동아시아론의 재검토와 정전연구

허정 동북아시아문화학회 2010 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.23

This study analyzed ‘East Asian Discourse’. And this study tried to make the result as Methodology of Canon Study. Since 1990 years, ‘East Asian Discourse’ had been spread vigorously in the South Korea and China and Japan. Various attempts that was discussed in ‘East Asian Discourse’ are related with problem about ‘Center and Margin’. And, Various attempts that was discussed in ‘East Asian Discourse’ are related with problem that do ‘How will we think margin department’. And, Various attempts that was discussed in ‘East Asian Discourse’ are related with problem that do ‘How will we dissolve Eurocentrism’. Important thing is that this attempts are not different from viewpoint of Canon Study. That is, ‘a Study of Canon’ must study (centrism of canon) it critically. And ‘a Study of Canon’ must dig margin department's works newly. And ‘a Study of Canon’ must dissolve Eurocentrism of canon. So, ‘East Asian Discourse’ and ‘a Study of Canon' are sharing same viewpoint. Specially, ‘East Asian Discourse’ gives much reference standpoints about part that was unexhausted in ‘a Study of Canon’. In ‘a Study of Canon’ field, discussion that ‘How will we change system of power failure?’ is lacking. By the way, discussion that ‘How will we change system of power failure?' consisted vigorously in ‘East Asian Discourse’. So, if we expropriate ‘East Asian Discourse’ as methodology of Canon Study, discussion of canon's study may become rich so much. At this point justly, ‘East Asian Discourse’ and ‘a Study of Canon' may combine creatively. This study analyzed ‘East Asian Discourse’ variously in these intention. And, this study wished to accommodate the result, as methodology of Canon Study.

한국 종교학계에서의 동아시아 연구 및 학술교류

류성민(Sung Min Ryu) 한국종교학회 2013 宗敎硏究 Vol.71 No.-

This essay deals with the tendency of the study of East Asian religions in Korea, and the current situation of academic exchanges of East Asian Scholars in religious studies. The purpose of it is groping to establish ‘East Asian Religious Studies` by East Asian Scholar’ communal efforts. I reviewed 7 academic unit and their journals such as Religion and Culture of Center for Religious Studies(Seoul National University), Journal of Korean Religions of Institute for the Study of Religion (Sogang University), Journal of Religion and Culture of Center for Religious and Cultural Studies(Hanshin University), The Critical Review of Religion and Culture(The Korean Institute for Religion and Culture), Korean Journal of Religious Studies(Korean Association for Religious Studies), and Journal of New Religions(Korean Association for the New Religions). There are several characteristics of the study of East Asian religions of Korean Scholars that I found out in journals mentioned above. First of all, Korean Scholars of religious studies have been centered upon the study of religions in China and Japan. And their studies were different in the time of religions they study each country, that is their studies were mainly concentrated upon the archaic religions of China and the modern Japanese religions. Secondly, it was very intermittent and indeterminate that Korean academic circle have exchanged with East Asian scholars in last three decades. I were not able to find any trend or tendency in academic interchange among them. And it is another considerable fact that papers of a few scholars are a lot, but a great number of scholars contributed one or two articles. I suggested some roles and overtures for ‘East Asian Religious Studies’ on the bases of my findings in review of journals such as a communal invitation of East Asian scholars of academic units in religious studies of Korea, the establishment of East Asian Association for Religious Studies, the joint research among East Asian scholars, the translation of papers other languages of East Asian countries, and etc.

