Boundary awareness of Korean diaspora literature in Japan and ‘Transnation’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
본고에서는 디아스포라의 구심력과 원심력의 관점에서 재일 코리안의 전세대로 일컬어지는 다치하라 마사아키 문학과 김석범 문학, 중간세대인 이회성 문학과 이양지의 문학을 중심으로 경계의식과 트랜스네이션의 실천적 행보를 검토해 보았다. 다치하라 마사아키 문학은 인간실존의 문제를 단순히 고향의식, 조국과 민족, 역사와 정치이념의 정서만으로 접근할 수 없는 근원적인 측면이 존재하며, 김석범의 문학은 작가 자신의 디아스포라 의식을 근간으로 해방정국을 제주도(제주4.3사건) 중심으로 피력했다는 점에서 대별된다. 굴절된 일제강점기와 해방정국의 극심했던 혼란상을 체험했던 두 작가의 문학세계 는 디아스포라의 다양한 경계의식이라는 관점에서 대별되지만 기본적으로 인간실존과 보편성을 천착했다는 점에서 상징적이다. 제국과 식민, 중심과 주변으로 변주되는 국가/민족주의적 시선과 디아스포라의 중층적 이미지를 실존과 현실주의적 시각에서 서사화한 예이기 때문이다. 그리고 이회성과 이양지 문학은 “가장 재일조선인 문학다운 문학”을 보여준 예로서 특히 유민의식과 월경을 천착하고 자기정체성과 연계된 삶의 공간/장소와 언어의 문제를 다루었다는 점에서 주목된다. 이회성은 [유역]을 통해 ‘37년사건’으로 상징되는 구소련권 고려인들의 혹독한 디아스포라 의식을 형상화 했으며 이양지는 [유희] 등을 통해 이방인의식과 자기 찾기의 여정을 통해 경계의식을 형상화 했다는 점에서 그러하다. 이러한 재일 디아스포라의 문학적 특징은 전지구촌의 코리안 디아스포라 문학과도 공유되는 지점이라고 할 수 있다. 문예잡지인 [캐나다문학](캐나다), [미주문학](미국), [연변문학](중국), [깎뚜스](멕시코), [안데스문학](아르헨티나), [열대문화](브라질), [삼천리](일본)가 그러하고, 아동문예지인 [한사랑](페루), [파랑새](파라과이), 그리고 구소련권의 [레닌기치] 등이 그러한 코리안 디아스포라의 간고함을 문학적으로 담아낸 예이다. 말하자면 코리안 디아스포라 문학은 경계와 혼종, 월경과 트렌스네이션등으로 표상되는 디아스포라 의식을 상징적으로 보여주었다는 점에서 지극히 교훈적/시사적이라 할 수 있다.This study examined the practical trajectory of transnation and boundary awareness from the perspective of diaspora centripetal force with the focus on the literature of Tachihara Masaaki and Seokbeom Kim who are called as the generation before Koreans residents in Japan, Heeseong Lee and Yangji Lee who are viewed as the middle generation. Tachihara Masaaki’s literature has some underlying aspect of human existence, which cannot be approached by any simple emotions such as hometown consciousness, homeland and people, and history and political ideology. Seokbeom Kim’s literature bases on the author’s own diaspora consciousness to express the post-liberation political situation with the focus on Jeju Island (April 3 massacre in Jeju). In these aspects, the two authors’ works are differentiated from each other. The two authors experienced the refracted period of Japanese colonial era and extremely political chaotic situation after national liberation. Their realms of literature are distinctive from each other from the perspective of diversified oundary awareness on diaspora. However, basically, they are symbolic in probing into human existence and universality because, from the viewpoint of existence and realism, they are the narrtivization examples of multi-level diaspora images and nationalistic views varied into empire and colonization, and center and circumference. The literature of Heeseong Lee and Yangji Lee is the example of showing the nature of literature by Korean residents in Japan to the maximum extent. They are remarkable in probing into the consciousness of ruined people and crossing borders, in particular, and dealing with the issues of identity-related living space/place and language. Leeseong Lee, in his work [Yuyeok], gave shape to the severe diaspora consciousness of Korean residents in the former Soviet Union areas through the symbolic event of 37 year incident. Yangji Lee, in his work [Yuhee] and others, described the boundary awareness through the journey to find oneself and foreigners’ awareness. The characteristics of such literature by Korean diaspora in Japan are shared by all other Korean diasporas across the world. Examples are literary magazines such as [Canadian Literature] (Canada), [Korean Literature of America] (US), [Yanbian Literature] (China), [Cactu] (Mexico), [Tropical Culture] (Brazil), and [Sanzenri] (Japan); children’s literara magazines such as [Han Sarang] (Peru), [Parangsae] (Paraguay); and the former Soviet Union’s [Lenin Gichi], literaturally describing the severe situation of Korean diasporas. It is that, so to speak, Korean diaspora literature has deep lessons and implications in symbolically presenting diaspora consciousness represented by boundaries and hybridism, border crossing and transnation, etc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".