식민사관 비판론의 등장과 내재적 발전론의 형성 (Emergence of Critical Analyses of Colonial Historiography and Formation of the “Internal Development theory”)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 사학연구 / 125호 / 7 ~ 44페이지
· 저자명 : 김정인

초록

본고에서는 해방과 함께 제기된 반식민사학의 흐름 속에서 식민사관 비판론과 내재적 발전론의 ‘내적’ 기원을 찾는 동시에 1960년대에 양자 간의 연관성이 어떻게 형성되었는지를 살펴보았다. 이는 곧 내재적 발전론 ‘이후’보다는 ‘이전’과 형성기를 좀 더 면밀하게 살피는 작업에 해당한다. 내재적 발전론의 기원을 해방 정국의 역사학에까지 거슬러 올라가 살핀다는 점, 1960년대 식민사관 비판론과 내재적 발전론 간의 관계를 다룬다는 점에서 본고의 의의를 찾을 수 있을 것이다. 또한, 식민사관 비판론이 일본인의 식민주의 사관만을 비판한 것이 아니라, 문헌고증사학으로 대표되는 아류와 유산으로서의 식민사학을 극복하고자 제기되었다는 점과 식민사관 비판론과 내재적 발전론을 잇는 매개 고리가 반식민사학인 일제시기 민족주의사학과 마르크스주의사학이었다는 사실을 밝혔다.

영어초록

Examined in this article is the ‘Origin’ of two trends: Critical analyses of the occupied Joseon people which were launched against ‘Colonial Historiography,’ and the “Internal Development theory” launched later by Korean historians. The beginning points of these two trends may seem (at first glance) to have been different from each other, but both trends actually took place at the time of liberation from Japanese occupation, and amidst the surge of Anti-Colonial historiography studies. And these two trends sure interacted with each other in the 1960s, so such interaction is examined in this article as well.
This is not an analysis of what came after the emergence of the Internal Development theory, but rather of what came ‘before’ it, as the origin itself should be construed within the context of situations (as well as academic efforts in the area of history) that unfolded right after the liberation. And in order to do that right, we should also be well aware of how a series of critical analyses of ‘Colonial Historiography,’ and the eventual advent of “Internal Development theory,” sort of fueled each other for years, to reach their full potential.
Meanwhile, also stressed in this article is that critical analyses of Colonial historiography did not only criticise the colonial historical perspective shown by the Japanese, but were launched to overcome colonial historical studies done by Korean scholars, which were performed in the name of pursuing “empirical studies (dealing ‘facts’ that could be confirmed by written records).” And most importantly, suggested in this article is that it was the Nationalistic historiography and Marxist historiography, which were both against Colonial historiography, that bridged critical analyses of colonial historiography and the Internal Development theory.

참고자료

· 없음