특집논문 : 1948년 남북한 건국과 동북아 열강들의 인식 ; 해방 이후 한국전쟁 이전 미국기행문의 미국 표상과 대한민족(大韓民族)의 구성

임종명 ( Chong Myong Im ) 역사학연구회 ( 구 고대사학회 ) 2008 사총 Vol.67 No.-

제1공화국 초기 대한민국의 가족국가화와 內破

林鍾明(Im Chong-Myong) 한국사연구회 2005 한국사연구 Vol.130 No.-

From its inception, the ROK had faced widespread, heated Korean opposition to the polity. In this situation, the ROK employed the familialization strategy, i.e. the strategy of representing/constructing the ROK as a family state. This strategy was evident, for example, in the ordinary use of kukka(國家) for the state, which is an amalgam of kuk (國, country) and ka(家, family). After this linguistic familialization, the ROK adopted Jus-Sanguinis Nationality Law which stipulated that the prerequisite for the ROK citizenship was “the same blood.” In the light of our current discussion, this legal code produced its effect that the ROK was “the house of the Korean nation.” Then, the ROK authentically constructed its house by setting up the head of the house or family. The ROK loyalists put the coronal of family headship on President Rhee, calling him as "the national father"(國父, kukpu). Again, the ROK legalized Tan’gun(檀君) as National Grandfather(國祖, kukcho), for example, by official proclamation of National Foundation Day(開天節, Kaech’?nj?l) as a national holiday. Finally, the ROK let South Korean people form their filiation with National Father and share blood lineage with National Great Grandfather, which meant that the people turned into their son and offspring. Now, the family of the ROK was completed. This state projects of familializing the ROK rendered “an abstract, ideal appellation” of the state and the ROK in particular easily understandable and imaginable to the ordinary Koreans. More importantly, the projects helped the ROK represent itself as a genuine nation state not only in the sense that it was the house of the Korean nation but also in the sense that it patronized the Korean genealogy and history, generally speaking, the Korean culture. This greatly benefited the ROK which had been tormented with the contemporary accusation that the ROK was not a nation-state but a regional and factional polity. At the same time, it served to the ROK state project of transforming South Korean into the disciplined political subject of ROK kungmin(國民) while turning its rule into a disciplinary rule, so that ultimately it could lead the ROK to assume a modern statehood. In a word, the familialization strategy helped the ROK to assume a modern nation-statehood. Yet, the familialization strategy never had a solid foundation nor was it well established. Its fragility was palpable in the very pillars per se, such as, National Father. The father-to-be, President Rhee, was disqualified for his un-Korean characteristics. Moreover, the head of this familial lineage, the Great Grandfather Tan' gun, was also a controversial figure and failed to inspire political consensus. Besides these problems arising from personified components of the strategy, there remained other pitfalls for the familialization strategy. The strategy was developed around the idea of an extended patriarch-oriented family. The patriarch, however, had already lost his socioeconomic, moral, and national prestige during the post-colonial turmoil. Also in the turmoil, family itself, extended one or nuclear one, lost its prestige as a referent of the familializing strategy. These thingsaltogether revealed how frail the ROK strategy was at the very moment of its articulation and also afterwards. More serious than what we have seen so far was that the familialization and other strategies of the ROK undermined the basic assumption of the familialization strategy, threatening to invalidate the strategy. Somewhat ironically, the familialization strategy itself relegated the existing family to the “private”(私, sa) and transforming it into an object to be imbued with nationalism and patriotism, and to be led and rectified by state-centric campaigns with the result that the family lost its prestige. Moreover, other state project of representing the ROK as a genuine nation-state totally denied the fundamental assumption of the familialization strategy. For example, the proje

설립 초기 대한민국의 3·1 전용(轉用)·전유(專有)

임종명 ( Im Chong Myong ) 역사문제연구소 2009 역사문제연구 Vol.13 No.2

March 1st was the Korean people`s struggle against Japanese colonialism in 1919. In the days right after Korean liberation from Japanese colonialism, the anti-colonialist history worked as ideational materials to transform colonial subject of Korean people into post-colonial national subject. The national struggle came to be appropriated by the Republic of Korea(ROK hereafter) to its own agendas in the days of its establishment (August 1948) through the outbreak of the Korean War(June 1950). This suggests to us that March 1st held political potentials available to the contemporary ROK, which, in turn, asks us to appreciate post-colonial South Koreans` conceptions of March 1st. Post-colonial South Korean people conceived March 1st as `historically unexampled national struggle staged by all Korean people throughout Korean peninsula` and at the same time represented it as such. This led post-colonial people to think of colonial struggle as a modern one, which could be imagined to signify the historical epoch in Korean history departing from old, pre-modern space and time to new, modern ones, and actually was so. March 1st was nationalized, officialized in various ways by the ROK. That is, the ROK nationalized it by putting down it in the preface to the ROK Constitution, promulgating it as a national holiday, and celebrating it with a national ceremony. This meant that unlike in preceding post-colonial days, March-1st ceremonies became a national ceremony monopolized by the ROK, which was to dedicate March 1st for the state. While nationalizing March 1st, the ROK appropriated it to the state agenda of representing itself as a new nation-state. From around the days of its inauguration, the ROK faced the challenges within and without the state, which arose from its regionality and factionality. In front of these threats, the ROK, nationlizing March 1st, represented itself as a guardian of national history, as its embodiment, and moreover as a nation itself. At the same time, the ROK appropriated March 1st to represent itself as a new democratic nation-state distinguished from its preceding ones on the Korean peninsula. While appropriating March 1st, the ROK held national ceremonies throughout the country to spread its own March 1st. Though nationalized March 1st offered to the ROK political benefits for the state, it imposed upon the state new threats to contemporary state agendas. To begin with, March 1st strengthened South Korean people`s nationalism, which exposed to popular sights the non-nationalistic implications of contemporary state agendas of excluding the ROK` Korean political rivals, such as Korean communists, from national boundary for the reason of ideology, and of aligning the ROK with `national Others` of America and Japan for its inclusion into American bloc in the early evolution of global Cold War. The Nationalization of March 1st exposed to popular sight the contradictions of state agendas. The official mobilization of March 1st, emphasizing the modern implications of March 1st and, in relation, its national newness, exploited the newness to the political benefits of the ROK, viz, to the representation of the ROK as a new modern state. This was to contradict with other state strategy of historicizing the state by promulgating and legazlizing October 3rd as National Founding Day (開天節, Kaech`onjol) and the word of `Greatly Favoring Human World`(弘益人間, Hong`ikin`gan) as Official Education Doctrine. This confrontation revealed one of the contradictions of contemporary state agendas, telling us the history of the ROK around its establishment.

연구논문 : 표상(表象)과 권력: 5월광주항쟁의 전용(轉用)

임종명 ( Chong Myong Im ) 호남사학회(구-전남사학회) 2007 역사학연구 Vol.29 No.-

1946년 서울 지역 콜레라 발병세와 일국적 · 지역적 중심부/주변부/변경성(性)

임종명(IM, Chong Myong) 한국사학회 2020 史學硏究 Vol.0 No.140

상대적으로 뒤늦게 5월 말 서울에서 발병한 콜레라는 6월에 들어서자 마자 서울 외곽 지역, 그중에서도 한강에 연해 있거나 그것에 가까운 지역에서 적지 않은 환자를 낳았다. 6월 중 · 하순의 대홍수는 서울 지역의 발병 상황을 일층 악화시켜, 7월 초 전후부터 콜레라는 도심지 주변 지역, 그중에서도 청계천에 접하거나 그것에 가까운 지역에서 지속적으로 발병하였다. 하지만, 서울 지역 콜레라도 가을 들어 10월에는 종식되게 되었다. 서울 지역 콜레라 발병사는 상대적으로 잘 갖추어진 사회 기반 시설과 의료 기관, 풍부한 인적 · 물적 방역자원과 함께 서울 중심의 전국적 방역 대책으로 인해 상대적으로 소규모 발병 규모와 낮은 치명률이라는 특성을 보여주었다. 그와 같은 특성의 서울 지역 콜레라 발병사는 세균학적인 자연사적 성격과 함께 사회 · 정치적 성격을 가지고 있었다. 콜레라가 수인성 전염병답게 한강 강변 지역이나 청계천, 욱천 등 천변 지역에서 만연하였다는 점에서, 콜레라 만연은 세균학적인, 자연사의 것이었다. 하지만, 상수도와 같은 도시 기반 시설이 제대로 갖추어지지 못한 시 외곽의 변경 지대 등에서 지역 감염이 발생하고 있었다는 점에서, 콜레라 발생과 만연은 직접적으로는 사회적인 성격을 가진 것이기도 했다. 나아가 마포 지역의 사례에서처럼, 콜레라 발병은 종전/해방 직후 동아시아 지역과 한반도의 국제정치와 일국 정치의 상황을 표현하였다. 동시에, 한국의 중심부인 서울의 콜레라 발병세와 발병상은 일국적, 지역적 수준에서 중심부와 주변부의 관계, 그리고 변경의 문제 또한 표현하고 있었다. 당시 ‘수부 방어’라는 관점에서 실행된 서울 중심의 방역대책은 서울 지역의 콜레라 발병 시기를 여타 도(道) 단위 지역의 그것보다 늦추도록 했을 뿐만 아니라 콜레라 발병세의 상대적 약세(弱勢)를 낳았다. 그런데, 당시 시내 주요 콜레라 병원지 · 발병지는 도심 기반 시설이 빈약한 도심지 외곽이나 시 외곽의 변경 지역 등 중심부의 주변부였다. 바로 이 점에서 서울 지역 콜레라는 근대 중심부/주변부 관계에 변경의 문제가 중첩적으로 작동하면서 발생한 역사적 사건이라 할 수 있다. The cholera broke out in Seoul comparatively belatedly at the end of May, 1946, and then in the following month the epidemic came to be spread to the outskirt of Seoul, especially on the riverfront of the Han River and its vicinities, infecting not a few residents there. The flood late in July exacerbated the outbreak of the epidemic, which came to make continually contagious those people living next to downtown Seoul, especially the inhabitants of the villages along Ch’ŏnggye Stream and the residents in its neighboring ones. In the fall of the year, however, the epidemic came to an end. The seasonal choler epidemic in metropolitan Seoul showed its outstanding feature, viz. the less infections with lower case fatality rate compared with the epidemic plaguing other provincial localities in contemporary South Korea. The feature was caused by the local potentials of basic heath and social infrastructures enough to cope with the epidemic, and, more significantly, by the contemporary disinfection policy of South Korean authorities which was currently oriented toward the protection of metropolitan Seoul from the infection. The short history of the cholera epidemic in Seoul was not only bacteriological but also socio-political in post-colonial South Korea. The fact that the waterborne infection of cholera surged in the areas along the Han River and the Ch’ŏnggye Stream shows the cholera spread in 1946 Seoul was a bacteriological phenomenon. At the same time, the spread was a socio-political one in that the surge of the epidemic was found in the outskirts of Seoul where the urban infrastructures such as water supply and drainage system was poorly established. Moreover, the epidemic spread which began with the infection of some Korean repatriates from China expressed the post-colonial history of the East Asia and Korea which the establishment of the ethnic nation-states system followed the collapse of Japanese empire. Given this, we can say that the cholera outbreaks in 1946 Seoul were socio-political occurrences as well as natural, bacteriological ones. At the same time, the cholera pandemic in Seoul expressed the simultaneous progress of modern ‘metropolis/periphery’ relationship at the level of the nation and the locality. The Seoul-oriented disinfection policy for the defense of the capital city delayed the first outbreak of cholera in Seoul, bringing forth its comparatively mild outbreak. Given this, the center of the epidemic in Seoul was the local periphery which was located at riverside and streamside areas equipped with poor urban infrastructures. This shows that the cholera epidemic in 1946 Seoul was the historical event as a modern relationship between metropolis and periphery.

종전/해방 직후(1945.8~1948.7) 남한 담론 공간과 `적색 제국주의 소련`상(相·像)

임종명(Im, Chong-Myong) 고려사학회 2016 한국사학보 Vol.- No.62

종전/해방 직후 남한의 우익 엘리트들은 당대 담론 공간에서 민족주의를 척도로 하여 소련 사회주의의 세계적 성격을 부인하고, 그것을 소련 국가 이익 중심의 이념으로 일국화 또는 국가화하고, 나아가 그것을 제국주의 이념화한다. 이어서, 소련 제국주의는 민족적(ethnical)으로는 슬라브인을 위한 것으로 제시된다. 이와 같은 소련과 소련 제국주의의 슬라브화에 이어, 그것들은 장기 지속의 것으로 역사화되고, 다시 ‘자연화’되어, 소련 제국주의는 슬라브 민족의 내재적인 것으로 본능화된다. 그리고 글들은 제정 러시아나 소련 모두를 ‘재물과 자원, 경제 이권과 영토’ 확보를 목표로 사회주의·공산주의라는 이념적 수단을 동원해 외부 세계로 침략과 팽창을 거듭한 것으로 재현한다. 이로써 ‘소련의 적색 제국주의’상과 ‘공산주의의 적색 제국주의 이념화’의 재현·표상 작업은 마무리된다. 이어서 소련의 적색 제국주의는 세계적 사태로서, 그리고 다시 한국의 문제로 재현된다. 먼저, 소련 적색 제국주의 침략 대상지의 한국 연장은 소련의 동아시아 지정학과 한국의 지정학적 위치의 동원을 통해서 이루어진다. 그리고 소련이 한국에서 자신의 정치·경제적 이익을 추구하고 있는 것으로 재현되는데, 이것은 소련을 정치·경제적 측면에서 한민족의 적대적 타자로 만드는 것이다. 이와 같은 소련 타자화는 한국인 공산주의자들을 민족의 타자로 재현 표상하는 것이다. 또한 그것은 생명과 정조, 또 가족이라는 측면에서 북한 사람들을 소련 제국주의의 현재적 피해자로, 또 남한 사람들을 소련 제국주의의 잠재적 희생자로 만든다. 잠재적 희생자화는 남한 사람들을 대상으로 한 반공·반소·반북 선전과 선동, 나아가 반공 반소의 정치적 주체 생산에 그 목적이 있었다. 이러한 목적의 소련 적색 제국주의화는 혈연주의적 민족 상상법을 지지 강화하는 한편 한민족을 ‘이념의 공동체’로 변형시키는 것이었다. 후자는 다시 반제 민족주의라는 관점에서 초기 냉전 시기 미국 중심의 자유주의 블록에로의 한국 편입을 정당화하는 관념상의 자원을 제공하였다. 바로 이것이 종전/해방 직후의 ‘소련 적색 제국주의상’이 가진 정치적 함의였다. From the perspective of nationalism, the rightist elites in post-World War and post-Liberation South Korea, invalidating the global meanings of Soviet socialism, nationalized it as a Soviet-oriented ideology, and even determined it to be an imperialist one. Then, the imperialism of the Soviet was represented as what was ethnically for the Slavic people. The Slavization of the Soviet and its imperialism was followed by the historicization of the two as long-duration entities and again by the nationalization of them as a kind of instinct of the Slavic people. The works related represent the Soviet as what constantly pursued its outward invasion and external growth by the ideological means of socialism and communism for the purpose of securing financial means, natural resources, and economic interests, and territorial expansion. In this way, the Soviet was represented as the red imperialist state, and socialism and communism as the Soviet red imperialism. Subsequently, the red imperialism of the Soviet was represented as a global issue, and, accordingly, as a Korean problem. First of all, the argued geopolitics of the East Asia and the geopolitical location of Korea were exploited to show that Korea was a target for the Soviet imperialism. And then, the red imperialist Soviet was represented as seeking its own political and economic interests in Korea, which suggested the Soviet as the national Other of Korea in terms of politics and economy. The Othering of the Soviet was to nationally otherize Korean communists, too, for their loyalty to the Soviet. At the same time, the Othering was to represent common North Korean people as actual victims to the Soviet imperialism, and also South Koreans as potential ones in terms of their physical life, sexual chastity and fidelity, and family life. Their victimization meant to propagate anti-communism ideology and anti-Soviet and anti-North Korean sentiments throughout South Korea, and ultimately fashion South Koreans into a political anti-communist and anti-Soviet subject. These goals of representing the Soviet as a red imperialism supported and solidified the blood-oriented nationalism while transforming the Korean nation into a community of an ideology. The transformation provided the discursive materials to South Korean elites who wanted to legitimize the inclusion of South Korea into American bloc from the viewpoint of anti-imperialistic nationalism. This constituted the political implication of the representation of the Soviet as a red imperialism in the post-Liberation and post-World War II Cold War.

해방 직후 인민의 문제성과 엘리트의 인민 순치

임종명(Im, Chong-myong) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2014 동방학지 Vol.168 No.-

일제 식민지 해방 직후 남한 엘리트들은 인민을 민주적 민족 국가 건설의 주체로 사고하면 서, 각종 문화 작업을 통해 인민을 국가․민족 주권의 소유․행사자로 정체화하고, 그것의 자주적․주체적․주권적 주체성을 표상하였다. 이와 같이, 인민은 해방 직후의 남한 역사를 표현 하는 역사적 실체였다. 하지만 인민은 자신의 경쟁적 호명․실체들과 혼동․혼효․혼용되고 있었던 문제적 기표 였다. 또한 인민은 역사적 또는 경험적 실재가 아니라, ‘정치성’이나 ‘의식성’에 의해 결정되는 ‘관념적 실체’이었다. 또한 인민의 주권적 주체 상(像)은 실제 현실에서 비주체적인 존재로 재 현되고 있던 인민상(相)과 충돌하고 있었다. 보다 심각하게는 인민의 주권적 주체화는 국가․ 정부를 객체․대상․수단화하면서 국가의 독립 성과 주체성을 위협할 수 있는 것이었다. 또한 그것은 지배 엘리트의 지도성을 정면으로 부인 하면서 통치의 권위와 정통성(legitimacy)을 위협․부인할 수 있는 것이기도 했다. 이러한 문제적 상황 앞에서, 엘리트들은 인민 주권의 제도화, 또는 민주주의의 제도화 과정에서 다양한 방식으로 인민을 자신의 의제에 순치 시킨다. 먼저 해방 직후 남한 엘리트들은 인민 주권의 입법화 과정에서 그것을 입법 대상으로, 또 이후 법에 의해, 달리 표현하면 국가에 의해 보호․보장되는 피(被)보호자로 변질시킨다. 이와 함께, 인민의 주권이 법(학)과 정치(학)에 의해 조작될 수 있는 ‘정치권’과 ‘인민권’으로, 그리고 정치권이 다시 선거권으로 규정되면서, 최종 적으로 인민 주권은 정치적으로 선거권으로 제한․축소된다. 그리고 당대 엘리트들은 대의 정치제도와 ‘인민 총의’라는 장치 등을 통해 인민을 일상의 정치 과정으로부터 배제․분리하고, 나아가 통치 권을 가진 국가, 실질적으로는 정부의 통치와 동원 대상으로 인민을 대상화한다. 또한 인민은 계몽운동을 통해 일상적으로 엘리트들의 계몽․ 교육의 대상으로 ‘변질’되면서, 인민의 탈(脫)권 력화, 또는 인민 주권성의 ‘박탈’이 이루어진다. 대신, 주권은 실제적 통치권을 가진 국가, 또는 정부에게 귀속된다. 바로 이러한 것들이 해방 직후 인민의 시대에 인민을 둘러싸고 진행된 당대 남한 역사와 사회의 모습이었다. South Korean elites right after Korean liberation from Japanese colonialism, regarding inmin(people) as the subject of building the Korean democratic nation-state, identified it as a national sovereign while representing it a as a sovereign subject. This shows that inmin was a post-colonial historical entity in South Korea. Nevertheless, inmin was a problematic signifier with no clear meaning to the extent that it was confused with its rival appellations and entities such as the nation. Also, it was a product of ideation rather than a historical reality nor an empirical one. Moreover, inmin culturally constructed as a sovereign subject, and inmin existing in the real world contradicted each other. Most crucially, the national subjectivization of inmin could threaten the independent subjectivity of the state and its embodiment, the government while relegating them to the object of, or the means to, inmin constructed as a sovereign subject. At the same time, the subjectivization could de-legitimize the leading authority of contemporary ruling elites. This problematic situation led South Korean elites to domesticate people in various ways in the process of instituting the democracy of popular sovereignty. Also, the elites excluded and separated inmin not only from power politics but also from the politics of everyday life. It was this dual progress that testified to the post-colonial South Korean history which evolved around inmin.

연구논문 : 해방 직후 최재희와 개인 주체성 담론

임종명 ( Chong Myong Im ) 호남사학회(구 전남사학회) 2014 역사학연구 Vol.53 No.-

근대 시기 서구에서, 집단적 차원에서건, 개인적 차원에서건, 주체성의 문제는 제반 사유와 실천의 핵심적 관심사이다. 이것은 근대 시기 한국에서도 마찬가지였다. 한국의 근대 역사 역시 주체 건설의 역사였다. 일제 식민시기, 한국과 한국인들은 식민주의와의 타협과 경쟁 속에서 주체의 해체까지 경험하였다. 바로 이러한 상황에서 식민지에서 해방된 한국인들은 자신들의 정체성을 구성하고자 다양한 노력을 경주하였다. 해방 직후 한국인들의 자기 정체성 구성 노력을 파악하고자, 본 논문은 철학자 최재희(1914-1985)의 개인 담론을 살핀다. 최재희는 식민지에서 해방된 한국에서 ‘근대 민주주의적 민족 국가’ 건설 노선으로 자유주의를 주장하고, 그것을 인격적 개인주의에 토대를 두었다. 개인주의는 해방 직후 핵심적 정치 의제로 의식되었던 국가 건설, 또 그것에 목적이었던 국가 그 자체에 부정적인 효과를 낳을 수 있는 것으로까지 ‘의심’받고 있었다. 국가주의자와 국가주의적 민족주의자들은 개인주의를 집중적으로 비판·성토하였다. 또한 개인주의 비판은 서구 근대 문명 비판과 근대 성찰과 극복이라는 차원에서도 수행되고 있었다. 당대의 제반 개인주의 비판 앞에서, 최재희는 인간 주체성과 개인 주체성에 관한 자신의 논의를 발전시켜야 했고, 실제 자신의 직업적 소양에 힘입어 그렇게 했다. 최재희는 자연과 사회 등 자기 자신 이외의 것들로부터 독립해, 그것들에 대해서 자주적으로 사고하고 자기의 목적에 따라 행위하면서, 대상들을 자신의 목적에 맞게 개조·창조할 수 있는 주체로 인간과 개인을 규정했다. 이에 기초해, 그는 개인 중심의 국가론과 민족론, 나아가 개인주의 이데올로기를 구축하는 한편, 유기체주의와 공리주의에 기초한 공산주의와 전체주의, 심지어 민족주의 등 당대 주요 이데올로기들을 비판하였다. 바로 이것이 최재희의 ‘개인’이 가진 당대 이데올로기 성이자 정치성이었다. 또한 그의 개인주의는 해방 직후 근대 사회·국가 건설과 발전의 주체를, 그것도 국가·사회적 의제에 능동적으로 복무하는 자기 규율적 인간형을 생산하고자 한 문제의식의 소산이자, 그를 위한 담론적 노력이었다. 그런데 최재희의 개인 담론은 자기 모순을 노정하고 있었다. 그의 개인주의는 원래의 해방적, 민족주의적 문제의식과는 상충되게도, 아시아-태평양 전쟁 이후 동아시아와 남한에서의 헤게모니 변동을 촉진하고, 이 과정에서 서구가, 또 서구 근대 문화가 동아시아와 남한 지역에서 자신들의 지배 헤게모니를 확립하는 데 언설적으로 기여하였다. 보다 심각하게는, 그의 인격적 개인주의는 자기 부인(否認)의 천형(天刑)을 내포하고 있었다. 그의 개인주의에서 목적하고 지향했던 개인은 당위적, 가치적 개념의 추상적 인격 또는 이념형적 존재로서의 추상적 개인이지, 경험적 존재로서의 구체적 개인이 아니었다. 이는 개인주의가 ‘구체적 현실로서 삶을 살아가는 경험적 개인’을 부인하는 자기 파괴의 진상(眞相)을 증거하는 것이었다. In the modern West, the issue of sovereignty, national or individual, forms the focal point of modern thinking and practice. This is true of modern Korea. The history of modern Korea witnesses Koreans` rushes for constructing sovereignty. Colonized Koreans experienced even a de-constructed subjectivity in their compromise and/or competition with Japanese colonialism. De-colonized Korean elites put efforts into constructing their identity. To appreciate the efforts, this article examines contemporary philosophy professor Choi Chae-hui`s discourse on individual subjectivity. He argued for liberalism as a line of making a Korean modern democratic nation-state, basing the ideology upon personalist individualism. Individualism was currently criticized by not a few nationalists and others for its disloyalty to the arguedly post-colonial political agenda of making a Korean nation-state. The criticism was cast upon the ideology also by those who, criticizing modern Western civilization, tried to overcome modernity while reflecting upon it. These varied criticisms drove Choi into desperate efforts for developing his own theory of individual subjectivity. Thus, he articulated his theory, writing not a few books and essays. Choi conceptualized the individual as an entity independent from other than itself, and as a subject which could think for itself and do things with its purpose while creating the objects, including human society, on its own end. He exploited his conceptualized individual to his dual job: formulating his theory of the state and the nation as well as his individualism on the one hand, and criticizing currently dominating ideologies of communism, totalitarianism, and even nationalism on the other hand. The exploitation determined the ideological politics of the individuality conceptualized by Choi. Also his individualism expressed his own problematic which focused upon producing political South Korean subjects to establish modern Korean state and society, and also upon transforming South Koreans into self-disciplinary individual subjects to voluntarily serve the national and state agenda. By the way, his individualism held self-contradiction. Contrary to its nationalist problematic, the ideology discoursively served the post-colonial and post-World War Ⅱ transference of the hegemony over East Asia and South Korea from imperial Japan to new hegemon, America, which accompanied the re-establishment of the cultural hegemony of the West. Also, his individualism could not avoid the implosion of its self-denial. What the individualism had as its object was not individual who lived in concrete time and space but ideal type of individual who was abstractly constructed in his own thinking. This testifies to the self-destruction that his individualism denied the individual itself who lived its life in concrete situation.

1946년 경기 지역의 콜레라 사태와 종전/해방 직후 국제·일국·지역 정치

임종명(Im, Chong Myong) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2020 동방학지 Vol.193 No.-

1946년 5월 하순부터 콜레라가 발병하기 시작했던 인천 지역은 경기 지역의 주요 발병 지역이었다. 그렇지만 6월 중·하순 장마가 있고 나서인 7월 이후, 식민지 시기 황해도에 속해 있었던 연백과 옹진, 그리고 그 부속 도서들이 경기 지역의 주요 발병지가 되었다. 이는 ‘본래’의 경기 서해 연안 지역이나 내륙의 한강 강변 지역 등의 발병세가 상대적으로 약세였음을 의미한다. 이처럼 지역적으로 발병세가 상이했던 경기 지역의 전체적 발병세는 남한 전체 10개 시·도 단위 지역 대비 중위적 수준의 발병세를 유지하였다. 하지만 인구 규모를 고려할 때, 경기 지역의 상대적 발병세는 ‘덜’ 심각한 것이었다. 이와 같은 모습을 보여준 경기 지역의 1946년 콜레라 사태도 여타 지역에서와 마찬가지로 가을 들어 종식되었다. 그런데, 인천 지역의 초기 발병은 아시아-태평양 전쟁 직후 미국이 자신의 동아시아 패권을 확립하고자 추진한 송환 정책과 연결된 것이었다. 또한, 동아시아 지역의 콜레라 병원지(病源地)였던 중국과 ‘밀무역’이 활성화된 인천과 인근 도서 지역에서의 콜레라 만연은 식민지/제국 해체 이후 근대적인 민족 국가 체제가 동아시아에 한반도에 건설되기 이전 한·중 국경선이 ‘작동’하지 않던 상황을 보여주는 것이라 할 수 있다. 바로 이것들이 인천 및 인근 도서 지역 만연의 국제정치적 맥락이자 함의였다. 마찬가지로, 사회 기반 시설 등이 불충분했던 연백·옹진과 그 소속 도서 지역의 악성(惡性) 콜레라 만연의 이면에는 인천, 나아가 서울 등 전국적, 지역적 중심지 위주의 차별적 방역 정책이라는 일국·지역 정치가 작동하고 있었다. 이러한 점에서 1946년 경기 지역의 콜레라 발병·만연은 세균학적인 또는 미생물학적인, 자연적 발생사이자, 종전/해방 직후 국제정치와 일국·지역 정치상의 맥락과 함의를 가진 역사적 사건이었다. Inch’ŏn area in which cholera epidemic had broke out since late May 1946 worked as the center of the epidemic in Kyŏnggi area. Yet, in July right after the flood swept over the almost whole country in the mid- and the late June, Yŏnbaek and Ongjin areas and their islands attached which had been under the jurisdiction of Hwanghae province in the preceding colonial days began to work as the epidemic center in the place of Inch’ŏn area. This means that the epidemic outbreaks in the other coastal areas, and the riverside and the inland ones continued to be relatively ‘mild.’ The estimated number of cases and fatalities in the Kyŏnggi province was continually ranked at the 5th or 6th place in the 10 metropolitan city and provinces altogether. Given its size of population, the relative epidemic situation with the province remained less ‘severe’ than any other metropolitan or provincial area. The initial outbreak of the cholera epidemic in Inch’ŏn was inseparably intertwined with the repatriation policy the US government enforced for the construction of its own post-War hegemony in the East Asian region in that the epidemic occurred in the Korean repatriates coming from China contemporarily working as the center of cholera epidemic in the East Asian region. Also, the cholera epidemic in Inch’ŏn and its neighboring island areas in which the contraband trade with China was taking place showed that there existed not a few ‘pores’ in the national border demarcating Korea and China or their national demarcation had not yet been built. In this sense, the epidemic outbreak was an expression of the post-War regional political transition from the imperial system to the ethnic nation-states system. What has been pointed out thus far constituted the post-War political contexts and implications in terms of international politics. The virulent cholera pandemic in Yŏnbak and Ongjin and their annexed islands which were poorly equipped with social and medical infrastructures was caused also by the discriminative official disinfection policy which was oriented toward the national, and local metropolis such as Seoul and Inch’ŏn respectively. To conclude, the cholera pandemic was not only natural, bacteriology or microbiological occurrences but also a historical event of post-War/post-Liberation political implication.

해방 공간과 신생활운동

임종명 ( Im Chong-myong ) 역사문제연구소 2012 역사문제연구 Vol.16 No.1

The New Life Movement in the Post-Liberation Days of South Korea was waged based on the contemporary nationalist agenda of building a Korean nation-state. At that time, South Korean elites had a critical view of Korean society and its culture. This negative perspective was interwoven with the contemporary nationalist agenda of state-making. The elites related the construction of new life to the agenda of state-making from the perspective of fashioning the political subject of state-making, raising the necessity of the New Life Movement and pushing forward the Movement. In the mid of 1946, the Movement came to be nationally waged with the participation of the U. S. Armies Government in Korea (USAMGIK) in the Movement. At that time, the Adult Education Bureau of USAMGK Education Ministry organized New Life Committee for the “investigation of consciousness of national life, ceremony, clothing, sheltering, hygiene, home education, [home] economy, and others.” However, the full-scale New Life Movement had to wait for the change of the office in charge of the Movement in 1947. After the official inauguration of South Korean interim government in June 1947, its Education Ministry took the charge of the Movement and institutionalized the Movement as a national campaign. The Civilization Bureau of the Education Ministry in the place of Adult Education Bureau initiated the Movement, placing its emphasis upon `the nurturing of South Koreans` moral consciousness and the improvement of their civic potentials. Moreover, the Movement attempted to reorganize the basic local unit as the organization for the construction of moral community of `communal protection and mutual help.` The contemporary competition in ruling elites over the Movement frustrated it in with the result that the Movement suffered the change in its primary problematic. From the summer of 1947, there had been the competition within right wingers over the goal of the Movement between `the nurturing of moral consciousness and the improvement of ordinary lives` and `the political propaganda for the establishment of South Korean government.` The competition resulted in the change of the Movement, so that the Movement was transformed into the anti-illiteracy campaign necessary for the general election. Also, the change occurred once again in relation to the primary problematic, so that the Movement laid its emphasis upon the improvement of ordinary lives in the place of the nurturing of moral consciousness. This was the end of the Movement initiated by South Korean interim government. The Movement expressed not only the evolution of political situation after the Korean Liberation but also the progress of post-colonial history after the conclusion of the Asian-Pacific War. The Movement was initiated from the perspective of subject-making for the establishment of Korean nation-state. This shows that the Movement reflected the upsurge of nationalism in post-colonial South Korea. At the same time, insofar as the Movement set as one of the goals the rationalization of ordinary lives in terms of modernism, the Movement could be understood as a Western modernist campaign. Then, the Movement gives us an insight into how Western modernism previously in crisis constructed its hegemony once again in South Korea where Western modernism had been criticized in `Japanese revolt against the West.` What is noteworthy is that ironically Western modernism was embraced by Korean nationalist problematic. Also the Movement illustrated the fact that the hegemony building of Western modernism did not go smoothly. This can be exposed to our sight when we pay our attention to the change of the primary emphasis of the Movement from the improvement of ordinary lives to the nurturing of moral consciousness. The emphasis upon moral consciousness was related to the building of moral community or moral state based upon the criticism of modern Western society. In this respect, the Movement shows us how Western modernism and the criticism of the modernism competed with each other and at the same time negotiated each other in post-colonial South Korea after the ending of the Asian-Pacific War. This constituted the historical meaning of the New Life Movement in South Korea after its liberation from Japanese colonialism.