바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN1229-4632
  • E-ISSN2733-5925
  • KCI

A study on modernity in Gim Yu-jeong’s novel and women’s bodies

Feminism and Korean Literature / Feminism and Korean Literature, (P)1229-4632; (E)2733-5925
2017, v.0 no.42, pp.131-158
Lee Taesuk

Abstract

Modernity in the Korean modern history of literature started from modernity of identity. To overcome the modernity of ‘transplant literature,’ the immanent development theory requires a methodological transition. From that viewpoint, accessing a new perspective of Gim Yu-jeong, who is classified as a modernist in relation to Guinhoe, will demonstrate the possibility of a variety of interpretations. The modern body of Foucault is a useful method that can explain modernity, because it is made by a political regulation in discipline and control. '들병이', who is a wife of a peasant farmer, is driven into prostitution. She is a characteristic element in Gim Yu-jeong’s novel, and her existence shows the situation of the farmers. They were kicked out of the country and forced into the city under the colonial economic policy during the Japanese colonial period. The body of ‘들병이’ is not everyone’s possession, but under everyone’s ownership; this shows the process of forming a quasi-subject. Her identity is different from that of the waitress in the cafe or traditional gisaeng; her character and power are regulated and formed at networking. This is similar to the boundary body of Agamben. The body of ‘들병이’ is regulated by politics, that is, it is connected to bio-power. Out of power, she is materialized, and then she can live as a ‘pure form.’ Her location makes meaning, and this allows her existence to manifest and expend modernity.

keywords
bio-politics, bio-power, homo sacer, bare life, individual nomalisé, quasi-subject., 생명정치, 생명권력, 호모 사케르, 벌거벗은 생명, 근대적 개인, 유사-주체

Reference

1.

김유정, 「원본 김유정전집」, 전신재 편, 도서출판 강, 2000.

2.

강명관, 「조선풍속사3」, 푸른역사, 2010, 116쪽, 117.

3.

이능화, 「조선해어화사」, 이재곤 역, 동문선, 1992, 442쪽, 451.

4.

미셀 푸코, 「주체의 해석학」, 심세광 역, 동문선, 2007, 528.

5.

미셀 푸코, 「감시와 처벌」, 오생근 역, 나남, 2003, 219-222.

6.

토마스 홉스, 「리바이어던」, 진석용 역, 나남, 2008, 240-241.

7.

강선형, 「푸코의 생명관리정치와 아감벤의 생명정치」,「철학논총」 78, 새한철학회, 2014, 129-148.

8.

김영희, 「푸코의 후기 ‘권력’에 관한 연구」, 「문화와융합」 37-2, 한국문화융합학회, 2015, 367-391.

9.

김주리, 「김유정 소설에 나타난 파괴적 신체 고찰」, 「한국문예비평연구」 21, 한국현대문예비평학회, 2006, 377-395.

10.

소현숙, 「식민지시기 근대적 이혼제도와 여성의 대응」, 한양대학교 박사학위논문, 2013, 1-353.

11.

양창렬, 「생명권력인가 생명정치적 주권권력인가」, 「문학과사회」 19-3, 문학과지성사, 2006, 238-254.

12.

이도흠, 「근대성 논의에서 패러다임과 방법론의 혁신 문제」, 「국어국문학」 153, 국어국문학회, 2009, 253-285.

13.

이송순, 「1920-30년대 전반기 식민지 조선의 농가경제분석」, 「사학연구」 119, 한국사학회, 2015, 281-328.

14.

이태숙, 「근대성과 여성주체」, 「한국문학이론과 비평」 제21집, 한국문학이론과비평학회, 2003, 184-203.

15.

조정환, 「한국문학의 근대성과 탈근대성」, 「상허학보」 19, 상허학회, 2007, 137-165.

16.

주영하, 「‘주막’의 근대적 지속과 분화」, 「실천민속학연구」 11, 실천민속학회, 2008, 5-28.

17.

황정아, 「한국의 근대성 연구와 ‘근대주의’」, 「사회와철학」 31, 사회와철학연구회, 2016, 37-64.

18.

홍혜원, 「폭력의 구조와 소설적 진실」, 「현대소설연구」 47, 현대소설학회, 2011, 391-417.

Feminism and Korean Literature