한국사 정체론 비판과 1960년대 한국사 발전론의 확립
The Criticism on Stagnation Theory and the Establishment of Development Theory of Korean History in the 1960s
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper sought to prove that criticism and overcoming of the stagnation theory in Korean history, which is the core content of colonialist historiography, has been established as development theory in Korean history since 1960 by two different historical views - ‘modernization theory from the U.S.’ and historical materialism. The stagnation theory in Korean history, started as the theory of ‘lack of feudalism’ in the beginning of the 20th century, has served as a key theory that justified Japanese rule over Korea even after Korea's liberation. On the contrary, Korean Marxists have formed the development theory of Korean history by embracing the proposition of historical materialism since the 1930s, claiming that feudalism, bourgeoisie, and the bourgeois democratic movement existed in Korean history. The development theory of Korean history has been established since 1960, when the modernization theory from the U.S. was accepted and Marxist and neo-nationalist historiography were revived. The modernization theory was intended to prove the development of Korean history by detecting similar phenomena as the capitalist development of Western Europe, and to recognize capitalism under the Japanese rule as ‘modernization from outside’. However, due to Korean nationalist backlash, the introduction of modern systems or the development of capitalism under the influence of Japan have never been approved as “modernization”. Historical materialism played an important role in detecting “capitalist sprout” in Korean history such as rich farmers and hand industries growing into capitalists, accepting the achievements of “controversy over transition from feudalism to capitalism”. It was applied to the period classification of the Korean history. However, it was difficult to distinguish historical materialism from modernization theory, because it was domesticated to nationalism enough to remove its key elements such as class confrontation and struggle. The intact historical materialism, distinct from the modernization theory, began to emerge in Korean historiography in the 1980s through the Gwangju People's Resistance, the growth of Korean capitalism, and the development of popular movements.
Abstract
This paper sought to prove that criticism and overcoming of the stagnation theory in Korean history, which is the core content of colonialist historiography, has been established as development theory in Korean history since 1960 by two different historical views - ‘modernization theory from the U.S.’ and historical materialism. The stagnation theory in Korean history, started as the theory of ‘lack of feudalism’ in the beginning of the 20th century, has served as a key theory that justified Japanese rule over Korea even after Korea's liberation. On the contrary, Korean Marxists have formed the development theory of Korean history by embracing the proposition of historical materialism since the 1930s, claiming that feudalism, bourgeoisie, and the bourgeois democratic movement existed in Korean history. The development theory of Korean history has been established since 1960, when the modernization theory from the U.S. was accepted and Marxist and neo-nationalist historiography were revived. The modernization theory was intended to prove the development of Korean history by detecting similar phenomena as the capitalist development of Western Europe, and to recognize capitalism under the Japanese rule as ‘modernization from outside’. However, due to Korean nationalist backlash, the introduction of modern systems or the development of capitalism under the influence of Japan have never been approved as “modernization”. Historical materialism played an important role in detecting “capitalist sprout” in Korean history such as rich farmers and hand industries growing into capitalists, accepting the achievements of “controversy over transition from feudalism to capitalism”. It was applied to the period classification of the Korean history. However, it was difficult to distinguish historical materialism from modernization theory, because it was domesticated to nationalism enough to remove its key elements such as class confrontation and struggle. The intact historical materialism, distinct from the modernization theory, began to emerge in Korean historiography in the 1980s through the Gwangju People's Resistance, the growth of Korean capitalism, and the development of popular movements.
