지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 한국역사연구회 역사와현실 역사와 현실 제108호
- 발행연도
- 2018.6
- 수록면
- 143 - 174 (32page)
- DOI
- 10.35865/YWH.2018.06.108.143
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Examined here is how past studies –especially the ones which were conducted in the name of commemorating the March 1<SUP>st</SUP> movement - depicted the economic background of that very movement for quite some time, and how such depiction changed over the years.
It was generally believed that the Korean economy at the time was in bad shape. Relevant studies, even back then, theorized that in the area of Agriculture the Korean people were mercilessly pillaged, while in the area of Commerce and Industries they were discriminated as well.
Later, as the Korean people went through the Japanese occupation period as well as some turbulent years that immediately followed the Korean Liberation, a general frame for depiction was established in the 1950s and ’60s, in both South and North Korean academic circles. It was argued that the “Land Survey project” conceived and implemented by Japanese Colonial authorities) essentially led to willful thefts of the lands of the Joseon peasants and also the eventual demise of the Joseon peasant class. And it was also argued that the Japanese authorities’ declaration of the so-called “Company Act” effectively suppressed the birth and growth of Korean business in all areas. Analysis of the former issue (and the Land Survey project itself) actually developed quite nicely, to the extent of effectively suggesting (and verifying) the project as a reason for the fall of the Joseon peasants. On the other hand, analysis of the latter issue (the Company Act) was never fully refined, and even now remain as an unreliable center for an argument that the entire Korean race was discriminated while Korean business was prohibitively blocked.
Since the 1970s, a group of ‘Economic history’ scholars began to raise their voice and suggested that the Joseon society’s upper class, including Joseon Capitalist entrepreneurs, should be examined more. They even described some new changes detected within the Joseon society at the time as ‘desires of the citizens’ or even ‘bursts of energy.’ This new perspective caused some controversies as progressive academic groups emerged at the end of the 1980s and direct discussions of the matter ensued.
Then in the following periods, various group studies commemorating the March 1<SUP>st</SUP> movement did continue, yet the economic background of the movement was less and less discussed. Coming into the 21<SUP>st</SUP> century they are no longer even mentioned. The deterioration of a Marxist-based, “Economy determines all” theory, the weakened voice of the so-called “People’s History” school, and the whole prolonged ‘Modernization (or “Lack” of it)’ debate, may have all contributed to such a shift in trend in various degrees. The last one in particular, the protracted ‘modernization’ debate, seems to have caused ‘economic history’ studies to stagnate quite a bit. On the other hand, accumulated studies, changed social climate and ever diversifying perspectives to view the March 1<SUP>st</SUP> movement have also been asking us to broaden our horizon, while clinging on to some valid perspectives of the past.
It was generally believed that the Korean economy at the time was in bad shape. Relevant studies, even back then, theorized that in the area of Agriculture the Korean people were mercilessly pillaged, while in the area of Commerce and Industries they were discriminated as well.
Later, as the Korean people went through the Japanese occupation period as well as some turbulent years that immediately followed the Korean Liberation, a general frame for depiction was established in the 1950s and ’60s, in both South and North Korean academic circles. It was argued that the “Land Survey project” conceived and implemented by Japanese Colonial authorities) essentially led to willful thefts of the lands of the Joseon peasants and also the eventual demise of the Joseon peasant class. And it was also argued that the Japanese authorities’ declaration of the so-called “Company Act” effectively suppressed the birth and growth of Korean business in all areas. Analysis of the former issue (and the Land Survey project itself) actually developed quite nicely, to the extent of effectively suggesting (and verifying) the project as a reason for the fall of the Joseon peasants. On the other hand, analysis of the latter issue (the Company Act) was never fully refined, and even now remain as an unreliable center for an argument that the entire Korean race was discriminated while Korean business was prohibitively blocked.
Since the 1970s, a group of ‘Economic history’ scholars began to raise their voice and suggested that the Joseon society’s upper class, including Joseon Capitalist entrepreneurs, should be examined more. They even described some new changes detected within the Joseon society at the time as ‘desires of the citizens’ or even ‘bursts of energy.’ This new perspective caused some controversies as progressive academic groups emerged at the end of the 1980s and direct discussions of the matter ensued.
