최근 우리 학계에서 민족주의 사학을 둘러싼 논란이 벌어지고 있다. 1908년 단재 신채호의 「독사신론」 집필에서부터 본격적으로 성립한 민족주의 사학은 오늘에 이르기까지 100년의 전통을 갖고 있다. 그런데 지난 세기말부터 이 민족주의 사학의 폐기를 외치는 목소리들이 우리 학계 내부에서 자주 터져 나오고 있다. 민족주의 사학에 대한 비판은 크게 보아 두 부류로 구별되는데, 하나는 서구의 포스트모더니즘의 영향을 받은 일군의 학자들로부터 나온 것이고, 다른 하나는 ‘스테이티즘’(국가중심주의)적 사고에 바탕을 두고 제기된 것이다. 전자, 즉 포스트모더니즘에 입각한 비판은, ①기존의 민족주의 사학이 ‘민족’ 개념을 자의적으로 확대 해석하고, 그를 바탕으로 전근대 시기로부터 ‘민족사’의 허상을 그려냈다는 것, ②민족주의 사학의 토대가 된 민족주의는 지금까지 동아시아 삼국 사이의 갈등을 부추겼으며 국내적으로는 독재 권력의 정당성을 홍보하는 데 활용되는 등의 부작용을 일으켰으므로, 마땅히 폐기되어야 한다는 것, ③그와 함께 그동안 민족주의적 이데올로기를 국민들에게 강요한 ‘국사’의 서술 체계도 해체해야 한다는 것, ④미래의 대안으로서 국민국가 단위의 폐쇄성을 뛰어넘어 평화와 공존을 위한 동아시아 공동체 건설로 나아가야 한다는 것 등으로 정리된다. 후자, 즉 스테이티즘적 사고로부터 나온 민족주의 사학 비판은 현실의 국가(즉 대한민국)가 민족보다 우선한다는 가치 판단을 바탕에 깔고 있으며, 크게 ‘요동사’와 ‘신라정통론’으로 대별된다. 그중 ‘요동사’는 고구려사와 고조선사, 발해사 등을 한국사에서 떼어내겠다는 논의이고, ‘신라정통론’은 우리 고대사를 신라사 중심으로 정리하고 고구려사나 발해사의 위상을 낮추어 보려는 논의인데, 둘 다 기존의 민족주의 사학의 이해 체계를 붕괴시키는 것을 목표로 하고 있다. 그러나 이러한 민족주의 사학에 대한 비판은 과도하거나 방향을 잘못 잡고 있다는 점에서 심각한 문제를 안고 있다. 본고에서는 포스트모더니스트들의 비판에 대해, 민족은 우리의 현실에서 아직도 유효한 가치를 갖고 있으며, 민족주의 사학 역시 개방된 민족주의를 바탕으로 새롭게 변신할 필요가 있지 그 자체가 폐기되어 마땅할 성질의 것은 아님을 주장하였다. 스테이티즘에 입각한 탈민족주의에 대해서는 그 논의들이 갖고 있는 불합리성을 지적하고, 보다 신중한 사고를 바탕으로 한 역사 이해의 필요성을 강조하였다.

Recently, there have risen some controversies on the nationalistic history of Korea among some Korean scholars. The nationalistic history of Korea is said to have started with the publishment of Doksasillon(讀史新論: A New Guide to Reading History) written by Shin, Chaeho in 1908. So it has a century’s tradition in Korea. But since the last decade of the 20th century, some of the Korean historians have frequently argued that it should be demolished. Criticisms on the nationalistic history are divided into two categories, one of which is concerned with post-modernism and the other related to statism. Criticism from the former can be summarized as follows; 1. The nationalistic historians of Korea have distorted the concept of the 'Nation’ so arbitrarily that they have made the false image of Korean nation’s formation in the pre-modern period. 2. The nationalism in which the nationalistic history has a deep root has aroused only conflicts among the East Asian nations such as Korea, Japan and China, and it would be used as a powerful tool to advertise the legitimacy of the dictatorship in Korea during the 1970's. So it should be swept away in Korea from now. 3. The description system of Korean national history should also be taken apart because it has compelled the Korean people to have a nationalistic idea. 4. As the alternative for the future, we should proceed to build ‘East Asian Community’ for peace and coexistence among the three nations. In the meantime, criticisms from the latter derive from the idea that the state of Korea has priority to the Korean nation. The theory of ‘Liaotung history’ and ‘Silla-centricism’ belong to this category. The first is aiming at excluding the history of Koguryo, Kojosun and Palhae from the Korean history and the second has the intention that the ancient Korean history shall be rewritten focusing Silla and the standings of Koguryo and Palhae in Korean history shall be lowered. Both of them are in common in that they are pursuing for the destruction of the comprehension system in the nationalistic Korean history. However such criticisms have serious problems because of criticising the nationalistic history’s error too excessively or to the wrong direction. So I showed my own opinion in this paper that the ‘nation’ still counts for much in Korea and the nationalistic history should be newly transformed to the history based on the ‘open’ nationalism but it is not what ought to be demolished. And I criticised the irrationality of the theory of ‘Liaotung history’ and ‘Silla-centricism’ and emphasized the importance of comprehending Korean history with more prudential way of thinking.

Recently, there have risen some controversies on the nationalistic history of Korea among some Korean scholars. The nationalistic history of Korea is said to have started with the publishment of Doksasillon(讀史新論: A New Guide to Reading History) written by Shin, Chaeho in 1908. So it has a century’s tradition in Korea. But since the last decade of the 20th century, some of the Korean historians have frequently argued that it should be demolished. Criticisms on the nationalistic history are divided into two categories, one of which is concerned with post-modernism and the other related to statism. Criticism from the former can be summarized as follows; 1. The nationalistic historians of Korea have distorted the concept of the 'Nation’ so arbitrarily that they have made the false image of Korean nation’s formation in the pre-modern period. 2. The nationalism in which the nationalistic history has a deep root has aroused only conflicts among the East Asian nations such as Korea, Japan and China, and it would be used as a powerful tool to advertise the legitimacy of the dictatorship in Korea during the 1970's. So it should be swept away in Korea from now. 3. The description system of Korean national history should also be taken apart because it has compelled the Korean people to have a nationalistic idea. 4. As the alternative for the future, we should proceed to build ‘East Asian Community’ for peace and coexistence among the three nations. In the meantime, criticisms from the latter derive from the idea that the state of Korea has priority to the Korean nation. The theory of ‘Liaotung history’ and ‘Silla-centricism’ belong to this category. The first is aiming at excluding the history of Koguryo, Kojosun and Palhae from the Korean history and the second has the intention that the ancient Korean history shall be rewritten focusing Silla and the standings of Koguryo and Palhae in Korean history shall be lowered. Both of them are in common in that they are pursuing for the destruction of the comprehension system in the nationalistic Korean history. However such criticisms have serious problems because of criticising the nationalistic history’s error too excessively or to the wrong direction. So I showed my own opinion in this paper that the ‘nation’ still counts for much in Korea and the nationalistic history should be newly transformed to the history based on the ‘open’ nationalism but it is not what ought to be demolished. And I criticised the irrationality of the theory of ‘Liaotung history’ and ‘Silla-centricism’ and emphasized the importance of comprehending Korean history with more prudential way of thinking.

, , , , , , , , ,

Nation, Nationalism, the nationalistic history, Shin Chaeho, Doksasillon, Anti-nationalism, Post-modernism, Statism, the theory of Liaotung history, Silla-centricism