전전 일본의 ‘초근대주의’의 도전

노병호(Row Byoung Ho) 한국동양정치사상사학회 2010 한국동양정치사상사연구 Vol.9 No.2

본고는 미키 키요시, ‘세계사적 입장과 일본’, ‘근대의 초극론’으로 이어지는 일련의 전전‘근대’ 및 ‘초근대’에 관한 언설을 검토함으로써, 당시의 시국에 있어서 ‘근대’ 및 ‘초근대’가 갖는 사상적인 함의를 도출하려는 시도이다. 또한 미키와 교토학파에 공통적으로 전제되고 있는 니시다 키타로의 위상을 확인해 본 후, 이러한 일련의 ‘초근대주의’의 현재에 있어서의 부활이 갖는 학문적ㆍ정치적 의의를 고찰하려고 한다. 결론적으로 미노다 무네키등의 일본주의자에 의한 미키 및 교토학파에 대한 비판, 그리고 학문적 자유의 억압을 인정할 수 있을 지라도, 미키와 교토학파를 중심으로 한‘초근대주의’의 사상이 동아시아 각국의 자립, 근대적인 주체의 각성과 책임이라는 문제로 연결되었다고 해석하기는 힘들 것 같다. 그들의 사상에서 여전히 주목해야 할 점은 ‘내셔널리즘’이 아닐까 한다. ‘근대’의 상대화를 위해 노력했다는 점을 인정한다고 하더라도, 미키의 죽음의 의미를 다시 생각해보아야 함에도 불구하고, 그들의 사상이 일본의 내셔널리즘이라는 틀을 벗어났다고는 생각되지 않는다. 이러한 측면에서 최근 본격화되고 있는 교토학파의 복권과 부활의 움직임은 시사하는 바가 크다. 즉, 전전의 문제가 아닌 현재의 정치적ㆍ학문적인 문제라고 할 수 있다. This paper is an attempt to examine Miki Kiyoshi, ‘World History and Japan’, and ‘Kindai no Choukoku’ as ‘Modern’ and ‘Choukindaisyugi’ in prewar Japan. So to speak, I investigated an implicature of Modern and Choukindai in political situation of those days. In conclusion, I think that we have to recognize criticism to Miki & the Kyoto School, and suppression of academic freedom by Minoda Muneki, and so on. But at the Same time it seems to me that it is difficult to interpret that Miki and the Kyoto School’s Chokindaisyugi are connected with East Asia’s independence or modern subject’s awakening and responsibility. Still, we must notice their nationalism. They did not free themselves from nationlism. In relation to these, we should keep eyes on the current trends of Chokindaisyugi’s reinstatement, including the Kyoto School. These are not only prewar matters, but also political, academic, and existential ones of today.

"동아"를 호출하는 세 가지 경로 -중,일전쟁기 쇼와연구회의 "동아협동체"론을 중심으로-

손애리 ( Ae Lee Sohn ) 한양대학교 동아시아문화연구소(구 한양대학교 한국학연구소) 2012 동아시아 문화연구 Vol.52 No.-

본고는 중일전쟁기 제기된 ``동아신질서``론의 한 갈래인 쇼와연구회의 ``동아협동체``론을 검토한다. 동아협동체론이 전쟁의 교착상태를 타개하고 중국 민족주의에 대응하기 위해 고안된 ``회유책``이었다는 한계를 명확히 인식하면서도, 동아협동체론이 상정한 ``동아``라는 지역적 개념에 주목하여 동아협동체론을 학문적 연구의 대상으로 재발견하고자 한다. 구체적으로는 동아협동체를 정당화하고 실현하기 위해 당시 논자들이 전제로 삼은 ``동아``에 대한 관념을 다양한 경로를 통해 설명하는 것이 연구의 주요 목표이다. 이를 위해 당시 동아협동체론의 대표적 논객이자 학자였던 미키 키요시와 로야마 마사미치, 카다 테츠지를 검토의 대상으로 삼았다. 이들 논의에서 ``동아협동체``는 도달해야 할 목표로 나타나기도 했고 현실의 필연적 추세로 제시되기도 했는데, 이 과정에서 ``동아``의 정체성을 구성하는 요소들이 경쟁적으로 제시되고 창안되었다. 동양의 전통문화, 지역적 운명공동체 의식, 경제적 협동 등이 그 사례이다. 이들 요소는 일반적으로 공유되었지만 논자에 따라서 특정요소가 더 강조되거나 간과되면서 동아협동체론의 차이로 이어졌음을 확인할 수 있었다. 이상의 연구는 동아협동체론에 대한 시론적 연구임에도 불구하고, 현재의 동아시아공동체를 둘러싼 다양한 층위의 담론들 곧 동아시아의 문화적 정체성, (경제)협력의 범위와 수준, 공동체의 성원과 비성원의 경계 등과 관련해 시사점을 줄 것으로 기대된다. This paper examines the theory of the ``East Asian Cooperative Community`` proposed by the Showa Research Association during the Sino-Japanese War(1937~1941). I shall first consider the EACC as a transnational movement of regionalism transcending individual nations and countries, and then analyse its conception in the political, economic and cultural spheres. Although the EACC was formed in order to co-opt chinese nationalists, it is worth considering that it was drawn up on the broad foundation of the pan-Asianism of the 1920~1930s. Concretely focusing on Miki Kiyoshi(三木淸, 1897~1945), Royama Masamichi(蠟山政道, 1895~1980)(蠟山政道, 1895~1980), Kada Tetsuji(加田哲二, 1895~1964), I reread the works of these scholars and compare one with another. In their arguments they each presented the EACC as a goal to attain or as an inevitable tendency of the times. I take note of the fact that the identity of East Asia(東亞)-such as Asian traditional cultures, regional community of destiny and economic cooperation-was invented and composed in this process. These elements were shared by all of them, but their theories differed depending on which element they gave the most weight. This work will help us understand how social scientists of those days identified East Asia or the Orient. In particular, this study will have significant implications for current discussions of East Asian Community, including issues of East Asian cultural identity, the scope and level of economic cooperation, and the boundary of community membership.

