식민주의 역사학 연구 시론

초록

The preface to A New Theory of Our Nation written by Ki-baik Lee in 1961 was the first distinct ‘declaration of postcolonialism’ by a Korean historian. Since then, discourses about overcoming Korean colonial history(식민사학) have typically been focused on establishing a set of indicators of historical distortion, defining what constitutes colonial history, and reversing that definition to construct a nationalist history. The concept of the ‘historiography of colonialism’(식민주의 역사학) may be useful in reforming this predominant approach and offering a new perspective on the colonial history of Korea. The historiography of colonialism concerns colonialism as an ideology while also based on the epistemological and methodological developments of modern historiography. The historiography of colonialism during the Japanese imperial rule was characterized by a double refraction, due to Western modern historiography first being introduced to Japan before being brought into Korea. Furthermore, in this process, two lines of thought based on the ideology of imperialism were formed: the Japan-Joseon Common Ancestry Theory and the History of Manchuria and Joseon as One. Around the time of the annexation of Korea, the historiography of colonialism became increasingly institutionalized, largely based on Imperial University’s division of its history department into three sections: National (Japanese) History, Occidental History and Oriental History. Subsequently, the historiography of colonialism within Japan and Korea followed the path of systemization and expansion, with ‘history’ being divided into several categories. In Japan, there was a significant boost in historical research, mostly on national history and oriental history, led by Imperial University, with added participation by archaeologists and social and economic historians. Meanwhile, in Korea, the historiography of colonialism was becoming expanded and stabilized at the same time, with a divide between civil history and official history. This development was led by academics affiliated with the Joseon History Compilation Committee, as well as those affiliated with Keijō Imperial University, who together formed and operated the ‘Cheonggu Academic Association.’ Research on the civil and unofficial history of Korea was also being actively pursued by Japanese academics in Korea who were involved in the press and publications, and their activities were viewed with much interest by the masses. In the historiography of colonialism, colonialism was merged with modernism, giving rise to the theory of stagnation, which became the key idea behind the modern development of the colonized Joseon. On the other hand, colonialism was also combined with the nationalist ideology of unity, providing various logical grounds for heteronomy. However, differences remained as to where Joseon belonged among the many categories of history. Was Joseon history a regional history of Japan or an oriental history attached to China? The imperialist theories that quickly emerged in conjunction with colonialism such as the Japan-Joseon Common Ancestry Theory and the History of Manchuria and Joseon as One signalled the demise and, ultimately, end of imperialism. Now that we've reached an era when nationalism and modernism are seemingly declining, what will happen to colonialism? Isn't it about time that colonialism parted ways with modern historiography?

키워드