鄭喬(1859∼1925)의 관직경력과 사회활동

배항섭(Bae Hang-seob) 한국사연구회 2014 한국사연구 Vol.- No.165

This article researched social intercourse, government post career, and social activities of Jeong-gyo who had activities from the end of 19th to the early of 20th century. The class of Jeong was seemed to be Yangban (a kind of noble). When considering [Daehangyenyeonsa], the persons whom he was close or he liked were Lee Gi, Song Jeong-seop, Lee Yong-jik, Min Yeong-hwan, Min Hyeong-sik, Kim Yun-sik, and La Yin-yeong. Also, he entered in a government post with recommendations of important figures such as Lee Wan-yong and Lee Ji-yong who were pro-Japanese but he described them in very critical way. Jeong had once entered in a government post before he began activities of Independence Association and also had significant government post careers after the activity of Independence Association. In addition, he started an education business by taking the principal position to his established Gwangheung School and was involved with various social groups including Daehan Self-reliant Association. He started various social activities actively by participating to groups or societies regarding the Enlightenment since 1905. He participated as a promoter of establishing schools and even took the principal position by leading the establishment of school. [Daehangyenyeonsa] which Jeong wrote criticised all persons who were proven as pro-Japanese even though they were so close to him. However, he also entered in a government post even after Korea was taken away its diplomatic right by the Japanese Empire and even participated to Daedong Association which was a Confucian scholars group for pro-Japanese. In addition, he took a major officer at Self-defense Group led by Iljin Association and participated to the activity for demanding to build a statue of Ito Hirobumi. Jeong-gyo was known to be died at Iri after going down to there right from the Japanese annexation of Korea. However, it seems that he didn"t go down to Iri right from the year of 1910 but remained at Seoul at least by 1914. Then, he moved to Jeonju and lived there for a long time. And finally he moved to Iri. It is thought that such things are the facts having a very significant meaning to understand his life, thought, and activities but these things were ignored by the studies so far.

1896년 나주 향리층의 의병주도와 그 배경

배항섭 ( Hang Seob Bae ) 성균관대학교 대동문화연구원 2005 大東文化硏究 Vol.51 No.-

동학농민군의 <무장기포>와 <무장포고문>에 대한 이해의 변천과정 고찰

배항섭(Bae, Hang-seob) 호서사학회 2016 역사와 담론 Vol.0 No.79

〈茂長起包〉와 〈茂長布告文〉에 대해서는 농민전쟁 당시 혹은 직후부터 그 사정을 정확하게 알려주는 자료들이 적지 않았다. 그러나 이러한 자료들이 본격적으로 발굴된 것은 해방 이후, 특히 동학농민전쟁 100주년에 즈음하여 자료에 대한 대대적인 자료 발굴, 조사가 이루어지면서부터였다. 식민지 시대에 들어 ‘근대적’ 방법에 의한 역사연구가 시작되면서 고부민란과 농민전쟁을 분리하여 이해하려는 연구가 나오기 시작하였고, 대부분의 연구자들이 <무장포고문>의 내용을 인용하기 시작하였다. 그러나 <무장기포>나 <무장포고문>이 무장에서 일어난 일임을 확인하기까지는 오랜 시간이 필요했다. 특히 흥미로운 것은 다보하시 기요시의 연구(1940) 이후 <무장포고문>의 발포장소와 시기가 무장인 것으로 이해하기 시작하였으나, 그 시기가 3월 20일이 아니라, 4월 7일 황토현 전투에서 승리한 농민군이 정읍, 흥덕, 고창을 거쳐 4월 9일 무장을 재차 점령한 이후라는 주장이 많은 연구자들에 의해 매우 오래 동안 받아들여졌다는 점이다. <무장기포>와 <무장포고문>에 대한 정확한 이해는 한우근의 선구적 연구를 거쳐 신용하에 의해 이루어졌다. 물론 현재에도 이와 다른 주장을 제기하는 연구자들이 없지 않으나, 활용하는 자료나 논지의 전개 면에서 설득력이 있는 것으로 보이지는 않는다. Data informing the situation accurately for 〈the Mujang uprising〉 and 〈Mujang declaration〉 at time of Peasants’ War or immediately after that were not a little. But, what these data have been excavated was by the 1970s after the liberation, especially lots of new data have been known as the extensive data excavation and investigation for these data on the occasion of the 100<SUP>th</SUP>anniversary of Donghak Peasants War. The research aiming to separated and understand the Gobu riot and Peasants War started to come out as the research of history by the modern method is commenced when it enters the colonial era, most or researchers started to quote the content of 〈Mujang declaration〉. But it needed a long time to identify that 〈the Mujang uprising〉 or 〈Mujang declaration〉 occurred in Mujang. Especially, what is interesting is that the time is not March 20, even though the firing place and time of Mujang declaration started to be understood Mujang after the research of Dabohashi Giyoshi, it is the point that the assertion that is after Mujang is occupied again in April 9 as the Peasant army having won the Hwangtohyun battle in April 7 passing through Jeongeup, Heungduk and Kochang has been accepted by lots of researchers for a long time. The accurate understanding for 〈the Mujang uprising〉 and 〈Mujang declaration〉 has been realized passing through the pioneering research of Woo Keun HAN. Of course, even though it isn’t that there are no researchers raising the different assertion at present, it doesn’t seem to have the persuasive power in the aspect of data to be utilized or deployment of point.