战前日本的 “东亚协同体论” 中的中国传统思想

邵建? 고려대학교 한자한문연구소 2010 동아한학연구 Vol.- No.6

이호철의 「우국회사」에 나타난 우국 놀이에 대한 연구

조현일 현대문학이론학회 2023 現代文學理論硏究 Vol.- No.93

This study examines the artistic world of Lee Ho-cheol’s novel, “Ugukhoesa (Patriot Company)” (1967), focusing on patriotism play. In Chapter 2, the generational dimension of “Ugukhoesa” was identified. “Ugukhoesa” criticizes the old generation’s reality-compromising, militaristic inner side through journalist Sohn Sang-mun, history professor Kim Wal-jin, and Jeong Hyong-un, who creates a ‘patriotism loyalty professional association’. In Chapter 3, this study looked at the point that the ‘patriotism loyalty professional association’ satirized the ‘reconstruction’ (national reconstruction movement). Superficially, the patriotism loyalty professional association is an organization that aims at a national moral movement. It satirizes the militaristic national reconstruction movement including trainees in green uniforms, morning meeting instruction every morning, plancards saying ‘Let’s all gather in the great line of patriotism, patriotism, patriotism!’, and Jeong Hyong-un’s speeches and military songs, etc. Chapter 4 clarified that the real reason why Jeong Hyong-un created the patriotism loyalty professional association was to play patriotism play. Jeong Hyong-un plays to imitate Ahn Jung-geun representing the historical patriots and Ham Seok-heon representing the contemporary patriots. In the 1960s, not only the forces of the 5-16 coup, but also Ham Seok-heon, who resisted it, called for a national movement and advocated “patriotism,” a time when it was sacred. Ham Seok-heon as well as coup forces could not be free from secularization work as a form of political oppression. Lee Ho-cheol fully demonstrates the lightness and liberation of an artist who plays through “Patriot Company”. And it carries out the political work of profanating the political theology that dominated the 1960s through Jeong Hyong-un’s patriot play, or the sanctified politics.

1930년대 비평장(場)과 휴머니즘 - 김오성의 네오휴머니즘론을 중심으로

고봉준 한국문학이론과비평학회 2008 한국문학이론과 비평 Vol.40 No.-

Kim O-seong's neo-humanism theory of the 1930s started from the criticism against modern logo-centrism, rationalism and individualism. His humanism gives importance on action - oriented humanism and activism, and carries and character like a cultural and ideological alternative. However, what he pointed out as the crisis of the times was neither the Japanese invasion of the continent nor the reality of the colonized 'chosun'. In this period of time, he was just explaining the reality of 'chosun' by the turn over of the world history, that is, in the category of the 'world.' He thought that the speculative and ideological nature of the modern philosophy restrained the active nature of the subject of human beings and brought about the result of subordinating human being the reason and rules. Therefore, analternative ideology for him to overcome the crisis of the modern times was nothing but acritical deconstruction of the ideological nature of the modern times, which was in sum 'philosophical humanism.' By doing so, he aimed to overcome objectivism and subjectivism at the same time, and this was later revealed in the logic of dialectic, such as aunity of sensitivity and intellect and aunity of subjectivity and objectivity. Kim O-seong raised a question about the logo-centrism of the modern times that focused on rationality. His solution to this question, however, was not an opposition to logo-centrism but a common sense to pursue harmony between rationality and sensitivity, and intellect and emotion. He was calling for the unity and harmony of the things that are either separated or confronted, and it was repeating the philosophy of Kiyoshi Miki, who saw history as a unity between things that are logos and pathos. On the other hand, neo-humanism of Kim O-seong comprehends 'activism' and 'behaviorism,' which were presented in the Japanese realm of ideas in the concept of humanism. His critical writings that were presented at this point of time under the theme of neo-humanism commonly shared the scheme of 'subjectivity=activeness=practice,' and emphasized the 'reconstruction of intellect.' Ultimately, his writings were presenting an ideology that the crisis of the modern times can be overcome by reconstructing the modern subjectivity that faced the crisis of 'reconstruction of intellect.' He believed that neo-humanism is a new direction to overcome the confusion of modern culture, but, unfortunately, it was closer to logic of imperialist empire, which could not be wholly applied to the reality of a colony.