동서 문화 교류의 입장에서 본 홍대용과 신채호: 근대화 담론과 민족주의 담론을 중심으로

Abstract

This paper examines the modernization from the perspective of cultural exchange between the East and the West. However, its real theme is the modernization discourse. Hong Daeyoung, who lived before the emergence of modernization discourse, and Shin Chaeho, who propounded a nationalist discourse against it, are, therefore, our useful examples. We use the intercultural philosophy as methodology, to evaluate cultural exchange between the East and the West. Because intercultural philosophy criticizes all kinds of centrism and emphasizes the reciprocal cultural exchange. First of all, concepts of Ram Adhar Mall, one representative intercultural philosopher, namely ① ‘rooting in a place’ (Orthaftigkeit)－② ‘transcending a place’ (Ortlosigkeit), are useful. They aims at the harmony of ① praticularity and ② universality. ①Hong looked outward to solve problems of Korean society, then met the western culture. ②His knowledge of western sciences modified Korean traditional world view and value system; he censured sino-centrism and anthropocentrism. Furthermore, his concept of knowledge changed from value-oriented to utility-oriented. So, we conclude that he began a proper cultural exchange. Nevertheless, his cultural exchange was still in the initial stage and could not be fully developed because of the Japanese colonialization. It tried to internalize colonial discourse and modernism discourse. They forced us to give up our cultural tradition(Denial of ①). This paper endeavors both to promote cultural exchange and to keep our tradition. It was Shin Chaeho who resisted colonialism. In opposition to it, Shin ‘invented’ the nation as driving force of the history and promoted the nationalist discourse. It is valuable ① because of its emphasis on the nation as strategy to oppose the colonialism which objectifies Korea. Besides, it is also positive from the angle of autonomous introduction of foreign culture. But nationalism tends to exclude the Other(Denial of ②). Shin emphasized the nation so strongly that he defined the history as the struggle between I and not I and concluded a cultural relativism. In order to deviate from exclusiveness, we need the intercultral philosophy as way of tentative identity and pursuit of universality.