비(非) ‘민족’과 반(反)‘민속’의 사상적 경계 - 『민족』 잡지 내용을 중심으로- (Ideological boundaries of anti-ethnic and non-ethnic - Focusing on the 『MinZoKu』 magazine)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 고려대학교 역사연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 史叢(사총) / 80호 / 321 ~ 352페이지
· 저자명 : 전성곤

초록

Yanagita Kunio is labeled as a folklorist, but looking into the inside story, this study was able to confirm that Yanagita was using a nation mixed with the concept of a folklore. Particularly, during the period when a magazine called was published, Yanagita intended to share ‘MinZoKu(ethnology)’, such as archeology, linguistics, anthropology and ethnology in an effort to cross the ‘disciplinary branches’ and construct the theoretical methodology. However, the period when Yanagita tried to do that was overlapped with the period, in which folklore and ethnology were mutually superimposed, and difference between the two was created in Japan. After all, Yanagita, in the magazine, was borrowing the theory of ethnology while constructing the concept of ‘Folklore.’ However, through the conflict with the theoretical methodology by Oka Masao who was in charge of editing, Yanagita came to break with the ethnological methodology in the end. Yanagita had a methodology of linking the general common points together between individual materials which he collected separately. On the contrary, Oka Masao acknowledged the importance of collecting and choosing individual materials, but he tried to grasp the general view of them; for example, how they were converged and selected in a single interpretation. Such a methodology finally revealed its shape as a difference in ‘paper composition’, causing the cease of publication of due to its conflicting structure. Yanagita drew the concept of ‘Folklore’ in such a process, and the meaning of ‘Folklore’ constructed by Yanagita came to have its identity as ‘Science of Folklore’ and to be standardized.

영어초록

Yanagita Kunio is labeled as a folklorist, but looking into the inside story, this study was able to confirm that Yanagita was using a nation mixed with the concept of a folklore. Particularly, during the period when a magazine called was published, Yanagita intended to share ‘MinZoKu(ethnology)’, such as archeology, linguistics, anthropology and ethnology in an effort to cross the ‘disciplinary branches’ and construct the theoretical methodology. However, the period when Yanagita tried to do that was overlapped with the period, in which folklore and ethnology were mutually superimposed, and difference between the two was created in Japan. After all, Yanagita, in the magazine, was borrowing the theory of ethnology while constructing the concept of ‘Folklore.’ However, through the conflict with the theoretical methodology by Oka Masao who was in charge of editing, Yanagita came to break with the ethnological methodology in the end. Yanagita had a methodology of linking the general common points together between individual materials which he collected separately. On the contrary, Oka Masao acknowledged the importance of collecting and choosing individual materials, but he tried to grasp the general view of them; for example, how they were converged and selected in a single interpretation. Such a methodology finally revealed its shape as a difference in ‘paper composition’, causing the cease of publication of due to its conflicting structure. Yanagita drew the concept of ‘Folklore’ in such a process, and the meaning of ‘Folklore’ constructed by Yanagita came to have its identity as ‘Science of Folklore’ and to be standardized.

참고자료

· 없음