체형과 자세 변화에 따른 자동 긴급제동시스템 작동 시 시트 제어 전략 설정의 유효성

강명관(Myeong Kwan Kang),김형주(HyungJoo Kim),정지수(Jisoo Jung),김건우(Kun Woo Kim),임도형(Dohyung Lim) 한국자동차공학회 2018 한국자동차공학회 학술대회 및 전시회 Vol.2018 No.11

조선 초기 실행 여성에 대한 도덕 권력의 처벌 - 조화(趙禾)의 처 이씨의 경우

강명관 ( Kang Myeong Kwan ) 부산대학교 여성연구소 2018 여성학연구 Vol.28 No.1

Mrs. Kim was the wife of Jo Hwa who was a cousin of Jo Joon as one of the contributors to the foundation of Joseon. She didn't hesitate to express her sexual desires. Sex scandals involving her continued, though not finally confirmed to be true. She also remarried Lee Ji from the royal family when she was 57. It was never wrong, but the noble rule system defined her remarriage as lewd. It is still uncertain that rumors over how Mrs. Kim fulfilled her sexual desires were really true. Some of the rumors might have been reasonable, but how much they were based on realities are not still unknown. However, there was one things that was never changed. It was the moral powers of noble men that judged women's sexual desires as just immoral. In dealing with Mrs. Kim who was the wife of Jo Hwa, therefore, the focus should be put on the powers of noble men who covered themselves under the name of morality. Armed with moral powers, noble men defined that it is all lewd whether women just hold, verbally express or realize sexual desires. By the way, being sexually 'lewd' is just a human trait that is defined within particular contexts. In other words, having or realizing sexual desires itself should not be characterized by lewdness. Mrs. Kim was just forcedly led by the moral powers of noble men to be defined as a lewd woman. Meanwhile, Mrs. Kim's deviating behaviors first began after she found her husband Jo Hwa had sex with her mother. Therefore, those behaviors might be attributed to that husband. Nevertheless, however, Jo Hwa was neither judged as lewd, nor punished. The adultery that he committed with his mother-in-law was just described as a trivial or ignorable episode. Punishments on Mrs. Kim had lots of effects on other people. Her son Jo Sim, Jo Yoo-rye and Jo Yoo-shin were prohibited from being in career as governmental officials. Even her son-in-law and the husband and son-in-law of her daughter's daughter were not exceptional. Jo Yoo-rye and Jo Yoo-shin defended their grandmother by using resonable words, but moral powers of the noble rule system did neither accept, nor even consider any of the words. Severe attacks by the powers on Mrs. Kim and her off springs were probably widely known to people of the noble society, greatly contributing to suppressing noble women's sexual desires. Presumedly, noble women had to stop revealing verbally or give up meeting their sexual desires. For noble women, it was too asymmetrical since noble men could have multiple sexual relationships with lots of different women including kinyeo or entertaining women and female slaves. At last, the Joseon society was established in the way that noble men wanted. But in fact, it was disastrous to not only women, but also men.

