사직공원 조성과 사직단을 둘러싼 ‘개발’과 ‘문화재보호’ 담론의 대립-일제시기부터 1960년대를 중심으로-

Abstract

Sajik's symbolism was undermined when the Sajik became a historical site without its “unique” role due to the abolition of Japanese rituals and the establishment of a park. Even after liberation, Sajik was one of the representative historical spaces that did not find its identity. The most serious of the damages of the Sajik during the Japanese imperialism, besides suspending the functions of the Sajik, resulted in making the archetype and the altar, two stages almost impossible to find the original form, and changing the sacred ritual space into an amusement space by constructing a park. . The archetype of the Sajik was left unchanged due to the sudden changes of the times, such as the Korean War, even after the defeat of Japan. In particular, in the 1960s, the central elements of the Sajik was further reduced or transformed by 'development' according to city planning. The Sajik Main Gate is representative. The Sajik Main Gate has reached the present time, losing its function as a “gate” due to the city planning. The discussion of the identity of the Sajik and the Sajik Park is related to the difference in perceptions of 'historical value' and 'presentity'. The debates surrounding the recovery of the identity of the Sajik show the oppositional character of the "national" discourse and the "development" discourse in the larger framework. On the other hand, it is also a useful topic to look at the past of the process of restoring the identity of the symbol space, which has been transformed and transformed during the Japanese colonial period. Discussions on reinstatement of the Sajik show the conflict between the present and the discourse on the preservation of cultural property to liberation from the 1960s and 1970s. In addition, the consideration of discourse surrounding the restoration and identity of the transformed spaces during the Japanese colonial period also examines various perceptions of the post-colonial problem. In addition, looking at the issue of identity recovery in relation to colonial liquidation, focusing on the discourse of ‘national’ and ‘public’, will not only provide an accurate recognition of the 'era' in which discourse is raised, but will also provide important implications for future identity formation.