조선토지조사사업의 지적학적 성격에 관한 연구

조병현,이현준,장대기 한국지적학회 2019 한국지적학회지 Vol.35 No.3

The purpose of this study is to suggest the truths of Colonial Modernization Theory and Colonial Exploitation Theory in the Chosun Land Survey Project in cadastral perspective by investigating and analyzing Chosun Land Survey Project appearing in Japanese history textbooks and anti-Japanese nationalism on the basis of Cadastral Origin Theory. For this purpose, literature review and the internet researches were conducted. Descriptive analysis method and comparative analysis method were used as analysis methods. As a result of the study, the essentials of the Chosun Land Survey Project executed by Imperial Japan in Chosun were drawn out as follows; first, the Chosun Land Survey Project aimed to exploit the colony of Korea based on Invasion Theory. Invasion Theory and Exploitation Theory corresponded with the contents researched as Chosun Land Survey Project was carried out as a means to expand Japanese territory and secure a firm foundation for colonial rule. Second, the argument that land ownership in Chosun could be established through Chosun Land Survey Project turned out to be a distortion of truth. The argument lacked the ground when compared to Inherent Development Theory that the Land Survey Project implemented by the Great Han Empire(大韓帝國) could sufficiently establish land ownership for itself in Chosun. Third, Colonial Modernization Theory proved to be a scheme to rationalize the Japanese colonial rule. Chosun Land Research Project cannot be glorified by the modernization of Chosun because it aimed to exploit land of Chosun to strengthen the foundation of Japanese colonial rule on Chosun. Based on these findings, this study makes policy suggestions for continuous researches on the land survey project by the Great Han Empire, establishment of research institutes to revitalize researches on Chosun Land Survey Project and introduction of resident-friendly 'life cadaster' through successful implementation of a cadastral re-survey project. 본 연구의 목적은 지적 발생설을 토대로 일본 역사교과서와 반일종족주의에서 나타난 조선토지조사사업을 조사‧분석하여 조선토지조사사업의 식민지 근대화론과 수탈론의 진실이 무엇인가를 지적학적으로 제시하는 것이다. 이를 위한 조사방법은 문헌조사법과 인터넷조사법을 병행하였다. 분석방법은 기술적(記述的) 분석방법과 비교 분석방법을 사용하였다. 연구 결과, 조선토지조사사업의 본질은 다음과 같이 도출되었다. 첫째, 조선토지조사사업은 침략설에 기반한 식민지 수탈이 목적이었다. 일본의 영토확장과 식민 통치 기반을 확보하기 위한 수단으로 조선토지조사사업을 실시하였기 때문에 침략설과 수탈론은 내용적인 측면에서 일치하였다. 둘째, 조선토지조사사업으로 조선에 토지소유권이 확립되었다는 것은 진실의 왜곡으로 나타났다. 대한제국에서 실시한 토지조사사업으로도 충분히 토지소유권 확립이 가능했다는 내재적발전론 보다 근거가 부족하였다. 셋째, 식민지 근대화론은 식민지배의 합리화 술책으로 나타났다. 조선토지조사사업은 식민지통치의 기반을 강화하기 위한 토지 수탈에 있었기 때문에 조선근대화로 미화될 수는 없다. 이러한 결과를 토대로 대한제국의 토지조사사업에 대한 지속적인 연구와 조선토지조사사업 연구활성화를 위한 연구기관의 설립, 지적재조사사업의 성공적 추진을 통한 주민친화형 ‘생활지적’ 도입을 위한 정책적 제언을 하였다.

