문학은 현실의 억압들과 부정의를 폭로하고 문학적 서사로서 시민사회의 감수성들에 호소하는 고발기능을 갖는 동시에, 기존인권담론을 끊임없이 의문시하며 ‘생성되지 않은 인권’을 발견해내는 기능도 갖는다. 또한 법문학비평은 상처 치유의 새로운 가능성들, 즉 접합과 연쇄의 가능성들을 보여주기도 한다. 이러한 고발과 발견, 그리고 실천의 가능성들은 특히 동시대 문학작품들에 대한 구체적인 법문학비평을 통해 수행될 수 있다. 본 논문은 사회적 약자의 내러티브를 담아내는 동시대 작가들의 고유한 서사와 시각이 인권의 고발과 발견, 그리고 실천에 가져다줄 수 있는 새로움들을 들여다보았다. 근대 이후 한국문학이 다루어 온 사회적 갈등과 상처들이 주로 역사가 남긴 트라우마나 집단의 정체성과 관련된, 구체적 원인으로서 억압자를 지목하고 이에 대항하여 소수자들이 연대하는, 적대점이 비교적 뚜렷한 그것이었다면, 적대적 타자 혹은 ‘억압적 아버지로서의 법’이 깊숙이 각인되어 있지 않은 상처들에 문학이 더욱 주목하게 된 것은 90년대 이후였다. 특히 2000년대의 소설들은 탈역사적, 탈국가적, 탈현실적 감각으로 상처의 내러티브를 담아내고 있으며, 따라서 시대나 지역, 민족보다는 분자화된 미시공간을 주된 배경으로 한다. 본 논문은 지난 10년 사이에 등단한 소설가들로 범위를 좁혀, 그 중에도 특히 빈곤과 소외의 문제를 주되게 다루는 세 작가들로서 박민규, 윤성희, 김애란을 택하여 ‘산수로서의 법’, ‘역시나 부재한, 보물지도로서의 법’, ‘달아난 아비로서의 법’의 세 알레고리를 읽어내어 보았다. 이들이 상처의 내러티브를 담아낼 때 갖는 고유함은 소재의 독특함이나 발화의 고발적 힘보다는 상처를 발화하는 방식의 특이성들에 기인한다. 심각한 상황에서 엉뚱한 웃음으로 감정이입을 막아버리거나(박민규), 건조하고 무감한 문체로 고통스러운 사건을 전하거나(윤성희), 실재계의 상처가 상징계로 옮겨지기 전에 상상으로 막아버리는(김애란) 등이 그러하다. 독자들은 어떤 아픔이 전해오는 걸 느끼지만, 그것이 어디서 오는지가 과거의 빈민문학이나 노동문학, 가족소설들에서처럼 직접적이지 않다. 따라서 상처를 알아듣고 들여다보기 위해 독자들은 더 세심하고 예민한 청각과 시선을 키우게 된다. 또한 이 작품들은 새로운 형상을 한 법의 알레고리들을 그려낸다. 전통적으로 문학에서 법은 ‘아버지의 말씀’의 상징성을 가지며, 그래서 한편으로는 혼란이나 무질서와 대비되는 규범․규율을 대표하며 다른 한편으로는 강제․억압을 표상하기도 하였다. 그런데 이들의 작품 안에서 아버지는 모두 무능하거나 아니면 부재하다. 무능하거나 부재한데, 살해충동을 느끼기에는 ‘너무’ 가냘프고 무기력하다. 그래서 소설 속 인물들은 ‘도래할 정의란 영원히 지연될 것임’을 생래적으로 터득해 알고 있다. 또한 아버지 너머로 도약하기에는, 세상은 이미 산수의 법칙으로 돌아간다는 사실도 이미 체득해버렸다. 그렇기에 이들은 배신감을 느끼거나 분노하여 주먹을 쥐고 맞서기보다는 차라리 우주적 상상으로 탈주하기를 택한다. 그 아버지는 처음부터 부재했기에, 도리어 상징계의 위치에 고착되지 않은 채 상상 속에서 부유하며 ‘달리는 아비’로 유쾌하게 변형될 여지가 만들어지기도 한다. 이처럼 세 작품들은 ‘산수로서 법’과 ‘거짓인 보물지도로서의 법’, 그리고 ‘달리는 아비로서의 법’이라는 법의 알레고리를 통하여, 사회적 약자라는 고착화된 주체형태에 머물지 않고 거기서 빠져 나오는 ‘소수자’의 내러티브를 발견하게 해준다. 자본주의 체제에서 소외되고 경쟁에서 밀려난, 그리고 정상적인 가족틀 안에 포함되지 못하는 주체들이 계급이나 젠더정체성이나 이데올로기가 아닌, 상처받은 자만이 알아볼 수 있는 타인의 상처를 통해 연대하는 새로운 가능성을 보여준다.

