1920년대와 1930년대 초 ‘조선학’ 개념의 형성 과정-최남선ㆍ정인보ㆍ문일평ㆍ김태준ㆍ신남철의 예 (The formation process of the concept, ‘Koreanology’ in 1920s and early in 1930s -The cases of Choi Namseon, Jeong Inbo, Mun Ilpyeong, Kim Taejun, and Shin Namcheol-)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 숭실사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 숭실사학 / 33호 / 115 ~ 155페이지
· 저자명 : 김인식

초록

It’s Sep. 1934. It had been 99 years since Dasan Jeong Yakyong had died. Partial intelligent men including Jeong Inbo and An Jaehong held a lecture to celebrate Jeong Yakyong and advocated ‘Koreanology’(Joseonhak). ‘Koreanology’ was very strange to the public when compared to the interest in and fever for ‘Teacher Dasan’ then. Regardless of the trends of thought like socialism and nationalism, there was no any objection to the necessity of studies on Choson. However, starting from the pros and cons of the term itself called ‘Koreanology’, there was an extreme controversy over the purpose and methodology. Today, the academic world named this phenomenon of history ‘Koreanology Movement’ and developed the study.
To understand ‘Koreanology Movement’ as a phenomenon of history, ‘Koreanology’ before ‘movement’ should first be clarified. That is, the actual condition of the ‘movement’ can be revealed only when the concept of ‘Koreanology’ should first be tracked. By the way, as the persons who advocated ‘Koreanology Movement’ arranged the studies on it without arranging the concept of ‘Koreanology’, the scope of ‘Koreanology’ and ‘Koreanology Movement’ got wider. The category of ‘Koreanology Movement’ which had been recognized as the phenomena of history in the middle of 1930s was expanded to 1920s and 1940s. The concepts of ‘Koreanology’ and ‘Koreanology Movement’ got to be confused.
The biggest problem of the study trends like this is that the concept of ‘Koreanology’ could closely not be grasped because they just focused on ‘movement’ about the phenomena of history. Choi Namseon who set ‘Koreanology’ as a field of learning should be begun to grasp the actual condition of ‘Koreanology Movement’. And then, the concept of ‘Koreanology’ of Jeong Inbo and An Jaehong who advocated ‘Koreanology Movement’ via Shin Namcheol and Mun Ilpyeong should be reviewed and the mutual effects should be clarified. As for An Jaehong, closer review is required in that he clearly set intension and extension of ‘Koreanology’ and suggested the purposes and methodology.
This paper examined the formation process of the concept of ‘Koreanology’ in 1920s and early in 1930s having a critical mind like this. First, the concept of ‘Koreanology’ by Choi Namseon who first used the term in 1920s was reviewed. And the concept of ‘Koreanology’ by Jeong Inbo and Mun Ilpyeong of nationalism in 1930s was checked and the theory, ‘Koreanology’ by Kim Taejun and Shin Namcheol based on the materialistic view of history was tracked. The theory ‘Koreanology’ of An Jaehong was left for next studies.

영어초록

It’s Sep. 1934. It had been 99 years since Dasan Jeong Yakyong had died. Partial intelligent men including Jeong Inbo and An Jaehong held a lecture to celebrate Jeong Yakyong and advocated ‘Koreanology’(Joseonhak). ‘Koreanology’ was very strange to the public when compared to the interest in and fever for ‘Teacher Dasan’ then. Regardless of the trends of thought like socialism and nationalism, there was no any objection to the necessity of studies on Choson. However, starting from the pros and cons of the term itself called ‘Koreanology’, there was an extreme controversy over the purpose and methodology. Today, the academic world named this phenomenon of history ‘Koreanology Movement’ and developed the study.
To understand ‘Koreanology Movement’ as a phenomenon of history, ‘Koreanology’ before ‘movement’ should first be clarified. That is, the actual condition of the ‘movement’ can be revealed only when the concept of ‘Koreanology’ should first be tracked. By the way, as the persons who advocated ‘Koreanology Movement’ arranged the studies on it without arranging the concept of ‘Koreanology’, the scope of ‘Koreanology’ and ‘Koreanology Movement’ got wider. The category of ‘Koreanology Movement’ which had been recognized as the phenomena of history in the middle of 1930s was expanded to 1920s and 1940s. The concepts of ‘Koreanology’ and ‘Koreanology Movement’ got to be confused.
The biggest problem of the study trends like this is that the concept of ‘Koreanology’ could closely not be grasped because they just focused on ‘movement’ about the phenomena of history. Choi Namseon who set ‘Koreanology’ as a field of learning should be begun to grasp the actual condition of ‘Koreanology Movement’. And then, the concept of ‘Koreanology’ of Jeong Inbo and An Jaehong who advocated ‘Koreanology Movement’ via Shin Namcheol and Mun Ilpyeong should be reviewed and the mutual effects should be clarified. As for An Jaehong, closer review is required in that he clearly set intension and extension of ‘Koreanology’ and suggested the purposes and methodology.
This paper examined the formation process of the concept of ‘Koreanology’ in 1920s and early in 1930s having a critical mind like this. First, the concept of ‘Koreanology’ by Choi Namseon who first used the term in 1920s was reviewed. And the concept of ‘Koreanology’ by Jeong Inbo and Mun Ilpyeong of nationalism in 1930s was checked and the theory, ‘Koreanology’ by Kim Taejun and Shin Namcheol based on the materialistic view of history was tracked. The theory ‘Koreanology’ of An Jaehong was left for next studies.

참고자료

· 없음