참고문헌 (42)
- 강만길, "조선전기 工匠考", 사학연구, 12 (1961)
- 강만길, "역사가의 시간" (2010), 창비
- 고영복, "한국민족주의의 주도권과 리더쉽", 국제정치논총, 6 (1967)
- 김대환, "자본주의 이행논쟁" (1984), 동녘
- 김용덕, "국사의 기본성격 -우리 사회의 정체성을 중심으로", 사상계, 7 (1953)
- 김용덕, "고려･조선사회의 비교-한국근대화과정 연구서설-", 사상계, 134 (1964)
- 김용섭, "전봉준 공초의 분석", 사학연구, 2 (1958)
- 김용섭, "양안의 연구(하)–조선후기의 전호경제", 사학연구, 8 (1960)
- 김용섭, "역사의 오솔길을 가면서" (2010), 지식산업사
- 로스토오, W. W., "경제성장의 제단계" (1961), 법문사
- 李淸源, "朝鮮社會史讀本" (1936), 白揚社
- 민석홍, "역사의 현단계", 사상계, 182 (1968)
- 백남운, "조선사회의 동적고찰", 조선일보, ~ (1925)
- 白南雲, "朝鮮社會經濟史" (1933), 改造社
- 이갑섭, "토론 제2부 경제개발계획과 한국의 민족주의", 국제정치논총, 6 (1967)
- 이용희, "한국 민족주의의 제문제", 국제정치논총, 6 (1967)
- 조기준, "한국경제의 근대화과정", 사상계, 67 (1959)
- 차기벽, "한국 민족주의에의 도전과 시련", 국제정치논총, 6 (1967)
- 천관우, "씸포지움: 한국사관은 가능한가? -- 전환기에서 본 民族史眼", 사상계, 117 (1963)
- 천관우, "갑오경장과 근대화", 사상계, 17 (1954)
- 한국경제사학회, "한국사시대구분론" (1970), 을유문화사
- Asiatic Research Center, "Prospectus of the International Conference on the Problems of Modernization in Asia", International Conference on the problems of Modernization in Asia (1965), Korea University
- Lee, Sun-keun, "The Extent to Which the Japanese Colonial Policy toward Korea Contributed to her Modernization", Asiatic Research Center, International Conference on the problems of Modernization in Asia (1965), Korea University
- "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" (1977)[URL]
- 旗田巍, "近代日本における歷史学の発達 (下)" (1976), 靑木書店
- 大藏省管理局, "日本人の海外活動に關する歷史的調査(通卷第二冊 朝鮮篇 第一分冊)" (1946), 大藏省管理局
- 福田德三, "經濟學硏究" (1907), 同文館
- 김상현, "‘발전’을 문제 삼기―‘발전사’ 연구의 전개와 동향", 역사비평, (134), pp.120~145 (2021), 역사문제연구소
- 김정인, "식민사관 비판론의 등장과 내재적 발전론의 형성", 사학연구, (125), pp.7~44 (2017), 한국사학회
- 노관범, "대한제국기 진보 개념의 역사적 이해 - 언론 매체의 용례 분석을 중심으로 -", 한국문화, (56), pp.117~138 (2011), 규장각한국학연구원[DOI]
- 도면회, "한국에서 근대적 역사 개념의 탄생", 韓國史學史學報, (27), pp.321~358 (2013), 한국사학사학회
- 도면회, "일제 강점기 일본인과 한국인의 ‘한국 근대사’ 서술", 사림, (60), pp.67~101 (2017), 수선사학회[DOI]
- 도면회, "1960년대 한국의 근대화론 수용과 인문학계의 변화", 역사와 현실, (120), pp.303~348 (2021), 한국역사연구회
- 문기상, "‘람프레히트 방법논쟁’과 ‘문화사’ (下)", 역사학보, 129 (1991)
- 방기중, "한국근현대사상사연구" (1992), 역사비평사
- 윤해동, "식민주의 역사학과 제국" (2016), 책과 함께
- 이세영, "80년대 한국 인문사회과학의 현단계와 전망" (1988), 역사비평사
- 이영호, "내재적 발전론" (2020), 한국학중앙연구원
- 이태훈, "일제하 백남운의 부르주아 경제사학 비판과 맑스주의 역사인식의 형성과정", 한국사상사학, (64), pp.295~335 (2020), 한국사상사학회
- 주종환, "봉건제로부터 자본주의로의 이행", 경제학연구, 21 (1973)
- 홍정완, "전후 한국의 사회과학 연구와 근대화 담론의 형성", 박사, pp.2017
- 永原慶二, "二十世紀日本の歷史學" (2003), 吉川弘文館