposed to develop in the way of accepting the possibilities of the national literature in the realism and the modernism, actively. The new attempt of the national literature camp is expected to extend the extension and intension of the national literature.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 급진적 민족문학론의 형성과 전개
Ⅲ. 급진적 민족문학론의 두 양상, ‘민중적 민족문학론’과 ‘노동해방문학론’
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
사회제도 속의 문학생태계와 문학교육의 과제
문학교육학
2013 .01
-
문학장과 문학성
외국문학연구
2004 .08
-
‘제3세계 문학론’과 ‘식민주의 비평’의 극복
우리문학연구
2008 .06
-
내부의 시선과 외부의 시선의 균형감각 : 백낙청론
한국학연구
2002 .11
-
한국문학 연구의 미래
국어국문학
2004 .09
-
종자이론과 북한 문예이론의 특징
어문론집
2006 .09
-
설창수론 : ‘전인(全人)’의 문학과 의지의 언어
우리문학연구
2016 .07
-
일제강점기 문학적 글쓰기론의 전개 과정
우리말글
2010 .04
-
1990년대 민족문학론의 전개양상에 관한 연구
비평문학
2006 .12
-
Case theory
영어영문학
1987 .10
-
National Literature of Korea
Korea Journal
1974 .08
-
문학적 가치 판단의 객관성 문제
새한영어영문학
2003 .11
-
반응 중심 문학교육에 대한 비판적 고찰
어문학
2005 .12
-
论莫言文学创作的“民间观” : 对民间批评理论的另类阐释
중어중문학
2017 .09
-
문학 교재 구성에서 문학사 교육의 재인식
우리말글
2008 .12
-
문학교육과 문학에 대한 관점의 전환
국어교육연구
2007 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-810-016640985