近代 斥邪運動의 象徵用語에 대한 考察 －衛正斥邪·斥邪衛正을 중심으로－ (A Review of the terms connected with The Movement to “Reject Heterodoxy”)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 단국대학교 동양학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 동양학 / 44호 / 231 ~ 253페이지
· 저자명 : 박성순

초록

‘衛正斥邪思想’·‘開化思想’·‘東學思想’ 등은 근대이행기 한국사를 대표하는 핵심적인 주제어들이다. 그런데 다른 역사용어들과는 달리 유독 ‘위정척사’만이 ‘척사위정’이라는 용어와 혼용되고 있는 것이 현실이다. 두 용어가 高宗代로부터 실제 사용되어온 역사적 용어였다는 점에서 어떤 한 가지 용어만이 옳고 다른 용어는 그르다는 식의 가치평가가 개입될 수 있는 문제는 아니었다고 할 수 있다.
그렇지만 1977년도에 李離和가 척사운동을 상징하는 용어는 ‘위정척사’가 아니라 ‘척사위정’이 되어야 한다는 점을 단호하게 제기하면서, 두 용어 사용의 문제는 단순한 주관적 嗜好의 문제에서 當爲性의 문제로까지 비화되었다. 李離和는 ‘척사위정’이라는 용어가 역사적으로나, 연구사적으로나 더 일반적인 것이었다는 이유를 들어 “歷史用語에 특별한 의미를 새로 부여하지 않는 한 斥邪衛正으로 써야 할 것”을 주장하였다.
이이화의 주장에 대해서 權五榮과 李相益의 비판이 뒤따랐지만, 그것은 제한된 측면에서 가해진 비판이라는 점에서 좀더 충분한 자료적 뒷받침이 요구되고 있었다. 따라서 필자는 두 가지 양립하고 있는 견해들의 타당성을 검토하기 위해서 보다 객관적인 사실 확인 방법을 선택하였다. 당시 史料에서 ‘위정척사’ 혹은 ‘척사위정’과 관련된 記事들을 직접 살펴 정리하고, 그를 통해서 두 용어의 사용 빈도와 ‘위정’과 ‘척사’의 가치 비중을 확인하고자 하였다.

영어초록

The thought of Wijeong-Cheoksa(“defending orthodoxy and rejecting heterodoxy”), The thought of Kaehwa(“enlightenment”), The thought of Donghak(“Eastern learning”) are the key words that representatives the earlier modern times in Korean history. But just the term “Wijeong-Cheoksa” is used in company with “Cheoksa-Wijeong”(“rejecting heterodoxy and defending orthodoxy”) to indicate the same historical facts different with other key words in reality. They say that the accuracy of notions and the unification of terms are very important in using academic terminologies. Nevertheless the terms are used mixed without obvious reasons. It seems that although we studied on The Movement to “Reject Heterodoxy” for about 40 years, we need more basic study.
22

Yi I-hwa(李離和) was just a man who first insisted that we should use the term Cheoksa-Wijeong, not Wijeong-Cheoksa reasonably with following reasons that (1) The representative literati as well as kings at that time used the term Cheoksa-Wijeong than Wijeong-Cheoksa mainly, (2) We can see that contemporary scholars also used the term Cheoksa-Wijeong than Wijeong-Cheoksa mainly in the field of this study. So Yi insisted that we should use the term Cheoksa-Wijeong, not Wijeong-Cheoksa as long as we don’t input a new meaning into the historical terminology.
There were also reputes against the Yi’s opinion like Kwon O-young(權五榮) and Yi Sang-ik(李相益)’s. But their insistences were also limited in subjective point of view, not systematic point of view. So we couldn’t judge which opinion is right or wrong. In this result, we needed some different way to judge the case.
The method chosen by me was to directly confirm all historical materials connected with our subject matter. I thought that this method was much more object. I intended to confirm Joseon-Wangjo-Silok(the Annals of Joseon Dynasty) and other materials connected with our subject matter. Through this inspection, I wanted to know which terminology was used more frequently. Secondly, I wanted to know that which notion between “Wijeong”(defending orthodoxy) and “Cheoksa”(rejecting heterodoxy”) was more important through inspecting Hongjae-Jeonseo which had been at the first out of anticipation before examination started. But it had much contents to notify us the real value of the both notions. Thirdly, I aimed to know which term was used more frequently and which logical structure was used by the Confucian literati in the materials of King Gojong’s age.
In the re
23
sult, I confirmed that the more symbolic word representing the theory of “Reject Heterodoxy” in the period of earlier modern times in Korean history should be “Wijeong-Cheoksa” than “Cheoksa-Wijeong”. I believe that academic terminology should be selected by the meaningful term including the ethos of the historical age being dealt by scholars because it contains symbols and implicative meanings.

참고자료

· 없음