1930년대 조선 ‘역사과학’ 계열의 보편특수성 인식과 아시아적 생산양식론 수용 양상

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper reviewed the theoretical background of the two competing methodologies, i.e. the theory on the universality of the world history and the theory of Asiatic specificity, with focus on Marxist interpretation. In particular, this paper attempted to review the awareness of universality and specificity and acceptance of the Asiatic mode of production, which were mentioned in previous studies as important factors in the formation of historical research methodologies, in phases, and thus internally analyze their critical mind. The awareness of universality and specificity started from the understanding of the concepts of universality and specificity, the method of applying abstract methodologies, and the interpretation of the correlation between the history of mankind and natural environment. The universalists, including Baek Nam-un, who regarded specificity as non-essential, emphasize the abstraction of universality, and understood the influence of the natural world in a limited way. However, specificists like Lee Cheong-won argued that specificity is also essential, and specificity must be abstracted for the sake of social practices, and regarded the influence of nature as important in certain stages of the history of mankind. The positions of these two camps were reflected in the process of accepting the theory on the Asiatic mode of production, which had a strong influence on the academic circles of East Asian thought in the 1930's. The former paid attention to the fact that it is possible to enhance the awareness of discrimination of Asia from the viewpoint of universality, understood the Asiatic mode of production as the Asiatic form of a feudal society, and had a reservation to acceptance of the theory. However, the latter regarded it as a theory that most accurately described the realities of Asian societies, including Joseon, most accurately from the viewpoint of specificity, and advocated active acceptance of the theory.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 머리말
• Ⅱ. 보편성‧특수성 중시론의 이론적 배경
• 1. 보편과 특수의 개념 이해 및 추상의 대상
• 2. 역사전개에 미치는 자연환경의 영향
• Ⅲ. 아시아적 생산양식론의 수용 양상
• 1. 차별화 경계를 위한 제한적 수용
• 2. 실천과제 도출을 위한 적극적 수용
• Ⅳ. 맺음말
• <참고문헌>

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 방기중, "한국근현대사상사연구" 역사비평사 1992

2 이준식, "한국 사회사 연구의 전통" 문학과지성사 1993

3 "청년조선"

4 "중앙"

5 "조선지광"

6 "조선중앙일보"

7 "조선일보"

8 전석담, "조선경제사" 박문출판사 1949

9 김인수, "이론연쇄(理論連鎖)와 전향(轉向) — 인정식(印貞植)의 경제론을 중심으로" 한국사회사학회 (96) : 71-112, 2012

10 백남운, "쏘련인상" 선인 2005

11 "신흥"

12 "신동아"

13 신남철, "신남철문장선집Ⅰ" 성균관대학교출판부 2013

14 오미일, "식민지시대 사회성격과 농업문제" 풀빛 1991

15 "비판"

16 "보전학회논집"

17 백남운, "백남운전집 4 : 휘편" 이론과실천 1992

18 백남운, "백남운전집 2 : 조선봉건사회경제사(상)" 이론과실천 1992

19 백남운, "백남운전집 1 : 조선사회경제사" 이론과실천 1992

20 "동아일보"

21 "동방평론"

22 김태준, "김태준전집 3" 보고사 1990

23 김태준, "김태준전집 2" 보고사 1990

24 홍성찬, "근대학문의 형성과 연희전문" 연세대 출판부 2005

25 羽仁五郞, "轉形期の歷史學" 鐵塔書院 1929

26 洪宗郁, "講座東アジアの知識人 4" 有志舎 2014

27 "社會"

28 "生きた新聞"

29 "唯物論硏究"

30 홍순권, "1930년대 한국의 맑스주의 역사학과 아시아적 생산양식 논쟁" 31 : 1994

31 홍순권, "1930~40년대 한국 역사학계의 ‘보편성과 특수성’에 관한 인식-백남운의 일원론적 보편적 역사인식과 그에 대한 비판을 중심으로" 3 : 1997