1930년대 초반 京城지역 전기사업 府營化 운동

金濟正 서울대학교 인문대학 국사학과 2000 韓國史論 Vol.43 No.-

식민지기 ‘지역’과 ‘지역운동’ -1930년대 초반 경성지역을 중심으로-

김제정 서울역사편찬원 2014 서울과 역사 Vol.- No.86

식민지기에는 ‘제국일본-조선-하위지역(경성지역-교외지역)’과 같이 계서화된 지역구조가 형성되었다. 지역운동의 주도층은 운동의 기반이 되는 지역 단위에 따라 차이가 있었다. 1930년대 초반에 일어난 조선미 이입제한 반대운동, 전기사업 공영화 운동, 전차교외선 폐지 반대운동의 주도층을 살펴본 결과, 조선의 유력자층이 각각의 지역단위, 즉 조선-경성-교외지역에 기반하고 있는 유력자들로 계서화되어 있었고, 각 지역 단위의 이해관계가 충돌하는지 여부에 따라 이들의 관계도 협력 또는 갈등 관계에 있었다. 또한 식민지 협력자층이 지역적 이해관계를 기반으로 하위지역 단위까지 누층적으로 형성되어 있었다. 지역운동의 논리 가운데 가장 중심적이었던 것은 지역발전이었다. 지역발전은 지역운동의 주도층이었던 지역 유력자들의 ‘私益’이 ‘公益’이라는 명분과 상충되지 않으면서도 최대한 실현되는 형태였다. 나아가 식민지 지배에 대한 협력과 체제내화를 ‘정당화’하는 사회경제적 근거였다고 할 수 있을 것이다. 식민지기 하위지역 단위 지역운동의 기본적인 성격은 지역발전이라는 문명화 담론을 통해 조선의 하위 유력자 집단이 식민통치의 자장 속으로 흡수되어 가는 과정이었다. 즉 조선지역과 하위지역 단위를 각각 기반으로 하는 계서화된 조선인 유력자층들이 지역적 이해관계를 통해 누층적인 식민지 협력자층을 형성해 간 것이었다.

해방 직후 수도 명칭의 결정과 1950년대 개정 논의

김제정 서울시립대학교 서울학연구소 2014 서울학연구 Vol.- No.56

After the liberation, the US Military Government used Gyeongseong or keijo as thename of Seoul. They decided to use ‘Seoul’ instead of Gyeongseong from September 14,but ‘Seoul-si’, ‘Hanseong-si(漢城市)’ and ‘Gyeongseong-bu’(京城府) were used in mix. Atthe end of 1945, the council meeting of Gyeongseong-bu decided to write ‘Hanseong-si(漢城市)’ and to read it as ‘Seoul-si’, but the US Military Government refused it that lingeredthe confusion regarding the name. On August 10, 1946, the US Military Governmentannounced 「Charter of The City of Seoul」 commemorating the 1st anniversary of theliberation. Based on it, Gyeongseong-bu was renamed to Seoul Special Free City under themilitary government ordinance no. 106 on September 19. President Seungman Rhee made a statement on September 16, 1955 suggesting the revisionof the name of Seoul because ‘Seoul’ is a common noun indicating the capital city, itis not a proper noun indicating a land name and it is hard for foreigners to pronounce andrequesting discussion of its alternative. Classical scholars of the country such as Choi Namseon,Lee Byeongdo, Choi Hyeonbae and Kim Yoongyeong and some people expressedopinion of agreement. As alternatives, ‘Hanyang’ and ‘Hanseong’ were suggested manyamong old names of Seoul. Korean linguists suggested a Korean name like ‘Hanbeol’. Also ‘Woonam-si’ was suggested with the nickname of the president. There were opposing opinions against rename. Lee Huiseung, a Korean linguist, manypeople and Donga Ilbo expressed opinion of disagreement. While Seoul is a commonnoun indicating the capital city, as it has been used as a name of a specific region, it must beconsidered to be converted into a proper noun. And difficult pronunciation for foreignersis not a matter of consideration in deciding the name of the capital city. And, the reason ofopposition include that it has been widely used for a long time and well known to overseas,and affection of people was formed. The issue of rename of Seoul came to nothing after 1year’ s discussion. The discussion of rename of Seoul was not appropriate in terms of time, and it tookplace abruptly without a proper context. But, considering the fact that representative classicalscholars such as Choi Namseon, Lee Byeongdo and Choi Hyeonbae supported, it wasnot a simple happening that some close associate with the president attempted to changethe name of Seoul to the nickname of the president. In consequence, it demonstratedplainly that the name of the capital city after the liberation was decided without properdiscussion process.