라이샤워(Edwin O. Reischauer), 동아시아, ‘권력/지식’의 테크놀로지-전후 미국의 지역연구와 한국학의 배치-

장세진 상허학회 2012 상허학보 Vol.36 No.-

The purpose of this study is to explain the process of development for Korean Studies in the U.S. and its characteristics after World War II (WWII). Korean Studies in the U.S. must be described within the scheme of East Asian Studies, although East Asian Studies had been based on Orientalism before the war while keeping the principle of global narration of the Cold War. The narration of colonialism and the Cold War in East Asian Studies has its basis in the “U.S.-Japan Transpacific Complicity” after WWII. I focused on the studies done by Edwin O. Reischauer, a professor of Japanese and East Asian history and culture who laid the groundwork for Korean Studies at Harvard University. I analyzed the entire portion on Korean history in East Asia: The Great Tradition (1960) and East Asia: The Great Transformation (1965), which he and his colleagues wrote. My analysis shows that in his approach to East Asian Studies after WWII, he adopts the Japanese Studies perspective. East Asian Studies was established based on the question of how Japan became the only Asian country to succeed in modernization, and East Asia answers that question. According to the study, Japanese history achieved gradual yet accelerated separation from Chinese influence, making Japan the only Asian country to do so. From the beginning, its history has had to be explained in terms of sharp contrasts between the failed systems of communism in modern China and the success of modern Japan. In East Asia, Korea is explained as a ‘variation of China.’ It is a noteworthy that Korean history in East Asia is covered extensively in the History of Chosun (朝鮮史, 1951) by Hatada Dakashi , a Japanese historian who was born in Masan, Korea, during the colonial period. Hatada’s work is a great effort to reflect on Japanese colonialism after losing WWII. However it stressed that there was historic ‘progress,’ citing the ancient Japanese rule in Korea(ImnaGara theory) and the partisan characteristics of the Yi Dynasty. The transpacific U.S.-Japanese net twork symbolized by Reischauer-Hatada is not only a reciprocal reference, but also a human network formation which includes Edward Wagner, Dakahashi Tohoru and LeeByung-do. In short, with the History of Chosun as a mediator, the overall reasoning paradigm of the Japanese-Asian-historian group before the war and the discourses on Korea within the group made a soft-landing on East Asian/Korean academic studies across the Pacific Ocean in the U.S after the war. 이 논문은 전후 미국에서 한국학이 제도적으로 성립되어 가는 과정을 기술하고 그 핵심적인 특징들을 밝히고자 했다. 미국 내 한국학은 상위 범주인 동아시아학과의 관련 속에서 설명되어야 하는데, 동아시아학은 전후의 전지구적 냉전 서사를 기본 원리로 하면서도 전전의 오리엔탈리즘이라는 부(負)의 유산을 많은 부분 간직한 채 시작되었다. 식민주의와 냉전 서사의 결합을 단적으로 확인할 수 있는 대목은 전후 동아시아학이 “미-일의 트랜스퍼시픽한 공범성”을 토대로 성립되었다는 사실이다. 이 논문에서는 하버드 대학 동아시아학과 일본사 교수이자 하버드 내 한국학 과정의 제도적 기틀을 마련했던 에드윈 라이샤워에 주목하고, 그가 동아시아학과 동료들과 함께 주도적으로 집필한 동양사 교재 『동양문화사』의 한국 편을 전체 서사와의 관련 속에서 분석하였다. 분석 결과 드러난 것은 전후 동아시아학이 특히 일본학을 서사의 구심점으로 삼고 있었다는 점이다. 동아시아학은 “아시아 국가 중에서 일본은 왜, 그리고 어떻게 유일하게 근대화에 성공했는가”라는 질문 위에 성립되었고, 『동양문화사』라는 바로 이 질문에 답하는 형식이었다. 이 서사에 따르면, 일본의 역사는 간략히 말해 중국형으로부터의 점진적이고도 가속적인 분리를 밟아 온, 매우 성공적이면서도 아시아 국가로서는 유일무이한, 마치 기적과도 같은 예외적 유형이었다. 공산화된 현대 중국의 실패와 일본의 성공은 이처럼 애초부터 날카로운 대조의 틀로 설명되어야 하는 서사 구도 속에 설정되었다. 이때, 『동양문화사』에서 한국(학)이 차지하는 위상은 ‘중국의 변이형’으로 설정되었는데, 특히, 주목할 것은 『동양문화사』 안의 한국 편이 식민지 마산에서 출생한 일본인 사학자 하타다 다카시[旗田巍]의 문제작 『朝鮮史』(1951)의 대대적인 참조 위에 덧쓰였다는 점이다. 하타다의 작업은 패전 이후 일본의 식민주의를 반성하려는 기획 위에서 생산된 반성적인 텍스트이기도 하지만, 한편으로 임나가라론으로 대표되는 고대 일본의 한반도 지배설, 이조 왕조의 당파성 등등을 전전 사학의 ‘성과’라는 입장에서 강조하고 있다. 라이샤워-하타다로 상징되는 트랜스퍼시픽한 미-일 네트워크는 단지 텍스트 상의 상호참조에만 그치는 것이 아니라 에드워드 와그너, 다카하시 도오루, 이병도와 같은 인적 네트워크를 형성하기도 한다. 요컨대, 하타다의 『조선사』를 매개로 전전 일본 동양사학자 그룹의 전반적인 사유 패러다임과 그 안에서 개진된 한국에 관한 통시적 담론들이 전후 태평양을 가로질러 미국의 동아시아 / 한국학의 학적 체계 안으로 연착륙하게 된다.

