미국-영국 선교사와 외교관이 주도한 근대한국학 전문화와 시스템 만들기, 1900-1940년

Professionalizing and Systematizing Modern Korean Studies by American & British Missionaries and Diplomats, 1900-1940: Focusing on Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society-Korean Branch

이글은 영국왕립아세아학회 한국지부와 그 학술지가1900-1940년사이에 한국학담론창출과 전문화에 기여한 성과와 영향력을 재조명하는 것을 목표로 한다. 연구결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 초창기에 한국학을주도했던프랑스선교사들이 퇴조하고 영국과 미국선교사들이 한국학 담론을지배했다. 둘째, 􋺷코리안 리포지터리􋺸·􋺷코리아 리뷰􋺸와 비교하면 􋺷트랜잭션􋺸은 참고문헌을 밝히고 이미지 자료를 활용하는 등 좀 더전문적이며체계적인학문적포럼이었다. 셋째, 생태환경사와같은새로운주제를발굴하고미래한국학학자를 키우는 인큐베이터 역할을 담당했다. 필자는 근대한국학의 계보를 객관적·입체적으로 파악하기 위해지식네트워크의트랜스내셔널뒤엉킴에특별히주목할것을요청한다. 서양선교사들이19세기말을전후로발명·국제화하고 20세기 초반에 심화했던 한국학의 제1의 물결, 일본제국이 한국의 식민지 통치를 정당화하고피지배자들의 자발적인 협력을 구하려는의도로재생산한한국학의제1.5 물결, 그사이 공간에서등장한한국인의, 한국인에의한, 한국인을위한한국학의제2물결―이런세 갈래 물결이 부딪히고 뒤섞이며 서로를 밀고 당기며 상승하여 한국학의 역동적인 무늬와 다양한 색채를 만들었다고 필자는강조한다.

The article aims to reappraise the characteristics and legacy of Royal Asiatic Society Korea Branch(RASKB) and its official Journal, Transactions of the Korea Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society in the historiography of modern Korean studies. By analysing its membership, interpreting the contents/subject-matters, and examining the new mode of writing strategies of the Transactions published from 1900 to 1940, the author is very convinced that both RASKB and Transactions had played a critical and indispensable role in professionalizing and systematizing the field of Korean studies. The Transactions, a forum dominated by British and American missionaries and diplomats, demonstrates the maturity of modern Korean studies in the first half of the 20th century, thus standing at the apex of “the First Wave of Modern Korean Studies.” Imperial Japanese scholars imitated and appropriated the Western-made First Wave and had established “the First and Half Wave of Modern Korean Studies” for the purpose of legitimizing colonialization of Korea. And “the Second Wave of Modern Korean Studies” during the 1930s, which emphasized the Korean Studies by Koreans and for Koreans, was to a certain degree the extended and reinvented outcome founded on the previous two Waves. The author concludes that modern Korean studies is a hybrid (re)production of multiple nationalities and that transnational perspectives would shed an alternative light to disclose non-nationalist and post-colonial peculiarities of ‘Knowledge/Power’ usually known as ‘the discourse on Korea.’ (Chung-Ang University)