새로운 중세인가 혹은 포스트모던인가 - 20세기 초 주자학자 조긍섭의 정약용 비판 (Should it be considered after all as a Medieval point of view, or a Post - modern type of approach? - Jo Geung - seob’s criticism of Jong Yak - yong in the early 20th century)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국실학학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국실학연구 / 32호 / 425 ~ 455페이지
· 저자명 : 김호

초록

20세기 초 주자학자 조긍섭은 다산 정약용을 신랄하게 비판했다. <목민심서> 등 다산의 저작을 읽은 후, 그는 다산이 ‘酷吏의 정치’를 추구한다고 폄하했다. 이 뿐 아니라 조긍섭은 돈을 벌기 위해서 양반의 체면을 벗어던질 필요가 있다고 한 연암 박지원의 주장을 아낙네들도 계몽하지 못할 담론이라고 비판했고, 일본 제국주의를 따라 근대화로 나서자는 경성일보 사장 도쿠토미 소호의 주장을 비판했으며, 양명학에 기초하여 근대주의를 강조했던 이규준을 폄하했다. 심지어 중국 양계초의 공화주의 주장마저 개인의 이기심에 기대어 ‘함께 조화[공화]’를 추구한다는 점에서 정치영역을 이기적 인간의 투쟁판으로 만들 우려가 크다고 비판했다. 서구 근대의 담론이 압도하는 20세기 초 조긍섭은 거의 모든 근대화론을 비판했다. 그의 주장은 중국 東漢의 지방관 ‘卓茂’에 대한 다산의 비판을 재비판 하는 평론에서 잘 드러난다. 다산은 엄형을 통해 질서유지를 주장한 반면, 조긍섭은 스스로 부끄러움을 알도록 교화한 탁무의 덕치야말로 엄형에 비해 훨씬 탁월하다고 주장했다. 그는 인간의 이기적 욕망을 간파하고 이를 제어하려는 다산의 의지 이상으로, 인간의 性善과 그 회복가능성에 대한 탁무의 통찰력이 뛰어나다고 평가했다. 이른바 20세기 한국의 <실학담론>은 중세사회의 주자학을 극복한 근대 담론의 결정체로 평가되어 왔다. 근대에 대한 비판적 성찰이 절실한 지금, 주자학자 조긍섭의 주장은 새롭게 읽혀지고 재평가되어야 마땅하다. 그것이 ‘새로운 중세’인지 아니면 ‘포스트모던’인지 깊은 논의가 필요하다.

영어초록

A Neo-Confucian scholar named Jo Geung-seob, who lived in the early days of the 20th century, is known to have harshly criticized Dasan Jong Yak-yong’s works and his perspective. After reading Dasan’s writings, including <Mokmin Shimseo>, he disparaged Jong’s attitude as pursuing ‘cruel[酷] politics.’ And Jong was not the only target of Jo, as Jo criticized others as well.
Jo Geung-seob attacked another Shilhak scholar, namely Yeonam Park Ji-won. Jo criticized Park’s comments, which said that in order to earn some money, the appearance of a Yangban figure might as well be taken off, as harboring a notion that would not even be able to inspire or enlighten housekeeping females. Then, Jo also criticized the contemporary argument of the time, which urged other Koreans to follow Japanese Imperialism so that they could achieve modernization. The argument was raised by Dokutomi Soho, who was the president of the Gyeongseong-Ilbo newspaper, and derogated Yi Gyu-jun’s argument of modernism which was based upon Yangming studies, and Jo clearly resented that. Jo even denounced Chinese intellectual Liang qi-chao’s theory of Republicanism. He figured that the prevailing of such theory would ultimately turn the society’s political arena into selfish individuals’ fighting ground, as it called for a republic state based upon the concept of ‘harmony(or cooperation),’ which could only be engineered (at least partially) by the individuals’ own indulgence in self-interest.
So we can say, that in the early days of the 20th century, when Western modern discourses were dominating the academic arena of Joseon, Jo Geung-seob was criticizing almost all forms of Modernization theories. His such stance is again well reflected in his criticism of Dasan(Jong Yak-yong)’s own criticism of a Chinese Western Han[東漢] era local prefect named Zhuó mào. Dasan criticized him, under the notion that what was called for at the time were harsh punishments and the maintaining of social order by doing so in the first place, while Jo Geung-seob argued that Zhuó mào’s moral approach, which forced the subject to feel guilty and shameful, was a much more superior way. Dasan was well aware of the people’s selfish desire, and wanted to control them based upon such assessment, but what Jo noticed was Zhuó’s insight in humans’ good will(性善), and its nature which made it always recoverable.
Korean academic circle’s so-called ‘Shilhak’ discourse that has prevailed the 20th century, has been praised as a modern-age discourse and an embodiment of the scholars’ effort to overcome a medieval Neo-Confucian philosophy. On the other hand, this day and age requires us to contemplate upon the concept of modernity itself, and in that light, Neo-Confucian scholar Jo Geung-seob’s arguments seem worthy of another evaluation. Whether or not should it be considered as ‘another variation of a medieval point of view,’ or a guide to a more ‘post-modern viewpoint,’ is yet to be determined.

참고자료

· 없음