한국문학의 근대성에 대한 계보학적 탐색을 가능하도록 만든 것은 가라타니 고진의『 일본 근대문학의 기원』이었다. 90년대 한국문학의 근본적인 변화 속에 푸코가 알려준 계보학적 사유가 자리잡고 있다면, 이를 문학에 적용하는 가장 세련된 방식을 선취한 비평가가 가라타니였다. 그는 근대의 시점에 대한 논의나, 내재적 발전과 이식의 대립을 모면하고 근대를 사유하는 초월론적인 구조를 도입했다. 이것이 한국문학연구에 대한 가라타니 사유의 가장 중요한 기여라고 판단할 수 있다. 한편 가라타니의『 근대문학의 종언』은 근대문학의 역사적 사명이 이제 끝장났다는 주장을 펼침으로써 한국의 문학비평과 연구에 많은 영향을 주었다. 가라타니의 종언론에 대해 부정하며 민족문학의 가능성에 대해 옹호하거나, 가라타니의 논의에 공명하여 근대문학의 종언에 대한 예감을 수락하는 주요한 논의들이 있었다. 근대의 종언에 대해 바흐친이 주장한 종결불가능성이라는 개념을 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 근대가 끝났으므로 문학도 끝난 것이 아니라, 소설이 끝장나기를 거부하기에 근대도 결코 마음대로 끝장날 수 없다는 것. 세계의 마지막 말이 아직 발화되지 않았기에 세계는 열려 있고 자유로우며, 모든 것은 여전히 미래에 놓여 있는 것처럼, 근대 또한 그 가능성의 중심에서 여전히 열려 있다는 것. 아직 발화되지 않은 그 마지막 말을 기다리는 동안 근대는 결코 끝나지 않으리라는 것. 그 종결(불)가능성이란 지평의 안과 밖에서 문학은 자신의 곤궁을 정치화하는 심원한 상상력을 새롭게 수정하고 끊임없이 이동하며 스스로를 단련해 갈 것이다.

What made it available for a genealogical inquiry into the modernity of Korean literature was The Origin of Modern Japanese Literature by Karatani Kojin. One genealogical principle which Foucault explained, occurred a fundamental change in Korean literature in the 1990s, and the Karatani is a critic who is preoccupied with applying Foucault’s theory to these Korean literatures of the 1990s in detail. Karatani introduced the theory of transcendental structure to Korean literary criticism. This theory considers the point of time in the modern age and speculates about ‘modern times’ while avoiding confrontation in the immanent development and transplant of modern Korean Literature. Thiscan be judged to be the most important contribution of Karatani’s thought to research on Korean literature. Meanwhile, The End of Modern Literature by Karatani had a great influence upon Koreanliterary criticism and research on modern Korean literature by propagating the assertion that the historical mission of modern literature is now complete. Key discussions either support the possibility of a national literature, while denying Karatani’s discourse of the end, or else accept the presentiment of the end of modern literature, while still being open to Karatani’s discussion. There is a need for examination of the concept dubbed ‘the impossibility of closure’, which Bakhtin argued is about the end of modern times. It is not that literature must be finished because modern era have ended, but rather that the modern era can never optionally come to an end, because a novel denies its coming to an end. Because the world’s last word has not yet been uttered, the world is open and free while everything possible still exists in future. In this way, even the modern era can be said to be still open in the center of its possibility. It is said that modern times will not finish while we wait for ‘the world’s’ last word, which has not yet been uttered. Within and beyond the horizon called the (Im)possibility of modernity’s closure, literature will proceed, training itself with modifying and continuously developing profound imagination, which allows it’s own distress to be politicized.

What made it available for a genealogical inquiry into the modernity of Korean literature was The Origin of Modern Japanese Literature by Karatani Kojin. One genealogical principle which Foucault explained, occurred a fundamental change in Korean literature in the 1990s, and the Karatani is a critic who is preoccupied with applying Foucault’s theory to these Korean literatures of the 1990s in detail. Karatani introduced the theory of transcendental structure to Korean literary criticism. This theory considers the point of time in the modern age and speculates about ‘modern times’ while avoiding confrontation in the immanent development and transplant of modern Korean Literature. Thiscan be judged to be the most important contribution of Karatani’s thought to research on Korean literature. Meanwhile, The End of Modern Literature by Karatani had a great influence upon Koreanliterary criticism and research on modern Korean literature by propagating the assertion that the historical mission of modern literature is now complete. Key discussions either support the possibility of a national literature, while denying Karatani’s discourse of the end, or else accept the presentiment of the end of modern literature, while still being open to Karatani’s discussion. There is a need for examination of the concept dubbed ‘the impossibility of closure’, which Bakhtin argued is about the end of modern times. It is not that literature must be finished because modern era have ended, but rather that the modern era can never optionally come to an end, because a novel denies its coming to an end. Because the world’s last word has not yet been uttered, the world is open and free while everything possible still exists in future. In this way, even the modern era can be said to be still open in the center of its possibility. It is said that modern times will not finish while we wait for ‘the world’s’ last word, which has not yet been uttered. Within and beyond the horizon called the (Im)possibility of modernity’s closure, literature will proceed, training itself with modifying and continuously developing profound imagination, which allows it’s own distress to be politicized.

Karatani Kojin, Modern Literature, Origin, Closure, Impossibility of Closure