PRESENT SOCIETY AND THE KOREAN CHURCH

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Meaning and Limitation of Madanggŭk Performance

Mutual Communication

Madanggŭk is a new attempt for public dialogue to respond to the context of both art and society through a mechanism of performing art-culture. In short, the representative characteristics of madanggŭk are summarized into four: minjung-directivity, festivity/artistry, realism and praxis, which are based on the principle of mutual communication with openness.
Firstly, public dialogue through madanggŭk accepted the marginalized people, minjung, as the main audience, that is, the subject which would form and reform art and society. The meaning of minjung-directivity in the sense of public dialogue is that it served to change the communication pattern of theatre from “one-way communication” in which the audience just watches the theatre on a stage, to “participative mutualcommunication” in which they take part in the theatre as the subject of the artistic world.58 Consequently, madanggŭk became “participative theatre” (Seo Y.H. 1997:122) based on mutual communication because the performance proceeded with participants’ active participation, and direct criticism and plain interference between 58 The minjung-directivity, as already described, led to a change in the concept of minjung from the oppressed to the subject and the reformative being.performers and spectators were permitted.
Secondly, through the creative adaptation of traditional Korean culture, especially the traditional mask dance which inspired the collective spirit, shinmyong, and minjung aesthetic senses, the cultural public dialogue fulfilled the function of social integration, because anyone who is Korean can sympathize with traditional art-culture in the performance of madang. It was not, however, confined to the style of traditional performance, but rather utilized diverse styles.
Thirdly, a more important point here is the fact that it neither hid in the other world with utopian illusions nor did it remain in the world of performing art-culture itself. On the contrary, by taking narratives of reality and biblical messages in the form of traditional performing art, the cultural public dialogue attempted to communicate between the past (tradition) and the present (reality of minjung and society). In fact, the content of madanggŭk not only “mirrors” the social contradictions, but also “produces” a solution. The meaning of madanggŭk as a mutual communication is, lastly, that it showed the dimension of “Christ’s transformation of society and art-culture” by pursuing fielddirectivity and the social participative movement as well as dealing with reality. Public dialogue through madanggŭk accepted any “public space of life”59 as a place for performance and social participation, beyond the narrow meaning of madang as “outdoors space.” Its very field-directivity meant entering into the life-field to take part in social movements, such as political, labor, and peasant movements. In such a praxis process, madanggŭk became a space in which the line of demarcation between social strata or between performers and spectators was ignored, and consequently, it fulfilled the function of dynamic mutual communication. Moreover, through the activities in the life field, madanggŭk tried to insure the dimension of “praxis” (in the minjung’s life-field) as well as “artistry” (based on tradition) and “realism” (in the content). The public dialogue through madanggŭk came to possess characteristics of dynamic mutual- 59 Any place where people gather together is used as a space for madanggŭk. communication in that it attempted a synthesis of artistic function (artistry) and social function (praxis) fundamentally on the grounds of the collective shinmyong, communality, and festivity that evoke the communal communication.

Mediating Structure

Madanggŭk implies a “mediating structure” (Berger & Neuhaus 1977)60 which connects the individual in private life with the large system in public life, and finally reduces the estrangement and isolation from society and public order. In addition, it has the dimensions of an “artistic” mediating structure. Gibson Winter (1981:11) suggests that the fundamental metaphor for the future should change from a techno-scientific process to an artistic process. As a matter of fact, the art culture (expressive culture) such as symbol and language has fulfilled the function of an effective communication in church and society. The Scripture is also an expression through language and symbol, through which it conveys the real meaning of the Word, and furthermore, through which
the Christian community can renew the culture (Niebuhr 1951).

