1960년대 한국의 근대화론 수용과 인문학계의 변화 (Embracement of the Modernization Theory in Korea during the 1960s, and Changes in the Humanity Studies)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국역사연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 역사와 현실 / 120호 / 303 ~ 348페이지
· 저자명 : 도면회

초록

본 논문은 1960년 이후 한국에 수용된 ‘미국발 근대화론’이 인문학계에 어떤 변화를 가져왔는지 고찰하고자 하였다. 기존의 연구에서는 근대화론이 미국의 반공적 세계전략과 결합하여 제3세계에 서구 또는 미국 지향적 발전을 이상형으로 제시하면서 제3세계의 민족주의적 활로를 차단하는 이데올로기라고 비판해 왔다. 본 연구에서는 근대화론이 그러한 성격임을 인정하면서도, 한국의 지식인들과 인문학계가 근대화론을 받아들여 일제 강점기 이래 형성된 타율적이고 정체적인 한국 역사상을 극복하고 민족주의적 이념과 학문을 형성시킨 점에 주목하였다. 아울러 역사학, 철학, 문학 등 개별 인문학별로 다음과 같은 변화가 나타났음을 입증하였다. 한국사학계에서는 근대화론 확산에 편승하여 한국전쟁 이후 불법화되었던 마르크스주의 역사학의 자본주의 이행론에 의하여 ‘일본에 의한 근대화’를 부정하고 ‘한국의 자주적 근대화’를 입증하였다. 철학계에서는 조선중기 이래의 유학자와 실학자들의 민족적 각성을 중시하고 그들에게서 자유민주사상, 실존주의, 과학기술사상 등의 맹아를 발견할 수 있으며, 동학과 같은 민족 종교가 한국의 근대적 사상으로 탄생하였다고 평가하였다. 문학계에서는 한국전쟁 이후의 실존적 허무를 대신하여 ‘한국적인 것’ ‘한국인 고유의’ 근본적 사상 체계를 찾아내는 민족적 문학, 민족적 비평이 등장하였다.

영어초록

Examined in this article is essentially what kind of effects the Modernization theory from the U.S. actually had on the Humanity studies in Korea, when it was first introduced to the Korean academic circles in the 1960s. Previously, this introduction of a U.S.-based modernization theory was simply criticized for working in concert with the U.S. anti-Communist world strategy, depicting the American and European style of progress as an ideal model of development and suggesting that to the Third world countries, and ultimately serving as an ideology that blocked the growth of nationalistic aspirations in those countries. Surely this study acknowledges that the modernization theory did exhibit such nature, but at the same time I would also like to point out that the Korean intellectuals and academic circles dedicated to Humanity studies in Korea accepted and embraced such Modernization theory, in order to overcome and dismantle the distorted image of Korean history (earlier branded as ‘stagnated’ and ‘heteronomous’ by the Japanese oppressors during the Japanese occupation period), and eventually developed nationalistic ideologies and academism for themselves.
It is strongly argued (and verified) in this article that certain noteworthy changes did continue in individual academic areas such as history, philosophy and literature. The Korean historians’ society, riding on the wave of modernization theories’ expansive circulation, and based on the Marxist historiography’s ‘Transition to Capitalism’ theory (Marxist historiography had been oppressed and illegalized in Korea ever since the Korean war), successfully nullified the notion of ‘modernization by Japan,’ and then proved the existence of ‘independent modernization led by Koreans themselves.’ Then, in the area of Korean philosophy, duly noted was the nationalistic awakening of the Confucian scholars and Shilhak experts since the middle period of Joseon, and that notice led to the philosophers’ recognition that philosophical ideas such as free democratic thinking, existentialism, and knowledge of science and technology did continue to grow in Korea, and led to Korean modern philosophies including Donghak, which could be labelled as a national religion. And finally in the area of Korean literature, nationalistic literature and critical reviews searching for a new reasoning system of a unique Korean nature began to take shape, replacing existential nihilism that had prevailed ever since the Korean war.

참고자료

· 없음