식민지기 조선총독부의 조선특수성론

김제정 부경역사연구소 2018 지역과 역사 Vol.- No.43

Joseon Government-General set up a discourse on distinct characteristics of Joseon as a logic to rationalize colonial rule and as a logic to deal with conflicts with the Japanese government. The discourse on distinct characteristics of Joseon was not used in a single meaning. Basically, the content was different depending on what "Joseon" refers to. The discourse on distinct characteristics of Joseon was divided into three kinds: Joseon people, Joseon region, rule over Joseon. Each of the discourse on distinct characteristics of Joseon is a logic that justifies the colonial rule and policy of the Joseon Government-General, a logic that means the independence or autonomy of the Joseon Government-General, and a logic that carries out the interests of Joseon region to Japan. The discourse on distinct characteristics of Joseon was based on the premise of a general and universal existence of Japan. And it could not coexist with affirmative action given by Joseon Government-General. 조선총독부는 식민통치를 합리화하기 위한 논리, 본국인 일본 정부 사이에 갈등이 있을 경우의 대응논리로서 조선특수성론을 내세웠다. 성격이 완전히 다른 사안에 제기된 것에서 알 수 있듯이, 조선총독부의 조선특수성론은 단일한 의미로 사용된 것이 아니었다. 기본적으로는 ‘조선’이 지칭하는 것이 무엇인가에 따라 그 내용이 달랐다. 조선특수성론을 조선인의 특수성론, 조선 통치의 특수성론, 조선 지역의 특수성론의 세 가지로 구분하였다. 각각의 조선특수성론은 조선총독부가 식민지조선에 대한 식민 지배와 정책을 정당화하는 논리로, 조선총독부나 조선총독의 독자성 또는 자율성이라는 의미로, 그리고 본국 일본에 대해 조선 지역의 이해관계를 관철시키는 논리로 기능하였다. 실제 하나의 사안에서 하나의 특수성론만 나타나는 것은 아니었다. 두 가지 이상의 조선특수성론이 동시에 나타나는 경우가 많았다. 대표적인 예로 중요산업통제법의 조선 시행 문제에 나타난 조선특수성론은 조선 지역의 특수성론과 조선 통치의 특수성론이었다. 조선특수성론은 일반적이고 보편적인 일본의 존재를 전제로 한 개념이었고, 일본 제국주의가 주장한 일시동인, 차별철폐, 내선일체 등과는 공존하기 어려운 개념이었다. 또 조선총독부로서는 조선인에 대해서나 일본 본국정부에 대해서나 식민지 조선에서 자신들이 하는 정책을 무엇이든지 합리화할 수 있는 논리였다.

일제 식민지기 경성부 교외 지역의 전차 문제와 지역 운동 : 1932~33년 전차 교외선 폐지 반대 운동을 중심으로

김제정 서울시립대학교 부설 서울학연구소 2007 서울학연구 Vol.- No.29

The movement against the abolishment of the electric cars' outskirts line, which continued during 1932 and 1933, was a local movement originated from the outskirts area of the Gyeongseong-bu. This movement was based upon the dual structure of the Gyeongseong area and also the interests of the majority of the local residents, and continued for quite some time. The movement also involved, albeit partially, a nationalist agenda, and therefore was supported by the Joseon community as well. The movement proceeded in the most typical fashion we can observe from the Japanese occupation period. The issues were originated from the local resident leaders' meetings, then further discussed in conferences between representatives of Dong·Ri units, and then a movement community was organized to raise money and propagate their issues, and such efforts eventually resulted in the commencement of resident campaigns and submission of appeals. This movement was a rare success compared to other movements that were attempted under the colonial ruling. Although the movement featured one big flaw of having the colonial authorities involve themselves in the movement, the local movement itself was another opportunity of forming a public consensus nonetheless. And the concept suggested for the cause of the movement was 'public interest'. At the time, terms like 'public interest' or 'public matter' meant 'the interest of the majority', and in local movements, these terms meant the 'common interest of the loceil residents'. Electric cars were public assets that were usually used by all the members of local communities, so such assets always had the potential to generate a region-wide issue of common interest regardless of social classes or nationalities. In case of this electric car issue, 'safety and conveniences', 'protection of existing rights', 'local developments' were raised as reasons why such movement was necessary. And compared to this 'public interest' in the issue involving electric cars, the private(私) interest was known to be represented by a civilian company narned the Gyeongseong Electricity corporation. There was a social perceptive that civilian cornpanies in charge of public-natured businesses were required to serve public interests even such serving would limit the companies' pursuit of private interests or their excercise of property rights. The movement was led by local influentials, and also the collaborators of the colonial authorities. They maintained their cause of public interest while also holding onto their private profits, and the cause of 'local development' was what made that possible. This 'local development' cause was a social and economical basis which legitimatized the concept of collaborating with the colonial ruling, and the public's being assimilated into the occupation system.