식민주의와 법학

이재승 ( Jae seung Lee ) 민주주의법학연구회 2011 민주법학 Vol.0 No.45

This article aims at reviewing colonialist legal ideologies and tackle critically methodological problems raised by legal historians concerning research of the Japanese colonial legal system. The modern international law justified the colonization of non-european worlds by the western Europe under the name of civilizing mission. The Japanese imperialism colonized Korea after its rapid industrialization. The Japanese Empire constructed the capitalist, authoritarian regime in Korea. Colonialist legal ideologies have had continuous bad influences upon the mentality of the Koreans, though the Korean Government had transformed widely the colonial enactments since 1948. Prof. Dr. Chulwoo Lee proposes an alternative quantitative conception of modernity against the normative essentialist one, intending to make a detour around the recent controversy between the colonial exploitation theory and colonial modernization theory. But his proposal does not seem to approach properly the normative view of modernity, because modernity in essence implies a holistic project which aspires to realize the normative ideal of civil society. The terms like ``colonial modernity`` or ``colonial modern law`` are seemingly paradoxical or ambiguous, but very useful to explain the characteristic features of the modern legal history in Korea. Prof. Lee also proposes to introduce the microscopic historical method for catching the legal interplays or games between ordinary people and colonial authority and to understand diversification of forms of colonial domination instead of a naive instrumentalist view of law. But Lee`s methodological proposal lacks in the appropriate structuralist perspective for analyzing colonial oppressive politico-legal structure. Alternatively, this essay reviews the application of Fraenkel`s Dual State Thesis to the Japanese colonial legal system. His theory which originally intended to explain the National-socialist political regime simultaneously offers a good perspective for the Japanese colonial legal system, but with some appropriate modifications.

‘재조일본인’ 연구와 ‘식민지수탈론’

이규수 일본사학회 2011 일본역사연구 Vol.33 No.-

The japanese resided in Korea is one of important research subjects. Through this subject, we can investigate their 'modernity' and 'colonialism' which they have had between 'empire' and 'colony.' Because it was a major research target which demonstrate colonial aggression and exploitation have been performed by combining civilians with imperial power and state power. With empirical research surrounding the transplant process of the japanese, the distorted korea recognition of the japanese resided in Korea has been criticized strongly. In recent years, many researchers, focusing on each trade port, have investigated the nature of Japanese colonial rule and colonial modernity by identifying the population fluctuation related with the formation of the colonial city, and the structural characteristics of Japanese social organization and the organization's status. The study based on 'the theory of colonial exploitation' presented the historical image that modern Japan occupied Korea politically and militarily, and dominated korean economy by transplanting its civilian settlers in colonial society, and in this process, private organizations such as the japanese resident union in korea and the Chambers of Commerce combining with the colonial power have played the spearhead roles. Of course, as the colonial power was much simpler than that of the japanese empire, and took the centralized institutional form, the approaching method of a single colonial power seems useful in terms of macroscopic approaching method. However, as previous studies implicitly assumed, this recognition has a great weakness in the identification of another and hidden characteristic of the colonial power. I think that an access regarding the colonial ruling power as a single agent is insufficient to understand conflicts between various power groups of interests within the multidimensional reality. In this thesis, based on concrete empirical research on the japanese general government-the japanese resided in Korea-the korean, I will examine the japanese recognition of the japanese general government and the colonial policies, and the main leading groups' interest relationships. This methodology will help to investigate the contents and the nature of conflicts, alliances, and cultural inter-penetrations which have been variously ongoing in the colonial Koreans and Japanese.

