비판적 한국학의 탐색 : 한국학과 사회인문학의 대화

김성보(Kim Seong-Bo) 역사실학회 2011 역사와실학 Vol.44 No.-

This Paper aims reconstruct Korean Studies by the name of 'Critical Korean Studies'. The most serious problem of present Korean Studies is the lack of critical consciousness. Korean Studies inside of Korea are confined to discourse of Orient-centric peculiarity and the area of Humanities. Korean Studies outside of Korea are confined to discourse of Euro-centric universality and the area of the local studies in social sciences. I have been trying to find way of recovering critical consciousness in Korean Studies in dialogue with 'Social Humanities'. Social Humanities are not simply about combining humanities and social sciences, but also an effort to illuminate the nature of humanities as integrated studies by recovering its original sociality. And Scholars on Social Humanities have discourse of Post Euro-centric concrete universality. Criticism of 'Critical Korean Studies' has two sides. The one is reflection on Korea's problems, the other is reflection on Korean Studies themselves. Korean Academia has been got no enough autonomy by the impacts of colonialism and the division of Korea. So Korean Scholars have been failed to get balance between social participation and academic autonomy. However we can find resources of Critical Korean Studies in the traditions of Joseonhak in 1930s and fruits of scholars pursuing the way of overcoming of division problems. Korean Studies Academia should pursue ironing out differences (1) between humanities-centric Korean Studies inside of Korea and Social Sciences-centric Korean Studies outside of Korea, (2) between Korean Studies inside of Korea which have discourse of Orient-centric peculiarity and Korean Studies outside of Korea which have discourse of Euro-centric universality, (3) between North Korean Studies and South Korean Studies.

민족ㆍ국민사와 동아시아사의 접맥

김성보(Kim Seong-Bo) 역사실학회 2007 역사와실학 Vol.32 No.-

The purpose of this study is to analyze, comparatively, the jointly published history textbooks made as part of civil interchange between Korea, China, and Japan, or between Korea and Japan, and to study the possibility of a shared perception of history in East Asia and some points of caution thereof. 『The History of Korea-Japan Interchange』 was written with its focus set on the history of interchange between Korea and Japan. 『The History of Korea and Japan, Face to Face』 takes the approach of comparing the history and culture of the two countries and helps the youth of both countries understand and respect one another. Over the course of writing the book, there was controversy over how just to perceive the 'Japanese invaders' , and a sufficient agreement on this matter was never reached amongst the two countries. 『History that Opens the Future』 reconstructed the modem and contemporary history of Korea, China, and Japan, from the more general perspective of peace and human rights. On the one hand, the contents of this book were structured following the conflict angle of invasion and resistance, and on the other hand, it described the independent modernization efforts and social and cultural changes of each country in a parallel manner so as to help understand one another. The main points of discussion included the authenticity of the statistical data on the compulsory mobilization and massacre by Japan, and the characteristics of the foreign pressure placed on Joseon by the Qing Dynasty in the late 19th century. 『Gender Perspective on Modem and Contemporary History of Korea and Japan』 discusses the modem and contemporary history of Korea and Japan from the 'gender' point of view. Through such joint publications of historical textbooks the basis for reflection and reconciliation at the civil society level in East Asia with regards to the invasions and military conflicts of the past has been established. In order to enhance the level of sharing in our perception of history in the future, we must go through the process of 'communication' so as to understand the other more deeply. The most important issue is how to overcome narrow-minded nationalism. It is impossible to rid ourselves of nationalism overnight. Efforts on all parties to create an identity for themselves as members of the larger East Asian community whilst maintaining their own national sense of identity is required.

비판적 한반도학의 시각으로 본 북조선 연구 - 탈분단시대 지역학의 탐색

김성보(Kim, Seong Bo) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2020 동방학지 Vol.190 No.-

