메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국중앙영어영문학회 영어영문학연구 영어영문학연구 제51권 제2호
발행연도
2009.1
수록면
235 - 269 (35page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This article explores the relationship between contemporary postcolonial criticism and the notion of the “literary.” I argue that postcolonial criticism is currently undergoing a crisis—the signs of which emerge in treatments and normative categorizations of postcolonial literary texts. Today, the literary dimension of postcolonial literary texts is often coerced into a highly institutionalized and codified set of norms—in part as a result of postcolonial studies’ movement from being a marginal field to occupying a central position in the humanities. In my article, I take a closer look at a number of recent works, including Gayatri Spivak’s Death of a Discipline (2003), Derek Attridge’s The Singularity of Literature (2004), and Neil Lazarus’s “The Politics of Postcolonial Modernism” (2005). One common aspect characterizing these recent works is that they all express unease about the institutionalizing effects haunting the field today, while at the same time calling for a return to the literary dimension of literary texts. However, these critical works generally tend to identify distinctly modernist/postmodernist aesthetic strategies as representative figures of the literary, while leaving out or, in some cases, even debunking other literary forms, such as realism. The potential danger inherent in such theoretical discourses is that they may possibly repeat an institutionalized formula that legitimizes an equation of certain literary strategies with certain political convictions. What is needed, I argue, is an expansion of aesthetic and political codifications in contemporary postcolonial studies: the development of a critical perspective which is broad enough to include literary strategies not necessarily corresponding to modernist/postmodernist criteria, and thus not necessarily corresponding to the dominating socio-political convictions promoted by postcolonial studies. The endeavours of such a development, I argue, should not be seen as yet another attempt to formulate another generalizing theory about the literary in all postcolonial texts, but rather be seen as a provisional investigation of the reasons underlying the current malaise of institutionalization, and hence an exploration of the ways in which the field of postcolonial studies may potentially move beyond its state of institutionalized paralysis.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (33)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0