태평양전쟁기 미국의 複眼的 視覺과 한국사회 인식

정연태(Chung Youn-Tae) 한국사연구회 2006 한국사연구 Vol.134 No.-

The U.S.A had negative understanding of Korea since the late 19th century. The negative understanding was that Korea couldn't reform and develop herself without the support and protection of outside world, not only because she didn't have sufficient capacity for self-government due to injustice, inefficiency, corruption and stagnation, but because she was located at the special geopolitical environment, having been a field of battle among China, Russia, and Japan. On the basis of this understanding, the U.S.A officially recognized Japanese aggression and ruling of Korea, and estimated that Japanese ruling contributed to the modernization of the Korean society. Also, the identical result of the negative understanding was applied to Korea before and after liberation from Japan(1945). The U.S.A thought that Korea should be placed under the international trusteeship for the peace of the north-eastern Asia before becoming an independent state because she didn't have sufficient capacity for self-government and was located at the center of conflict among the world powers. Therefore, the writer of this article thinks the American understanding of Korea is logically based on the theory of modernization which has to do with the viewpoint that Korea was stagnant and could be developed only by the support of outside world. But the U.S.A criticized that Japanese Imperialism could fail to realize the desired end because the ruling ways were wrong. According to the judgement of the U.S.A, Japan restricted the Korean people's participation in government, and deepened the discrimination and inequality between Koreans and Japanese through the Japan-and Japanese-oriented policies, and tried unreasonably to obliterate the nationality of Korea. Though this understanding was only sometimes brought up by American missionaries or diplomats as long as the friendly relation between the U.S.A and Japan was kept, it became the America's dominant viewpoint when the relation between the U.S.A and Japan changed from friendship to hostility because of the break of the Pacific War. In other words, the U.S.A concluded that Japan didn't properly accomplished the mission to reform and civilize Korea, though she recognized Japanese responsibility for it. According to the American observation, Japanese ruling was one of the harshest tyranny to be seen in modern times and Koreans were degraded to the condition of slavery. The writer of this article think that America's conclusion can be a watershed in that the U.S.A could criticize Japanese ruling over Korea though it was based on the theory of modernization. In this point, the logic of the America's observation of Korea was composed of binary strata called the theory of self-governmental colonialism on the basis of the theory of modernization. In brief, the times of colonial Korea which was described in the American observation were not only a barbaric age but the age in which Korean potential power of development grew at the same time. Though the U.S.A criticized that Japanese ruling was a tyranny, she judged that the fruits of Korea's self-development, the legacy of Japanese colonial development, Korea's overseas manpower improving leaders of independence movement, and Korean people's strong national identity oriented toward ani-Japanese independence contributed to the growth of its potential power under the Japanese ruling and to the formation of its capacity for self-government after liberation from Japan(1945). The writer of this article thinks that this is the important point which is different from the theory of colony-exploitation by Japanese imperialism or the theory of colony-modernization.

