학술논문
드 만과 데리다 - 허무의 유희와 포월(包越)의 광기
이용수 287
- 영문명
- De Man and Derrida: A Textual Play of the Existential Nil and a Diabolic Will to Pass beyond the Cogito via Cogito
- 발행기관
- 한국비평이론학회
- 저자명
- 김보현(Kim Bo Hyun)
- 간행물 정보
- 『비평과 이론』제11권 제2호, 79~99쪽, 전체 21쪽
- 주제분류
- 어문학 > 영어와문학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2006.12.01
5,320원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
The strong affinity between Derrida and de Man and the overriding nomenclature such as ‘deconstruction’ or ‘deconstructionism’ have befogged the flagrant difference between the two critics. Moreover the (re) appropriations of Derrida by many critics, deliberate or not, have hoodwinked many readers, leaving them forever in the dark. This paper, instead of relying on the secondary sources and materials, dives outright into the texts of two critics to mark their difference, warding off the unnecessary confusions beforehand.
The conspicuous difference between de Man and Derrida looms large when their famous polemic centers on Rousseau. De Man insists in his Blindness and Insight that Rousseau was redeemed, because Rousseau was fully aware of the rhetoricity of language, in turn willingly and wittingly submitting himself to the destructive power of diff?rance, as portrayed in Shelley"s posthumous and unfinished poem, The triumph of Life. But Derrida disagrees with de Man, and in his Of Grammatology depicts in such lurid details the entire trajectory of Rousseau"s discourses, thereby revealing that Rousseau"s discourses are split far apart; its gap ever widening, which is, to borrow Derrida"s expression, symptomatic of the logocentric discourses. Derrida in his Memories for Paul de Man further clarifies his positional difference(or his non-position) and more to the point where he diverges decisively from de Man. Unlike de Man, Derrida stresses repeatedly the necessity of resistance to the destructive nature of language, for which he contrives the various and concrete strategies, rendering his writings neither pinned down nor paraphrased.
However de Man makes no such vigorous attempt, prioritizing a non-resistance to language as a most valuable insight. Consequently his writings, as several critics have pointed out, depend on and are couched between the two poles; that is, the symbol and the allegory, the empirical self and linguistic self, the blindness and the insight, and the material and the aesthetic. Both de Man and Derrida recognize how recalcitrant the language is to delimit and perturb our (un)conscious beyond recuperation. For de Man such insight(blindness) is sufficient, and therefore he does not step further. As a result, the writings of de Man fall far short of what he declares, and thus his linguistic self seems remote from the self-redemption. In contrast, Derrida exhausts most of his critical(or creative) energy to guard shrewdly his writings not to be castrated by the nominal language.
The conspicuous difference between de Man and Derrida looms large when their famous polemic centers on Rousseau. De Man insists in his Blindness and Insight that Rousseau was redeemed, because Rousseau was fully aware of the rhetoricity of language, in turn willingly and wittingly submitting himself to the destructive power of diff?rance, as portrayed in Shelley"s posthumous and unfinished poem, The triumph of Life. But Derrida disagrees with de Man, and in his Of Grammatology depicts in such lurid details the entire trajectory of Rousseau"s discourses, thereby revealing that Rousseau"s discourses are split far apart; its gap ever widening, which is, to borrow Derrida"s expression, symptomatic of the logocentric discourses. Derrida in his Memories for Paul de Man further clarifies his positional difference(or his non-position) and more to the point where he diverges decisively from de Man. Unlike de Man, Derrida stresses repeatedly the necessity of resistance to the destructive nature of language, for which he contrives the various and concrete strategies, rendering his writings neither pinned down nor paraphrased.
However de Man makes no such vigorous attempt, prioritizing a non-resistance to language as a most valuable insight. Consequently his writings, as several critics have pointed out, depend on and are couched between the two poles; that is, the symbol and the allegory, the empirical self and linguistic self, the blindness and the insight, and the material and the aesthetic. Both de Man and Derrida recognize how recalcitrant the language is to delimit and perturb our (un)conscious beyond recuperation. For de Man such insight(blindness) is sufficient, and therefore he does not step further. As a result, the writings of de Man fall far short of what he declares, and thus his linguistic self seems remote from the self-redemption. In contrast, Derrida exhausts most of his critical(or creative) energy to guard shrewdly his writings not to be castrated by the nominal language.
목차
1. 드 만과 데리다의 유사점
2. 루소에 대한 드 만의 평가: 아이러니스트로서의 통찰력을 지닌, 구원된 루소
3. 데리다의 루소 읽기
인용 문헌
Abstract
2. 루소에 대한 드 만의 평가: 아이러니스트로서의 통찰력을 지닌, 구원된 루소
3. 데리다의 루소 읽기
인용 문헌
Abstract
해당간행물 수록 논문
- ‘근대문학’ 이후의 ‘문학’(연구)?
- 이론과 문화연구 - 양자의 갈등과 한국영문학의 좌표
- Modernism Revisited via Bürger's Theory of the Avant-Garde
- 라캉의 과학 개념과 비평적 주체의 복권
- 레비나스의 ‘있음’과 ‘고독’ 그리고 콜리지의 『노수부의 노래』 읽기
- 바디우와 베케트: ‘사건’의 주체와 시적 명명의 문학 - 『최악의 방향을 향하여』 를 중심으로
- ‘총체성’과 문화연구의 미래 - 프레드릭 제임슨의 신 광 현주제에 의한 변주
- 헤겔, 데리다, 이리가레의 안티고네
- 〈투고 안내〉외
- 드 만과 데리다 - 허무의 유희와 포월(包越)의 광기
참고문헌
관련논문
어문학 > 영어와문학분야 BEST
더보기어문학 > 영어와문학분야 NEW
- 현대 비극의 ‘사라지는 하마르티아’와 ‘투쟁의 운명’
- Transitions of (The) Flower Drum Song: From Chin Yang Lee to David Henry Hwang
- 영어 부정극어 발화유형 비교
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!