일본의 국학과 한국의 조선학 - 비교를 위한 서론적 고찰

Abstract

The current study introduced and reviewed general meanings of 'National Study' of Japan and 'Joseon Study' of Korea, and then presented the researcher's thought about what the history of Japan's 'National Study' can do actively as a reference frame of Joseon Study. Japan's 'National Study' began from Geichu(契沖) and completed by Motoori Norinaga(本居宣長) via Gadano Azumamaro(荷田春滿) and Gamono Mabuchi(賀茂眞淵) as an ideological trend to discover Japan's uniqueness. 'Modern National Study' of Japan has a religious foundation, Sindo(神道), in terms of its purpose to investigate Japan's unique spirit since ancient times. And National Study was accepted by various classes owing to the expansion of Sindo at the end of the Edo Period. Further, it became a spiritual driving force of the Maiji Restoration by combining with Jonhwang Theory(尊皇思想) for Cheonwhang, the son of a god. Although 'Modern National Study' of Japan improved social influence of Sindo Study by spreading reactionary and nationalistic historic view among the public according to the development of the Emperor System fascism, on the other hand, it couldn't develop into integrated study by failing in establishing system and objectivity as a science. The followings are references at a time of reading Japan's 'National Study', studies on National Study and Joseon Study. First of all, with respect to religious characteristics of Japan's 'National Study', reviewing religious aspects of Joseon Study is required. For example, 「Eol」 suggested by Jeong In-bo had strong religious tinges, but there have been little studies on this. When considering this problem, Donghak that has been studies separately so far and other religions, transformations of it, should be studied in connection with Joseon Study. Secondly, as contrasted with social acceptance of Japan's 'National Study', social acceptance and its influence of Korea's Joseon Study should be reviewed. And the fact that religious issues have very important meaning when considering social foundation should be regarded. Thirdly, in Japan's 'National Study', the researcher considers that failure to establish modern national study as an integrated study and related problems should be reviewed in various aspects. Within university academy controlled by studies imported from the West, Japan's modern National Study couldn't help establishing itself as a modern study rather than finding unique Japan through traditional National Study. This should be considered for sure when mentioning subject 'Rereading Joseon Study'. The last question is why Japan's National Study kept looking for uniqueness of Japan. 'Uniqueness' always requires an objects for comparison, but 'uniqueness' became vague as the standard of comparison changed. And finally Sindo(神道) was found as 'uniqueness', but it was uncertain to the end that Sindo(神道) is really unique in Japan and how they can prove it. From the history of Japan's National Study, it will be necessary to think over what is unique in 'Rereading Joseon Study', how we can communicate with it, and what goals are in the future.