한국 ‘식민지 근대화’ 논쟁과 ‘근대성’ 인식의 재검토 : 근대성 개념의 간학문적 논의를 중심으로

김두진(Kim, Doo-Jin) 고려대학교 아세아문제연구소 2019 亞細亞硏究 Vol.62 No.4

한국의 근대성에 관한 논의는 한국 사회에 적지 않은 정치적 함의를 던져 줄 만큼 무거운 역사적 쟁점이 되어 왔다. 부인할 수 없는 사실은, ‘수탈론’과 ‘식민지 근대론’의 이분법적 인식론적 논쟁은 양측 모두 그동안 상당 부분 설득력과 의미 있는 학문적 성과를 가져왔다는 사실이다. 본 연구에서는 「식민지 수탈」과 「식민지 근대화」간의 기존의 지적 논쟁을 간학문적(間學問的) 논의 -여타 사회과학의 인식의 맥락에서- 를 통해서 근대성 개념의 인식론적 접근의 지향점을 재검토하고자 한다. 이를 위해 사전적(事前的) 작업으로 한국 식민지 근대성 논쟁을 둘러싼 기존 비판적 논의의 지적 계보 (혹은 흐름)를 개괄적으로 살펴보았다. ‘수탈론’과 ‘식민지 근대성’ 간의 논란을 진전시키기 위해 본 논문에서는 ‘근대성’ 개념에 관한 해석을 복합적 시각과 분석의 맥락에서 다루고자 한다. 본 연구에서는 식민지 근대성 논의의 시발을 ‘단수의 근대성’ 혹은 ‘일국(一國)의 근대성’의 이해를 넘어서 ‘다중 근대성’(multiple modernities)이라는 개념을 제시하고자 한다. 식민지 근대화론과 관련하여, 식민지 근대성의 현상을 ‘단수’의 근대성을 넘어서 ‘전지구적 근대성’ 내지 ‘다양한 근대성’으로 이해하고자 한다. 이것은 ‘일국적 근대성’(national modernity)을 넘어서 트랜스내셔널 히스토리(transnational histiory)의 관점에서 재검토해야 함을 의미하기도 한다. 트랜스내셔널 히스토리의 역사서술은 ‘국민국가’ 혹은 ‘민족’의 중요성을 간과하는 것이 아니다. 트랜스내셔널 히스토리는 하나의 ‘패러다임’이라기보다는 하나의 ‘지향점’의 성격을 제시한다. ‘다중 근대성’의 성격은 종전의 서구학자의 전통적 근대성 개념을 거부하는 차별성을 드러낸다. 비서구의 다양한 근대성들(modernities)은 ‘통시적’(通時的), ‘동시적’(同時的) 및 ‘비동시적’(非同時的) 운동의 상호 작용의 결과로 나타난다. 이런 맥락에서 ‘수탈론’과 ‘식민지 근대성’ 간의 부단한 논란이 ‘근대성’ 개념의 다원적(plural) 시각과 분석의 맥락에서 다루어질 때, 이분법적 시각 간의 접점의 범위가 보다 넓혀질 것으로 예상된다. Discussing the question of whether Japanese rule contributed to the modernization of Korea is much likely to be problematic. Should the idea of modernization continue to possess heavy political implications ? In comparison with the concept of modernity as fixed, unified or universal progress, it is often suggested that we posit a multiplicity of kinds and fields of modernity, and attempt to discern features of modernization rather than defining the nature of progress on the basis of one or two criteria. The notion of ‘multiple modernities’ may denote a certain view of colonial modernization in Korean society similar to the actual developments in modernizing non-Western societies. In Korean humanities circle, particular attention has been paid to the discourse on ‘colonial modernity’ vs ‘exploitation theory’, thus leading to the accumulation of the scholarly reinterpretations related to colonial modernity in the fields of Korean history. Korean nationalist historians presuppose an archetype of “Western modernity” on which colonial domination was based. The nationalist narratives remain prevalent in the colonial intellectual fashions they contest. By contrast, we argue that the varieties of modernity needs to be recognized in the context of interdisciplinary research, including transnational history perspective. The notion of ‘global modernity’ or ‘multiple modernities’ should be addressed to move away from the excessively value-laden use of the modernity. It is not sufficient to trace modernity as a linear movement of modern developments. Rather, recognition of modernities as the interplay of diachronic, synchronic and desynchronic actions should be carefully incorporated. We assume that the recognition of plural modernities allows us to better understand the controversy on colonial modernization. The idea of global modernity enables both Korean historiography circles to redefine varieties of modernites that go beyond their conventional perception on colonial modernization.

일제의 한국 지배에 대한 인식의 갈등과 그 지양

정연태 한국외국어대학교 역사문화연구소 2015 역사문화연구 Vol.53 No.-

최근 한국사회에서는 일제의 식민지배에 대한 인식을 둘러싼 갈등이 심각한 양상을 보이고 있다. 이런 갈등은 정치적·사회적 갈등, 남북 대립, 그리고 한일 역사분쟁과 결합돼 소모적인 이념 대립으로 비화되고 있다. 그 상징적 양상은 최근에 벌어진 한국사 교과서 검정파동에서 나타났다. 한국학계 또한 이런 양상으로부터 자유롭지 못하다. 식민지 수탈론, 식민지 근대화론, 탈근대론 사이의 근대 역사관 논쟁이 학문 외적인 이념 대립과 연동돼 논쟁 자체가 변질되고 있다. 심지어 학계의 논쟁이 소모적 이념 대립을 해소하는 데 기여하기는커녕 불필요한 갈등을 오히려 증폭시키는 데 이용되는 경향조차 있다. 본고는 한국 근대사 인식의 이러한 정치성을 특별히 주목하고 싶다. 일제의 식민지배에 대한 인식을 둘러싸고 한국학계에서 전개되는 학술 논쟁이 정치 사회적 현실과 어떻게 연관되고 있는지를 살펴보고자 한다. 그리고 이러한 소모적인 갈등을 지양할 수 있는 방안을 모색해 보고자 한다. 주제어 : 식민지배, 역사분쟁, 교학사(敎學社) 한국사 교과서, 종북(從北) 좌편향 프레임, 식민지 수탈론, 식민지 근대화론, 탈근대론, 열린 민족주의 The recent conflicts over the recognition of Japanese colonial rule are serious in the Korean society. These conflicts are connected with political and social antagonism, inter-Korean confrontation, and history disputes between Korea and Japan. For this reason, they are creating exhaustive conflicts of ideology. A symbolic development aspect of these conflicts is the recent controversy over the official certification of Korean history textbooks. The academic world of Korea is not also free from these conflicts. The disputes on the view of the modern history of korea between the theory of colony exploitation, the theory of colony modernization, the theory of post-modernism are deteriorating in sync with the conflicts of ideology in Korean society. The disputes in the academic world didn’t contribute to settle these exhaustive conflicts. They even tend to be used to intensify unnecessary conflicts. In this paper, I would particularly like to pay attention to this kind of the politics of recognition of Korean modern history. And I want to examine how these disputes in the academic world are connected with the political and social realities in Korea today. Additionally, I would like to attempt to seek for solution to sublate this kind of exhaustive conflicts.

