본고는 조선에서의 ‘식민지 근대’론의 분석틀을 일본의 마르크스 경제학자인 우노 코조(宇野弘藏)의 ‘동시대성’이라는 시점(視點)에 착안하여 정리하였다. 첫째로 1930년대의 ‘일본 자본주의 논쟁’에서 우노 코조는 세계 자본주의체제에서 선진 자본주의국가가 후발 자본주의국가에 미친 동시대적인 패권적인(hegemonic) 영향력에 주목하였다. 그 ‘동시대성’이라는 시각에 의거하여 일본 자본주의의 특수성을 후발 자본주의라는 유형론에 위치 지었다. 둘째로 ‘식민지 근대’론은 규율 권력 장치, 매스 미디어, 대중 소비문화 등을 주제로서 다룬다. 이러한 근대적인 장치나 제도가 식민지 조선에서 출현한 것은 세계 자본주의체제에서 중심부에서의 현상이 동시대적으로 파급된 것으로 간주할 수 있다. 이러한 점에서 우노 코조의 ‘동시대성’의 시점을 ‘식민지 근대’의 분석에 적용할 수 있다. 셋째로 우노의 분석틀을 적용함으로써 ‘식민지 근대’의 형태상의 특질은 다음과 같이 정리될 수 있다. 첫째로 근대적인 장치나 제도를 경험할 수 있었던 조선인은 식민지 사회에서 소수였다. 둘째로 조선인 다수의 사이에서는 전통적인 생활양식이 지배적이었는데, 그들은 근대적인 제도나 장치를 단편적으로 접촉함으로써 근대를 향수(享受)하고 싶다는 감정을 공유하였다. 셋째로 그럼으로써 근대는 식민지 조선사회에서 패권적인 영향력을 미쳤다. 끝으로 ‘동시대성’을 적용한 ‘식민지 근대’론은 형태론에 머무르며, 식민지 지배의 폭력=민족차별이라는 본질 규정을 분석틀에 명시적으로 포함시키는 과제가 남아 있다.

This paper discusses the analytical framework on “colonial modernity” in Korea from the viewpoint of “simultaneity”, as discussed by the Japanese Marxist economist Uno Kozo (宇野弘蔵). Firstly, regarding the “debate on Japanese capitalism" during the 1930's, Uno focused on the simultaneous hegemonic influence of the advanced capitalist states on the late-developing capitalist states within the world capitalist system. Relying on the framework of “simultaneity", he placed the particularity of Japanese capitalism within the materiality of late-developing capitalism. Secondly, the literature on “colonial modernity” in Korea discusses various topics such as the modern discipline apparatus, mass media, and mass culture. The emergence of these modern apparatus and institutions in colonial Korea can be regarded as a phenomenon occuring simultaneously with those in the core of the world capital system. In this sense, the analytical framework of simultaneity by Uno is applicable to “colonial modernity” in Korea. Thirdly, by applying Prof. Uno’s analytical framework to the discussion on “colonial modernity”, the following points can be made. Firstly, the Koreans who could actually experience and enjoy these modern apparatus and institutions represented a minority in colonial Korean society. Secondly, the majority of people, while living their everyday lives in the conventional manner, could have the opportunity to encounter signs and fragments of modernity, and they could share in the desire for modernity. Thirdly, modernity exercised its hegemonic influence over the colonial Korean society broadly in this way. Lastly, the above-mentioned framework is a type of morphological approach. This framework should be improved by emphasizing viewpoints on the violence of discrimination by the Japanese ruling power against the Koreans as the essence of the colonial rule.

This paper discusses the analytical framework on “colonial modernity” in Korea from the viewpoint of “simultaneity”, as discussed by the Japanese Marxist economist Uno Kozo (宇野弘蔵). Firstly, regarding the “debate on Japanese capitalism" during the 1930's, Uno focused on the simultaneous hegemonic influence of the advanced capitalist states on the late-developing capitalist states within the world capitalist system. Relying on the framework of “simultaneity", he placed the particularity of Japanese capitalism within the materiality of late-developing capitalism. Secondly, the literature on “colonial modernity” in Korea discusses various topics such as the modern discipline apparatus, mass media, and mass culture. The emergence of these modern apparatus and institutions in colonial Korea can be regarded as a phenomenon occuring simultaneously with those in the core of the world capital system. In this sense, the analytical framework of simultaneity by Uno is applicable to “colonial modernity” in Korea. Thirdly, by applying Prof. Uno’s analytical framework to the discussion on “colonial modernity”, the following points can be made. Firstly, the Koreans who could actually experience and enjoy these modern apparatus and institutions represented a minority in colonial Korean society. Secondly, the majority of people, while living their everyday lives in the conventional manner, could have the opportunity to encounter signs and fragments of modernity, and they could share in the desire for modernity. Thirdly, modernity exercised its hegemonic influence over the colonial Korean society broadly in this way. Lastly, the above-mentioned framework is a type of morphological approach. This framework should be improved by emphasizing viewpoints on the violence of discrimination by the Japanese ruling power against the Koreans as the essence of the colonial rule.

colonial modernity, simultaneity, the world capital system, Uno Kozo (宇野弘藏)