이 논문은 중일전쟁으로부터 태평양전쟁에 이르는 시기의 식민지 조선에서 새롭게 재편되는 정치적․사회적․문화적 경계들을 분석한다. 식민지의 인적․물적 자원을 총동원하고자 하는 제국의 의도와 그 의도의 틈새를 비집고 월경(越境)하고자 하는 피식민자의 욕망이 교차하는 가운데, 기존의 경계는 어디에서 어떻게 균열을 일으키거나 해체되어 갔는가? 동시에 그 균열과 해체는 무엇을 다시 은폐하였는가? 그리고 이 과정에서 제국으로부터 발신(發信)된 ‘근대초극론’은 어떻게 작용하였는가? 이것이 이 논문의 주제이다. 서구적 모더니티의 붕괴와 그것을 대치할 새로운 세계사적 비전의 제시라고 하는 ‘근대초극론’의 기본 로직(logic)은 이 시기 식민지 지식인 전체에 광범위하게 스며들었다. 그것이 식민지 종주국에서 발신된 것이며, 그런 만큼 식민지 사회의 근대성과의 낙차(落差)를 고려하지 않는 한, 또 다른 현실을 은폐할 수밖에 없다는 점은 의식되지 않았다. ‘민족적 특수성’을 보존하면서 식민지적 불균등성을 ‘초극’할 수 있는 새로운 ‘보편’으로의 ‘동화’를 선택한 피식민자의 욕망은, 차이를 지우고 동질화 할 것을 요구하는 국가의 목소리와 공명(共鳴)했다. ‘동양주의’는 그것의 한 결과이며, “새로운 조선인=새로운 일본인=새로운 동양인”이라는 식민주체가 형성되었다.

In this study I intend to focus on the political, social, and cultural boundaries, which were newly restructured in colonial Korea from the period the Sino-Japanese War to the Pacific War. At the intersection of the intentions of empire, which sought total mobilization of the colony's human and material resources, and the desires of the colonized, sought to widen and exploited the gaps in those intentions, where and how did the existing borders ruptured or dissolved? At the same time, how did those ruptures and dissolutions again conceal? And how did the discussions of "overcoming modernity," transmitted as they were from the empire, operate in this process? The entirety of colonial intellectuals of this period were steeped in the basic logic of "overcoming modernity," which was the collapse of Western modernity and the presentation of a new world-historical vision to replace it. This was transmitted from the colonial suzerain, and to that extent, assuming they were not considering the difference in the levels of the modernity of Japanese and colonial society, they were not conscious that this could not help but conceal yet another reality. The desire of the colonized who chose "assimilation" as a new "universalism" that could "overcome" colonial inequality while preserving "ethnonational particularity" resonated with the voice of the state that demanded an erasure of differences for assimilation. "Orientalism"(東洋主義) is one result of this, while the other is the formation of the "New Korean=New Japanese=New Asian" colonial subject.

In this study I intend to focus on the political, social, and cultural boundaries, which were newly restructured in colonial Korea from the period the Sino-Japanese War to the Pacific War. At the intersection of the intentions of empire, which sought total mobilization of the colony's human and material resources, and the desires of the colonized, sought to widen and exploited the gaps in those intentions, where and how did the existing borders ruptured or dissolved? At the same time, how did those ruptures and dissolutions again conceal? And how did the discussions of "overcoming modernity," transmitted as they were from the empire, operate in this process? The entirety of colonial intellectuals of this period were steeped in the basic logic of "overcoming modernity," which was the collapse of Western modernity and the presentation of a new world-historical vision to replace it. This was transmitted from the colonial suzerain, and to that extent, assuming they were not considering the difference in the levels of the modernity of Japanese and colonial society, they were not conscious that this could not help but conceal yet another reality. The desire of the colonized who chose "assimilation" as a new "universalism" that could "overcome" colonial inequality while preserving "ethnonational particularity" resonated with the voice of the state that demanded an erasure of differences for assimilation. "Orientalism"(東洋主義) is one result of this, while the other is the formation of the "New Korean=New Japanese=New Asian" colonial subject.

Naisen ittai, Overcoming Modernity, Assimilation, Orientalism, Localization, National Literature