한국 병합과 식민지 지배

Kim Dong Myung(金東明) 일본사학회 2003 일본역사연구 Vol.18 No.-

The annexation of Korea and the Japanese colonial rule over Korea comprise the most controversial issues in the historical studies of modern Korean-Japanese relations. One of the most pressing issues is whether the annexation of Korea by the Japanese imperialism was legitimate or illegitimate from the perspective of contemporary international laws. The other issue is that whether the Japanese colonial rule helped or blocked the modernization of Korea. Even if these controversies arose over the international laws and historical facts they go on and on without much settlement. This has been caused mainly by the attitudes of both parties which attempted an arbitrary understanding of history without trying to understand each other’s positions. An arbitrary understanding of history led easily and frequently to the emotional clashes which helped provide a room for the penetration of historical revisionism. As a result, the objective genuine efforts to understand the modern history of relations between Korea and Japan do not develop very much. Only after establishing the common historical understanding that the Japanese colonial rule over Korea cannot be justified under any circumstances the legality of the annexation treaty and historical characteristics of modern changes which took place during the colonial period can be discussed and researched objectively. This is the most useful measure to confront the challenges of historical revisionism which tries to justify the Japanese colonial rule over Korea by ignoring concrete historical facts.

조선 토지 조사 사업에 관하여

김봉준(Bong-Joon Kim),이한경(Han-Kyung Lee) 韓國經營史學會 2013 經營史學 Vol.65 No.-

일제 하에 시행된 조선토지조사사업이 갖는 역사적 의의에 대해 식민지 근대화론적 시각과 수탈론적 시각이 공존하고 있다. 본 연구는 이에 대한 새로운 관점으로서 ‘내재적 근대화론’을 제시한다. 즉 조선왕조 하에서 작성된 양안을 비롯한 공문서 상의 일반 농민에 대한 호칭 변화를 통해 근대적 의미의 사적 소유 관념이 역사적으로 발전해 왔음을 주장한다. 구체적으로 조선 왕조 하에서의 농민에 대한 호칭은 크게 전객(佃客), 전부(佃夫), 기주(起主), 시주(時主)로 변화하였다. 먼저 전객은 1391년 과전법 개혁 당시 일반 농민의 호칭으로서 자구적으로 해석하면 일반 농민은 국왕 소유의 토지를 잠시 빌려서 경작하는 나그네라는 뜻이다. 역성혁명을 통해 건국한 조선 왕조가 국전제적 통치 이념을 분명히 하고 있음을 알 수 있다. 그러나 객이라는 호칭은 당시 일반 농민의 사적 토지소유관념을 감안할 때 지나치게 이념적이었다. 이에 1460년 경국대전에서는 일반 농민을 전부로 호칭함으로써 신분적 지위를 객에서 농부로 격상시켰다. 그러나 한편 전(佃)이라는 명칭을 여전히 사용함으로써 국전제적 통치 이념을 고수하고 있음을 알 수 있다. 17세기 이후 이앙법을 비롯한 농업 생산력의 발전은 소농에 의한 집약적 영농을 가능하게 하였고 이는 농민의 사실적 소유의 진전에 있어서 큰 진척을 초래하였다. 그 결과 1662년 경기도의 양전과 1720년 경자양전에 이르면 일반 농민을 ‘기주(起主)’로 규정하는 큰 발전이 있게 된다. 기주는 현재 기경 중인 토지의 주인이라는 뜻이며 진황 지의 주인을 의미하는 진주(陳主)와 구별되어 사용되었다. 전부에서 기주로의 호칭 변화 는 조선 왕조의 국전제적 통치 이념에도 불구하고 일반 농민의 사실적 토지 소유의 진전을 국가 권력이 인정하지 않을 수 없는 조선 후기 근대적 요소의 진전을 단적으로 보여준다. 시주(時主)는 대한제국기에 있었던 광무양전(光武量田)에서의 토지 소유 농민에 대한 호칭이다. 당시 고종(高宗)은 황실전제(皇室專制)를 대한제국의 국제로 표방하였다. 그러나 황제주권과 당시 이미 성숙한 민간의 사적 토지소유관념은 그 자체로 양립할 수 없는 전근대와 근대의 모순 관계에 있었다. 시주 호칭은 이러한 모순적 개념의 타협적 산물이었다. 시주를 자구적으로 해석하면 본주(本主), 즉 황제로부터 일시적으로 사유권을 인정받은 주인이라는 뜻이다. 그러나 근대에서 ‘일시적 사유권’이라는 개념은 존재하지 않는다. 결국 시주라는 규정은 당시 성숙된 사적 소유 관념을 지닌 일반 농민으로부터 배척되는 결과를 초래한다. 본 연구는 전술한 일반 농민에 대한 호칭 변화를 통해 내재적 근대화론을 기존의 주류적 사관인 식민지 근대화론 및 수탈론을 대체하는 새로운 역사관으로 제시한다. 따라서 일제가 실시한 조선토지조사사업은 구한말 이미 성숙된 사적소유관념을 사후적으로 추인하고 이를 제도화하는 것이었다는 역사적 의의를 갖는다고 해석할 수 있다. There is opposite opinions about the historical meaning of land investigation business executed by the Empire of Japan from 1910 to 1918. The one is colonial exploitation theory . It means that above 40% of total land that Joseon Dynasty had owned were seized by Japanese imperial power. The other one is colonial modernization theory . This means that pre-modernized Joseon Dynasty could establish the modernized private property system due to land investigation business. These two views are different according to whether the Empire of Japan contributed to the modernization of Joseon Dynasty. So, both of them have the limitation of comprehending history in black and white. In this sense, we suggest inner modernization theory as the alternative historical view point. This means that private property mind among people under Joseon Dynasty had been continuously developed. We insist that inner modernization theory is more unbiased and truthful to historical facts by suggesting historical evidences supporting this hypothesis. The name of common farmer during the period of Joseon Dynasty was changed in the order of Jeon-Gaek, Jeon-Bu, Gi-Ju, Si-Ju. In the first, Jeon-Gaek was the name of common farmer used in the process of revising Gwa-Jeon law in 1392. Literally, Jeon meant to borrow land and Gaek meant a passenger. Therefore, Jeon-Gaek meant a transient passenger to borrow and cultivate King’s own land. From this appellation, Joseon Dynasty made it clear that King had sovereign ownership right of total land in the country. But Jeon-Gaek was too ideological because common farmers had an effective control of land in those times. As the result, when Joseon Dynasty made Gyeong-Guk Dae-Jeon as the fundamental law for ruling, Jeon-Gaek was replaced with Jeon-Bu. Literally, Jeon-Bu meant common farmers to borrow and cultivate King’s own land. Gaek impling passengers was replaced with Bu impling common farmers. After 17th century, intensive agriculture managed independently by family members was prevalent. This was possible because of the improvement of agriculture production technology like rice transplantation. This developed private property of land qualitatively. As the result, common farmer was called as Gi-Ju in Gyeon-Ja Yang-Jeon executed in 1720. Literally, Gi-Ju meant the owner of cultivated land. The change from Jeon-Bu to Gi-Ju meant that the latter period of Joseon Dynasty could not help admitting the effective possession of land by common farmers despite ruling ideology of Joseon Dynasty. Si-Ju was the name of cultivating farmers used in Gwang-Mu Yang-Jeon executed in 1898 by the Empire of Korea. Go-Jong who was the last king of Joseon Dynasty claimed imperial dictatorship and made it clear that the ownership of total land in the country belong to the emperor. Literally, Si-Ju meant cultivating farmers that were temporarily granted private land ownership from the Emperor. But there is not the concept of ‘temporary private ownership’ in modern times. This implies that imperial dictatorship and private land ownership are incompatible. As the result, Si-Ju was rejected as the name of cultivating farmer by common people that had modernized private ownership mind in those times. Concludingly, from aforementioned historical evidences we insist that land investigation business executed by Japanese imperialism power has the historical meaning of institutionalizing pre-mature private ownership mind of the common people in the latter period of Joseon Dynasty.