빅 데이터와 디지털 동아시아학의 가능성 ― `동아시아 지식과 지식인 지도`를 중심으로

진재교 ( Jin Jae-kyo ) 성균관대학교 대동문화연구원 2017 大東文化硏究 Vol.98 No.-

디지털 동아시아학의 추구는 기왕의 학문 단위를 대체하여 새로운 학문 단위를 주장하는 데 방향성을 둔 것은 아니다. 이는 디지털을 산업화나 경제논리로 접근하기보다 “디지털”이라는 새로운 도구를 활용하여 인문학 내지 동아시학의 연구방법론의 창신과 새로운 지평의 모색이다. 빅 데이터와 디지털을 활용하여 지식의 생산과 유통이 지니는 역사적 맥락을 더욱 심도 있게 탐구하는 데 있다. 이 점에서 동아시아 지식과 지식인 지도는 빅 데이터와 디지털 기술을 접속함으로써 동아시아학의 연구를 심화하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 예컨대 방대한 고전 자료를 디지털과 결합함으로써 기존의 연구가 꿈꾸지 못한 자료의 가공과 입력을 완수한다면 개인 연구자나 집단 연구가 불가능하였던 새로운 연구의 가능성을 발견할 수도 있을 것이다. 뿐만 아니라 빅 데이터와 디지털의 만남은 진정한 의미에서의 융·복합 연구의 새로운 분야의 개척 가능성도 있다는 점에서 기존 인문학과 동아시아학의 創新에도 기여할 수 있다. 이를 위한 사례로 성균관대학교 동아시아학술원에서 구축하고 있는 `동아시아 지식과 지식인 지도`를 제시함으로써 디지털 동아시아학의 가능성을 모색하고자 한 것이다. The pursuit of the digitalization of East Asian studies is not directed at establishing a new area of scholarship. Rather, it represents the search for a new horizon and creation of a research methodology for East Asian Studies in particular and the humanities in general, not by appropriating the digital in an industrialized way or in accordance with an economic logic, but by using the "digital" as an innovative tool. It entails conducting research into a historical context in which more knowledge is produced and circulated more broadly through the use of big data and digitalization. A map of East Asian scholars and intellectuals serves this purpose by having as its end the deepening of East Asian Studies by connecting these two digital tools. If materials that existing studies have not been able to consider are made available through the digitalization and collection of the vast corpus of classical works, than scholars, on their own or as individuals, will be able to conduct studies that would have been impossible previously. Moreover, the encounter between big data and digitalization can offer the possibility of developing new fields of study in accordance with the true meaning of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research. In this regard, their meeting can contribute to the creation of new fields in the established humanities and East Asian Studies. This paper explores the possibility of a digital East Asian Studies through the example of "The Map of East Asian Knowledge and Intellectuals" being constructed in the Academy of East Asian Studies at Sungkyunkwan University.

국사와 동양학 사이의 좁은 틈 - 경성제국대학과 식민지의 ‘동양문화연구’