중 · 후기 의병전쟁 시기 나주 지역 향리층의 동향

배항섭(Bae Hang-seob) 고려사학회 2006 한국사학보 Vol.- No.23

1905년 을사늑약과 1907년 군대해산 등을 계기로 전국적으로 의병이 재기하면서 나주 향리층은 위기를 맞게 된다. 의병이 발발할 무렵 나주 향리층 가운데는 主事나 郡守 등으로 친일정부의 관직에 진출해 있던 인물이 적지 않았고, 그러한 관직은 의병들의 주요한 공격 대상이었기 때문이다. 의병활동에 대한 향리층의 대응은 크게 두 가지였다. 하나는 의병에 투신한 부류이며, 소수이다. 그러나 대부분은 여전히 일제의 침략정책에 따른 사회질서의 변화에 편승하여 적극적으로 관직에 진출하거나. 사회 · 경제적으로도 활발한 활동을 전개하였다. 그 가운데는 아들은 의병장으로 활동하고 아버지는 의병의 공격 대상이던 신식학교의 學務委員으로 활동하는 사례도 있었다. 그러나 의병에 가담하지 않은 향리층은 의병과 심각한 대립을 피했다. 이들은 일제가 의병진압을 위해 강제로 결성한 〈自衛團〉에 들어가 활동하기를 꺼렸다. 그 대신 나주의 향리층은 〈羅州郡民會〉 창설하였다. 의병과 극단적인 대립을 회피하고, 〈자위단〉 창설을 요구하는 일제 관헌의 압박도 어느 정도 무마시키려는 의도였다. 또한 나주 향리층과 의병 간에는 서신 교환 등 적지 않은 교류가 있었다. 나아가 이들은 향리출신 의병장에게 총기와 금전, 군량미 등을 제공하기도 했다. 의병장들 역시 향리층에게 극단적인 공격을 가하기 않았고, 나주의 유력 인사가 다른 의병부대에 잡혀갔을 때는 주선하여 그를 석방시키기도 했다. 이러한 모습은 의병전쟁이라는 격동과 위기의 상황 속에서 의병과의 극단적 대립을 회피하여 그들의 공격으로부터 벗어나고, 자위단 창설을 요구하는 일제 관헌의 압박도 모면함으로써 자신들의 사회적 지위를 안정적으로 유지해나려는 향리층의 노력이 표현된 것으로 여겨진다.

19세기를 바라보는 시각

배항섭(Bae Hang-seob) 역사비평사 2012 역사비평 Vol.- No.101

This writing will critically review ‘19th century crisis theory’ recently suggested by economic history academia. ‘19th century crisis theory’ finds out the main factors of its crisis from low standard of living and the crisis of survival due to decreasing of land productivity and population decrease. The crisis was enough to destroy itself without suffering aggression by foreign powers in 19th century of the Joseon Dynasty period. This thought about 19th century completely criticizes the beginning of the capitalism theory that argues late Joseon had the factors of aiming modern era and directly relates to modernizing colony theory that argues political/economical management and transplant of modern capitalism done by Japan made 19th century crisis overcome and real modern economy start. This writing will use recent studies to reveal that ‘19th century crisis theory’ is non-exist or exaggerated, and point out its foundation is strong belief, Euro-centrism/Moderno-centrism.