고등학교 국사 교과서의 일제강점기 관련 서술의 양상 변화와 요인

구난희 한국사회교과교육학회 2010 사회과교육연구 Vol.17 No.4

This study focuses on considering the changes of textbook description of the Japanese colonial period in Korea and analyzing how to operate social demand, academic demand, learner? demand each other. The major findings of this study were followed: At first it divided 4 periods(1945~the 1970s, the early 1980s, from the late 1980s to 1990s, after the year of 2000)and characterized each period. In the first period, any demand didn? surface and there was no conflict. It was the second period that the academic demand has begun to collide with the social demand but the latter was sorted out and was excluded by the former. In third period, the real try to mediate in the dispute between two demands was promoted within the institutional range. Although it couldn? actualize it? original goal, it could arbitrate between two demands in the level which respects the academic achivement and considers the learners. Now various academic outcomes have been described in Korean Contemporary History Textbooks, as the new conflict is proceeding. It is long-term conflict situation by the socaial demand? operation and the academis demand? reaction. In described contents, the dichotomy between colonial rule and resistance has been the basic structure for long times. But the new re-structuralization of contents is needed. Because the new interest on another part just like as the change of life style, pro-Japanese is increasing but that can? handle in this structure. The social independence movement has been the core of textbook description changes and discords between demands. It have tried to describe the merits and demerits of that in balanced way since the late 1980s but the sensitive parts as like Tong-buk-hang-il-yoen-kun(the Northeastern Anti-Japanese Allied Forces) still discussed. The pro-Japanese problem started to be described by self-examination about Korean textbooks while Korean textbook discourse experienced the Japanese textbook distortion. Finally this pointed that the restructure of description should be done in the view of the learner demand for well-balanced and fair adjustment to resolve the long-term conflicts between the demands. 이 연구는 강제병합 100주년이라는 계기를 맞아 한국 교과서 내 일제강점기 관련 서술이 어떻게 변화해 왔는가를 검토하면서 이를 둘러싼 학문적 요구, 정치사회적 요구, 학습자적 요구라는 관점이 어떻게 작동되는가를 분석하였다. 그 결과 얻어진 결론은 다음과 같다. 우선 해방 후부터 1980년 이전, 1980년대 전반, 1980년대 후반부터 1990년대, 2000년 이후의 4 시기로 구분하고 그 특징을 추출했다. 첫 번째 시기는 각 요구가 뚜렷하게 가시화되지 않았다. 학문적 요구와 국가사회적 요구가 충돌하기 시작한 것은 두 번째 시기였으나 후자에 의해 전자가 선별되고 배제되었다. 양자의 요구를 조정하려는 본격적인 시도가 제도권 내에서 모색된 것이 세 번째 시기이며 그것은 국사교육 내용전개 준거안의 개정으로 나타났다. 당초의 취지와 달리 학문적 성과가 충분히 반영되지는 못했으나, 양자의 충돌은 학문적 성과를 존중하는 가운데 학습자를 배려하는 수준에서 타협, 변용되었다. 현재는 한국근현대사 과목의 개설과 교과서 검정 발행이라는 획기적인 교과서 환경 변화 속에서 학문적 요구가 교과서에 활발하게 반영되었고 이에 따른 갈등이 전개되고 있는 시기이다. 세 번째 시기와 달리 정치사회적 요구가 강하게 작용하면서 이에 대한 학문적 요구의 반발이 지속되는 양상을 보이면서 중장기적인 갈등 국면을 형성하고 있다. 내용면에서 보면 침략과 저항의 2분법적 구조는 오랫동안 이 시기 서술의 기본 구도를 이루어 왔다. 그러나 최근에 와서 생활의 변화, 친일문제 등 양분구도에서 다룰 수 없는 영역에 대한 관심이 높아지고 있어 새로운 내용 재구조화가 필요하다. 식민지 근대화론이 주장되는 가운데 이러한 요구는 더욱 절실하다. 사회주의 민족운동은 교과서 서술 변화와 요구간 갈등의 핵심을 이루어 왔다. 1980년대 후반부터 비교적 공과를 균형있게 서술하려는 노력이 전개되고 있으나 동북항일연군 등 민감한 부분에 대한 서술은 여전히 논란이 되고 있다. 그밖에 친일문제는 거의 언급이 없었으나 2000년대에 들어 와 일본교과서 논쟁을 거치면서 자성적 차원에서 다루기 시작하였다. 지금까지 이러한 제논쟁은 거의 학문적 요구와 정치사회적 요구간의 갈등과 충돌로 이루어졌고 상대적으로 학습자적 요구에 대한 관심과 배려는 그다지 이루어지지 않았다. 그러나 교과서를 둘러싼 요구간 갈등이 중장기화되면서 이의 공정하고 균형있는 조정을 위해서는 학습자적 요구의 관점에서 서술구조의 재조정이 모색되어야 한다.

