무라이 쇼스케(村井章介)의 ‘境界人論’ 및 그 倭寇 연구 체계에 대한 비판적 검토 (A Critical Review on the Structure of Shosuke Murai’s ‘Marginal Man Theory’ and His Approach to the Studies on Wakou (Japanese Pirates))

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국중세사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국중세사연구 / 46호 / 345 ~ 373페이지
· 저자명 : 송종호

초록

According to Mr. Shosuke Murai’s ‘Marginal Man Theory (境界人論)’, the Marginal Men lived in the Marginal Space located among the countries in the pre-modern world, and carried out trade, diplomacy, piracy, and other activities, connecting such countries. However, neither ‘Margin (境界)’ nor ‘Marginal Man (境界人)’, the two core concepts of the theory, has clearly defined, and the theory has some potential problems when it is applied to specific historical events or phenomena.
First, generally speaking, ‘Margin’ should be either ‘boundary’, which is a political or military one, or ‘frontier’, which means one in non-political aspects. But, Mr. Murai’s ‘Margin’ does not fall onto either one, and its meaning is not well defined. Moreover, since the boundary between Korea and Japan has been firmly established earlier from the medieval ages, it would not be proper to apply the theory to the history between the two countries, including studies on Wakou (which is normally interpreted as ‘Japanese Pirates’).
Second, with respect to the definition of ‘Marginal Man’, the broadest definition covering all examples mentioned by him, such as Hwacheok and Jaein (who were butchers and actors in Korean medieval ages), Korean translators of the Japanese language, captive Koreans in Japan, and even Japanese Christians in Japan, does not seem to work properly, because all of such Marginal Men cannot be treated as a one group.
Also, there are some important problems in the narrower definition of ‘Marginal Man’, which has been broadly used throughout his theory, focusing on the main region of their activities surrounding the China Sea, such as the Three Islands (consisting of Tsushima, Iki and Hakata), Korean southern coastal region, Cheju Island, and certain Chinese southeastern coastal regions: (i) the general theory does not apply to the ‘Marginal Space’ between Korea and Japan, (ii) a sense of unity as one group has not been found from the group of such ‘Marginal Men’, and (iii) it seems that the domain of his ‘Marginal Space’ has been determined arbitrarily, not on any rational grounds. In addition, the narrower definition has failed to include some Korean people, such as Hwacheok and Jaein, essential for his explanation on the question whom Wakou consisted of. Accordingly, the definition of ‘Marginal Man’ seems not clear in any sense.
Third, in terms of the spatial scope of the theory, the Marginal Space, where the Marginal Men carried out their activities, is larger than their main region of habitation or origination. Accordingly, Marginal Men, and the counterparties to their activities who were not Marginal Men, lived together in the same Marginal Space, and therefore these two groups should have been separately described. As Mr. Murai failed to differentiate sub-groups in the whole Marginal Man group, his Wakou concept has also become ambiguous. It sometimes means only Japanese people on the Three Islands, while it means all Marginal Men themselves including Korean Cheju Islanders, Hwacheok and Jaein in other contexts.
Fourth, due to the vast time scope of the theory, a lot of other potential problems may occur. Among them, the two major problems related to studies on Wakou are (i) the improper unification of the 14th and 15th Century Wakou and the 16th century Wakou, which were different from each other in many aspects, and (ii) the improper introduction of the ‘Japanese of Korean descent’, found mainly in the 15th century, in the description on the 14th centrury Wakou.
Therefore, the Marginal Man Theory should be modified so that the above mentioned problems could be solved. Otherwise, it would not be proper to apply to studies on Wakou.

영어초록

According to Mr. Shosuke Murai’s ‘Marginal Man Theory (境界人論)’, the Marginal Men lived in the Marginal Space located among the countries in the pre-modern world, and carried out trade, diplomacy, piracy, and other activities, connecting such countries. However, neither ‘Margin (境界)’ nor ‘Marginal Man (境界人)’, the two core concepts of the theory, has clearly defined, and the theory has some potential problems when it is applied to specific historical events or phenomena.
First, generally speaking, ‘Margin’ should be either ‘boundary’, which is a political or military one, or ‘frontier’, which means one in non-political aspects. But, Mr. Murai’s ‘Margin’ does not fall onto either one, and its meaning is not well defined. Moreover, since the boundary between Korea and Japan has been firmly established earlier from the medieval ages, it would not be proper to apply the theory to the history between the two countries, including studies on Wakou (which is normally interpreted as ‘Japanese Pirates’).
Second, with respect to the definition of ‘Marginal Man’, the broadest definition covering all examples mentioned by him, such as Hwacheok and Jaein (who were butchers and actors in Korean medieval ages), Korean translators of the Japanese language, captive Koreans in Japan, and even Japanese Christians in Japan, does not seem to work properly, because all of such Marginal Men cannot be treated as a one group.
Also, there are some important problems in the narrower definition of ‘Marginal Man’, which has been broadly used throughout his theory, focusing on the main region of their activities surrounding the China Sea, such as the Three Islands (consisting of Tsushima, Iki and Hakata), Korean southern coastal region, Cheju Island, and certain Chinese southeastern coastal regions: (i) the general theory does not apply to the ‘Marginal Space’ between Korea and Japan, (ii) a sense of unity as one group has not been found from the group of such ‘Marginal Men’, and (iii) it seems that the domain of his ‘Marginal Space’ has been determined arbitrarily, not on any rational grounds. In addition, the narrower definition has failed to include some Korean people, such as Hwacheok and Jaein, essential for his explanation on the question whom Wakou consisted of. Accordingly, the definition of ‘Marginal Man’ seems not clear in any sense.
Third, in terms of the spatial scope of the theory, the Marginal Space, where the Marginal Men carried out their activities, is larger than their main region of habitation or origination. Accordingly, Marginal Men, and the counterparties to their activities who were not Marginal Men, lived together in the same Marginal Space, and therefore these two groups should have been separately described. As Mr. Murai failed to differentiate sub-groups in the whole Marginal Man group, his Wakou concept has also become ambiguous. It sometimes means only Japanese people on the Three Islands, while it means all Marginal Men themselves including Korean Cheju Islanders, Hwacheok and Jaein in other contexts.
Fourth, due to the vast time scope of the theory, a lot of other potential problems may occur. Among them, the two major problems related to studies on Wakou are (i) the improper unification of the 14th and 15th Century Wakou and the 16th century Wakou, which were different from each other in many aspects, and (ii) the improper introduction of the ‘Japanese of Korean descent’, found mainly in the 15th century, in the description on the 14th centrury Wakou.
Therefore, the Marginal Man Theory should be modified so that the above mentioned problems could be solved. Otherwise, it would not be proper to apply to studies on Wakou.

참고자료

· 없음