This study identifies the mechanisms through which gender inequality persists in literary canonization. Using a mixed-method analysis of 267 elite Korean novelists, I examine how contemporary recognition translates into long-term canonical status and find systematic disadvantages for women in this critical transition. Quantitative analysis demonstrates that while gender alone does not affect anthology inclusion when controlling for other factors, receiving professional reviews increase men’s probability of canonization significantly more than women’s, showing reward-dualism where equivalent achievements yield unequal outcomes. Qualitative analysis uncovers gendered devaluation in critical discourse: Korean literary traditions developed evaluative repertoires where both men’s and women’s autobiographical writing receives recognition for its authenticity, contradicting Western cases where authenticity is predominantly associated with women. This pattern emerged from Korea’s colonial history, which legitimized the use of personal narratives in literary writing as a means of restoring ethnic identity. However, literary scholars systematically elevate men’s contributions to universality and historical significance while confining women’s works within gender-specific categories. This demonstrates that apparent gender parity in evaluative repertoires can mask persistent inequality operating through different pathways. By documenting these culturally adapted mechanisms, this research challenges Western-centric assumptions about how gender hierarchies are maintained in artistic evaluation and contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how gender shapes long-term artistic recognition across different cultural contexts.
扫码关注我们
求助内容:
应助结果提醒方式:
