The Significance of the Concept of Minjung and Changes Thereto: With a Focus on the 1920s

허수 한국학중앙연구원 한국학중앙연구원 2012 Korea Journal Vol.52 No.4

The term minjung (people) as it started to be used during the 1920s in Korea was defined as the “indefinite majority or all members of the nation” or the “subjugated class.” However, the emergence of the socialist movement resulted in the meaning of minjung becoming one rooted in two stages. Minjung came to include varied meanings such as the “majority of the nation,” “political actors,” and the “illiterates and proletarians” in 1920-1921, and started to contain socialist notions of class by 1922-1923. Accordingly, cultural movement activists, who had interpreted minjung on both idealist and realist levels, began to discuss the term based on the social development theory, focusing on how to actualize socialist idealism under a colonial reality. To this end, socialists started to prefer the vanguard-based notion of daejung (public) from 1925 onwards. The use of the term daejung was further expanded in the 1930s.

한국 개념사 연구의 현황과 전망

허수 한국역사연구회 2012 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.86

근대 전환기 ‘개벽’의 불온성과 개념화 — 동학⋅천도교를 중심으로

허수 서울대학교 인문학연구원 2021 人文論叢 Vol.78 No.4

I have systematically organized the usage of ‘gaebyeok’ used in Donghak and Chondogyo in the early 19th and early 20th centuries. The traditional meaning of ‘gaebyeok’ in East Asia was ‘opening the world’. In the middle of the 19th century, Choi Je-woo, a founder of Donghak, proposed ‘Dashi (New) Gaebyeok’, which has the meaning of ‘the world is turned upside down’, an innovation of the traditional meaning. However, this usage was not widely used due to its subversiveness. The discussion on the succession of ‘Dashi Gaebyeok’ appeared centered on the Chondo denomination in the 1910s. ‘Hucheon (Later Day’s) Gaebyeok’ succeeded ‘Dashi Gaebyeok’, but its meaning was expanded to include the Hsiang-shu-hsueh (象數學)-thinking of ‘Seoncheon-Hucheon (Former-Later)’. But the discussion of this period was limited to the religious denomination level. On the other hand, in the 1920s, ‘Gaebyeok’ was widely known in society, given various meanings, and discussed in the theory of gradual development. This trend could be called ‘conceptualization’, but such ‘conceptualization’ was limited in scope. The limited conceptualization of ‘Gaebyeok’ can be seen as a rejection of modern signification. This was the case of emphasizing the subversiveness of “Geomgyeol” or relativizing the theory of social evolution and the unilinear development theory. Of course, ‘Gaebyeok’ did not become a competitor to ‘history’ or ‘revolution’. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that Chondogyo figures insisted on using ‘Gaebyeok’. At first glance, this attitude may appear to be an intermittent case in the trend of progressive time perception. However, this is a starting point for revealing the fact that the ‘Hucheon Gaebyeok’ has spread and continued to many Koreans, including new religions. 이 글에서는 19~20세기 초 동학·천도교에서 사용한 ‘개벽’의 용례를 체계적으로 정리하였다. 동아시아에서 ‘개벽’의 전통적 의미는‘세상이 열리다’였다. 19세기 중엽 동학교조 최제우는 ‘다시개벽’을제시했는데, 여기에는 ‘세상이 뒤집히다’라는 의미가 들어감으로써전통적 의미를 혁신하였다. 그러나 이런 용례는 그것이 가진 불온성으로 인해 많이 사용되지 못했다. ‘다시개벽’을 잇는 논의는 1910년대 천도교단을 중심으로 나타났다. ‘후천개벽’은 ‘다시개벽’을 계승하되 ‘선천-후천’의 상수학적 사유를 포괄하여 그 의미가 확장되었다. 반면, 이 시기의 논의는 종교교단 차원에 국한되었다. 이와 달리 1920년대에 ‘개벽’은 사회적으로널리 알려졌고 다양하게 의미부여 되었으며, 점진적 발전론 속에서논의되었다. 이런 경향을 ‘개념화’라 부를 수 있으나, 그러한 ‘개념화’는 제한적 범위에 그쳤다. ‘개벽’의 제한적 개념화는 근대적 의미화에 대한 거부로 볼 수 있다. 「검결」의 불온성을 강조하거나, 사회진화론 및 단선적 발전론을상대화하는 사례가 여기에 해당했다. 물론 ‘개벽’은 ‘역사’나 ‘혁명’ 의 경쟁상대가 되진 못했다. 그럼에도 불구하고 천도교 인사들이 ‘개벽’의 사용을 고집한 것은 주목할 만하다. 이런 태도는 얼핏 보면 진보적 시간인식의 대세 속에서 간헐적 사례로 보일지 모른다. 그러나그것은, 신종교를 비롯한 많은 한국인에게 ‘후천개벽’이 확산되고 지속된 사실을 드러내는 단초에 해당한다.

대한제국기 ‘집단적 주체’의 의미망― 《황성신문》과 《대한매일신보》의 사설 기사를 중심으로

허수,김혜진,정유경 성균관대학교 대동문화연구원 2022 大東文化硏究 Vol.119 No.-

In this study, we investigated the meaning of “collective subjects” by focusing on the relationship between them and the continuity of the meaning. To this end, we, firstly, collected the editorial articles from the Huangseong-Shinmun and the Daehanmaeilsinbo published from 1989 to 1910 and carried out natural language processing. Then, we chose ‘people’ (inmin), ‘nation’ (gukmin), ‘brotherhood’ (dongpo) and ‘nationals’ (minjok), as the representative four terms meaning collective subjects. Secondly, we detected 11 topics from a total of 2,341 editorial articles using the topic modeling technique and divided 13 years (from 1989 to 1910) into four periods based on distributions of the detected topics: 1898 to 1900 (P1), 1901 to 1903 (P2), 1904 to 1907 (P3), and 1908 to 1910 (P4). As a result of the change and continuity of the meaning in the four collective subjects, we found that ‘nation’ (gukmin) and ‘brotherhood’ (dongpo) were highly correlated from P1 to P3, whereas the semantic heterogeneity of each term increased in P4. We also found that the meaning of ‘people’ (inmin) covered “composition and membership of the modern country”. ‘Nation’ (gukmin) and ‘brotherhood’ (dongpo) shared the meaning in terms of “East Asia international situation”. In this study, the meaning of “the nation and people” appeared in ‘nation’ (gukmin) in P2, ‘people’ (inmin) in P3, and ‘nationals’ (minjok) in P4. 이 글에서는 대한제국기 ‘집단적 주체’의 의미를 살펴보았다. 토픽모델링을 사용해서 ‘집단적 주체’ 상호 간의 관계 및 장기지속적 의미를 규명하는 데 역점을 두었다. 이를 위해 2장에서는 《황성신문》과 《대한매일신보》 사설 기사를 정제하고, 고빈도 단어 중 ‘인민’, ‘국민’, ‘동포’, ‘민족’의 4개 단어를 ‘집단적 주체’로 설정했다. 3장에서는 2,341개 사설로 구성된 말뭉치 자료로부터 11개의 주제(‘토픽’)를 도출하고, 이를 근거로 13개년의 기간을 4개 시기로 구분했다. 4장에서는 우선, ‘단어의 토픽 구성’으로 ‘집단적 주체’ 상호 간의 시기별 관계를 살펴보았다. 그 결과 ‘국민’과 ‘동포’의 높은 연관성이 1기(1898~1900년)에서 3기(1904~1907년)까지 지속된 반면, 4기(1908~1910년)에는 네 단어 간의 이질성이 심화되었다. 다음으로, 유사한 토픽끼리 묶는 ‘토픽그룹화’를 통해 ‘집단적 주체’의 장기지속적 의미를 살펴보았다. ‘인민’은 주로 ‘근대 국가의 구성 및 구성원’이라는 의미를 가졌으며, ‘국민’과 ‘동포’는 ‘동아시아 국제정세’라는 측면에서 의미를 양분했다. ‘국가와 民’의 의미를 가진 단어는 ‘국민’(2기), ‘인민’(3기), ‘민족’(4기)으로 계기적으로 변화했다.

서평 : 문학적 감수성과 역사의 두께 -김현주, 『사회의 발견』(소명출판, 2013)-

허수 한림과학원 2014 개념과 소통 Vol.0 No.13

20세기 한국에서 사용된 ‘민중’의 의미 - 주요 신문 기사를 중심으로 -

허수 역사문제연구소 2023 역사문제연구 Vol.27 No.1

In this article, the meaning of ‘minjung’ used in Korea in the 20th century was examined using topic modeling of text mining. The search of this study was limited to text dimensions of articles in major daily newspapers, but expanded to consider the context of neighboring words. The study proceeded in two stages. In the first stage, ‘minjung’ was analyzed in the overall trend of ‘collective subjects’ using topic modeling of text mining. The composition of topics was divided into periods and visualized as a network map, which showed that ‘minjung’ had a central position in the first half of the 20th century but became marginalized in the second half. In the second stage, topics were extracted only from the documents of ‘Minjung’ and their meanings were analyzed. As a result, first, in the meaning of ‘the people’, 1984 became an important breakthrough, unlike the period division of ‘collective subject’. Second, in the early 20th century, the topic of ‘Chosun·Society’, the topic of ‘Institution·Politics’ in the middle period, and the topic of ‘Politics·Struggle’ in the latter period respectively prevailed. Third, along with this, expectations for the future, such as ‘art and hope’, continued for a long time through both periods. 이 글에서는 텍스트마이닝의 토픽모델링을 이용해서 20세기 한국에서 사용된 ‘민중’의 의미를 고찰했다. ‘의미’ 파악의 범위를 현실이 아닌 ‘텍스트’ 차원에 국한했지만, 텍스트의 범위는 인접 단어의 문맥까지 포괄했다. 연구는 두 단계로진행했다. 1단계에서는 ‘집단 주체’의 전체 동향 속에서 ‘민중’의 위상을 분석했다. 토픽구성을 근거로 5개 키워드 각각의 시기별 연관성을 연결망 지도로 시각화한 결과, ‘민중’의 위상은 20세기 전반에 중심 위치에 있었으나 후반에는 주변화되었음이 드러났다. 2단계에서는 ‘민중’의 문서만으로 토픽을 추출해서 그 의미를 분석했다. 그 결과 첫째, ‘민중’의 의미에서는 ‘집단 주체’의 시기구분과 달리 1984년이 중요한획기가 되었다. 둘째, 20세기 전기에는 ‘조선·사회’ 토픽이, 중기에는 ‘제도·정치’ 토픽이, 후기에는 ‘정치·투쟁’ 토픽이 각각 득세했다. 셋째, 이와 더불어 ‘예술·희망’ 등 미래에 대한 기대가 두 시기를 관통해서 장기지속하고 있었다.

교조신원운동기 동학교단과 정부 간의 담론투쟁―유교적 측면을 중심으로―

허수 한국근현대사학회 2013 한국 근현대사 연구 Vol.66 No.-

The campaign to vindicate the innocence of the founder of Donghak(敎祖伸寃運動) can be divided into three periods. In its first period, the leaders of Donghak demanded, through institutional proceedings to Chungcheong Gamyeong(忠淸監營) and Jeolla Gamyeong(全羅監營), that their followers should be released and their founder be cleared of the false charge. As the leaders tried to advocate their legitimacy and the Gamyeong also sticked to its existing governmental policy of ‘disapproval of Donghak’, there appeared controversy about ‘whether Donghak is orthodoxy(正學ラ) or heresy(異端).’Realizing the limit of ‘petition to the local government’, they took two approaches in the second period of the movement; that is, appeal by kneeling in front of the palace(伏閤6上疏) and announcement of the repulse of Japan and the West(斥倭洋 宣言). The leaders of Donghak, appealing to the central government, vindicated mainly the innocence of the founder by way of appeal by kneeling in front of the palace, the strategy that Confucian scholars actually monopolized then, while followers in Jeolla-do employed the method of ‘announcement(榜文)’, a non-institutional way, and the cause of ‘the duty(義理) of loyalty and filial piety’,announcing the repulse of Japan and the West to the local government and people. In the third period of the movement, the leaders got out of the total dependence on appeal and adopted as their key strategy ‘the announcement of the repulse of Japan and the West.’ There at last ensued formal negotiations between ten thousands of Donghak followers and the government astounded by their force. The leaders of Donghak attempted to show their sincerity and appeal to people,and the government tried to cut off the influence and urged its dissolution. Accordingly, the controversy between the two sides was taken place with its focus on ‘duty(義理)’, not on ‘the repulse of Japan and the West.’