쟁점 : 서구중심주의와 근대중심주의, 역사인식의 천망(天網)인가 -송호근, 『시민의 탄생』(민음사, 2013)에 부쳐-

배항섭 ( Hang Seob Bae ) 한림과학원 2014 개념과 소통 Vol.0 No.14

이 글은 사회학자인 송호근의 저작, 『시민의 탄생』에 대한 비평논문이다. 이책은 『인민의 탄생』의 후속작으로 이 책에서 다루는 시기 역시 『인민의 탄생』에 이은 시기인 말안장시대(1860~1894)와 근대이행기(1894~1910)이다. 저자는 현재 한국사회의 기원을 밝힘과 동시에 한국사회가 나아가야 할 길을 모색한다는 문제의식을 가지고 연구에 임하고 있다. 이를 위해 저자는 사회과학분야는 물론 역사, 문학, 철학 분야를 망라하여 방대하고 다양한 자료와 연구 성과들을 참조하여 개인과 시민이 탄생하기까지의 장대한 역사의 파노라마를 펼쳐 보이고 있다. 역사학을 공부하는 평자의 입장에서 볼 때, 그동안역사학 분야에서 제대로 접근되지 않았던 거시적 관점과 새로운 방법론을 구사하고 있다는 점이 이 책의 가장 큰 미덕이라 생각된다. 그러나 다른 한편 저자는 이 책을 통해 자신이 가진 문제의식을 충분히 드러내는 데 실패하고 있다. 저자는 그동안 서양산 이론에 입각한 한국의 사회과학이 한국사회의 다양한 현상을 설명하는 데 실패했다고 주장하였다. 무엇보다 저자는 한국에서 시민이 탄생하는 과정을 하버마스의 ‘공론장’ 개념을 비롯하여 막스 베버의 성속의 전환 등 서구적 경험에 입각한 개념이나 분석틀을 이용하여 접근하고 있기 때문이다. 저자는 끊임없이 하버마스나 베버가 정형화해 놓은 서구의 경험과 대비시키면서 조선의 공론장, 그리고 개인이나 시민의 탄생을 설명하는 방식을 취하고 있다. 이러한 방식은 유교국가이던 조선사회의 공론이나 ‘공론장’이 형성되고 진전되어 가는 과정을 분석하는 데오히려 방해가 되고 있다는 인상을 지우기 어렵다. This paper is a critical essay about The Birth of the Citizen, by the sociologist Ho Keun Song, a sequel to The Birth of the People. The time covered by this book encompasses early modern reforms and the reign of King Gojong, ending with the Japanese occupation (1860-1910). The author is seeking to show how Korean society has advanced, and to shed light on the origins of present-day Korean society. He reveals a panorama of dynastic history leading up to the birth of the individual and the citizen, referring to a huge range of research from the fields of history, literature, philosophy and social science. The sheer breadth of this comprehensive overview, together with Song’s innovative methodology, previously unknown in the field of historical science, are the biggest virtues of the book. Unfortunately however, the author’s analysis is ultimately unsatisfactory. Song insists that theoretical frameworks of social science for Korea cannot be based on Western ideas, since these fail to explain various phenomena manifest in Korean society. But in characterizing the process by which the citizen was born in Korea, he uses concepts and analysis tools which are intrinsically Western;these include Max Weber’s notions of sanctity and secularity, and Jurgen Habermas’ concept of the ‘public sphere’. Thus, Song persistently seeks to explain the public sphere of Joseon through the Western experience of Habermas or Weber, applying a standardized methodology to the birth of the individual and the citizen. All things considered, Song’s methods tend to obscure rather than to explain the process by which public opinion was formed in the Confucian society of Joseon.

19세기 조선과 베트남의 토지개혁론에 대한 비교사적 검토

裵亢燮(Bae Hang-seob) 역사학회 2010 역사학보 Vol.0 No.206

This study analyzes the land reform theories that emerged in Korea and Vietnam during the 19th century, as well as the conflicts and confrontations that surrounded such land reforms. While there were some similarities between the two countries, there were also significant differences. These differences were closely related to the disparities in terms of the land system-related institutions and customs of the two countries. In Korea, an exclusive landownership system similar to the modem style of landownership had already been established by this point. The purchase and sale of land was freely carried out. As a result, Korea did not have any customs or institutions related to the demand for land reforms. Meanwhile, under the state land system that fundamentally defined the land structure in Vietnam, public lands were regularly redistributed in a manner proportionate to the number of people within a family. The purchase and sale of land were prohibited. Some of the public lands were allocated in accordance with the needs of poor village people. The rent earned from public lands was used to help the poor residents pay for their taxes, or was used to support widows and orphans who were unable to farm, In addition, certain public lands were used to secure the expenses needed to cover the costs of public events such as festivals and ritual ceremonies. These institutions and customs led the Vietnamese farmers to establish a culture and normative values that were different from those of Korean farmers. The regular redistribution of land on a regional basis every three or six years, and the fact that the state land system was designed to help people suffering from poverty, led to the emergence of equalitarian desires amongst poor farmers who were deprived of their land after the introduction of "modem legal practices," and spurred their desire to resist against the prevailing situation on the ground. This radical reinterpretation on the part of the farmers lends itself to the conclusion that this structure in fact served as an important reason for the emergence of full-scale demands for land reform.