판소리계 소설에 나타난 식욕과 판타지

강명관 ( Myeong Kwan Kang ) 한국고전문학회 2007 古典文學硏究 Vol.32 No.-

『서포만필』의 민족어 문학론 비판

강명관 ( Myeong Kwan Kang ) 우리한문학회 2008 漢文學報 Vol.18 No.-

특집1: 근대전환기의 고전 이해와 한국학(한국문학)의 모색 : 국문학과 "근대"에 관한 몇 가지 생각

강명관 ( Myeong Kwan Kang ) 반교어문학회 2015 泮橋語文硏究 Vol.0 No.39

조선후기에 자생적 근대가 없어도 역사서술은 훌륭하게 이루어질 수 있다. 따라서 조선후기 문학에서 자생적 근대문학이 없어도 문학사 서술은 훌륭하게 이루어질 수 있다. 1876년 이전까지 근대를 전혀 의식하지 않고 살다가 어느날 문득 세계 자본주의 체제에 편입되어 타·자율적 과정을 거쳐 드디어 근대에 도달했다는 서사에는 어떤 오류도 없다. 조선후기에 내재적 근대가 있어야 한다는 설정 자체는 대단히 부자연스러운 것이다. 그것은 근대를 원칙으로 하고, 근대란 것이 반드시 존재해야만 한다는 것을 전제하기 때문이다. 하지만 냉정히 생각해 보면 근대를 역사적 목적지로 삼을 경우, 전근대는 근대를 향한 과정으로 존재할 뿐이다. 전근대는 독자성을 상실한 시대가 되고 말 것이고 그시대 자체로서 이해될 수 없을 것이다. 서구와 아무런 접촉도 없었던 시대에 서구의 역사에서 추상한 고대-중세-근대의 도식을 가져다 대며, 조선후기사에서 반드시 근대를 찾아내어야 한다는 강박관념은 어디서 유래한 것인가. 그것은 연구 주체인 나 자신이 이미 국민 /민족으로 제작되어 있기 때문이다. 하지만 인간은 민족 혹은 국민으로 태어나지 않는다. 나는 오직 ‘인간’으로 태어났을 뿐이다. 나는 세계에 피투(被投)된 존재로서 나의 존재 기반인 시공간은 선택의 결과가 아닌 우연의 산물일 뿐이다. 나는 우연과 강제에 의해 한국인으로 제작되었을 뿐이다. 내가 이 시공간에 갖는 애정이 있다면, 그것은 애국심이 아니라, 시공간적 애향심일 것이다. 우리에게 존재하는 것은 실제로 ‘사회’일 뿐이다. 필요한 일은 우리가 지금 서 있는 근대를 냉철하게 객관화하는 것이다. 우리가 왜 이 지옥에 도달하게 되었는지 냉정하게 반성해야 할 단계에 도달한 것이다. 동일한 이유로 내재적 근대를 설정한 국문학 연구 역시 전면적으로 재검토가 필요하다 하겠다. It’s possible to properly describe the history of the late Joseon period even if there was no spontaneous modernization at that time. What’s wrong with a statement that the country lasted without any sense of modernity before 1876 and, after that, it happened to be integrated into the world capitalist system and, through forced or autonomous processes, finally reached the modern times? It’s too much unnatural to assume that internal modernization should be in the late Joseon period. This is because that assumption initially suggests such modernization is a undeniable principle that is never avoidable. Carefully seen, however, the pre-modern times is merely a process towards the modern times only if the latter is defined as the very destination of history. In this case, the pre-modern times can’t avoid being a period that is neither original, nor understandable. The late Joseon period was when there’s not any contact with the West. So where on the earth can we locate our obsession that we have to find aspects of modernity in the history of that period by relying on the Western assumption of historic developments that is, the continuum from the ancient to the medieval and to the modern times? That obsession is attributed to the fact that I’m already made as a nation or people. However, by the way, man is not born as a nation or people. I was just born as ‘human’. Thrown out to this world, I bases my existence in time and space both of which are outcomes not from choice, but from coincidence. I was just made as a Korean by coincidence and compulsion. If I have affection towards time and space in which I now exist, it’s not kind of patriotism, but just love of the time and space themselves. It is only ‘society that we actually have. What we need to do now is to exactly objectify the modern times in which we stand ourselves. It’s about time for us to precisely speculate why we have come to this hell. Concerning this task, what could Korean literature research do?

[특집2: `실학`을 다시 생각한다] 경화세족(京華世族)과 실학(實學)

