고개의 호칭으로서 '현'과 '령'의 변별요인에 관한 연구

조승래,강영조,Cho, Seung-Rae,Kang, Young-Jo 한국조경학회 2007 韓國造景學會誌 Vol.35 No.1

The purpose of this study is to determine the basis for the names of mountain passes that have been different since antiquity, especially names such as those written in Chinese characters. For this purpose, this researcher focused on 108 mountain passes listed in the section of Gyeongsangdo that is a part of Joseon's representative human geographic literature, 'Sinjong Dongguk Yeoji Seungram'. Then the author found out their location by reviewing 'Joseon Hugi Jibang Jido', 'Daedong Yeojido' and 'Hanguk Jimyeong Chongram'. Out of the 180 passes, 30 were finally selected to be analyzed. Again 15 among 30 were found named as 'Hyeon', 7 as 'Ryeong' and remainder were called either term on occasion. The study tried to find out standards according to whether the 30 passes were named as 'Hyeon' or 'Ryeong'. To carry out the study, the author made 3 hypotheses. First, the passes' altitudes were examined. Then visual characteristics were investigated when seen from the summit of the passes. Finally, the number of the passes' turns was investigated to know whether this discriminates between 'Hyeon' and 'Ryeong'. The results of the study can be summarized as follows. With the altitudes and the visual characteristics as mentioned above, it was not possible to determine features that clearly discriminate 'Hyeon' from 'Ryeong'. However, the number of the turns was significantly different in accordance with the names of the passes, 'Hyeon', 'Ryeong' and 'Hyeon or Ryeong'. It seems that 'Hyeon' and 'Ryeong' were discriminatively used depending on how mountain passes were apparently perceived with the number of their turns.

시민적 공화주의론에 대한 일고찰

조승래 ( Seung Rae Cho ) 한국서양사학회 1990 西洋史論 Vol.35 No.1

A Mapping of the Ideological British Historiography in Korea : A Story

Cho Seung-rae(조승래) 湖西史學會 2011 역사와 담론 Vol.0 No.58

이 논문은 한국에서 영국사 연구가 본격적으로 시작된 지난 세기 60년대 이래 오늘에 이르기까지 영국사 서술에서 발견되는 이념적 궤적을 추적하고 있다. 영국사 연구의 선구자들은 대부분 영국을 한국의 근대화의 모델로 삼았다. 자본주의와 민주주의가 동시에 추구되면서 선진 자유민주주의 국가로 처음 등장한 나라가 영국이었으며 한국은 그 뒤를 따라야 한다는 것이 그들의 공통된 생각이었다. 그들은 철두철미한 개인주의적 자유주의의 신봉자들로서 군부 독재에 대한 저항 담론을 제공하기도 하는 등 역사가의 사회적 기능도 수행하곤 했다. 그러나 그들의 자유주의는 80년대 이후 그 빛이 바래기 시작했다. 한국 사회에 새롭게 등장한 급진 세력과 잘 조직된 노동 계급의 투쟁은 그러한 유의 자유주의를 계급적 이해를 반영하는 부르주아 지유주의로 규정하기 시작했다. 때맞추어 영국사학계 내부에서도 그러한 지유주의가 아닌 새로운 의미의 자유주의를 영국사 안에서 찾아내려는 시도들이 나타났다. 혹자는 글래드스턴의 도덕적 자유주의가 부르주아 자유주의를 극복하여 19세기 영국에서 새롭게 대두된 노동계급을 시민단의 가치 있는 일원으로서 받아들이려는 숭고한 시도였다고 찬양하는가 하면, 한편에서는 페비안 사회주의나 길드 사회주의와 같은 영국의 독특한 사회주의를 일종의 집단화된 자유주의로 규정하면서 그것이야말로 개인의 지유와 공동체의 복지를 조화시킬 수 있는 훌륭한 대안이었다고 평가했다. 그러나 이에 맞서 자유주의의 한계를 극복한 새로운 대안 이념으로서 공회주의를 영국사 안에서 추적하는 연구도 나타났다. 즉 시민적 공공성과 시민적 평등을 강화하여 자본주의의 병폐를 극복하고자 했던 지적 담론들을 찾아내는 작업이 시작되어 오늘에 이르고 있다.

공화국과 공화주의

趙承來(Cho Seung-Rae) 역사학회 2008 역사학보 Vol.0 No.198

Republic originated from the Roman words res publica, by which Cicero meant people's commonwealth (res populi) pursuing common good. It was a Roman version of the ancient Greek definition of polis, according to which a community where one man rules is not a polis. Aristotle once described it as the principle of 'rule and ruled' which meant rule by equals. And his teleological definition of man as a political animal who should realize himself by participating in ruling the polis to achieve common good came to be a pivotal principle of republicanism to come. In this way of thinking of republic, civic participation to achieve the common good should be asked as a categorical command of citizens. Without this civic virtue no liberty and equality is possible. Citizens should be vigilant always not to be ruled by superiors pursuing their private interests and ambitions. "Il n'y a dehors de" republic. Liberalism attacks this as a totalitarianism which denies the private spheres of individuals and enforces a monolithic way of life. However it must be remembered that republican voices were shouted in the historical moments when a political community fell to the crisis of the despotic rule by one or few. It was a civic ethics which emphasized to realize that to be free we have to keep republic from the ambitious superiors. Therefore republicans oppose to liberal conception of liberty as non-interference. They insist that liberty is not to be defined negatively only as an absence of interference and impediment. Liberty is fulfilled only when there are no possibility of arbitrary domination. A slave who is not interfered by his master is not free just because his liberty is dependent on his master's benevolence and so he has to always keep eyes to his action not to provoke and to satisfy his master. Now republicanism is discoursed as a new theory of liberty as non-domination against the hegemony of the nee-liberal market logic which emphasizes only non-interference.

18세기말 영국의 토지개혁론

조승래 ( Seung Rae Cho ) 한국서양사학회 1997 西洋史論 Vol.55 No.1

찰스 홀의 토지 균분론

조승래(Seung Rae Cho) 영국사학회 1998 영국연구 Vol.2 No.-

N/A

누가 자유주의를 두려워하랴? : 공화주의, 공동체주의, 공화주의

조승래(Cho Seung-Rae) 호서사학회 2009 역사와 담론 Vol.0 No.54

The purpose of this paper is to interpret republicanism as a powerful alternative of liberalism. Liberalism defines liberty just as non-interference, which means anyone is free insofar as she is not actually impeded by someone else to take her choice. It presuppose that one's individual right to choose her action is prior to common good of community. In this point of view, liberals dare to conclude that liberty is enjoyed regardless of the constitutional character of states. However, this kind of individualism is to be the Achilles Heel of liberalism. As new liberalism criticized, liberty as non-interference is only a privilege of the established persons who are capable of doing their own choices. Community can interfere individuals with legitimacy of pursuing general welfare of community. In this point, republicanism provides us with a new conception of liberty as non-domination which means the absence of arbitrary power. According to republicanism, liberal view of liberty implies that even a slave is free as long as his benevolent master has no plan to interfere him. Republicans assert that slave is never free just because his liberty is dependent on his master's mercy and thereby he has to always keep an eye to his action not to provoke and to satisfy his master. Republicans insist that liberty is fulfilled only when there is no possibility of arbitrary domination which prevents us from possessing the status of free men. Therefore republicans conclude that we are free only in a free state which guarantees us to be free citizens as equal members of community. There follows a categorical demand that we always have to be vigilant not to be ruled by superiors and to exercise our civic duties for common good. Thus republicanism deserves to be an effective therapy of the pathological problem of social polarization of late incurred by liberal hegemony.

특집 : 영국사에서 소수자들 ; 18세기 영국의 남성 동성애자들 - 제3의 젠더로서 "몰리" -

조승래 ( Seung Rae Cho ) 영국사학회 2004 영국연구 Vol.12 No.-

Peter Linebaugh , The London Hanged : Crime and Civil Society in the Eighteenth Century

조승래 (Seung Rae Cho) 한국서양사학회 1998 西洋史論 Vol.58 No.1

N/A

공화주의와 노동문제-산업화 시기 영국과 미국을 중심으로

조승래 ( Seung Rae Cho ) 대구사학회 2016 대구사학 Vol.122 No.-

산업화 시기 영국과 미국의 공화주의자들 가운데 정치적 개혁을 넘어 노동 계급의 사회적 불행에 주목하는 인물들이 나타났다. 영국의 존 텔월과 미국의 노동기사단 지도자들이 그 대표적 인물이다. 그들은 자본주의적 부의 축적은 필연적으로 자본가와 임금 노동자 사이의 경제적 주종 관계를 야기하고 그것은 정치 사회적 권력 관계를 구축해 급기야는 시민적 평등과 공동체를 파괴하리라고 비판했다. 그렇게 되면 자본가들과 그들과 유착한 소수 지배층의 사적 부분적 이익에 의해 국가는 운영되며 예종의 사슬은 더욱 강고하게 나머지 다수를 죄어 갈 것이었다. 이러한 관점에서 그들은 국가가 진정한 의미의 ‘공공의 것’으로서 공화국이 되기 위해서는 어떻게든 이 예종의 사슬의 근원인 경제적 불평을 해소해야 한다고 주장했다. 그렇다고 해서 그들이 후대의 사회주의자들처럼 생산 수단의 공유화를 추구하지는 않았다. 그들은 어디까지나 공화주의적 전통 안에서 시민적 평등을 유지하기 위해 재부의 독과점을 막을 수 있는 재부의 균등 분배를 모색했다. 텔월은 이를 자본과 노동의 동반자 관계를 구축함으로써, 노동기사단은 노동의 성격을 임금 노동에서 노동자들의 상호의존적 협동 생산체제를 지향하는 자유 노동으로 전환함으로써 가능하다고 보았다. In the era of industrialization among British and American republican activists appeared radical intellectuals whose critiques focused upon more of labor problems of general poverty and inequality than political problems of corruption and institutional inequity. John Thelwall and the leaders of Knights of Labor represented Britain and America respectively. They criticized against capitalistic accumulation based on wage labor system as the very source of social and economic inequality which destroyed civic values of community by making relationship between capital employer and labor employee another kind of feudal servitude. They attacked vehemently the liberal assumption of free contract between capitalists and labors through the medium of wage. They insisted that the contract was not free one because two parties were unequal agencies structurally in the capitalistic power relation. In this context they lamented that the devil of inequality at last devastated ``res publica`` by draining independent and virtuous citizenry. While, as a solution, Thelwall suggested partnership between capital and labor which distribute productive advantages proportionally, the leaders of Knights of labor free labor of cooperative production and distribution among labors. (Chongju University Professor of Department of History and Culture/srcho@cju.ac.kr)