양적 방법의 지배와 그 결과

이기홍(Ki Hong Lee) 한국사회학회 2016 韓國社會學 Vol.50 No.2

식민지근대화론자들은 국민계정 추계를 통해 일제 식민통치기간에 근대적 경제성장이 가속화하였으며 그러므로 수탈은 없었다고 주장한다. 그들이 사용하는 수량적 증거는 대부분 여러 가정들과 추측들에 근거하는 추계치로 그들의 연구를 특별하게 더 ‘실증적’이라거나 더 ‘과학적’이라고 할 수는 없다. 수량적 증거는 사회적 삶에서 극히 일부만을 수량화한 매우 추상적인 것이기 때문에 식민지 기간의 경제의 실상을 일면적으로 부분적으로만 보여준다. 특히 식민지근대화론자들은 경험주의의 존재론적 및 인식론적 가정을 전제하고 이론은 경험적 자료가 알려주는 것을 정리할 뿐이라는 실증주의 과학관을 준수한다. 그들은 식민통치기구가 생산한 통계자료와 그것을 가공한 숫자들이 알려주는 것을 동어반복적으로 정리함으로써, 숫자의 외양적인 중립성과 객관성을 앞세워 식민통치 기구의 의도와 이해에 충실한 주장을 되풀이하고 있다. Colonial modernization theorists argued that the modern economic growth had been accelerated and the exploitation did not occur in Korea during the Japanese colonial period by using the estimated national account statistics. Most of their statistical evidences are the estimates based on the various assumptions and conjectures so there are no reasons to remark that their studies are more ‘positive’ or more ‘scientific’. The numerical evidences represent the very restricted aspects of the reality of society because they are not concrete but abstract. Especially, colonial modernization theorists presuppose the empiricist ontology and epistemology, and follow the instructions of positivism that theory has no substantive content, but just a filing system for organizing empirical material. They file tautologically the dictations of the numbers produced by the colonial rulers and processed by themselves. As a result, they reiterate self-justification of the colonial rulers under the appearance of neutrality and objectivity of the numbers.