강명관 ( Kang Myeong-kwan ) 한국실학학회 2016 한국실학연구 Vol.0 No.32

임병양란 이후 조선은 사족체제가 연속되었다. 이것은 조선전기 2세기에 걸쳐 축적된 모순이 거듭 왜곡된 형태로 존속한다는 것을 의미한다. 이에 사족체제는 스스로 `자기 조정` 프로그램을 제출하게 되었다. 여기서 `자기 조정`이란 자신의 내부에 존재하는 모순을 스스로 제거하고 사족체제의 안정성을 확보하려는 노력을 말한다. 곧 제도개혁에서 실학을 규정하려 한다면, 그것의 의미는 `사족체제의 자기 조정 프로그램`으로 국한되어야 할 것이다. 실학을 사족`체제`의 자기 조정 프로그램이라고 본다면, 때문에 굳이 사족만이 제도개혁을 주장할 필요는 없을 것이다. 그 개혁적 자기 조정 프로그램은 群盜와 천민 농민, 중인 서리, 관료, 국왕 등이 다양한 부류들이 제출하고 있었다. 이중에서 원래 국가 경영을 지향하는 사족이, 그 중에서도 17세기 중반 이후 성립한 京華世族이 가장 치밀하고 구체적인 제도개혁론을 제출하였다. 유형원 이익 홍대용 박지원 정약용 서유구 등 이른바 실학자는 경화세족이다. 경화세족은 국가권력을 독점하여 국가경영에 필요한 충실한 정보에 접근할 수 있었기 때문이다. 사족체제의 자기 조정 프로그램으로서의 제도개혁론은 17세기 중반의 유형원에서 19세기 중반의 최성환에 이르기까지 끊임없이 제출되지만, 제대로 실현된적은 없었다. 이 제도개혁론 위에 1930년대 이후 한국 학계는 자연학, 기술학, 문학, 예술, 경학 등을 얹어 장대한 건축물이 축조하고 그것을 `실학`이라 불렀다. 하지만 그것들의 상관성은 필연적이지 않다. 이것들로부터 구체성과 실천성을 부조적으로 끌어내어 그것을 실학의 속성, 혹은 내재적 근대성으로 파악하고, 아울러 민족적 성격을 부여하는 것이 타당한 것인가 되묻지 않을 수 없다. 근대 이후에 규정된 민족의 이름으로 그 학문 현상들을 소환하기보다는 사족체제의 이름으로 먼저 소환하는 것이 실상에 부합하는 것이 아닐까? After both the Joseon-Japan War, or Imjinwaeran and the Joseon-China War, or Byeongjahoran finished, Japan entered a long age of warring states following the period of the Muromachi regime and finally opened the period of the Tokukawa regime that in turn brought the prosperity of Edo. In China, the Ching dynasty was founded, and it eliminated all contradictions of the Ming period and had its best days from the times of emperors Kangxi to Yongzeng and to Qianlong. In Joseon, unlikely, the noble rule system survived and lasted despite the country was the biggest victim of the wars. This means that contradictions accumulated for two centuries of the early Joseon period still continued in distorted manners. At last, the noble rule system chose to present `selfcorrection` programs of their own. Here, `self-correction` indicates efforts by the noble rule system to eliminate contradictions it had inside and stabilizing that system itself. Defining silhak in terms of institutional reforms should be restricted to self-correction programs by the noble rule system. At that time, similar programs were already being presented by a diversity of people including a group of robbers, the lowly, farmers, people of the middle class, public servants of low position, officials of the noble class and even kings. Among such institutional reforms, however, the most detailed and substantial were from those of noble family who purposed their own management of the state, especially those of Gyeonghwasejok that was built up since the mid 18th century. Some figures of the silhak school like Yoo Hyeong-won, Lee Ik, Hong Dae-yong, Park Ji-won, Jeong Yak-yong and Seo Yoo-gu belonged to Gyeonghwasejok. They hold all powers of the state in their hands so that they could have a direct access to enough information necessary for state management. As self-correction programs, institutional reforms were continuously proposed by a number of people ranging from Yoo Hyeong-won of the mid 17th century to Choi Seong-hwan of the mid 19th century, but any of those reforms was not properly implemented. Since the 1930s, the academic circles of Korea integrated the proposed reforms with disciplines like natural science, technology, literature and the Confucian classics into an enormous construction, and called the construction collectively as silhak. But it is uncertain that those disciplines can be necessarily associated with silhak. In particular, natural science was gradually emerged only as a tiny part of the culture of Gyeonghwasejok since the late 17th century. The above mentioned disciplines were developed within the noble rule system, but on the other hand, they were entangled with the academic circles of China and even with the introduction of Western studies. Therefore, it is still doubtful whether it is reasonable to sort out some realistic and practical aspects of the disciplines and define them as the attributes of silhak or inner modernity and further as things Korean. It is more reasonable to focus on aspects of the disciplines from the perspective of the noble rule system rather than from that of the Korean nation which was defined since the modernization of this country, isn`t it?