정준영 역사문제연구소 2019 역사문제연구 Vol.23 No.1

‘Studies of East Asian Culture’ has been promoted as one of the universities’ raison d'etre since the foundation of Keijo Imperial University(KIU) in 1926. This study examines the flow and status of Chinese studies at KIU, followed by Hattori Uunokichi, Fujitsuka Chikashi, and Abe Yoshio, and evaluates the ideal and reality of ‘Studies of East Asian Culture’ pursued by them through this. Until now, there have been several studies focusing on the unique status of oriental studies related to the founding ideology of KIU. However, it is difficult to say that they asked what kind of the intellectual apparatus devices was institutionalized for ‘Studies of East Asian Culture’ in KIU, and how this ‘Studies of East Asian Culture’ was related to the reality of colonial Korea. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the institutional outline of ‘Studies of East Asian Culture’ at KIU from a whole point of view, and analyze how the activities of japanese scholars are located in this institutional field. This study identifies the trajectory and characteristics of ‘Studies of East Asian Culture’ at KIU, focusing on Chinese studies. ‘동양문화연구’는 1926년 경성제국대학이 설립될 당시부터 중요한 대학의 존립근거로 내세워지고 있었다. 이 연구는 핫토리 우노키치(服部宇之吉), 후지츠카 치카시(藤塚鄰), 아베 요시오(阿部吉雄)로 이어지는 경성제국대학 ‘지나학(支那學)’, 즉 중국학 연구의 흐름 및 그 위상에 대한 검토를 통해 이들이 표방했던 ‘동양문화연구’의 이상과 현실을 가늠해본다. 지금까지 경성제국대학의 창설이념과 관련해서 동양학ㆍ동양사학의 독특한 위상을 주목한 연구들은 없지 않았지만, 현실의 경성제국대학이 과연 ‘동양문화연구’를 위해 어떤 ‘지(知)의 장치(裝置)’를 제도적으로 구축했으며 또 그것이 식민지의 현실과 어떤 관계를 맺었는지에 대해서, 이를 아울러 검토하는 작업이 충분히 이루어졌다고는 말하기 어렵다. 한국학, 중국학, 역사학, 문학 등 오늘날 통념화된 분과학문적인 구획선을 넘어서 경성제국대학 동양문화연구의 제도적 윤곽을 보다 전체적인 관점에서 조망하고, 개별 연구자의 활동을 이런 ‘지의 장치’ 배치구조 위에 위치 지우는 작업이 요청되는 것도 이 지점에서이다. 이 연구에서는 중국학을 중심으로 경성제국대학 동양문화연구의 궤적 및 특징을 요약하고, 남겨진 연구과제 몇 가지를 제시한다.

문화횡단으로서의 동아시아 - ‘정체성’과 ‘차이’의 관점에서 본 동아시아 -

허정 동북아시아문화학회 2010 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.25

East Asian Discourse had done profitable works is problem about ‘center and Margin’. But, East Asian Discourse exposed much problem too. This problems are involved deeply with identity and inhomogeneity problem. This study analyzed problems of ‘East Asian Discourse’. And this study is made Naoki SAKAI and Yoshimi TAKEUCHI theory methodologically. The result is as following. We must escape in attitude which examine closely identity of East Asian with difference with West Europe. And we must escape in attitude which do resistance about Eurocentrism attention with characteristic of East Asian. And we must grasp identity of East Asian by ambivalent thing. And when we wish to deny Eurocentrism, we must be able to deny East Asian too. And we must recognize various difference of East Asian interior. And we must think that make East Asian common feature. And we must dissolve area that get closed of nationalism. When think East Asian as perfume that we are such, East Asian Discourse may achieve more well profitable works. East Asian Discourse must become ‘As Trans-culturation, East Asian’.