한국학이 북조선 인민과 해외 이주민 등을 배제하거나 주변화하는 편협한 국민주의에서 벗어나 다양한 주체들을 포용하는 개방적인 학문 제도로 변모하기 위해서는 ‘한국’이라는 국가를 지칭하는 용어 자체부터 재검토할 필요가 있다. 필자는 한국학이 남북한의 지배구조를 정당화하고 미화하기 보다는 그에 비판적 자세를 견지하며 그 속에서 살아가는 사람들의 고통과 고민에 응답하고자 탈분단시대의 지역학으로서 ‘비판적 한반도학’을 제안한다. 공간의 다중성과 복합성, 주체의 다양성, 그리고 다양성 속에 통합을 추구하는 문제 해결 능력이라는 세 가지 관점은 비판적 한반도학의 출발점이다. 비판적 한반도학의 관점에서 볼 때, 기존의북조선 연구, 그중에서도 특히 각종 국가론은 북조선 내부의 다양성과 역동성을 간과하는 특수·일원론적인 경향이 강한 문제점이 있다. 탈분단적 사고에 많은 영향을 미친 ‘내재적 접근방법’또한 같은 문제점이 있다. 비판적 한반도학이 다양한 계층, 개인들의 고통과 고민에 응답함을 주된 방향으로 설정한다고 할 때, 이 한반도학이 성립 가능할 것인가의 여부는 얼마나 풍부하게 한반도 주민들의 삶과 생각을 다양성, 다성성, 역동성의 관점에서 해석해낼 수 있는가에 달려있다. 그 하나의 대안으로 민중사 및 생애사 연구방법을 원용하여 어떻게 사람들이 체제와 이념을 자기 나름의 방식으로 전유하면서 본인의 신념과 개성을 지켜나가는지를 살펴보았다. 목회자, 무역 종사자, 역사학자 등 3인에 대한 사례 검토이다. 1967년을 전후하여 북조선에 유일체제가 형성되면서 체제의 경직성은 심화되었다. 그렇지만 그 안에서도 인민들은 지배이념을 각자 자기나름대로 전유하며 자신의 삶을 때로는 체제의 요구에 일치시키고 때로는 그와 불화하면서 살아갔을 터이다. Korean studies must escape from narrow nationalism and South Korea-centered thinking. In order to transform into an open academic system that embraces various subjects in North and South Korea, it is necessary to review the term referring to the country Korea(Hanguk) itself. I suggest Critical studies on the Korean Peninsula as a regional study in order to respond to the pain and distress of those who live there, rather than justifying and beautifying ruling systems of North and South Korea. Perspectives of multiplicity and complexity of space, diversity of subjects, and problem-solving ability to pursue unity in diversity are the starting points of Critical studies on the Korean Peninsula North Korean studies researchers, especially state theorists, have a strong tendency to see North Korea as a special and monolithic country. They overlooked the diversity and dynamism within North Korea. Internal Approach also has the same problem. For Critical studies on the Korean Peninsula to be established, it is necessary to uncover the diverse and dynamic lives and thoughts of the Korean peninsula. I paid attention to how people preserved their beliefs and personalities while appropriating the system and ideology. Three cases were reviewed: pastor, trade expert, and historian. In 1967, the monolithic system was formed in North Korea, and the rigidity of the system intensified. However, even within it, the people would have appropriated the ruling ideology in their own way and sometimes lived in harmony with the needs of the system and sometimes discord with him.

1960년대 남북한 정부의 ‘인간개조’ 경쟁

김성보(Kim, Seong-Bo) 역사실학회 2014 역사와실학 Vol.53 No.-

The competition between South Korea and North Korea during the Cold War period focused on remaking human of people beyond a simple institutional level. Such competition became appearance at the late 1950s until the early 1960s at a time when full range of competition on communistic/ capitalistic industrialization. In 1958 North Korea completed the restoration after war and the foundation of socialism and began to create ‘labouringng people’ as a communistic type of human. At almost similar period South Korea spread out narratives like ‘remaking human’ and ‘remaking nation’. The military regime of Park Jung Hee put economic reconstruction and remaking human as the two tasks after 5?16 coup d"etat. The two regimes blamed each other arguing the opposite regime’s policy was not desirable. Despite such mutual criticism, the logics of remaking human of the two governments ares very similar. Both criticized the playful lives of the public, which were derived from the noble ruling class culture of Joseon, and aimed to create modern type human focusing on labor and technology. Main differences of remaking human in the two regimes lie not in the ideal or logic but in the ‘method’. North Korea sought communistic human reconstruction by means of Chunlima working group movement, and weighted high on the method of influence by means of ‘positive cultivation’. This method played an effective role in inducing the loyalty to the state and the communist party through ‘action’ by stimulating mentality of the public who were in full of disbelief due to impoverishment of war and widespread purge.To the contrary, the military government in South Korea more focused on education which was cultural approach. National movement method was also adopted, but it failed to be effective.

