There are many Gaze to work for the various Subject in Manchurian travel narrative in the last of Japanese, which visits hear and there the boundary between colonizer and colonized. This one's Gaze sometimes appear sharply as differentiation and identification, with this, the traveler may reconstruct his identity. Therefore, this article was grasped a point of Post-colonial strategy and a method by considering one's Gaze to others and a method of identity configuration as a centering Manjurian travel narrative written by Lee hyo-seok, Lee tae-joon and Lee seok-hoon. In the case of Lee hyo-seok, he composed the Subject by disidentificaation with colonist in Manjurian travel narrative, and described Manjuria with an aesthetic autonomy point of view. He found Other-ness from various ethnic cultures that was mixed in Manjuria and considered universality and contingency of beauty an culture by sophisticated sense. However, to pursuit of the aesthetic life based on both diversity an contingency had a limit in the point of which was on the basis of post-historization. Lee tae-joon composed the Subject by counter-identification with colonizer, on the other hand, watched Manjuria with an enlightenment point of view. He identified Manjuria as Other-ness based on cultural essentialism, on the other hand, with resisting to the goal and policy of Japanese, composed the Subject of chosenjin or himself by a method that imitates the logic of the colonial Subject, namely a method of Counter-Identification. But, such method may be produced a situation where support the Subject that rather deny regardless of his intention. Lee seok-hoon described the policy of Manschoukuo in the conformity point of view, composed the Subject by identification with colonizer. He expressed a desire for constructing in Manjuria an enlarged territory of Chosun as 2nd grade of imitated colonizer, as devoting himself to one body-japan-chosun that is logic of colonizer. However, he had been realized belatedly to have a limit that the ideology of one body-japan-chosun couldn't be an ideology of colonizer logically.
김재용·김미란 편역, 『식민주의와 협력』, 역락, 2003.
민족문학연구소, 『일제말기 문인들의 만주체험』, 역락, 2007.
이경훈 편역, 『한국 근대 일본어 평론·좌담회 선집』, 역락, 2009.
이효석, 『벽공무한』, 박문서관, 1941.
이효석, 『이효석전집」7권, 창미사, 2003.
『조광』, 『新時代』, 『매일신보』, 『조선일보』, 『문장』, 『國民文學』 등
곽승미, 「식민지 시대 여행 문화의 향유 실태와 서사적 수용 양상」, 대중서사학회, 『대중서사연구』 제15호, 2006.6, 229-256쪽.
김재용·김미란 편역 『식민주의와 협력』, 역락, 2003.
김철, 「두 개의 거울 : 민족 담론의 자화상 그리기」, 상허학회, 『상허학보』 17집, 2006.6, 141-169쪽.
박일우, 「한국근대문학의 滿洲 표상에 관한 연구 : 1930~40년대 소설을 중심으로」, 국민대 박사학위논문, 2009.
서경석, 「만주국 기행문학 연구」, 『어문학』 86호, 2004, 341-360쪽.
서영인, 「일제말기 만주담론과 만주기행」, 한민족문화학회, 『한민족문화연구』 23권, 2007, 209-238쪽.
와타나베 나오키, 「식민지 조선에서 <만주> 담론과 정치적 무의식-문학평론가 임화의 1940년대 전반의 논의를 중심으로」, 진단학회, 『진단학보』 107권, 2009.10, 277-297쪽.
윤대석, 「1940년대 ‘국민문학’ 연구」, 서울대학교 박사학위논문, 2006.
윤휘탁, 「만주국의 ‘2등 국(공)민’, 그 실상과 허상」, 『역사학보』 제169집, 2001, 139-171쪽.
이경훈, 「자본의 순환과 뉴미디어 테크놀로지의 역학관계-한국 근대문학의 트랜스내셔널리티(transnationality) ; 식민지와 관광지-만주라는 근대 극장」, 국제한국문학문화학회, 『사이』 6권, 2009, 73-112쪽.
장현숙, 「현대소설에 나타난 만주체험」, 경원대학교 아시아문화연구소, 『아시아문화연구』 제14집, 2008.5, 201-217쪽.
정선태, 「일제 말기 ‘국민문학’과 새로운 ‘국민’의 상상」, 한국현대문학회, 『한국현대문학연구』 제29집, 2009. 12, 351-379쪽.
정종현, 「근대문학에 나타난 ‘만주’ 표상-‘만주국’ 건국 이후의 소설을 중심으로」, 동국대학교 한국문학연구소, 『한국문학연구』 제28권, 2005.6, 229-259쪽.
진영복, 「민족적 주체 구성과 글쓰기 양상」, 한국문학언어학회, 『어문론총』 42권, 2005,6, 349-376쪽.
三浦信孝 외, 『언어 제국주의란 무엇인가』, 돌베개, 2005.
吉見俊哉 외, 『확장하는 모더니티』, 소명출판, 2007.
日本移民史硏究會 編, 『日本帝國主義下の滿洲移民』, 東京:龍溪書舍, 1976.
V. R. Schwartz, 노명우·박성일 역, 『구경꾼의 탄생』, 마티, 2006.
Bill Ashcroft 외, 이석호 역, 『포스트 콜로니얼 문학이론』, 민음사, 1996.
Wolfgang Schivelbusch, 박진희 역, 『철도여행의 역사』, 궁리, 1999.
Homi Bhabha, 나병철 역, 『문화의 위치』, 소명출판, 2002.