Kim Yongsŏp's theory of internal development has a strong but underacknowledged influence on Korean historical studies; it is in this sense that he may be referred to as the ‘deus obscurus’ of the field. His theory of ‘internaldevelopment’ has the following features. First, he built upon the theory of the correspondence of base and superstructure in order to identify the ‘developmental’ principles of world historical development within Korea's particular situation. Secondly, he tried to prove his theory of internal development—by which medieval society was seen as collapsing, developing ultimately towards a capitalist modernity—through his theory of a transition occurring through ‘two different paths’. That is to say, he believed that the logical internal transition to modernity was blocked through external pressure. Thirdly, while he attempted to prove his theories largely through the investigation of the history of agriculture, he used his theories of correspondence and internal development to justify the establishment of a political nation-state. This was the natural result of his emphasis on the subjectivity of the ethnic-nation. Fourthly, his theory of the creation of the nation-state concluded with his theory of the civil war, and his theory of development would seem to defend a non-capitalist approach. The problems with this theory of internal development are as follows. First, it posited on an extremely teleological version of the materialist view of history. Secondly, it conflicts with both Japanese colonial historiography—that is to say, colonial ideology—and with the developmental theory of Korea's post- colonial regimes. Thirdly, it eliminates humans and society from history, and creates fantasies concerning the future. Many of his key points—including his theory of the “sprouts of capitalism”, his claim that Japanese colonialism robbed Korea of true modernity, his two paths theory, as well as his ideas concerning the establishment of a nation state—are part of the same problematic discourse that assumes Western modernity to be the ideal, and that it is therefore necessary to prove that Korea was passing down the same path as the West. The goal of history being described this clearly, the theory becomes both highly teleological and formalistic. As a result, careful use of sources, or the discussion of minority voices, becomes difficult. Moreover, while the theory of internal development takes the overcoming of colonial scholarship and colonialism as its chief goal, in most cases it has the same goals as scholarship written under the influence of Japanese colonial ideology or of the developmental theories of Korea's post-colonial states. Indeed, the theory of colonial development treats the nation, the state, and modernity as the highest goals of human society. Humans and society both get expelled from this variety of historiography. This theory of internal development became so deeply entrenched during the 1980s that its practitioners have lost the ability to question it. It is no longer able to respond to multifaceted social change.
1. ‘숨은 신’.비판의 대상이 될 수있는가?
2. ‘내재적 발전론’의 논리 구성
3. ‘내재적 발전론’의 固着
4. ‘일국적 발전론’을 넘어서
(0)
(0)