전후 한국 반공주의의 균열과 전환

김성보(Kim, Seong-Bo) 역사실학회 2017 역사와실학 Vol.62 No.-

한국전쟁을 겪은 이후 1950년대에 한국의 반공주의는 외면적으로 매우 강력하게 작동했다. 그러나 그 내면을 들여다보면 심각한 균열로 인해 반공주의가 국민적 통합의 기제로 제대로 작동하지 못하였음이 확인된다. 이 글은 1950년대 한국 반공주의의 균열 양상을 세 가지 층위에서 분석했다. 첫째 층위는 정부가 주도한 반공주의 선전과 탈이념적 사회현실 사이의 균열이며, 둘째 층위는 서구중심의 진영담론과 반서구적·민족주의적 담론 사이의 균열이다. 그리고 세번째로 반공권위주의와 자유민주주의 사이의 균열이 있었다. 1950년대의 한국사회는 전쟁의 체험 속에서 반공과 냉전에 휘말려 들어가면서도, 그 안에서 반공주의를 주체성의 회복과 동양적 가치의 실현, 민주주의의 확장 등 다양한 각도에서 구성해가고 있었다. 그런 점에서 전후의 반공은 냉전, 친미, 자본주의, 국가폭력 등으로 닫힌 반공이 아닌, 다양한 가능성이 경합하는 열린 공간으로서의 반공이었다. 다만 반공주의의 3층위에서의 심각한 균열은 이 이데올로기를 내적 통합력을 증대시키거나 대중동원을 통한 생산적 에너지로 전환하게 하는 것을 불가능하게 하였다. 그 전환은 1960년 4월혁명 이후 경제경쟁에서 이겨야만 공산주의를 이길 수 있다는 ‘승공’의 논리가 대두하면서 비로소 가능하게 된다. After the Korean War, the communism in Korea in the 1950s exercised its strong power on the surface. However, on the inside, anti-communism failed to properly function as a national mechanism for unification due to serious cracks. This study is focused on analyzing the aspects of anti-communist cracks in Korea in the 1950s centering on three layers. The first layer pertains to cracks between communist propaganda led by the government and post-ideological social reality. The second layer pertains to western-centered discourses and anti-western nationalistic discourses. The third layer pertains to cracks between anti-communist authoritarianism and liberal democracy. The Korean society in the 1950s was embroiled in the cold war amid the ashes of a war while establishing anti-communism from various aspects featuring recovery of identity, realization of the Eastern ideas and expansion of democracy. In this regard, postwar anti-communism was based on open space where diverse possibilities compete against one another instead of closed space wrecked by the cold war, pro-Americanism, capitalism and state violence. Serious cracks in the three layers of anti-communism made it impossible to convert the ideology into productive energy through increased internal integration or public mobilization. The conversion became possible with the advent of a logic of a victory over communism espousing that communism can be overcome only through a victory over an economic warfare after the April Revolution in 1960.