‘자료(資料)’ 연구로 본 동아시아학술원 20년 ― 호적(戶籍)과 간독(簡牘) 자료를 중심으로

金慶浩 ( Kim¸ Kyung-ho ) 성균관대학교 대동문화연구원 2020 大東文化硏究 Vol.112 No.-

‘동아시아학술원(이하 학술원)’의 출범은 21세기 한국 인문학계에 대해 새로운 연구과제의 창출과 연구기관으로서 비전을 제시하고 그 성과가 시대 변화를 선도하는 학술제도의 정착과 연구방법의 창안과 매우 밀접한 관련을 맺고 있다. 이를 위하여 ‘학술원’은 그 목표와 방향을 첫째 한국학·아시아학 분야의 집중연구 및 이론의 개발, 둘째 21세기 새로운 시대에 대응하는 방향 수립, 셋째 학문연구와 교육의 유기적 결합, 넷째 동아시아학의 국제적 교류라고 설정하였다. 이러한 목표와 방향의 설정은 무엇보다도 20세기 한국 인문학계에 대한 반성과 성찰을 통해 동아시아학의 본산으로서 한국학 및 동아시아학 분야의 선도적 지위의 확보와 21세기 국제사회에 대한 미래지향적 대응을 위한 것이었다. 따라서 ‘동아시아학’이란 무엇인가? 그리고 어떻게 할 것인가? 라는 문제는 ‘학술원’이 수행해야 할 의무의 수행이었고 그 답을 모색하는 과정이 지난 학술원의 연구 활동 20년이라 해도 과언은 아닐 것이다. 지난 20년동안 ‘학술원’의 연구 활동은 종래 한국 인문학계를 장악하고 있었던 연구 방법의 전환이었다. 핵심적 내용은 일국적 테두리를 벗어나 동아시아의 역사 문화에 대한 전체적인 해석을 시도하고 근대 학문의 분류체계를 지양하며 인문사회과학을 포괄하는 종합적 성격의 학문을 수립하고 현실에 적용할 수 있는 방향을 적극 추진하는 것이었다. 즉 ‘학술원’은 동아시아의 다원성과 보편성을 통일적으로 파악하는 새로운 모델의 개척·소통·확산을 통하여 한국인문학의 創新에 기여하는 ‘복합인문학’ 구현을 그 목표로 설정하였다. 역사학 방면에서의 대표적인 연구 활동은 죽간 목간의 연구로 대변되는 출토자료에 대한 연구와 조선시대 호족 족보 자료를 근간으로 한 역사인구학 분야였고 이러한 주제로 개최된 국제학술회의였다. 특히 중국사회과학원 역사연구소와의 10년에 걸친 정례학술회의는 커다란 성과라 할 수 있다. ‘학술원’은 이러한 지난 20년의 성과에 안주하지 말고 이를 바탕으로 새로운 인문학을 위한 혁신적인 연구 방법을 제시하여야 연구기관으로서의 정체성을 지속적으로 유지할 수 있을 것이다. 이러한 연구 주제의 하나로서 ‘동아시아적 시각에 의한 고전학’ 분야를 제안하고 싶다. 더욱이 새로운 연구 분야를 개척하기 위해서는 무엇보다도 ‘학술원’의 독창적인 연구 방향성과 그 방향성이 시대적 조류와의 관계하에서 추진되어야 함은 물론이다. The launch of the 'Academy of East Asian Studies(AEAS)' is very closely related to the creation of new research tasks and the creation of research methods for the 21st century Korean humanities and the establishment of academic systems that lead to changes in the times. To this end, the 'AEAS' established its goals and directions as follows: the first intensive research and development of theories in the field of Korean studies and Asian studies, the second establishment of a direction in response to the new era in the 21st century, the third organic combination of academic research and education, and the fourth international exchange of East Asian studies. The establishment of these goals and directions was, among other things, to secure a leading position in the field of Korean studies and East Asian studies as the home of East Asian studies through reflection and reflection on the Korean humanities in the 20th century and to take a future-oriented response to the international community in the 21st century. So what is 'East Asian Studies?' And what will you do? It would not be too much to say that the problem was the performance of the obligations of the 'AEAS' and that the process of seeking answers was 20 years of research by the institute. Over the past two decades, the 'AEAS's research activities have been a shift in the way it has traditionally dominated the Korean humanities community. The key content was to try to interpret the history and culture of East Asia as a whole, to avoid the classification system of modern studies, to establish comprehensive studies covering humanities and social sciences, and to actively pursue directions applicable to reality. In other words, the 'academic institute' aims to realize 'complex humanities' that contribute to the new development of Korean literature by exploring, communicating, and expanding new models that uniformly understand the plurality and universality of East Asia. The representative research activities in the field of history were the field of historical and demographic studies based on the research on excavated materials represented by the study of bamboo-thin woodwork and the historical and ethnic genealogical materials of the Joseon Dynasty, and the international academic conference was held under this theme. In particular, the 10-year regular academic conference with the Institute of History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is a great achievement. Instead of being complacent with these achievements over the past two decades, the Academy should present innovative research methods for new humanities based on them so that it can maintain its identity as a research institute. As one of these research topics, I would like to propose the field of Classical Studies by East Asian Perspective. Moreover, in order to pioneer a new field of research, above all else, the original direction of research and its direction must be pursued in relation to the trend of the times.

Outsiders within: Latin American Studies from East Asian Perspectives

Yun-Joo Park 한국라틴아메리카학회 2021 라틴아메리카연구 Vol.34 No.1

This paper aims at contemplating on the contribution of East Asian perspectives to Latin American studies. To do so, the author revisits her own experience of being an East Asian scholar of Latin American studies and argues that East Asian scholars have a special positionality within Latin American studies as an outsider within, which is a theoretical concept raised by Patricia Collins who states that such positionality allows researchers to be more creative and critical. By applying such notion, this paper informs about unique contributions that East Asian perspectives should make to Latin American studies and illustrates a few ways to do so.