1920-30년대 새로운 동학농민전쟁상의 형성

배항섭 ( Hang Seob Bae ) 수선사학회 2010 史林 Vol.0 No.36

This study examines how the historical features of peasant wars changed during the period spanning from the Tonghak Peasants War of 1894 to the 1920s-1930s. Peasant wars are currently perceived as having been a modern national movement that was anti-feudalistic and antiforeign encroachment in nature. This particular perception contrasts greatly from that of the past. This is evidenced by the fact that not only was Ch`oe Cheu, the leader of the Tonghak peasants, executed for the crime of hokse mumin chwado nanjong (惑世誣民 左道亂正, deluding the world and deceiving the people, disturbing society with an evil religion), but the government and ruling class at the time defined the peasant soldiers as little more than bandits and marauding hordes. The current historical perception of peasant wars was formed during the days of the patriotic enlightening movement and the early period of the Japanese colonial era. More to the point, an image of peasant wars which was very similar with that which prevails today was established during the 1920s 1930s. In this regard, the image of peasant wars that would become a part of the mainstream up to the present was formulated in the 1930s. This perception was in large part motivated by the emergence of socialists engaged in a struggle with the Ch`ondogyo who argued that the organizers of peasant wars were in reality using religion as a cover for their social agenda. This notion of “religion as cover” had first been introduced by Friedrich Engels in his work, <The Peasant War in Germany (Der deutsche Bauernkrieg)>. During this process, the ruling class` perceptions of the Tonghak Peasant War and other peasant wars, which had been defined as the work of bandits and marauding hordes, underwent a significant change. On the other hand, this can also be perceived as the process through which the left and right wing elites sought to gain total control of the autonomous world and perceptions of the public (minjung), and to drag their experiences and awareness into the historical frameworks that they had respectively created. Finally, this can also be regarded as the process through which the identity of the public was suppressed and excluded.

`근대이행기`의 민중의식: `근대`와` 반근대`의 너머 ―토지소유 및 매매관습에 대한 인식을 중심으로

배항섭 ( Bae Hang Seob ) 역사문제연구소 2010 역사문제연구 Vol.14 No.1

Previous studies which had dealt with the people`s perception of certain issues during the so-called `period of transformation into modernity` have been presenting two different stances that existed in that time period. Some of the scholars presented an aspect of the people`s attitude which they recognized as “aspiring for modernity,” while the others suggested `another` kind of stance that was exhibited by the people of the time as they considered such stance to be “standing against modernity.” These are clearly two different points of view, yet at the same time they share a certain level of similarity as well, in terms of no other than their equally `transcendental` nature in their viewing of history. In fact, they have both been basing their points of view upon certain premises, such as “the world history tends to exhibit a universal nature, regardless of the differences among regions,” or “the world tends to share, similar historical experiences.” In this article, the people`s perspectives that were reflected in their lives during the period of `transformation into modernity,` are examined through traditional customs and conventional practices which existed at the time with relation to certain issues such as land ownership and transaction of those lands. Such approach was conceived as an empirical approach to the reality of this time period, and hopefully it could provide some insights to the situation, which must have had an internal driving force behind it. The people`s perspectives were never free from the ruling structure & ideology or laws & institutions, and they were also pretty much formed upon the basis of customary practices and culture, derived from the very lives of people. In that regard, it should be noted that the Joseon dynasty and its society already had a working land ownership structure accompanied by a landlord system, which was well established in legal and customary terms and also very similar in its exclusiveness to a modern style land ownership system. The Joseon society also had a time-honored custom of freely trading those lands. This was indeed a unique situation, considering the entire history of the world, and it must have had a profound influence upon the people`s perspective of viewing things, especially in the period of transformation into modernity. For a long time, the people had hopes for equal distribution(`均分`) of lands, and the intellectuals also made such cause one of their pressing priorities in their reform suggestions. Yet, the people were not able to demand the landlord system to be brought down permanently, even after they staged violent insurrections and waged full-scale peasant wars. Instead, in their demands delivered to the government during the Dong`hak Peasant war, they only demanded that land be owned freely by people. And at the same time, the Peasant army also contemplated upon the idea of abolishing private ownership of lands, and having people cultivate them in an equal and equitable fashion. This was not an idea that depended upon traditional customs or conventional practices. It was an idea that based itself upon the old school thinking that believed “all lands belonged to the king(`王土思想`).” It was far from being a modernized thought. This kind of position featured by the people during the period of transformation into modernity, reflected in their arguments and perceptions regarding land ownership reforms, shall not be categorized neither as “aspiring for modernity” nor “opposing modernity.” It had much more to do with the land ownership structure and the customs of transaction that had earlier been established in the latter half period of the Joseon dynasty.

고종(高宗)과 보성전문학교(普成專門學校)의 창립 및 초기운영

배항섭 ( Hang Seob Bae ) 고려대학교 역사연구소 2004 사총 Vol.59 No.-