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Theme and Motivation
1.2 Problem and Purpose
1.3 Methodology
1.4 Structure
1.5 Delimitation
CHAPTER 2 PRESENT SOCIETY AND THE KOREAN CHURCH
2.1 Individualism
2.2 Religious Individualism: Privatization
2.3 The Korean Church and Church-Individualism
2.3.1 Religious Pluralism of the Korean Church
2.3.2 Church-Individualism and Church Growth
2.3.3 Church-Individualism and Church Decline
2.3.3.1 Materialism
2.3.3.2 Individual Salvation-Centered Faith
2.3.3.3 Exclusivism
2.3.3.4 Goal-Displacement and Church Decline
2.4 Diagnosis of the Korean Church and Suggestion
2.4.1 Primary Problem
2.4.2 Suggestion
CHAPTER 3 PATTERNS OF PUBLIC DIALOGUE OF THE KOREAN CHURCH IN HISTORY
3.1 The Period of Healthy Public Dialogue
3.1.1 Social Enlightenment Movement
3.1.2 National Movement Against Japanese regime
3.1.3 The Great Revival Movement
3.1.4 The March First Independent Movement
3.2 The Period of Unhealthy Public Dialogue
3.2.1 Realistic Enlightenment Movement
3.2.2 Transcendental Mysticism Faith Movement
3.2.3 Shinto-Shrine Worship of the Korean Church
3.2.4 The Split in the Korean Church after Liberation
3.3 The Period of Polarized Public Dialogue
3.3.1 National Evangelization Movement
3.3.2 Anti-Dictatorship Pro-Democracy Movement
3.3.2.1 Democratization Movement of the 1960s-1970s
3.3.2.2 The Democratization Movement in the 1980s
3.3.3 Social Reform Movement
3.4 Emergence of Cultural Public Dialogue: Madanggŭk
3.5 Limitation of Public Dialogue of the Korean Church and Suggestion
CHAPTER 4 PRACTICES OF CULTURAL PUBLIC DIALOGUE: CENTERING ON MADANGGŬK
4.1 Korean Theology and Cultural Public Dialogue
4.1.1 Korean Theology and Reading Context
4.1.2 Minjung Theology and Minjung Cultural Movement
4.2 The Advent and Identity of Madanggŭk
4.2.1 Artistic and Social Background
4.2.2 Response to Context
4.2.2.1 Creative Inheritance of Traditional Performance
4.2.2.2 A Minjung Medium for Expression of Social Reality
4.2.3 Definition of Madang and Identity of Madanggŭk
4.3 Practices of Public Dialogue through Madanggŭk Performance
4.3.1 Involvement of Christianity in the Madanggŭk Movement
4.3.2 The First Performances for Public Dialogue
4.3.3 Practices of Public Dialogue through Madanggŭk in the 1970s
4.3.4 Practices of Public Dialogue through Madanggŭk in the 1980s
4.3.4.1 Proxy Assembly
4.3.4.2 Labor Drama
4.3.5 New Attempts for Cultural Public Dialogue
4.3.5.1 From Madanggŭk To Madanggut
4.3.5.2 Life Drama, Short Drama, and Talnori (Mask Play)
4.3.5.3 Daedong Nori
4.3.5.4 Daedong Gut and Jipchyegŭk
4.4 Interpretation on the Communicability of Madanggŭk
4.4.1 Rediscovery of the Populace (Minjung)
4.4.2 Re-Creation of Traditional Folk Culture
4.4.3 Their Own Story and Realism
4.4.4 Field Directivity Outside the Theatrical World
4.5 Meaning and Limitation of Madanggŭk Performance
4.5.1 Mutual Communication
4.5.2 Mediating Structure
4.5.3 New Reading Reality and New Field Recognition
4.5.4 The Problem of Dual Opposition
CHAPTER 5 TOWARD AN ALTERNATIVE MADANG PUBLIC DIALOGUE: “THREE MODELS” OF DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION
5.1.1 Three-cornered Feedback Effect
5.1.2 Immediacy and Concreteness
5.1.3 Presence and Present (Existence and Time)
5.1.4 Performative-Word (Action-Word)
5.2 From Monologism To Dialogism
5.3 The First Model: Incarnational Public Dialogue
5.3.1 Otherness and New Self-Image
5.3.1.1 General Features of the Audience
5.3.2.2 Surplus of Seeing and Mutual Answerable Being