국내 · 외 식품용 유전자변형미생물 안전성 심사 현황 및 전망

김성보(Seong-Bo Kim),김양희(Yang Hee Kim) 한국식품과학회 2019 식품과학과 산업 Vol.52 No.2

바이오기술의 비약적인 발전에 따라 식품산업에서도 유전자변형미생물을 이용한 효소제 연구가 활발히 이루어지고 있으나, 국내에서는 이를 실제 산업에 이용하기 위한 식품 및 식품첨가물에 대한 적합한 법적 규제수준과 심사관리 현황에 대한 사례가 매우 부족한 실정이다. 현재까지 국내에서 식품 생산을 목적으로 한 유전자변형미생물의 심사·승인사례는 총 6건으로 그 용도가 기능성 감미료 제조에 국한되어 있다. 생산공정이용 또는 밀폐환경이용을 목적으로 개발한 유전자변형미생물이더라도 식품에 적용하는 경우 안전성 심사 시 환경위해성 심사를 포함해야 하며, 이를 이용하여 제조된 식품 및 식품첨가물은 식품원료 등의 한시적기준 심사를 별도로 진행해야 한다. 반면, 해외에서 유전자변형미생물을 이용하여 제조된 제품을 단순 수입 · 판매하고자 하는 경우 최종 제품에 대한 심사만 요구되고 있어, 국내에서 직접 제조를 하고자 하는 경우에 비하여 인허가 심사에 소요되는 비용 · 기간에서 유리한 구조이다. 기술 선진국인 미국 · 유럽은 직접 섭취가 아닌 식품가공을 목적으로 하고 최종 제품에 유전자변형 미생물 및 유래물질이 잔존하지 않을 경우, 다양한 법규 제도를 통하여 합리적인 수준에 안전성 심사의 기준을 세분화하고 단계별로 완화하고 있다. 이러한 제도적 장치들은 ‘제조’의 관점에서 자국의 개발자가 보다 합리적이고 효율적으로 기술 상업화를 할 수 있는 환경을 조성하는데 크게 기여한다. 국내에서도 2013년부터 안전등급 1등급에 해당하는 유전자변형미생물을 생산공정에만 이용하는 경우는 안전성 평가 자체보다는 밀폐시설의 설치 및 운영을 체계화하는데 중점을 두고자 하였다. 그러나 이러한 보완 제도는 아직까지 산업용 LMO에 국한하여 시행되고 있어, 앞으로 그 범위를 식품용 LMO까지 확대하기 위한 산 · 학 · 연의 관심과 논의가 필요하다. 본 기고문에서는 식품용 유전자변형미생물의 국내와 선진국의 심사사례, 법규체계 및 심사기준에 대한 비교 · 분석을 통하여 국내 관련 법규제도개선의 기회를 마련하고자 한다. With the breathtaking stride being made in the field of biotechnology, biocatalyst research using genetically modified microorganism (GMM) is actively being pursued in food industry. However, domestic food and food additive regulation standards and the number of examination management examples currently used in industry is lacking significantly. Up till now, there are only 6 examples of domestic GMM examination and approval cases for food production purposes and furthermore they are limited to the production of functional sweeteners. Domestically, although GMM is developed as a processing aid (contained use), if they are used in the production of food, the safety of GMM, including environmental safety, is evaluated. Also the produced food or food additives using GMM need to be separately examined and approved as a novel food. On the other hand, imported products produced using GMM need to gain approval for the final product only. Thus the expense and the time to obtain regulatory approval is advantageous for imported products versus domestically produced products. This commentary is written to create the opportunity to reform the current domestic food GMM regulation by comparing and discussing domestic and foreign case analyses of safety evaluation of GMM and related regulations.

지방사례를 통해 본 해방 후 북한사회의 갈등과 변동:

김성보(Kim Seong Bo) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2004 동방학지 Vol.125 No.-

홍이섭의 한국근현대사 인식

김성보(Seong Bo Kim) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2005 동방학지 Vol.130 No.-

전쟁과 농업협동화로 인한 북한 농민생활의 변화

김성보 ( Seong Bo Kim ) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2008 동방학지 Vol.143 No.-

인문학의 `위기`와 역사학의 좌표

김성보 ( Kim Seong Bo ) 연세사학연구회 2017 學林 Vol.39 No.-

This essay aims to explain the nature of the crisis of the humanities in Korea in the perspective of `Social Humanities` and to suggest what kind of contributions that history should make to overcome. Since the 1987`s institutional democratization, Korean humanities, on one aspect, is about to restore the humanities` spirit of critical thinking that was radically suppressed during the Cold War and dictatorship, and on the other, it is on the point of creating critical spirit in the humanities perspective while criticizing the 1980`s biased and schematized pro-social science and its critical position. In that aspect now is the time of humanities` crisis as well as the opportunity, though while we are not taking onthe chance, the crisis is only worsening from external environmental influences. Today`s fields of the humanities is accelerating with its industrialization and marketization under the obligation to enhance competitive power. Such is concluded as colonization of study that is subordinated to America-centered international learning power that dominated the standards of study. Among all this, Korean history, without having time to examine the past for the future, is tangled in the present`s political parties` strife and got stuck as the instrumentation of the politics of recollection. The humanities of Korea have to restore its role of critically introspecting the society by recovering the humanistic spirit internally, and simultaneously on the outside, create a new, de-marketized and decentralized standard in the study activity by banding together with humanities field of other East Asian countries and regions that are in crisis. Korean history is requested, not as an instrument that justifies the present, but to realize the democratization of recollection that liberates the memory about the past that is suppressed and distorted by the authority, and the `memory politics` that aims for the society`s democratization through the process. Also East Asian history discourse can transcend from the limits of Western discourse that centers around America by creating an even more universal academic discourse and thus make an opportunity to overcome the colonization of study.