Eunjung Kim in Curative Violence lays bare the disavowal of debility, chronic illness, and disability in South Korea from the period of Japanese colonial rule (1910–1945) to the contemporary present. She accomplishes this by tracing the construction of what she calls the “imperative to cure” which requires the erasure of markers of difference and is fueled by heteronormative and nation-building mandates. Examining lived experiences, legislation, public discourse, and representations of disability in literary and cinematic texts situated firmly in the historical moments in which they emerge, Kim reconsiders cure as “a set of political, moral, economic, emotional, and ambivalent transactions,” (p. 41) questioning its necessity or even desirability. Cure acts also as a form of “crossing,” one of “folded time” where a future without (or a past before) disability is projected onto the present, that produce embodied, social, material, and affective transformations. Enforcing morphological conformity not only denies diverse ways of living but also deploys violence in the name of recovery or rehabilitation. Chapter one, “Unmothering Disability,” analyzes “hereditary dramas,” narratives which position reproduction as a site of curative intervention by preventing the birth of potentially disabled children, thereby disqualifying disabled persons, particularly women, from parenthood. Placing the texts featured in a longer history of eugenics since the 1930s through its legal manifestation in the 1973 Motherhood and Child Health Act and into the present in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) or screening, Kim raises the ethical implications of practices that keep women from reproducing through their sterilization (voluntary or not), abortion, and ineligibility as marriage partners. Hereditary dramas also fail to take into account the risks harbored and agency of choice taken by disabled women who do bear children. Familial relations take center stage in the next chapter, “Cure by Proxy,” where Kim examines Vietnam War-era films and cinematic adaptations since 1937 of premodern tales of Sim Chŏng, Ongnye, and Changhwa and Hongnyŏn that obligate nondisabled bodies to serve as “curative agents” for disabled persons. The moral economy that exhorts duties to parents, husbands, and nation imposes a compulsory normality that denigrates disability and demands the sacrifice of the proxy. This “corporeal bind,” moreover, imposes dependence of disabled persons on

中文翻译：

---

治愈性暴力：现代韩国的残疾、性别和性行为的康复，Eunjung Kim

Eunjung Kim 在《治愈性暴力》中揭露了从日本殖民统治时期（1910-1945 年）到当代的韩国对衰弱、慢性疾病和残疾的否认。她通过追踪她所谓的“治愈的必要条件”的构建来实现这一点，这需要消除差异标记，并由异性恋和国家建设任务推动。研究生活经历、立法、公共话语以及文学和电影文本中残疾的表现，牢牢地处于它们出现的历史时刻，金重新考虑治愈是“一套政治、道德、经济、情感和矛盾的交易，” (p. 41) 质疑其必要性甚至可取性。治愈也是一种“穿越，” 一种“折叠时间”，将没有（或以前有过）残疾的未来投射到现在，产生具身的、社会的、物质的和情感的转变。强制形态一致性不仅否定了多样化的生活方式，而且以恢复或康复的名义部署了暴力。第一章，“Unmothering Disability”，分析了“遗传性戏剧”，这种叙事将生殖定位为通过防止潜在残疾儿童出生的治疗干预场所，从而使残疾人，尤其是妇女，失去为人父母的资格。将自 1930 年代以来通过其在 1973 年《母婴健康法案》中的法律表现以及植入前遗传学诊断 (PGD) 或筛查中的优生学历史中的特色文本，Kim 提出了通过绝育（自愿或非自愿）、堕胎和不符合婚姻伙伴资格来阻止女性生育的做法的伦理含义。世袭戏剧也没有考虑到生育孩子的残疾妇女所隐藏的风险和选择的能动性。家庭关系在下一章“代理治愈”中占据中心位置，Kim 审视了自 1937 年以来越南战争时期的电影和电影改编，讲述了 Sim Chŏng、Ongnye、Changhwa 和 Hongnyŏn 的前现代故事，这些故事要求非残疾身体充当“治疗剂”为残疾人。劝诫父母、丈夫和国家承担责任的道德经济学强加了一种贬低残疾并要求代理人做出牺牲的强制性常态。此外，这种“肉体束缚”，