Human right issues are basically related to notion of isolation, emotional wounds, trauma and recovery, which cannot be sensitively described in rational language of law, or the Father. Literary works help grasping unseen and unheard narratives in legal discourse. Primary role that literature may play is to disclose, for literary narrative has prevailing power in touching emotional code of the mass through reportage. Moreover, unearthing yet-to-be-discovered subject issues in human right is a unique contribution that law and literature could make on legal discourse of human right, thereby leading to recovering polyphonic justice. Such disclosing, discovering, and recovering of minority narratives may be performed through literary criticism on novels of contemporaneous writers: in this case, Korean novels released in the last decade. While Korean literature from the post-war period throughout the 80s show tendency of treating wounds in relation to historical trauma or collective identity, drawing a clear line between prevalent oppressor(whether it be colonialism, military dictatorship or capitalism) and minority subjects as a whole, novels released after the 90s touch more personal issues and sentiments. Particularly writings of the 2000s illustrate post-historical, transnational, and surrealistic subject issues taking place in micro-spatial background. This article tries to illustrate unique perspective and storytelling that Korean novelists of the 2000s make use of when dealing with marginalized voices, especially focusing at short novels by three young writers: Park Min-gyu, Yoon Sung-hee and Kim Aeran. One signiture short story for each of the three writers had been selected to perceive allegory of law and to perform literary criticism of law: i) “Is That So? I am a Giraffe” of Park Min-gyu with the allegory of ‘law as arithmetic,’ ii) “To Bury the Treasure Map at the point of U-Turn” of Yoon Sung-hee with the allegory of law as fake treasure map, and iii) “Run, Dad!” of Kim Aeran with the allegory of law as running father. The peculiarities which may be perceived in the three novels of these contemporaneous writers when dealing with narrative of minorities are the following: i) postmodern style of narration, for the novelty that they bring to human right discourse derives from uniqueness of writing style rather than originality of themes or materials: for instance, blocking reader’s empathetic concentration by abrupt bluster of bizarre jokes in such serious scenes(Park Min-gyu), delivering painful event in dry numb sentences(Yoon Sung-hee), or running away to the imaginary before wounds of the Real reach the Symbol(Kim Aeran). Readers do sense the hurts, but still puzzled at where they derive from. Hence readers eventually develop keen sense of hearing and gaze. ii) perspective towards ‘law as the Father,’ for fathers in their stories are either absent or incompetent. Absent and incompetent indeed, thereby too vulnerable to be the subject of oedipal murderous wish. As a consequence, sons and daughters of these fathers are always-already well aware that justice to arrive would delay forever. iii) thus, the protagonists chose to take flight to the imaginary rather than standing up with fists of rage or gathering under the flag of “people united will never be defeated.” It is neither class nor ideology that creates sense of solidarity here, but the wounds of the other which only the wounded may recognize.

Human right issues are basically related to notion of isolation, emotional wounds, trauma and recovery, which cannot be sensitively described in rational language of law, or the Father. Literary works help grasping unseen and unheard narratives in legal discourse. Primary role that literature may play is to disclose, for literary narrative has prevailing power in touching emotional code of the mass through reportage. Moreover, unearthing yet-to-be-discovered subject issues in human right is a unique contribution that law and literature could make on legal discourse of human right, thereby leading to recovering polyphonic justice. Such disclosing, discovering, and recovering of minority narratives may be performed through literary criticism on novels of contemporaneous writers: in this case, Korean novels released in the last decade. While Korean literature from the post-war period throughout the 80s show tendency of treating wounds in relation to historical trauma or collective identity, drawing a clear line between prevalent oppressor(whether it be colonialism, military dictatorship or capitalism) and minority subjects as a whole, novels released after the 90s touch more personal issues and sentiments. Particularly writings of the 2000s illustrate post-historical, transnational, and surrealistic subject issues taking place in micro-spatial background. This article tries to illustrate unique perspective and storytelling that Korean novelists of the 2000s make use of when dealing with marginalized voices, especially focusing at short novels by three young writers: Park Min-gyu, Yoon Sung-hee and Kim Aeran. One signiture short story for each of the three writers had been selected to perceive allegory of law and to perform literary criticism of law: i) “Is That So? I am a Giraffe” of Park Min-gyu with the allegory of ‘law as arithmetic,’ ii) “To Bury the Treasure Map at the point of U-Turn” of Yoon Sung-hee with the allegory of law as fake treasure map, and iii) “Run, Dad!” of Kim Aeran with the allegory of law as running father. The peculiarities which may be perceived in the three novels of these contemporaneous writers when dealing with narrative of minorities are the following: i) postmodern style of narration, for the novelty that they bring to human right discourse derives from uniqueness of writing style rather than originality of themes or materials: for instance, blocking reader’s empathetic concentration by abrupt bluster of bizarre jokes in such serious scenes(Park Min-gyu), delivering painful event in dry numb sentences(Yoon Sung-hee), or running away to the imaginary before wounds of the Real reach the Symbol(Kim Aeran). Readers do sense the hurts, but still puzzled at where they derive from. Hence readers eventually develop keen sense of hearing and gaze. ii) perspective towards ‘law as the Father,’ for fathers in their stories are either absent or incompetent. Absent and incompetent indeed, thereby too vulnerable to be the subject of oedipal murderous wish. As a consequence, sons and daughters of these fathers are always-already well aware that justice to arrive would delay forever. iii) thus, the protagonists chose to take flight to the imaginary rather than standing up with fists of rage or gathering under the flag of “people united will never be defeated.” It is neither class nor ideology that creates sense of solidarity here, but the wounds of the other which only the wounded may recognize.

, , , , , , ,

Literary Criticism of Law, Minor Literature, Narrative, Allegory, Sidestepping, Solidarity, Deconstructive Criticism of Law, Absence of Law