바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 0023-3900

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.47 No.1
Citation Share

After the Apocalypse of Literature: A Critique of Karatani Kojin’s Thesis of the End of Modern Literature

Korea Journal / Korea Journal, (P)0023-3900; (E)2733-9343
2007, v.47 no.1, pp.102-125
https://doi.org/10.25024/kj.2007.47.1.102

(2007). After the Apocalypse of Literature: A Critique of Karatani Kojin’s Thesis of the End of Modern Literature. Korea Journal, 47(1), 102-125, https://doi.org/10.25024/kj.2007.47.1.102
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Based on his clear understanding of the extinction of the form, role, and formative conditions of modern literature, Karatani Kojin asserts that modern literature has ended and further has fallen into the realm of entertainment. Karatanis discussion of the end of literature owes a lot to theHegelian concept of the end of art and Kojves notion of history. Karatanis end-of-literature thesis means that a historically determined possibility of knowledge and morality can no longer be realized in liter- ary works. As we all know, however, a great number of works of art produced after Hegels end-of-art declaration have significance in our culture. Another important cornerstone of Karatanis explanation is Kojves view of what comes after the end of history, as well as the animalization of humanity. According to Kojve, the end of history means that human society no longer negates the given world. However, this paper argues that despite the overriding trend of human animalization, man still has the impulse to negate the given nature, culture, and the self that constitute them. Nevertheless, Karatanis thesis should be regarded as a challenge for us to think more seriously about the reasons why literature itself must exist.

keywords
Karatani Kojin, modern literature, the end of modern liter-ature, Hegel, Kojve

Reference

1.

Doseo Chulpan B, Translated by Jo Yeong-il. Seoul,

2.

Kim, Uchang, (2001) Munhak-gwa segye sijang？ (Literature and the GlobalMarket). , Seoul: Minumsa.

3.

Koj？ve, Alexandre, Introduction tothe Reading of Hegel,

4.

Jr. New York, ____________. 1969. Introduction to the Reading of Hegel edited by Allen Bloomand translated by James H. Nocholas, Basic Books.

5.

Hanbeot, (____________.1981.yeoksa-wahyeonsilbyeonjeungbeop) Dialectics of Historyand Reality . Translated by Seol Heon-yeong. Seoul,

6.

Sontag, Susan, (2004) Literature Is Freedom, The Friedenspreise AcceptanceSpeech, CN.: Winterhouse Editions

7.

Georges. 1973. ？Lettre ？ X, Lecture on Hegel,

8.

Butler, Judith. 1987. Subject of Desire Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Cen-turyFrance. New York, Columbia University Press.

9.

Croce, Benedetto. 1958. Aesthetics. Translated by Douglas Ainslie. New York, Noonday Press.

10.

Arthur C. 1986. The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art. NewYork, Columbia University Press.

11.

Jacques. 1981. ？Implications, Interview with Henri Ronse.？ In Posi-tions.Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago University of Chicago Press.,

12.

____________. 1992. ？This Strange Institution Called Literature, An Interviewwith Jacques Derrida.？ In Acts of Literature edited by Derek Attridge.New York,

13.

Hegel, F. 1975. Hegel？s Aesthetics. Translated by T. M. Knox, OxfordUniversity Press.

14.

Hegel mihak (Hegel？s Aesthetics), Seoul: Nanam

15.

Jameson, Fredric. 1994. The Seeds of Time. New York, Columbia UniversityPress.

16.

Kojin. 1990. ？D？ oitsusei no enkan, ？ Oe Kenjabur？ o to Mishima Yukio？ A Circle of Identity . In Sh？uen omegutte,

17.

(2002) Nihon seishin bunseki (A Psychoanalysis of Japan). , Tokyo:Bungei Shunj？u.

18.

(2004b) Geundae munhak-ui jongmal？ (The End of Modern Liter-ature)., Munhak dongne

19.

(2004c) Nihon kindai bungaku no kigen (Origins of Modern Japan-eseLiterature). , Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.

20.

(2004a) Oe Kenjabur？o no aregorii: man？en gannen no futtob？ oru ( ？ Oe Kenjabur？ o？s Allegory: The Football Game in the First Year of Manen). , Tokyo: Fukutake Shoten

Korea Journal

e-Submission OA Policy