근대 학술체계에서의 동아시아 人文傳統에 대한 접근 방식과 “中國學”

민병희 한국중국학회 2015 中國學報 Vol.71 No.-

This article discusses “Chinese studies” as an approach to East Asian humanistic traditions in the modern academic system. Since the modern academic system has been developed in the Western traditions, it is very difficult to approach East Asian humanistic traditions which have their own framework as a knowledge system which is very different from those in the Western traditions in modern academic system. It explores three different ways of approaching to East Asian humanistic traditions in the contemporary Korean academic environment: Approach in modern academic disciplines; preserved traditional approach; and “Chinese studies.” Those approaches have discretely their own problems as an approach to East Asian humanistic traditions. This article pays particular attention to the approach of “Chinese studies” because of the current popularity of “Chinese studies” in Korea and its potential as the an alternative to those two aforementioned approaches. In this article, I examine the approach of “Chinese studies” in two different categories: one is Chinese studies developed from traditional sinology and the other is that from “area studies.” The possibilities of “Chinese studies” as an approach to East Asian humanistic traditions depends on how it facilitates the interdisciplinary approaches, overcomes the pitfalls of ambiguity as an academic discipline and methodology, and liberates itself from the ideologically shadowed past as a strategically developed academic field.

방법으로서의 ‘동아시아사’ 연구와 새로운 역사상의 모색 ― 근대중심주의(moderno-centrism) 비판과 트랜스히스토리칼(trans-historical)한 접근

裵亢燮 ( Bae¸ Hang-seob ) 성균관대학교 대동문화연구원 2020 大東文化硏究 Vol.112 No.-

이 글은 2000년 3월 창립된 이후 동아시아학술원이 수행해온 연구 활동이나 연구성과를 연구 분야 면에서는 동아시아사 혹은 동아시아라는 맥락 속의 한국사 연구, 연구 대상 시기 면에서는 ‘근대전환기’에 관한 연구를 중심으로 살펴본 것이다. 특히 이글에서는 그 동안의 연구 성과에 대해 ‘동아시아사’를 둘러싼 개념이나 접근방식, 그리고 그것이 변화해나가는 과정에 주목하여 살펴보았다. 그 결과 ‘동아시아사’가 처음에는 일종의 ‘지역사’라는 의미에서 접근되었지만, 점차 하나의 방법적 개념으로 변화해나갔음을 확인하였다. HK사업이 시작될 무렵 서양중심적(eurocentric)역사에 대한 비판적 이해에 근거하여 새로운 역사상을 구축하려는 노력이 가시적으로 나타났다. 2010년대에는 서구중심주의와 근대중심주의(modernocentrism)를 동시에 극복하여야 한다는 새로운 문제의식이 제기되었고, 그를 위해 트랜스히스토리칼(transhistorical)한 접근의 필요성이 제시되었다. This article is a review of research activities and research achievements carried out by the Academy of East Asian Studies since its foundation in March 2000. In the field of research, we focused on research on Korean history in the context of East Asian history or East Asia, and on research on "modern transition period." In particular, the article focused on the concept or approach surrounding "History of East Asia" and the process of their change. As a result, "History of East Asia" was initially approached in the sense of "regional history", but gradually changed into a methodical concept. At the start of the HK project, efforts to build a new historical image based on a critical understanding of eurocentric history were visible. In the 2010s, a new awareness of the need to overcome eurocentrism and moderno-centrism was raised, and the need for a trans-historical approach was presented to solve the problem. The Academy of East Asian Studies is working hard to carry out further research in the future based on the worries and achievements of the past 20 years. However, the situation is not easy. Although the internal and external environment and conditions are difficult, these days, various serious problems, such as AI, biotechnology, Pandemic of covid-19, climate change, have become very realistic. At this time, looking back on the 20 years of the institute will be an opportunity to rethink the direction of the Academy's research, which pursued new humanities through 'East Asian Studies' and left a significant mark on the study of Korean humanities in Korea. And I hope it will serve as an opportunity to rethink the future of Korean humanities.