동아시아 각국 수도의 근대적 변이

김제정 서울시립대학교 서울학연구소 2012 서울학연구 Vol.- No.48

식민지기 홍보 이미지 자료를 통한 경성에서의 박람회 연구

김제정 서울역사편찬원 2021 서울과 역사 Vol.- No.109

In Gyeongseong during the colonial period, many expositions were held, starting with the 1915 Joseon Trade Fair, the 1923 Joseon Industry Exhibition, the 1926 Joseon Exhibition, the 1929 Joseon Exhibition, the 1935 Joseon Industry Exhibition, and the 1940 Joseon Grand Exhibition. This thesis examines the exhibition held in Gyeongseong during the colonial period through the promotional image materials. As image materials, we looked at not only printed materials such as posters, picture postcards, and invitations, but also admission tickets, propaganda towers, and memorabilia. Joseon Government-General chose Gyeongbokgung as the venue for the exhibition. This was 'public spaceization' and 'deauthorization', and it was a general direction to reorganize the existing power space in modern times. However, considering that many traditional buildings appear in promotional image materials such as posters, it seems that, unlike general imperialism, the attitude toward evaluating the old power space was not negative. And street promotional materials such as propaganda towers and decorations created a vista landscape on the main street of Gyeongseong. Through a diachronic comparison of promotional image materials, it was confirmed that the emphasis on Joseon locality appeared not only in the 1929 Joseon Exhibition, but also in the exhibitions held at other times. ‘Joseon on the path to civilization’ was more effective in rationalizing the ongoing colonial rule. The image of women in the poster can be explained as colonialism or Orientalism, but it was basically an expression of sexual objectification and fixed gender roles, and there were differences depending on the period. 식민지기 경성에서는 1915년 조선물산공진회를 시작으로 1923년 조선부업품공진회, 1926년 조선박람회, 1929년의 조선박람회, 1935년 조선산업박람회, 1940년 조선대박람회 등 많은 박람회가 개최되었다. 이 논문은 박람회의 홍보 이미지 자료를 통해 식민지기 경성에서 개최된 박람회의 성격과 인식에 대해 살펴보았다. 이미지 자료로는 포스터를 비롯하여 그림엽서, 안내장과 같은 종이에 인쇄한 자료뿐만 아니라 입장권, 선전탑, 기념물품 등도 살펴보았다. 조선총독부는 경복궁을 박람회장으로 선택하였다. 이는 ‘공공공간화’이자 ‘탈권위화’이고, 근대에 기존의 권력공간을 재편하는 일반적인 방향이었다. 그러나 포스터 등 홍보 이미지 자료에 궁궐 등 전통 건축물이 많이 등장하는 것으로 볼 때, 일반적인 제국주의와는 달리 옛 권력공간을 평가하는 태도가 부정적이지 않았던 것으로 보인다. 또 선전탑과 선전장식 등의 거리 홍보물이 경성역-남대문-경성부청-광화문(조선총독부)으로 이어지는 식민지기 경성의 핵심가로에서 비스타 경관을 만들어낸 것도 확인하였다. 홍보 이미지 자료의 통시적인 비교를 통해서는, 조선성에 대한 강조가 1929년의 조선박람회뿐만 아니라 다른 시기 개최된 박람회에서도 등장하는 것을 확인하였다. 식민지인 조선에서 개최된 박람회의 경우 문명 대 야만이라는 구도보다 과거의 조선 대 현재의 조선이라는 구도가 주요하게 등장할 수밖에 없었고, ‘문명화의 길로 접어든 조선’이라는 것이 진행 중인 식민통치를 합리화하는 데 더 효과적이었다. 이미지 자료 속에 등장하는 여성의 이미지는 식민지를 여성화하는 콜로니얼리즘, 또는 동양을 여성화하는 오리엔탈리즘으로 설명할 수 있으나, 기본적으로는 성적 대상화와 고정적인 성역할의 표현이었고, 시기에 따라서도 차이가 있었다.

[국제심포지엄 보고] 동아시아 각국 수도의 근대적 변이

김제정 서울시립대학교 서울학연구소 2012 서울학연구 Vol.- No.48

익숙한 식민주의, 낯선 남양

김제정 도시사학회 2022 도시연구 Vol.- No.30

식민통치 및 식민권력에 관한 연구 동향과 과제

김제정 한국세계문화사학회 2023 세계 역사와 문화 연구 Vol.- No.68

Trends and challenges of research on colonial rule and colonial power were summarized, focusing on discussions in recent research since the 2000s. First, I briefly summarize the discussion on how to name the period from 1910 to 1945 and how to classify the period. In addition, Joseon Governor-General which was a colonial power, was examined with a focus on the status and authority of the Governor-General and the Director-General of Political Affairs, the classification of colonial officials, and the relationship with the home government. And the discussion on the national nature of colonial power was summarized. Research on colonial rule was organized into assimilation and difference(discrimination). Assimilation looked at the civilization theory and mainland extension policy, and difference looked at autonomyism and distinct characteristics of Joseon as its main contents. In-depth research on changes in ruling policy over time and a multifaceted approach to the ruling bloc, including colonial power and the private sector was raised as a future task. Additionally, it is necessary to determine what impact colonial rule had after liberation and whether the ultimate goal of colonial rule was complete assimilation or the existence of discrimination.