조선후기 기녀제도의 변화와 경기(京妓)

강명관 ( Myeong Kwan Kang ) 한국고전여성문학회 2009 한국고전여성문학연구 Vol.0 No.18

기녀가 서울 시정의 일정한 공간에서 춤과 음악, 그리고 성(性)을 판매하는 공간인 기방은 조선전기에는 존재하지 않았던 것으로 보인다. 기방은, 조선전기 기생의 정기적 선상제도(選上制度)가 붕괴하고 난 뒤 17세기 후반 이후에 나타난 것으로 보인다. 임진왜란 이후 기녀 선상제도가 사실상 폐지되자, 국가와 궁중에서 일상적으로 기녀를 동원하는 일이 줄어들자, 부정기적으로 선상된 기녀들 중 일부가 서울에 남아 시정으로 진출하게 되었던 것으로 보인다. 시정에서의 기녀 영업처가 곧 기방이다. 기방의 성립으로 인해 국가와 지배계급뿐만 아니라, 도시의 중간계층들도 기녀의 예능을 향유할 수 있게 되었다. Once every 3 years, a certain number of women were selected as female entertainers, collectively called `kinyeo`, from women slaves who belonged to local public authorities. The selected women were then referred to Jangakwon in Seoul, where they learned music and dance and, later, mobilized to entertain the loyal family and noble men at banquets. But the regular selection system was abolished after the Korea-Japan war, that is, Imjinwaeran broke out in 1592. As a result, mobilizing kinyeo by the state and the royal court became less frequent than before. Since then, kinyeo was selected irregularly. Some of the selected opened so-called `kibang` in Seoul, which was a facility for entertainment business. Those women who opened kibang in the capital city were collectively called `Seoul kisaeng` who started selling entertaining products like music, dance and even sex. Initially, kinyeos` entertaining talents were only for noble man, that is, the ruling class. But such talents could become enjoyed also by urban people of the middle class as kibangs were opened. This brought dramatic changes in entertainment and music cultures in the late Joseon period.

「열녀함양박씨전」 재론

강명관(Kang, Myeong Kwan) 동양한문학회(구 부산한문학회) 2011 동양한문학연구 Vol.32 No.-

박지원의 ｢열녀함양박씨전｣은 과부가 개가하지 않고 수절(守節)하는 관습에 대한 비판으로 해석되어 왔다. 하지만 이 해석은 박지원의 사상과 작품을 지나치게 진보적으로 해석하려는 선입견의 산물로 여겨진다. 박지원의 문집에는, 남편이 죽자 따라 자살한 여러 여성의 전기(傳記)가 실려 있다. 그는 그런 여성의 행위를 긍정적인 것으로 판단하고 있다. 이런 작품들에서 여성의 수절을 긍정적인 행위로 판단했던 박지원이 ｢열녀함양박씨전｣에서만 여성의 수절을 부정적으로 판단했다고는 할 수 없을 것이다. 박지원은 다만 여성이 남편의 사후 따라 죽는 행위의 사회적 확산에 대해서는 비판적이었다. 그는 ｢열녀함양박씨전｣에서 여성이 굳이 죽음을 택하지 않아도, 열녀가 될 수 있다는 것을 보여주려고 했던 것으로 여겨진다. ｢열녀 함양 박씨전｣을 여성의 수절에 대한 비판으로 해석하는 것은, 박지원의 사유 속에서 중세의 국가이데올로기인 성리학(性理學)을 극복하려는 사유를 찾아내어, 조선후기 역사에서 근대로 향하는 자생적 길을 찾아내려는 근대주의적 태도에서 비롯된 것이다. 나는 전근대인(前近代人)인 박지원의 사유 속에서 존재하지도 않았던 ‘전근대를 비판하는 사유’를 찾는 태도, 곧 근대주의적 태도를 이제 철회해야 한다고 생각한다. ｢열녀함양박씨전｣를 재론한 것은 바로 이 때문이다. Park Ji Won's 『Yeolnyeo Hamyang Parksijeon』, which is a biography on a faithful women of the Hamyang Park clan, has been interpreted as a criticism about the custom that a widow maintains her integrity without remarriage. But the integration seems to have been made by a prejudice from excessively liberal analyses of Park Ji Won's thoughts and writings. His literal collection contains a few biographies on women who killed themselves after their husband died. Park Ji Won regarded those women's suicide as a positive, ethical act In this sense, it's unreasonable to judge that he was negative about a woman remaining faithful to her dead husband at least in 『Yeolnyeo Hamyang Parksijeon』, However, Park Ji Won criticized that women's suicide after the death of their husband were socially prevailing. In the biography on a faithful woman of the Hamyang Park clan, presumedly, Park Ji Won suggested that women could be fully faithful, though they kill themselves after their dead husband. Interpreting 『Yeolnyeo Hamyang Parksijeon』 as a criticism about women's maintenance of their integrity may be attributed to a modernist intent to show there's an intrinsic attempt to move from the pre-modern times, that is, the late Joseon period to the modern times. Contributing to the intent was one of Park Ji Won's reasons which was seemingly an orientation to overcome the Sung Confucianism, the national ideology of Joseon of the medieval times. This researcher thinks that it's time to throw away the modernist intent, or the attempt to find out a reason based on criticism about pre-modernity which didn't actually belong to Park Ji Won's thoughts. This is the very reason why the researcher reviewed 『Yeolnyeo Hamyang Parksijeon』 in this study.