5.3.2 The Change of Author, Performer and Audience Position
5.3.2.1 The Audience: An Infinite Interpretative, Dialogic Being
5.3.2.2 The Death of Author and the Return of Audience
5.3.3 Unfinalizability and Polyphony
5.3.3.1 Unfinalizability
5.3.3.2 Polyphony
5.3.4 Acceptance of Difference and Conflict
5.3.5 Dialogic Conflict in “The Gold-Crowned Jesus”
5.3.6 The Mission of Removal of the Monologic Gold Crown
5.4 The Second Model: Critical Public Dialogue
5.4.1 Cognition, Criticism, and Change of Reality
5.4.2 Temptation toward Monologic Communication of Fixed Messages
5.4.3 Expression of Ambivalence
5.4.3.1 Cognition and Expression
5.4.3.2 Ambivalence of Beauty and Ugliness
5.4.3.3 Ambivalence of Two Sides and Two Voices
5.4.3.4 Three Types of Double-Voiced Discourse
5.4.4 Self-Criticism: How to Communicate a Christian Story
5.4.5 Empathy and Critical Detachment
5.4.5.1 An Interpellated Subject and a Matter of Empathy
5.4.5.2 Estrangement Effect and Keeping Critical Distance
5.5 The First Model: Festival Public Dialogue
5.5.1 Play and Public Dialogue
5.5.1.1 Homo Ludens (Man the Player)
5.5.1.2 Dialogic Features in Play
5.5.2 Madang-Theatre as Play-Art
5.5.3 Rediscovery of Festivity for Madang Public Dialogue
5.5.4 Procedure of Festival Public Dialogue
5.5.5 Carnivalistic Festivity for Madang Public Dialogue
5.5.6 Dialogic Principles of Madang-Festival
5.5.6.1 The Spirit of Carnival Debasement
5.5.6.2 Everyone is a Participant
5.5.6.3 Dialogization of Differences
5.5.6.4 Criticism against Monologue and Privatization
5.5.6.5 Laughter and the Pathos of Change and Renewal
5.5.6.6 Dialogization of Past, Present and Future
CHAPTER 6 MADANG CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AND AN “INCARNATIONAL-DIALOGIC PARADIGM” OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
6.1 Toward a Dialogic Madang Christian Community
6.1.1 Three Phases for Reconstruction toward a Dialogic Madang Christian Community
6.1.1.1 Preparatory Procedures: Training-Workshop-Rehearsal
6.1.1.2 Deconstruction—Transition—Reconstruction
6.2 Six Stages of Dialogic Praxis in a Madang Christian Community
6.2.1 Opening Stage: The Focusing Activity
6.2.2 Dialogic Movement 1: Expressing and Sharing Present Voice/Story
6.2.3 Dialogic Movement 2: Critical Reflection on Present Voice/Story
6.2.4 Dialogic Movement 3: Making Accessible Christian Story/Vision
6.2.5 Dialogic Movement 4: Incarnational Dialogue between
Christian Story/Vision and Participants’ Stories/Visions
6.2.6 Dialogic Movement 5: Decision/Response for Madang Public Dialogue
6.3 The Praxis of Madang Public Dialogue
6.3.1 Street Parade
6.3.2 Singing and Dancing Together
6.3.3 Main Performance
6.3.4 Ending Play
6.4 Toward an Incarnational-Dialogic Paradigm of Christian Education
6.4.1 Purpose of Incarnational-Dialogic Christian Education
6.4.2 Educator and Learner
6.4.3 Text and Content
6.4.4 Method and Curriculum
6.4.5 Place and Environment
6.4.6 Evaluation
CHAPTER 7 A CONCLUDING VISION
7.1 Summary
7.1.1 On Analysis of the Present Society and Church
7.1.2 On Three Patterns of the Korean Church’s Public Dialogue
7.1.3 On Practices of Cultural Public Dialogue
7.1.4 Toward an Alternative Madang Public Dialogue
7.1.5 Toward a Dialogic Christian Community
7.1.6 Toward Incarnational-Dialogic Christian Education
7.2 Meaning and Suggestion
7.2.1 Meanings of Madang Public Dialogue
7.2.2 Suggestion and Further Study
BIBLIOGRAPHY

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT