社會構成體論的 觀點에서 본 1980年代 敎員主導 敎育運動의 本質

이광형 全南大學校 1991 국내석사

本 硏究의 目的은 韓國社會의 성격으로 부터 도출된 敎育的 矛盾構造에 대한 認識 및 그 克服意志가 어떻게 1980년대의 敎育運動속에 관철되어 나갔는가를 분석하는데 있다. 이러한 연구목적을 달성하기 위하여 다음과 같은 연구내용을 설정하였다. 첫째, 社會構成體論에 입각하여 한국사회의 성격을 규정하는 입장에는 어떤 것들이 있으며, 각 입장들은 한국사회의 모순구조를 어떻게 파악하고 있는가? 둘째, 한국사회성격으로부터 규명되어지는 교육적 모순구조에는 어떤 것들이 있는가? 세째, 한국사회의 교육적 모순구조에 의거했을 때, 80년대 교육운동의 현상적인 실천활동들 속에서 분석될 수 있는 本質은 무엇인가? 한국사회의 성격을 규정하는 입장은 民族矛盾을 基本矛盾으로 하는 植民地 半資本主義論과, 階級矛盾을 기본모순으로 하는 新植民地 國家獨占資本主義論으로 나눌 수 있다. 이러한 한국사회의 성격으로부터 도출되는 교육의 모순구조에는 민족모순, 계급모순, 분단모순, 파시즘적 모순이 있다. 이러한 모순들은 한국교육에 중층적으로 작용하는 것들로서, 각기 民族自主敎育, 民衆敎育, 祖國統一敎育, 民主敎育을 교육운동적 과제로 규정지운다. 80년대 교육운동은 토대구축기, 사회적 표출기, 사회적 확산기, 대중적 조직화기, 계급적 인식의 전환기를 거쳐오면서 참교육과 민주화를 열망하는 民主 諸勢力의 통합과 단결에 기여하였다. 그러나 국가권력으로부터 극심한 탄압을 받았고, 또 교단갈등을 야기시키기도 하였다. 이러한 80년대 교육운동의 현상적인 전개 속에서 나온 실증자료들을 분석한 결과, 그 本質은 다음과 같이 분석되었다. 첫째, 민족모순과 분단모순을 극복하고, 민족자주교육과 조국통일교육을 실현하기 위한 民族敎育運動으로서의 성격을 지니고 있다. 둘째, 교육에 대한 국가독점으로 나타나는 파시즘적 모순을 극복하려는 民主敎育運動으로서의 성격을 지니고 있다. 셋째, 계급모순을 극복하고, 공동체사회 지향적인 민중교육을 실현하기 위한 人間化敎育運動으로서의 성격을 지니고 있다. 이 연구의 결과, 1980년대의 교육운동은 民族, 民主, 人間化라는 敎育理念으로 구체화되어 왔음을 알 수 있었다. 그리고 그 교육이념을 어떻게 일상 교육활동속에서 확산시켜 나갈 것인가라는 점이 앞으로의 과제임을 알 수 있었다. This study was to analyze the influences of teachers' perception of educational contradictions upon teacher-initiated education movement in terms of the theory of Korean social formation. Arguments on the nature of Korean social formation were classified into the theory of neo-colonial state monopoly capitalism and the theory of colonial semi-capitalism. The theory of neo-colonial state monopoly capitalism discribed basic contradiction as class contradiction, while the theory of colonial semi-captialism discribed basic contradiction as national contradiction. These natures of the Korean education were reflected on the national contradiction, class contradiction, the and the deunification contradiction, the facist contradiction. Educational tasks derived from these contradictions of Korean social formation were summarized as national self-active education, education for the people, education for reunifying the nations, democratization of education. The teacher-initiated education movement was a main activity for achieving these tasks. Clarifying the natures of the teacher-initiated education movement scientifically was a central task in this study. Results derived from related data, documents, literatures can be summarized as follows: First, it was a national education movement aimed at achieving the self-activization of the nation and the reunification of the nations. Second, it was a democratic education movement which has tried to ovecome contradictions created by the facist rulling class. Third, it was a humanistic educational movement which has tried to overcome class contradiction. In conclusion, it can be said that education movement in the 1980's was representations of educational doctrins of national self-activization, democratization, humanization. Accordingly, future orientation of education movement will be focused on spreading of doctrins of education into daily educational activities.

일제하 조선의 농정 입법과 통계에 대한 지식국가론적 해석 : 제국 지식체계의 이식과 변용을 중심으로

김인수 서울대학교 대학원 2013 국내박사

日帝植民地下の朝鮮における農政立法および統計に対する知識国家論的解釈 - 帝国における知識体系の移植と変容を中心に - ソウル大学校 社会学科大学院 金仁洙 本研究は、“植民地の朝鮮における農政が1930年代に入り、なぜ急速に安定化したのか”という疑問より始まった。1920年代に山火事の如く燃え広がった急進的な小作争議は、1930年代に入り合法的・個別的・経済的な小作争議としてその様態が改まった。1920年代に革命運動に身を投じていた植民地の社会主義者たちは、1930年代の中頃に‘農政統計を根拠とした知識論争’を巻き起こした専門家として、その属性が転換した。なぜこのような事態が起こったのか?はたしてその政治的な意味とは何なのだろうか? この問題を解き明かそうと歴史的にいくつかの試みが行なわれたが、成功したとは言い難い。まず、植民国家の暴力と抑圧性に注目した研究からは、1930年代の小作争議の大部分が「朝鮮小作調停令」(1932)、「朝鮮農地令」(1934)などの法的な手段によって発生し、解決されたという事実を十分に説明することができない。次に、マクロ経済指標を根拠とし、植民地経済の実質的な改善を主張する研究は、それが‘民族社会’に与えた影響を十分に説明することができないという点より、限界が明らかである。最後に、植民地の農村社会に組合主義論を適用し、リーダーシップの交代と‘葛藤の制度化’に注目した研究は、リーダーシップが実際には強固ではなかったという反論に直面しており、葛藤がどのように制度化されたのかという、そのモメンタムを十分に説明できていない。 本研究は、植民地の農政に内在する‘認識暴力’の問題を分析することで、この質問に対する答えを提示しようと試みるものである。本研究は、日帝植民地下の朝鮮において、植民国家が立法、調査、そして統計を通じて強制した‘認識体系’と、これに対する植民地の知識人たちの批判の痕跡を発掘し、分析した結果物である。 本研究は、‘知識生産様式’(mode of Knowledge production)の分析という研究方法論を新たに提示した。これは知識生産の前提、即ちアプリオリ(a priori)を系譜学的に追跡し、解体するものである。知識の生産過程で活用される理論、資料、方法といった各々の参照体系(references)を明らかにし、その‘移植と変容’、または‘連鎖と専有(appropriation)’の痕跡を発掘する。そして、このような一連の知識の実践が産んだ政治的な結果を確認する。研究結果の概要は次のようである。 まず、旧韓末の植民権力による農政の実践は、明治期の近代日本において作られた‘小作’の概念を強制的に移植し、この概念の範疇に基づき既存の土地習慣を分類、調査、記入(inscription)することより始まった。この過程において、朝鮮の伝統社会の土地賃借に関連する異質的な権利が‘小作’という概念に捕捉され、‘均質化’された。伝統社会で分割所有権の性格を備えていた権利、または継続して伸張してきていた耕作者の権利は、植民国家の立法と調査の実践によって否定され、剥奪された。このような権利は、植民者(colonizer)が強制した‘小作’の概念によって、単純な債権的な土地の賃借や、『明治民法』(1898)によって規定された永小作によって弱体化された。あわせて、このように構成された植民地朝鮮での土地賃借権の法的地位は、登記などの実質的な実現の事例などから確認できるように、日本のそれと比べても非常に劣悪なものであった。 朝鮮統監府(/韓国統監府)以来、朝鮮の土地慣習に関する調査を主管したのは梅謙次郎博士であり、彼は『明治民法』の立法を主管した三人のうちの一人でもあった。梅は朝鮮の慣習に基づき、その法を作るといった立法構想を持ってはいたが、この構想において法源となる慣習が、実は‘取捨選択された慣習’であるといった真実を隠蔽する政治的な実践に過ぎなかった。『民事慣習回答彙集』の分析を通じ、植民国家が‘取捨選択した慣習’によって裁判を進めるといった事実、そして『朝鮮高等法院判例録』の分析を通じ、実際には植民地朝鮮で『明治民法』の慣行化が進んでいたという事実が明らかになった。このような政治的な実践を通じ、‘小作’の概念が植民地社会に強制的に移植されたという事実は忘却、隠蔽され、そして‘小作’の概念は自明であり当然なものとして自然化された(naturalized concept)。 このような一連の事態がもたらした政治的な結果は、多少両価的(ambivalent)であった。一方でそれは伝統的な権利関係が解体され再構成される過程であったが、もう一方ではこの過程で近代的な意味の‘小作階級’が誕生したのであり、これによって1920年代以降に本格化した‘小作階級の政治’も可能だったのである。この段階で‘小作’の概念は、植民地の農政のアプリオリ(a priori)に転換してしまい、質問が透過することのできない‘認識論的障壁’として固着した。植民国家の農政は、まさにこの‘認識暴力’(epistemological violence)の上でこそ成立することが可能だった。 次に、植民国家は、帝国-植民地間の非対称的な権力関係によるいくつかの植民地の社会問題、特に1920年代の小作争議の拡散と急進化に対処するために、大々的な小作慣行調査を実施した。その成果は『朝鮮の小作慣行』(上/下、1932)に収合され発刊された。この報告書によって、(1)植民地朝鮮の地主-小作関係は、簡明な統計値で計数化され、社会葛藤の戦線は現場から法の制定と統計を廻る論争の場へと‘転移’された。これにより、1920年代の非合法的、革命的、集団的な小作争議は、1930年代には合法的、改良的、個別的な小作争議へと転換された。これは植民地朝鮮で、‘知識国家’の権力効果が作動していることの兆候といえる。また、(2)‘不在地主’と‘小作地管理人’が、植民地の農政跛行の主犯として範疇化された。これらの集団は‘社会悪’として焦点化され、植民国家のイメージは主権次元の敵から、これら‘社会悪’を規制し葛藤を調停する社会経済的次元の調停者に転換された。最後に、(3)植民国家の‘自作/小作の二分法的認識体系’が一層強固となり、「自作農創定事業」に代表される農政事業が正当化された。要するに、『朝鮮の小作慣行』は、‘小作’の概念に続き、1930年代の植民地の農政の認識体系を規定するもう一つのアプリオリ、すなわち、‘認識暴力’であった。 このような小作慣行調査は、1921年の日本において施行された小作慣行調査と調査項目、質問事項、整理項目など、多くの部分において一致しており、したがって、ふと見ると植民地での‘反復’に過ぎないものとして評価され得るだろう。しかし、調査の結果が公開された後、植民地の‘民族言論’によって、不在地主と小作管理人が植民地の農政疲弊の直接的な原因であると同時に‘公共の敵’であると指目されるに至ったことは、予見することのできなかった新しい事態だった。また、1921年の日本の小作慣行調査の結果に基づき立案された日本の小作法案において、小作地管理人に対する規制条項が全く無かったのとは違い、『朝鮮の小作慣行』を基礎として制定された「朝鮮農地令」(1934)では、小作地管理人に対する強力な規制条項が備わっていた。結果的に、植民国家は民族の主権を奪い取った敵としての地位から、社会経済的な次元の規制者・調停者の地位に移行したのであり、植民地社会からの直接的な非難の標的から外れるといった予想外の結果が発生したのであった。これは朝鮮小作慣行調査と『朝鮮の小作慣行』が備えた植民地的‘特殊性’として評価することができる。 また、この様に‘自然化された小作概念’と『朝鮮の小作慣行』の権力効果は、植民地の知識場において強力に作用した。植民地朝鮮の社会主義者たち - 朴文圭(Park Mun Gyu)、印貞植(In Jeong Sik)、朴文秉(Park Mun Byung)など - は「朝鮮社会性格論争」を通じ、植民国家とその知識機構が構築した一方的な農政談論を批判した。ただ、これらの批判作業は、植民国家が構築したアプリオリの上でのみ進行されており、‘小作’概念の認識論的な障壁を越えることができず、『朝鮮の小作慣行』より得られた計数化された社会関係を、むしろ主張の根拠とした点より限界が明らかであった。彼らはこの‘統計論争’を経て、革命の主体から改革の主体へ、革命家から専門家へとその主体属性が転換された。これは‘植民地アカデミズム’が構成され出現する過程として、この中で植民地の知識人たちはアカデミズムの‘検閲’を内面化し、脱革命化したのだった。 しかし彼らはこの転移した闘争の場にて暗中模索し、しつこく理論闘争を展開した。これらは「日本資本主義論争」において駆使されたマルクス主義の理論と方法論を‘専有’し、植民国家が作り出した公共統計(official statistics)を再解釈したうえで批判し、植民国家に対する‘敵対性’を復元した。「朝鮮社会性格論争」にて植民地の知識人たちは、単純に東アジアのマルクス主義の‘理論的な結論’のみを持ち込んだのではなかった。驚くべきことに彼らは、その短い時間のうちにその批判の方法、即ち‘耕作規模の零細性=小農不在論’(講座派、封建派)と‘生産性’(労農派、資本派)の基準を植民地朝鮮の状況に合わせ‘専有’して批判の文法を創出し、‘収支が合わない農家’などの新たな範疇を構成した。彼らはマルクス主義の理論を無分別に受け入れた‘一級の理論受容家’ではなく、これを徹底に内面化し専有していった者たちであった。植民国家が生産した統計の‘範疇’を批判すると同時に、その統計資料をもう一度自身たちの主張の根拠として見事に活用するその理論的‘専有’行為こそが、その証拠である。これを通じ、植民地の知識人たちは植民国家が強制した‘自作/小作の二分法的な認識体系’の虚構性を暴露することに成功した。 最後に、植民地の知識人の理論的な成就はより一層進展し、「朝鮮社会性格論争」の当事者の一人である印貞植の場合、植民地朝鮮全体の細分化された土地生産性の指標を、自身の手で作り出す段階にまでおよんでいた。印貞植はこの過程において、それ以前の‘耕作規模の零細性’の基準を廃棄し、新たに‘土地生産性’の基準を採択した。彼はこの生産性の基準を通じ、日本-朝鮮-中国を比較し、‘東洋農業’の分析において既存の歴史唯物論(‘アジア的半封建’論)を廃棄し、アジア的生産様式論(‘停滞社会論’)へと転換した。これら一連の理論的展開は、その政治的転向(1938)と合わせて起こった事件であった。即ち、知識生産様式の観点より見ると、その政治的転向は理論的転回と同時的に発生した事件であった。 印貞植は‘土地生産性’の指標を朝鮮内部に対する分析より導出したが、日中戦争が進む過程で、その比較の視線を日本-朝鮮-中国間の関係として拡張した。印貞植は、日中戦争を‘文明(日本)対停滞(中国)’の戦争と解釈し、他者に対する帝国主義の不当な暴力を幇助し、これに賛同する道へと進んだ。印貞植によって帝国主義の不当な暴力によって犠牲となった隣人の存在は無視され、その戦争は‘朝鮮’というネイション(nation)の‘発展’の契機としてのみ意味付けられた。その‘土地生産性’の指標は、この様な‘亜-帝国主義’(pseudo-imperialism)の論理を正当化する‘科学的根拠’として活用された。 しかし、この過程において印貞植は‘朝鮮’の歴史的地位を、彼が日本に適用した歴史唯物論(‘アジア的半封建’論)や、中国に適用したアジア的生産様式論(‘停滞社会論’)のうち、どちらか一方を選択し再現することができない、いわゆる‘二重束縛’(double bind)の状況に陥った。特に、印貞植に‘アジア的生産様式論’を直接紹介した京城帝国大学の教授であった森谷克己は、朝鮮がその理論の適用を受けると重ねて言及していたが、印貞植はこれに対し正確に応答することができないといった窮地に立っていた。これは彼の理論的失敗を見せてくれる証拠であり、彼がこの理論的失敗を正面より見つめることを放棄し、帝国主義の侵略の同調者になったことを根拠として、我々は彼に対し‘転向’の政治的責任を問うことができるであろう。 要するに、1930年代の植民地朝鮮の農政は、植民国家が立法、調査、統計を通じ構築した認識体系の権力効果によって急速に安定化された。植民地の知識人の談論生産も、この認識体系の影響のなかでなされた。ところで、ややアイロニカルではあるが、現在の韓国の学界での「植民地近代化論争」は、1930年代の「朝鮮社会性格論争」と資料、方法、論理の側面より極めて同型的な様相を呈している。この点は、植民国家が生産した資料によって前提とされている概念、範疇、計数化の権力効果を十分に凝視しなければ、批判的な植民地研究の道のりが遥遠たることを示唆している。 キーワード: 農政, 統計, 知識生産樣式, 知識国家, 認識体系, 認識暴力, 小作, 小作爭議, 慣習, 慣行, 民法, 朝鮮民事令, 朝鮮小作調停令, 朝鮮農地令, 社会性格論爭, 社会構成體, 朴文圭, 印貞植, 朴文秉, 梅謙次郎, 野村調太郎, 津曲藏之丞, 久間健一, 山田盛太郎, 森谷克己, Karl Wittfogel, アジア的生産樣式論, 京城帝國大學, 轉向 Interpreting the Legislation of Agricultural Policies and Statistics of Colonial Korea through Knowledge State Theory: Focusing on the Implantation and Transformation of Imperial-Colonial Knowledge System Kim, In-Soo Department of Sociology Graduate School Seoul National University This study begins with the following question: Why did agricultural politics in colonial Korea suddenly begin to stabilize in the 1930s? Radical tenancy disputes which flamed up in the 1920s began to transform into legitimate, individual, and economic ones in the 1930s. The socialist who were engaged in revolutionary movements in the 1920s had become specialists who developed “intellectual arguments based on agricultural statistics,” converting from their past attribution. How did these transformations take place? What were the political implications? There have been some attempts to unravel the peculiarity of this issue. First, those studies which placed emphases on the violence and oppression by the colonial state cannot fully explain the fact that the majority of the tenancy disputes in the 1930s were settled through legal procedures based on such laws as Korea Tenancy Regulation Law (1932, Chosunsojakjojungryoung) and Korea Farmland Law (1934, Chosunnongjiryoung). Second, those studies that argue for substantive improvement of colonial economy based on macroeconomic index fail to assess the effects on the “Korean ethnic society and economy.” Third, those researches that apply corporatism to the colonial agricultural society and focus on the leadership change and institutionalization of the struggles are faced by the counterargument that question the degree of leadership, and fall short in explaining the momentum of such institutionalization processes. This study attempts to provide an answer to the above question by analyzing the issue of “epistemological violence” that existed within the agricultural politics of colonial Korea. The research analyzes the “cognitive paradigm” reinforced on colonial Korea by the legislative process, investigations, and statistics, as well as the traces of criticism made by colonial intellectuals. This study suggests a new research methodology, namely the “mode of knowledge production” analysis. It genealogically tracks and unravels the presupposition of knowledge production, or a priori. First, each reference must be found for theory, materials, and methods that were used in the process of knowledge production, in order to discover the traces of “implantation and transformation,” or “chain and appropriation.” Then this must be followed by the understanding of political results that were generated by the sequence of intellectual practices. The findings of this study are as follows. First, the practice of agricultural policies by the colonial power in the late Chosun Dynasty began by forcibly implanting the idea of “tenancy” which was created in Japan during the Meiji period, and within this category, they engaged with the classification, investigation, and inscription of the existent Korean customs. Within this process, the idea of “tenancy” replaced traditional Chosun’s unique land lease system, “homogenizing” the land lease customs altogether. The rights of the farmers which were similar to shared ownership, even though it had been expanding in the traditional society, were rejected and deprived by the legislative and investigative practices by the colonial state. Within the framework of “tenancy” reinforced by the colonizer, these rights were degraded down to simple obligatory land-lease or long-term tenancy under the provision of the Meiji Civil Code (1898). Furthermore, as many remaining case records suggest, the legal status of leasehold rights in colonial Korea was poorly secured comparing to that of Japan. As a judicial counselor of Japanese Resident-General of Korea, Dr. Ume Kenjirō conducted investigations regarding Korea’s land customs, and he was also one of the three figures who oversaw the drafting of Meiji Civil Code. He had a legislative framework that would attempt to create colonial law based on Korea’s own customs, yet this framework was nothing but a political practice that tried to conceal the fact that these were only “selected customs” useful for the colonial practices. The analyses of The Collection of Civil Customs Inquiry for Trial (Minsagwansuphoedaphyjip, Minjikanshukaitoishu) reveal that the colonial state held trials based on the “selected customs,” and The Collection of Precedents of Japanese High Court of Korea (Chosungodungbeopwonpallerok, Chosenkotohoinhanreiroku) sheds lights on the fact that the institutionalization of Meiji Civil Code did take place in colonial Korea. The fact that these political practices were the medium for coercive implantation of the concept of “tenancy” within the colonial society was not only forgotten and concealed but it also soon became understood as self-evident and even necessary (“naturalized concept”). The political results brought by this chain of situations were rather double-sided. On the one hand, it was a process through which the traditional rights were demolished and reconstituted; yet on the other hand, this process also gave birth to modern “peasantry,” enabling the “politics of peasantry” to take place in the 1920s. At this point, the concept of “tenancy” had already been converted by the colonial agricultural policies, fixated by the epistemological barrier that would not permeate any reasonable questions. The agricultural policies of the colonial state were indeed constructed upon this “epistemological violence.” Second, the colonial state conducted an extensive investigation on tenant practices in order to deal with a variety of social issues, especially the proliferation and radicalization of tenancy disputes in the 1920s, which were rooted in the unbalanced power relationship between the empire and the colony. The result of this investigation was collected and published in The Tenant Practices of Korea (1932, Chosennokosakukankō). This publication uncovers the following: (1) The landlord-tenant relations in colonial Korea was quantified by simple statistical data (“calculability”), and the front line of social conflicts was moved from the field of struggles to a place of disputes encircled by established laws and statistics. Through this, illegal, revolutionary, and collective tenant disputes of the 1920s were transformed into legal, refined, and individual tenant disputes in the 1930s. This symbolizes the power effects of the “knowledge state” in colonial Korea. In addition, (2) it was thought that the agricultural politics in colonial Korea was crippled by the absentee landlords and tenant land custodians. They were increasingly seen as “social evil,” and the image of the colonial state changed from “sovereign enemy” to “socioeconomic mediator” who would regulate these “social evils” and settle conflicts. Lastly, (3) the colonial state increasingly reinforced systematic dichotomy between land-own and tenant farmers, and the agricultural projects, typified by the project of transforming tenant to landowner, were justified. In short, The Tenant Practices of Korea did not only reinforce the concept of “tenancy,” but it was also a priori that regulated the cognitive paradigm of the agricultural politics of colonial Korea in 1930s—in other words, it was another form of “epistemological violence.” This investigation on tenant practices significantly overlaps with the one conducted in Japan in 1921, therefore it can be argued that it was merely “replicated” in colonized Korea. However, it was unpredictable that, after the results had been made public, the people began to pinpoint the absentee landlords and tenant land custodians as “public enemy” who were the source of impoverished agricultural politics as well as production inhibition in colonial Korea. In addition, while Japan’s tenancy laws that were written based on the result of investigations in 1921 did not include any restrictive terms against tenant land custodians, Korea Farmland Law (1934), which was enacted based on the results shown in The Tenant Practices of Korea, included tight regulations on the tenant land custodians. As a result, the colonial state who had robbed national sovereignty became a regulator/mediator of social disputes on the socioeconomic level, unexpectedly escaping from direct criticisms by the colonial society. This phenomenon can be recognized as “colonial peculiarity” derived from the investigation on tenant practices in colonial Korea as well as The Tenant Practices of Korea. Third, this “naturalized concept of tenancy” as well as the power effects of The Tenant Practices of Korea strongly functioned within intellectual sphere of colonial Korea. Through “Korea social formation controversy” (Chosunsahoeseunggyuknonjaeng), socialists of colonial Korea - Park Mun Gyu, In Jeong Sik, Park Mun Byung etc. - criticized the one-sided discourse on agricultural politics of the colonial state as well as its intellectual institution. However, these criticisms only developed within a priori established by the colonial state, and were unable to overcome the epistemological barriers surrounding the concept of “tenancy”—their limitation was also clear in that their criticism was based on the social relations that were factored within The Tenant Practices of Korea. Along with the “statistics disputes,” these criticisms transformed from the agent of revolution to that of reformation, and the revolutionists became specialists. This was the process within which “colonial academism” was constructed, and within this framework, the colonial intellectuals internalized the academism’s “censorship” and de-revolutionized. And yet they continued to engage with theoretical arguments within the misguided framework of disputes. They “appropriated” the Marxist theories and methodologies used by “Japan capitalism debate,” re-interpreted and criticized the public statistics created by the colonial state, and even restored the “animosity” against the colonial state. In “Korea social formation controversy,” the colonial intellectuals did not simply bring in mere “conclusion” of East Asian Marxism. Surprisingly enough, within a short time frame, they adapted and “appropriated” the methodology of criticism, such as the “small-scaled cultivation” (kōzaha) and “productivity” (rōnōha) standards, and even constructed a new category such as “deficit farms.” They were not mere “first-class absorbers” of Marxist theories, but they comprehensively internalized and appropriated them. This is also shown by the fact that this theoretical “appropriation,” which was concurrent with their criticism against the statistical categories produced by the colonial state, also utilized the state’s statistical documents in developing their own arguments. Through this, the colonial intellectuals succeeded in uncovering the imaginariness of systematic dichotomy between land-own and tenant farmers reinforced by the colonial state. Fourth, the theoretical accomplishment of the colonial intellectuals even went further, In Jeong Sik, who was one of the central figures among Korea social formation controversy, created his own segmentalized land productivity index for the entire farmland of colonial Korea. In this process, In Jeong Sik discarded the prior small-scaled cultivation standard, and adopted land productivity standard. Using this criterion of land productivity, he compared Japan, Korea, and China, and through these analyses of “eastern agriculture,” he discarded historical materialism (or the theory of Asiatic semi-feudalism) and replaced it with the theory of Asiatic mode of production (AMP). This theoretical inversion occurred concurrently with his political conversion (1938). In Jeong Sik first developed land productivity index through domestic analyses, then, as the Sino-Japanese War began to advance, extended the comparative axis to Japan-Korea-China relations. He interpreted the Sino-Japanese war as a war between “civilization (Japan) and stagnation (China),” and went on to argue for the abetment and participation in the unjustified violence by the imperial power. In Jeong Sik simply ignored the neighbors who easily became the victim of such violence, and the war became meaningful as an opportunity for the development of the nation of “Chosun.” His land productivity index was used as “scientific evidence” that justified the logics of imperialism. Within this process of establishing historical status of colonial Korea, however, he became doubly contained between historical materialism (which he applied to Japan) and the theory of Asiatic mode of production (AMP) (which he applied to China), both of which failed to fully accomplish the task on its own. In particular, even though Kasumi Moritani, a professor at Keijō Imperial University who first introduced him the theory of AMP, had repeatedly implied that the theory applies to the case of Korea, In faced a predicament of being unable to counter this argument. This proves his theoretical failures, and for he gave up on contemplating on this failure, we can require a political responsibility of “conversion” to him. In short, the agricultural politics of colonial Korea in the 1930s was rapidly stabilized due to power effects of cognitive paradigm which was constructed by the legislative process, investigations, and statistics of the colonial state. This cognitive paradigm also affected discursive practices of the colonial intellectuals. It is ironic that the controversy over the “colonial modernization theory” that has been in existent within Korean academia for some time takes quite similar forms in documents, methods, and theories with “Korea social formation controversy” of the 1930s. This implies that the critical researches on colonialism require full consideration of the power effects of the concept, categories, and factoring process that have been the premise of those documents produced by the colonial state. Key Words: Agricultural Policy, Agricultural Politics, Statistics, Mode of Knowledge Production, Knowledge State, Knowledge Power, Cognitive Paradigm, Epistemological Violence, Tenancy, Tenancy Disputes, Customs, Practices, Civil Code, Korea Civil Affairs Ordinance (1912, Chosunminsaryoung), Korea Tenancy Regulation Law (1932, Chosunsojakjojungryoung), Korea Farmland Law (1934, Chosunnongjiryoung), Korea Social Formation Controversy (Chosunsahoeseunggyuknonjaeng), Social Formation, Park Mun Gyu, In Jeong Sik, Park Mun Byung, Ume Kenjirō, Nomura Chōtarō, Tsumagari Kuranojō, Hisama Kenichi, Yamada Moritarō, Moritani Katsumi, Karl Wittfogel, Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP), Keijō Imperial University (Keijōteikokudaigaku), Conversion 일제하 조선의 농정 입법과 통계에 대한 지식국가론적 해석 - 제국 지식체계의 이식과 변용을 중심으로 - 서울대학교 사회학과 대학원 김인수 본 연구는 “식민지 조선의 농정(農政)이 어째서 1930년대에 접어들어 급속히 안정화되었을까”라는 의문에서 출발한다. 1920년대에 들불처럼 타올랐던 급진적인 소작쟁의는 1930년대 접어들어 합법적․개별적․경제적 소작쟁의로 그 양태가 전환되었다. 1920년대에 혁명운동에 종사했던 식민지의 사회주의자들은 1930년대 중반 ‘농정통계를 근거로 한 지식논쟁’을 벌이는 전문가로 그 존재의 속성이 전환되었다. 어째서 이런 일들이 벌어진 것일까? 그 정치적 의미는 과연 무엇일까? 이 문제를 해명하려는 몇몇 시도가 있었지만 그리 성공적이지 못했다. 첫째, 식민국가의 폭력과 억압성에 주목한 연구들은 1930년대의 소작쟁의 가운데 대부분이 「조선소작조정령」(1932), 「조선농지령」(1934) 등 법적 수단에 의거하여 발생하고 해결되었다는 사실을 충분히 설명할 수 없다. 둘째, 거시경제지표를 근거로 식민지 경제의 실질적 개선을 주장하는 연구들은 그것이 ‘민족사회’에 미친 영향을 제대로 평가할 수 없다는 점에서 한계가 명백하다. 셋째, 식민지 농촌사회에 조합주의론을 적용하여 리더쉽 교체와 갈등의 제도화에 주목한 연구들은 실제로는 리더쉽이 공고하지 못했다는 반론에 직면해 있고, 어떻게 갈등이 제도화될 수 있었는지 그 모멘텀을 충분히 설명하지 못하고 있다. 본 연구는 식민지 농정에 내재된 ‘인식폭력’의 문제를 분석함으로써 이 질문에 대한 답을 제시하려는 시도이다. 본 연구는 일제하 조선에서 식민국가가 농정 입법, 조사, 그리고 통계를 통해 강제한 ‘인식체계’와 이에 대한 식민지 지식인들의 비판의 흔적을 발굴하고 분석한 결과물이다. 이 과제를 수행하기 위해 본 연구가 새롭게 제안하는 연구방법론은 ‘지식생산양식’의 분석이다. 이것은 지식생산의 전제, 즉 아프리오리(a priori)를 계보학적으로 추적하고 해체하는 것이다. 지식의 생산과정에서 활용된 이론, 자료, 방법 각각의 참조체계(references)를 찾아내고, 그 ‘이식과 변용’ 또는 ‘연쇄와 전유’의 흔적을 발굴한다. 그리고 이러한 일련의 지식실천이 낳은 정치적 결과를 확인한다. 이러한 연구를 통해 얻어낸 성과를 소개하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 구한말 식민권력에 의한 농정의 실천은 메이지기(明治期) 근대 일본에서 만들어진 ‘소작’ 개념을 강제적으로 이식하고, 이 개념의 범주에 기초하여 기존의 토지관습을 분류, 조사, 기입(inscription)하는 것에서 시작되었다. 이 과정에서 조선 전통사회의 이질적인 토지임차 관련 권리들이 ‘소작’이라는 개념으로 포착되어 ‘균질화’되었다. 전통사회에서 분할소유권의 성격을 지녔던 권리, 또는 계속 성장해오던 경작자의 권리는 식민국가의 입법과 조사의 실천에 의해 부정되고 박탈되었다. 이들 권리는 식민자(colonizer)가 강제한 ‘소작’ 개념에 의해, 단순한 채권적 토지임차나 『메이지민법』(明治民法, 1898)에서 설정한 영소작으로 약체화되었다. 나아가, 이렇게 구성된 식민지 조선에서의 토지임차권의 법적 지위는, 등기 등의 실질적 실현 사례 등에서 확인할 수 있듯이, 일본의 그것에 비해서도 매우 열악한 것이었다. 조선통감부 이래 조선의 토지관습에 관한 조사를 주관했던 이는 우메 겐지로 박사로서, 그는 『메이지민법』의 입법을 주관했던 세 명의 인물 가운데 한 사람이기도 했다. 우메는 조선의 관습에 기초하여 식민지의 법을 만든다는 입법구상을 가지고 있었지만, 이 구상은 법원(法源)이 될 관습이 실은 ‘취사선택된 관습’이라는 진실을 은폐하는 정치적 실천에 불과했다. 『民事慣習回答彙集』의 분석을 통해 식민국가가 ‘취사선택한 관습’에 따라 재판을 진행했다는 사실, 『朝鮮高等法院判例錄』의 분석을 통해 실제로는 식민지 조선에서 『메이지민법』의 관행화가 진행되었다는 사실이 밝혀졌다. 이러한 정치적 실천을 통해, ‘소작’ 개념이 식민지 사회에 강제적으로 이식되었다는 사실은 망각, 은폐되었고, ‘소작’ 개념은 자명하고 당연한 것으로 자연화되었다. 이러한 일련의 사태가 가져온 정치적 결과는 다소 양가적이었다. 한편으로 그것은 전통적 권리관계가 해체되고 재구성되는 과정이었지만, 다른 한편으로는 이 과정에서 근대적 의미의 ‘소작계급’이 탄생할 수 있었던 것이고, 1920년대 이후로 본격화된 ‘소작계급의 정치’도 가능했던 것이다. 이 단계에서 ‘소작’ 개념은 이제 식민지 농정의 아프리오리로 전환되어버렸고, 질문이 투과할 수 없는 ‘인식론적 장벽’으로 고착되었다. 식민국가의 농정은 바로 이 ‘인식폭력’ 위에서 성립될 수 있었다. 둘째, 식민국가는 제국-식민지 간의 비대칭적 권력관계에서 비롯된 여러 식민지 사회문제, 특히 1920년대의 소작쟁의의 확산과 급진화에 대처하기 위해 대대적인 소작관행조사를 실시했다. 그 성과는 『조선의 소작관행』(朝鮮の小作慣行, 1932)으로 수합되어 발간되었다. 이 보고서의 출현으로 인해, (1) 식민지 조선의 지주-소작관계는 간명한 통계수치로 계수화되었고, 사회갈등의 전선(戰線)은 현장으로부터 법의 제정과 통계를 둘러싼 논쟁의 장으로 ‘전이’되었다. 이로 인해, 1920년대의 비합법적, 혁명적, 집단적 소작쟁의는 1930년대에 합법적, 개량적, 개별적 소작쟁의로 전환되었다. 이것은 식민지 조선에서 ‘지식국가’의 권력효과가 작동하고 있음을 보여주는 징후이다. 또, (2) ‘부재지주’와 ‘소작지관리인’이 식민지 농정파행의 주범(主犯)으로 범주화되었다. 이들 집단은 ‘사회악’으로 초점화되었고, 식민국가의 이미지는 주권 차원의 적(敵)에서, 이들 ‘사회악’을 규제하고 갈등을 조정하는 사회경제적 차원의 조정자로 전환되었다. 마지막으로 (3) 식민국가의 ‘자작/소작 이분법 인식체계’가 한층 공고화되었고, 자작농창정사업으로 대표되는 농정사업이 정당화되었다. 요컨대, 『조선의 소작관행』은, ‘소작’ 개념에 이어, 1930년대 식민지 농정의 인식체계를 규정한 또 하나의 아프리오리이자 ‘인식폭력’이었다. 이 소작관행조사는 1921년 일본에서 시행된 소작관행조사와 조사항목, 질문사항, 정리항목 등 많은 부분이 일치하고, 따라서 언뜻 보면 식민지에서의 그 ‘반복’에 불과한 것으로 평가될 수도 있을 것이다. 그러나, 조사결과가 공개된 이후 식민지의 ‘민족언론’에 의해 부재지주와 소작지관리인이 식민지 농정피폐와 생산력 저해의 직접적인 원인이자 ‘공공의 적’으로 지목되는 사태는 예견할 수 없었던 새로운 사태였다. 또, 1921년 일본의 소작관행조사의 결과에 기초하여 입안된 일본의 소작법안에서 소작지관리인에 대한 규제조항이 전혀 없었던 것과는 달리, 『조선의 소작관행』을 기초로 제정된 「조선농지령」(1934)에서는 소작지관리인에 대한 강력한 규제조항이 마련되어 있었다. 결과적으로, 식민국가는 민족 주권을 탈취해간 적(敵)의 자리에서 사회경제적 차원의 규제자․조정자의 자리로 옮겨갔던 것이고, 식민지 사회로부터의 직접적인 비난의 표적에서 벗어나는 예상외의 결과가 발생했던 것이다. 이것은 조선소작관행조사와 『조선의 소작관행』이 지닌 식민지적 ‘특수성’으로 평가할 수 있다. 셋째, 이렇게 ‘자연화된 소작 개념’과 『조선의 소작관행』의 권력효과는 식민지 지식장(場)에서 강력하게 작동했다. 식민지 조선의 사회주의자들은 「조선사회성격논쟁」을 통해, 식민국가와 그 지식기구가 구축한 일방적 농정담론을 비판했다. 단, 이들의 비판작업은 식민국가가 구축한 아프리오리 위에서만 진행될 수 있었던 것으로, ‘소작’ 개념의 인식론적 장벽을 넘어서지 못했고 『조선의 소작관행』에서 얻어진 계수화된 사회관계를 오히려 주장의 근거로 삼았다는 점에서 한계가 명확했다. 이들은 이 ‘통계논쟁’을 거치면서 혁명의 주체에서 개혁의 주체로, 혁명가에서 전문가로 주체속성이 전환되었다. 이것은 ‘식민지 아카데미즘’이 구성되어 출현하는 과정으로, 이 속에서 식민지 지식인들은 아카데미즘의 ‘검열’을 내면화하여 탈혁명화했다. 그러나, 이들은 이 전이된 투쟁의 장에서 암중모색하며 끈질기게 이론투쟁을 벌였다. 이들은 「일본자본주의논쟁」에서 구사된 마르크스주의의 이론과 방법론을 ‘전유’하여, 식민국가가 만들어낸 공공통계를 재해석하고 비판했으며, 식민국가에 대한 ‘적대성’(敵對性)을 복원해냈다. 「조선사회성격논쟁」에서 식민지 지식인들은 단순히 동아시아 마르크스주의의 ‘결론’만 취해온 것은 아니었다. 놀랍게도 그들은, 그 짧은 시간에 그 비판의 방법, 즉 ‘경작규모의 영세성’(강좌파, 봉건파)과 ‘생산성’(노농파, 자본파)의 기준을 식민지 조선의 상황에 맞게 ‘전유’하여 비판의 문법을 창출했고, ‘수지가 맞지 않는 농가’ 등 새로운 범주도 구성하였다. 그들은 마르크스주의의 이론을 무분별하게 받아들인 ‘일급 이론수용가’가 아니라, 이를 철저히 내면화하고 전유해간 이들인 것이다. 식민국가가 생산한 통계의 ‘범주’를 비판하는 동시에, 그 통계자료를 다시 자신들의 주장의 근거로서 능숙하게 활용하는 그 이론적 ‘전유’ 행위는 이를 보여주는 증거였다. 이를 통해, 식민지 지식인들은 식민국가가 강제한 ‘자작/소작 이분법 인식체계’의 허구성을 폭로하는 데에 성공했다. 넷째, 식민지 지식인의 이론적 성취는 한층 더 진전되어, 「조선사회성격논쟁」의 당사자 가운데 한 명인 인정식의 경우, 식민지 조선 전체의 세분화된 토지생산성 지표를 그 자신의 손으로 만들어내는 단계에까지 이르렀다. 이 과정에서 인정식은 이전의 ‘경작규모의 영세성’의 기준을 버리고 ‘토지생산성’의 기준을 채택했다. 그는 이 생산성의 기준을 통해 일본-조선-중국을 비교했고, ‘동양농업’의 분석에서 기존의 역사유물론(‘아시아적 반봉건’론)을 폐기하고 아시아적 생산양식론(‘정체사회론’)으로 전환했다. 이 일련의 이론적 전회는 그의 정치적 전향(1938)과 맞물려 벌어진 사건이었다. 다시 말해, 지식생산양식의 관점에서 볼 때, 그의 정치적 전향은 이론적 전회와 동시적으로 발생한 사건이었다. 인정식은 ‘토지생산성’ 지표를 조선 내부에 대한 분석에서 도출했지만, 중일전쟁의 진행 속에서 그 비교의 시선을 일본-조선-중국 간의 관계로까지 확장했다. 인정식은 중일전쟁을 ‘문명(일본) 對 정체(중국)’의 전쟁으로 해석했고, 타자에 대한 제국주의의 부당한 폭력을 방조하고 이에 동참하는 길로 나아갔다. 인정식에게, 제국주의의 부당한 폭력에 희생당하는 이웃의 존재는 간단히 외면되었고, 그 전쟁은 ‘조선’이라는 네이션(nation)의 ‘발전’의 계기로서만 의미화되었다. 그의 ‘토지생산성’ 지표는 이러한 ‘아(亞)제국주의’의 논리를 정당화하는 ‘과학적 근거’로서 활용되었다. 그러나, 이 과정에서 인정식은 ‘조선’의 역사적 지위를, 그가 일본에 적용한 역사유물론(‘아시아적 半봉건’론)이나, 중국에 적용한 아시아적 생산양식론(‘정체사회론’) 가운데 어느 하나를 선택하여 온전히 재현해낼 수 없는, 이른바 ‘이중속박’의 상황에 빠졌다. 특히, 인정식에게 ‘아시아적 생산양식론’을 직접 소개했던 경성제국대학 교수 모리타니 가쓰미는 조선이 그 이론의 적용을 받는다고 여러 차례 언급했는데, 인정식은 이에 대해 정확히 대답할 수 없는 궁지에 처해 있었다. 이것은 그의 이론적 실패를 보여주는 증거이며, 그가 이 실패를 정면에서 응시하기를 포기하고 제국주의 침략의 동조자가 되었다는 점을 근거로, 우리는 그에게 ‘전향’의 정치적 책임을 물을 수 있을 것이다. 요컨대, 1930년대의 식민지 조선의 농정은 식민국가가 입법, 조사, 통계를 통해 구축한 인식체계의 권력효과에 의해 급속히 안정화되었다. 식민지 지식인의 담론생산도 이 인식체계의 영향 속에서 이루어졌다. 그런데 조금 아이러니컬한 이야기이지만, 현재 한국학계의 「식민지근대화론 논쟁」은 1930년대의 「조선사회성격논쟁」과 자료, 방법, 논리의 측면에서 매우 동형적인 모습을 보이고 있다. 이 점은 식민국가가 생산해낸 자료에 전제되어 있는 개념, 범주, 계수화의 권력효과를 충분히 응시하지 않는다면 비판적인 식민지 연구의 길은 요원한 것임을 시사한다.

사회혁명과 사회구성체 이행 : 프랑스혁명과 러시아혁명을 중심으로

김세련 漢陽大學校 1988 국내석사

低開發社會構成體論 硏究

박경 忠南大學校 大學院 1983 국내석사

In the period since the end of the Second World War, development has become a slogan of global aspiration and effort. And there have emerged new theories of development to overcome the limits of existing theories since sixties. Latin American theories of dependency particularly have gained a specific focus as viable theoretical alternative to the Eurocentric development theories. But in spite of many contributions, this theory have been crucially criticized for the exchange oriented vision and the vagueness of many of its central concepts, then it is not conceived as the alternative. Given that situation, this study has a two fold objective; the first is to systematically examine the existing representative theories of socio-economic development, posing questions to their basic problematic which determines the forms of posing of all problems and theoretical structure of concepts, and to try to find the effective problematic of theory of Third World formations. Based on this problematic, the second is to attempt to synthesize the merits of theories and to provide general guidelines for the development of new theoretical framework. The investigation of the classical theory of imperialism, the theories dependency and the theory of colonial mode of production make us to conceive the followings. (1) The classical Marxian theory of imperialism is Eurocentric; i.e. it is concerned with analysing the characteristic stage of capitalism which resulted in imperialism, while the imperialized countries are of little concern and little attempt is made to analyse the dynamics of their situation. (2) The Theory of dependency is crucial to us for two major reasons; first it provides the definitive dissection of mainstream studies in the theory of growth and also emphasizes that the classical theory of imperialism is Eurocentric. Secondly it provides the outlines of an alternative and suggestive theoretical perspective such as the subordination by World capitalism system and development of underdevelopment. But this theory is based not only the exchange-oriented vision and the vagueness of its concepts, also the teleological and reduc-tionist problematic, therefore it precludes approaching fundamental problems in the analysis of the structure and historical development of underdevelopment societies. (3) The theory of colonial mode of production has limits like the dependency theory while this theory can demonstrate the fact that in the colonies the relations of exploitation are hierachically unified. (4) These theories have been based on the assumption that in the era of capitalist impact, its law everywhere takes place according to a single, invariant mode and then the effect of the emergence of capitalism as dominant mode of production is necessary and rapid disintegration of noncapitalist productive relations. But in Third World the fact that noncapitalist productive relations have not disappeared has been proved by historical concrete phenomena, and rather these relations have existed and articulated with a capitalist mode of production. By utilising recent advances made in the theory of modes of production, the theory of articulation of modes of production analyzes Third World societies as particular combination of different modes of production, which establish a basis for forms of class structure and political representation that are specific to these societies. This theory is able to establish itself as more effective theoretical alternative then the theory of dependency. Unlike the latter, this theory is also able to place itself in classical theory, particularly in historical materialism. Needless to say this theory is not without its limits, some of them are concerned about the level of abstraction and the relative ignorance of the vertical relation of social formations in world capitalist system. But this theoretical limits may not undermined this problematic, only indicate the orientation for theoretical development. It seems that the theory of imperialism and the world system approach would complement this theory. Through this study, it is attempted to constructed general guidelines for the framework of analysis of Third World social formations. The principal emphasis here is on the notion of articulation between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production. This gives attention to the mechanism of articulation and the process by which non-capitalist modes of production become transformed by capitalist expansion. But in this study the mechanism and process of articulation is not considered in the cancrete. Therefore more concrete studies are needed to develop this perspective in the future.

한국 사회구성체의 성격과 교육구조론

정영애 숙명여자대학교 1990 국내박사

The dissertation aims at clarifying the nature and the structure of Korean education to grasp the essence of educational problems and the entity of its crises. The nature of education needs to be analyzed in historicity and totality of the Korean society in which education is located. This means that the logic of dynamics and the laws of development of education are to be revealed in Korean social formation. Differing from most studies hitherto done on the basis of the metaphysical cognitive method, this study grasps the total structure of the education by applying the dialectical cognitive method. The study is significant in its approach to the essence of educational problems and crises overcoming the pitfalls of decontextual and ahistorical nature of the previous studies. This study sets up a framework of investigation focusing on the principal concepts ; the basis and the state as superstructure in Korean social formation, deunification, and education. The research questions are as follows. ① What is the nature of Korean social formation and the structure of its contradictions? ② What is the essence of the state power corresponding to the basis of Korean social formation? And also what is the character of governing type of the state power? ③ Where is schooling located in Korean social formation, and what is the role of schooling? ④ What are the contradictions of Korean education? And how are they interwoven structurally? ⑤ How does the state power affect the structure of contradictions in education? And what is the essence of the state control on education? ⑥ What are the tasks of educational reform? And how are the chains of its reform structurally interrelated? The results show that the nature of the basis of Korean social formation characterizes the neo-colonial state monopoly capitalism which represents 'the strengthening of monopoly' and 'the deepening of dependency'. The essence of the state power corresponding to this basis is characterized as the neo-colonial fascism. Accordingly, Korean social formation includes three different contradictions ; ① the class contradiction as a basic contradiction, ② the nation contradiction as a principal contradiction, and ③ the deunification contradiction which are duplicated by the class contradiction and the nation contradiction. And these contradictions are reflected and reproduced in schooling as an ideological state apparatus in the intermediation of the state power. First, as basic contradiction the class contradiction in education is manifested in ① the function of the class structuralization of education, ② the inequality in education, ③ the ideology of concealing the class contradiction. Second, the nation contradiction in education was internalized as dependency structure upon America in a series of ① the adoption of the 'Hong-ik-in-kan' as universal ideology, ② the imitation of the American school system, ③ the adoption of the progressive educational principles by influential groups in educational reforms since American Military Administration, and ④ the deepening of the dependency upon America through educational aids. Third, the deunification contradiction in education is shown by ① the strengthening of anti-communism ideology in education and ② the functions of concealing and strengthening the contradiction between peoples and dictatorial regime, the contradiction between peoples and monopoly capital, inter-national contradiction, and intra-national contradiction. The contradictions in education as these are concealed and reproduced by the state controls on education. So the state controls on education are strengthened in the period of the deepening of education contradictions. It is by this reason that the state controls on education about the time of 1970 were strengthened. The essence of the state controls on education is the neo-colonial fascist state power in correspondence to the neo-colonial state monopoly capitalism. The emphases on statism in the ideology and the content of education, the state controls on the text, the entrance examination system, and the teachers are the concrete evidence of the neo-colonial fascist governing type on education. The conclusions of this study are as follows. First, the Korean education has the structures founded on the nature of capitalism derived from the neo-colonial state monopoly capitalism of Korean social formation, retaining the nature of the neo-colonialism and of the deunification. Second, these natures of the Korean education are reflected on the class contradiction as a basic contradiction, the nation contradiction as a principal contradiction and the deunification contradiction duplicated by the class contradiction and the nation contradiction. Third, the mechanism transforming the nature of the neo-colonial state monopoly capitalism into the education contradictions is the governing type of the neo-colonial fascist state. The concrete forms of the neo-colonial fascism concealing, strengthening and reproducing the education contradictions are the stress of statism in education, the text control, the entrance examination control and the control on the teachers. Fourth, the essence of Korean educational problems entangled intricately is rooted in the contradictions stemming from the nature of the basis of Korean social formation. Fifth, the essence of educational crises stressed in the discussion about educational reforms is the ideological crises derived from the deepening of contradictions in education and the present social formation. So far educational reforms have been used to administrate the crises of social formation, and to realize the requirement of state-initiated educational rearrangement for the neo-colonial state monopoly capitalism. Sixth, it seems that the intensity of state control on education is determined by the degree of the deepening of contradiction and the intensity of protest against it. From the viewpoint of the nature of Korean social formation it is expected that publically outspoken dictatorial system than the ameliorative probably goes on for a while. Seventh, the task of educational reforms in Korea is to be freed from the repressive state control on education. Then, the class contradiction, the nation contradiction and the deunification contradiction are to be resolved in that order. This means that the democratization in education is the primary task. And the main axis of that reform is the teachers who are Trager of ruling ideology and the linking chain of contradictions in education.

한국사회의 사회구성체 논쟁에 관한 비판적 분석 : 민족문제를 중심으로 한 이론적 고찰

한인 서강대학교 대학원 정치외교학과 1987 국내석사

제3세계 社會構成體論에 關한 硏究 : 生産樣式 接合論에 對한 批判的 視角에서

곽영조 啓明大學校 1986 국내석사

第三世界 社會構成體 分析에 關한 一考察

유문무 高麗大學校 1986 국내석사

生産樣式과 社會構成體 論爭에 關한 一考察 : 低開發 經濟分析을 위한 一試論

김윤자 서울大學校 大學院 1983 국내석사

資本主義 社會構成體의 國家類型理論의 政治體制論的 一硏究 : 풀란차스의 資本主義 國家類型命題를 중심으로

하봉규 西江大學校 1986 국내석사