植民과 戰爭의 日帝人類學(2) -臺北帝大와 京城帝大의 人脈과 活動을 중심으로-
Anthropology of Colonialism and War during the Imperial Japan: Scholars and Scholarship at Taihoku Imperial University (Taiwan) and Keijo Imperial University(Korea)

Cited 0 time in Web of Science Cited 0 time in Scopus
Issue Date
서울대학교 비교문화연구소
비교문화연구, Vol.8 No.2, pp. 135-167
일본식민주의Japanese Colonialism식민주의 인류학Colonial Anthropology전쟁War대만Taiwan조선Korea
이미 식민지의 제국대학에서 총장이 중심이 되어서 운영하였던 연구소들의 활동(예를 들면, 경성제국대학의 만몽문화연구소와 대륙문화연구소)에서 본 바와 같이 제국대학의 연구소들은 일본군의 군사적인 침략활동과 무관한 기구들이 아니었다. 특히 만주사변과 중일전쟁의 시기를 중심으로 하여 대륙에서는 학술활동이 군사작전과 긴밀한 관계를 유지하고 있었다는 점은 확실하며, 그 과정에서 식민지의 제국대학이 수행한 역할에 대해서도 기본적인 구도는 파악되었다고 생각한다.

1932년 8월 文部省은 戰時體制를 向한 國民의 精神的 統合을 目標로 하여 國民精神文化硏究所를 設置하였다 (柳田國男硏究會 1988:879). 1933년 만주국이 성립되었고, 이어서 동년 10월에 外務省文化事業部와 關東軍의 設立協力으로 滿日文化協會(약칭 文協)가 登場하였다. 1937년 蘆溝橋 事件과 중일전쟁이 터진 후, 1937년 8월 建國大學令의 公布로 1938년 5월 建國大學이 개학되면서 五族協和의 旗幟를 들었다(川村 溱 1996: 202-203). 만주판 日鮮同祖論이 등장한 것이다. 1938년 11월 일제의 大東亞新秩序建設이 제창되었고, 이른바 대동아 공영권의 새로운 개념으로 아시아를 통치하려는 시도를 하였다.

The discipline of anthropology originated in the West, and this naturally put Japan at the top of the list in East Asia, becoming a link in the formation of the discipline in this region. When we consider that it is the nature of anthropology to focus on the particularity of culture, rather than universality, the development of anthropology through the process of imitation must necessarily have its limits. The habit of trying to reproduce the academic structure and perspective in the West can also be found in the anthropological debate on colonialism. As a result, instead of searching for originality, it paves the way for rent.

The introduction of Western anthropologys debate over colonialism into Japanese anthropology has not been an issue. However, the application of it to anthropology in Japan has forcibly limited the understanding of Japanese anthropology during imperial eras, which was fanned around the dual axes of colonialism and war, from only the perspective of colonialism. Although claiming to discuss the same subject, the question of what perspective is being applied and on what concepts it is based has meant that the process and results of interpreting Japanese history is different.

Following Japans defeat in the war, the ethnological research put out in the Japanese Ethnological Society, of which Oka Masao had been president, was solidified by its editor Ishida Eiichiro in 1948. An editorial committee was formed in 1949, and with Ishida those taking part in editing are Izumi Seiichi, Mabuchi Toichi, and Miyamoto Nobuto. Mr. Miyamoto and Mr. Mabuchi are at Taihoku Imperial University, and Mr. Izumi is at Keijo Imperial University. They are rare ethnologists in Japan, having accumulated decades of experience in field research throughout East Asia~ from Manchuria and Mongolia in the north to Indonesia and New Guinea in the south (Ishida 1949: 83). The organization of the editorial committee around people trained in ethnology at the imperial universities of the colonies demonstrates the extent to which ethnographic pursuits in the colonies later became the central basis for the Japanese Ethnological Society. From 1950, Miyamoto Nobuto was replaced in the editorial committee by Sugiura Kenichi, a specialist in Micronesia. The committee was thus triangulated around three people, each of whom had been trained

in one of Japans three major colonial regions.
Files in This Item:
Appears in Collections:
College of Social Sciences (사회과학대학)Institute of Cultural Studies(비교문화연구소)비교문화연구비교문화연구 vol.08 no.1/2 (2002)
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.