1960년대 권력과 지식인 그리고 학술의 공공성 - 적극적 현실정치참여 지식인의 동향을 중심으로

Abstract

Upheaval dynamism had been seen in the 1960s. So the relationship between authority and intellectuals had various facets in Korean modern history for the first time. Because the various facets had been changed according to a periodical knot, they were complicated and they could not afford to accept the structure between rule and resistance. Also, there were various groups with the intellectuals who took an active participation in real politics according to the motivation, formation, means, routes of the participation and academic field. 4.19 and 5.16 converted the previous relationship between authority and intellectuals in a single stroke. Moreover, they were new change and courage for the intellectuals. Especially, the relationship between authority and intellectuals had been intensified upon 5,16. The structure had been strengthened because of rule of authoritarianism. However, it has been destroyed by the rule from the intellectuals’ selective mobilization and exclusion. In these circumstances, the intellectuals hit their stride in the various facets from the intellectuals’ actual participation and participation became an influential participation in a reality. It’s because modernization of intellectuals and the academism conditions had been affected multiply more than intellectual mobilization policy from authority. Scientific intellectuals had strong will to participate in modernization. Also, they preferred joining, making the best use of major. Finally, it became the detailed and practical movement. As institutionalized academic-government cooperation and academic-industrial cooperation were publicized, academism kept its position to resolve the crisis with cooperative relationship with government. So it boosted the necessity and possibility of participation. The group of professors assigned to evaluate the government policies meant the institutional origin of academic-government cooperation as a typical group. The critical evaluation and suggestion for government policies based on academic professionalism reflected on Korean modernization positively and substantially. And the policy reflection degree was 80%. However some were used for protection and propaganda of the Park regime. Therefore, the movement of the group of professors assigned to evaluate the government policies constrictively indicated the contradictory double-sideness on realization of academic publicness in the 1960s. However, it’s hard to deny that group was participation that broadened the possibility of institutional realization for academic publicness.