Then in the following periods, various group studies commemorating the March 1<SUP>st</SUP> movement did continue, yet the economic background of the movement was less and less discussed. Coming into the 21<SUP>st</SUP> century they are no longer even mentioned. The deterioration of a Marxist-based, “Economy determines all” theory, the weakened voice of the so-called “People’s History” school, and the whole prolonged ‘Modernization (or “Lack” of it)’ debate, may have all contributed to such a shift in trend in various degrees. The last one in particular, the protracted ‘modernization’ debate, seems to have caused ‘economic history’ studies to stagnate quite a bit. On the other hand, accumulated studies, changed social climate and ever diversifying perspectives to view the March 1<SUP>st</SUP> movement have also been asking us to broaden our horizon, while clinging on to some valid perspectives of the past.
목차
머리말
1. 동시기 서술 : 수탈과 차별의 두 축 형성
2. 해방공간 : 사적유물론에 입각한 경제배경 서술의 강조와 농업 집중
3. 1950년대 북한학계 : ‘약탈’로 강화된 ‘수탈’의 논리구조
4. 1960년대 : 토지조사사업과 회사령을 두 축으로 한 농업과 상공업의 경제배경 서술 정착
5. 1970년대 : ‘민족자본’으로 다시 주목되는 민족 상층부와 토지수탈 논리의 정교화
6. 1980년대 : 진보･보수학계의 대비되는 서술비중
맺음말 : 2000년대 이후 경제배경 서술의 퇴조
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (14)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
3 · 1운동 수업 동향과 전망
역사교육
2019 .09
-
3 ․ 1운동의 사회 ․ 경제적 배경－동시대 원인분석과 부산의 지역성－
항도부산
2019 .01
-
3·1운동 100년의 ‘봄·밤’에 ‘바람’ -박찬승과 권보드래의 3·1운동 서사
역사비평
2019 .11
-
북한 정부의 3‧1운동 기념과 표상 - 『로동신문』(1946~2019)을 중심으로 -
동방학지
2020 .01
-
The March 1st Movement and the Red Thread of International Peace History
Korea Observer
2019 .01
-
‘비폭력의 스펙터클’을 넘어서 -3·1운동 100주년의 폭력론
역사비평
2019 .11
-
“비록 이름은 알려지지 않았지만, 꿈은 이루어졌나요?” : 초등학교 3․1 운동 역할극 수업 실행과 성찰
역사교육논집
2016 .01
-
3·1운동과 그 이후, 여성의 현실 참여
인문과학연구
2019 .01
-
전후 일본 조선사학계의 3.1운동 인식
역사와현실
2018 .06
-
3·1운동 100주년의 연구와 ‘3·1혁명론’
역사비평
2020 .02
-
3·1운동 100년의 기억과 기념 - 3·1운동 100주년 기획위원회 좌담 -
역사와현실
2019 .12
-
Special Discussion on the March First Movement’s Centennial 〈The March First Movement in East Asian History〉
Journal of Northeast Asian History
2018 .12
-
7차 교육과정 이후 고등학교 <한국 근･현대사>･<한국사> 교과서의 1920년대 여성운동에 대한 서술 추이 연구
史叢(사총)
2024 .09
-
3·1운동 연구의 흐름과 매듭들 ―100주년을 맞이하여
역사비평
2020 .02
-
총론 : 3·1운동과 경기·인천지역
역사와현실
2019 .09
-
1920~30년대 전북의 독립운동과 3.1운동 세대
전북사학
2019 .01
-
Achievements and Challenges in the Centennial Anniversary Studies of the March First Independence Movement
Korea Journal
2021 .03
-
일본 역사 교과서의 3 · 1운동 서술 분석
역사교육
2019 .09
-
3.1운동 사례를 통해 본 역사 교과서의 시각과 구성에서의 변화 가능성 모색
사림
2021 .10
-
한국 근대문학의 알레고리 - 김남천의 희곡 ｢삼일운동｣에 관한 몇 개의 주석
동방학지
2024 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2018-911-003164497