일제하 '사상 논쟁'에 나타난 '종교' 개념의 충돌 - 천도교와 좌익 언론 간의 논쟁을 중심으로 -

허수 한림대학교 한림과학원 2009 개념과 소통 Vol.0 No.4

The ‘ideological controversy’between the leftist press and the new school ofCheondo religion in the early 1930s, under Japanese rule, had its backgroundboth at home and abroad. On the one hand, there was the movement againstreligion abroad, in the Soviet Union and Japan, and, on the other hand, therewas the struggle for leadership of the social movement between the socialist andthe new school of Cheondo religion, at home. The controversy grew red-hotwhen the leftist press rebelled against ‘the demand for leadership over Korea(朝鮮 導權) from the Young Men’s Party of the Cheondo religion(天道敎靑年黨), and came to deal with comprehensive subjects, including the doctrine,history, and organization of the Cheondo religion. While the leftist press criticized the Cheondo religion from the point of ‘theanti-religious conception’ based on ‘scientific’factuality and class consciousness(partisanship)’, Kim Hyungjun, representative of the new school of Cheondoreligion, distinguished ‘the new religion’from ‘the pre-existing religion’, andjustified the Cheondo religion as‘ the new religion’from the point of‘ historicity’(the doctrine of religious evolution) and ‘actuality’(popular-based opposition tothe colonial power). Kim Hyungjun’s concept of ‘the new religion’stemmed from that of LeeDonhwa in the late 1910s. Considering the conception of ‘the new religion’interms of the relation between ‘religion and science’, we can label both of them‘romanticist concepts of religion’, though Kim Hyungjun’s concept wasproposed as a defense, and became narrower in conceptual denotation. The ‘ideological controversy’provided a place where the religious debateduring the colonial period came to address the issue of‘ religion-science’, freeingitself from the one-sidedness of the ‘religion-politics’formula. Prior to thiscontroversy, the Cheondo religion had extended its activity into the socialmovement, subordinating ‘science’to religion and advocating ‘the unity ofreligion and politics(敎政一致)’, while, subsequently, the leftist press, using‘science’as its slogan, attempted to exclude the Cheondo religion from thesocial movement. The knowledge-discourse over ‘religion’, however, could nothave a solid foothold in the colonial context, in which the foundation formodern knowledge was not enough. 1930년대 초 식민지 조선에서 좌익 언론과 천도교 신파 간에 전개된‘사상 논쟁’은,대외적으로 소련 및 일본의 반종교운동, 대내적으로는 사회운동의 주도권을 놓고 사회주의자와 천도교 신파가 갈등을 벌이던 상황을 배경으로 했다. 논쟁은 天道敎靑年黨측의‘朝鮮 導權요구’주장에 좌익 언론이 반발하면서 본격화되어, 천도교의 교리, 역사, 조직 등 포괄적인 주제가 다루어졌다. 좌익 언론 측은‘과학성ㆍ계급성(당파성)’에 입각한‘反종교 개념’의 견지에서 천도교를 비판했고, 천도교 신파 측을 대표한 김형준(金亨俊)은‘신종교’와‘기성종교’를 구별하고,‘역사성’(종교진화론)과‘현실성’(식민권력과의 대립, 민중적 기반)의 측면에서‘신종교’로서 천도교가 지닌 정당성을 옹호했다. 김형준의‘신종교’개념은 1910년대 후반 이돈화의‘신종교’개념에 젖줄을 대고 있었다.‘종교와 과학’의 관계를 중심으로‘신종교’의 내용을 고찰하면, 김형준의 그것이 다소 방어적 차원에서 제기되었고 개념적 외연이 좁아지긴 했지만, 양자의‘신종교’개념은‘낭만주의적 종교 개념’으로 부를 만하다. ‘사상 논쟁’은 식민지기 종교 논의지형을‘종교-정치’구도 일변도에서 벗어나 ‘종교-과학’의 문제를 논의하는 계기를 마련했다. ‘사상 논쟁’이전에는 천도교가‘과학’을종교에 종속시키면서‘敎政一致’를 지향하며 행동반경을 사회운동 방면으로 확장해나간 반면, ‘사상 논쟁’에서는 좌익 언론이‘과학’의 이름으로 사회운동의 영역에서천도교를 배제하고자 했다. 그런데 근대 학문적 토대가 미비된 식민지 상황에서‘종교’를 둘러싼 지식ㆍ담론은 허약한 기반을 면하기 어려웠다.

동향과 전망 : 개념사 뷔페 시식기 -일문연(日文硏) 주최 국제학술대회에 다녀와서-

허수 한림과학원 2012 개념과 소통 Vol.0 No.10

1920년 전후 이돈화(李敦化)의 현실인식과 근대철학 수용

허수 역사문제연구소 2002 역사문제연구 Vol.- No.9