탑승자 체형 특성에 따른 자동긴급제동시스템 제어의 차별적 정량화 필요성

강명관(Myeong Kwan Kang),김형주(Hyung Kim),김건우(KunWoo Kim),임도형(Dohyung Lim) 한국자동차공학회 2018 한국자동차공학회 부문종합 학술대회 Vol.2018 No.6

조선 후기 양명좌파의 수용

강명관(Kang Myeong-Kwan) 예문동양사상연구원 2007 오늘의 동양사상 Vol.- No.16

조선의 사상계에서 양명학은 대개 부정적인 사상으로 인식되었다. 따라서 양명학의 과격한 형태인 양명좌파는 더더욱 쉽사리 수용될 수 없었다. 그럼에도 양명좌파에 대한 인지와 수용이 없었던 것은 아니었다. 양명좌파에 대한 최초의 인지는 허균에게서 확인되며, 그 이후 이식과 서종태, 김창협, 김창흡 등 다양한 지식인들이 양명좌파를 인지한 것이 확인된다. 물론 이들은 양명좌파가 성리학과는 완전히 대척적인 논리를 펼치고 있는 이단적 사유라는 것을 지적하였다. 그러나 18세기 후반이 되면 서형수와 이충익 그리고 정조의 지적에서 확인할 수 있듯, 양명좌파는 지식인들에게 영향력을 행사하기 시작한다. 물론 양명좌파의 논리를 그대로 수용할 수는 없었고, 그 대안으로 양명좌파의 사상을 문학에 적용한 공안파를 수용하면서 양명좌파의 사상을 수용한 것으로 생각된다. 특히 이탁오와 원굉도의 사상이 널리 유행한 것으로 보인다. 앞으로 18세기 후반 사상계의 지형도 속에서 양명좌파와 공안파의 영향을 보다 구체적으로 확인하는 작업이 필요할 것이다 The doctrines of Wang Yangming was regarded as negative ideas in the world of thoughts in Joseon. Furthermore the left faction of Yangming doctrines, even more radical thoughts, couldn't be admitted easily. Perception and acceptance about the left faction of yangming doctrines had been existed, though. The first perception about the left faction was confirmed in Heo, Kyun(許筠) and diverse intellectuals , such as Lee, Sik(李植), Seo, Jong-Tae(徐宗泰), Kim, Chang-Hyeop(金昌協), Kim, Chang-Heup(金昌翕) and so on, were identified to have perceived the left faction. They indicated that the left faction thoroughly had unfolded the theory confronted with that of Sung Confucianism. However, as confirmed in the indication of Seo, Hyeong-Soo(徐瀅修), Lee, Choong-ik(李忠翊) and Jung-jo(正祖), the left faction began to exercise influence on intellectuals from late in the 18th century. It is regarded that they couldn't accept the theory of the left faction as it was but received Kong-An school which applied the left faction's thoughts to literature as a substitute measure. It seems that Li, Zhuo-Wu(李卓吾) and Yuan, Hong-Dao(袁宏道)‘s thought were especially widely known. The influence of the left faction of the Wang Yangming school and Kong-An schoo needs to be confirmed further in the world of thoughts of the latter half of the 18th century.